I think if you take most games and boil them down you'll find that there's one best way to do everything
Not any of the games I play.
IF the game does not give you multiple options for victory, or even progress, then the game is playable for maybe a week and then to be abandoned.
In the past year I have mainly played
Farthest Frontier (in Early Access) and
Anno 1800.
In Anno 1800 you can pick your AI oponents, each of which plays an entirely different game. From that decision alone you can play a military game, attempt to dominate the map and resources, or a laid-back Ignore Your Opposition type game. You can also concentrate almost entirely simply on building beautiful cities if you like - the game includes numerous DLCs of purely decorative elements designed for that - which the Conqueror or Imperialist Trader gamer can ignore.
Farthest Frontier, a Medievalish city-builder/survival game, allows you to play against raiding armies, ravenous bears, wolves, wild boars - or the map only. And you can pick a map so devoid of resources that it alone is a major challenge. Or you can play to build a good-looking medieval town.
Basically, there is no 'right' way to play either game, and while there are elements in each game you will usually play the same way, they are individual episodes, not anything like the entirety of the game.
I like that: it's why I've played close to 1000 hours in each game, and it's game designs like that that will get me to play and replay Civ VII. Lacking that kind of flexibility, no game will keep my interest for more than a few hours.