Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth

 PC
User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1084 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 343 out of 1084
  2. Mixed: 374 out of 1084
  3. Negative: 367 out of 1084
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Kazek7
    Nov 3, 2014
    6
    There isn't much to say about this game. It's Civilization 5 with aliens and more futuristic units. That can be a good thing, or a bad thing depending on your view. I found that there weren't enough leaders, and the leaders we got were boring talking heads. The Computer AI is horrible with combat, They send in their units in to die with no strategy. And if they declare war on you, TheyThere isn't much to say about this game. It's Civilization 5 with aliens and more futuristic units. That can be a good thing, or a bad thing depending on your view. I found that there weren't enough leaders, and the leaders we got were boring talking heads. The Computer AI is horrible with combat, They send in their units in to die with no strategy. And if they declare war on you, They usually beg for peace 5 turns later. There isn't much new in this game, Which is disappointing But it doesn't make it a terrible game.… Expand
  2. Tubey
    Oct 24, 2014
    6
    All the flaws of the original Civ5 game before it was fixed with DLC, with a glossy space finish over the top.

    Not much more to be said. It's an above average strategy game that will enthuse newcomers to the series or those who got their feet wet in Civ5, but underwhelm anyone who played Civ4 due to unwelcome return of streamlined gameplay and fairly linear development paths. If    All the flaws of the original Civ5 game before it was fixed with DLC, with a glossy space finish over the top.

    Not much more to be said. It's an above average strategy game that will enthuse newcomers to the series or those who got their feet wet in Civ5, but underwhelm anyone who played Civ4 due to unwelcome return of streamlined gameplay and fairly linear development paths.

    If you're looking for a truly top class space strategy experience, you'd be better off investigating your hours in Alpha Centauri. Beyond Earth isn't a bad game, but it isn't a classic either, and given that it strives to live in the lofty company of some other titles in the Sid Meier back catalogue, it doesn't reach those heights or even come close.    … Expand
  3. AkitoSilver
    Oct 25, 2014
    5
    Beyond Earh disapointed me,doesn't like Cililiazation V,The map is too small ,I think.What is more,It is a pity that they change the sicence net into sicence map,which I think is not good.
  4. Derringer
    Jun 28, 2015
    0
    So from now on, after playing this one and Civilization V, I will consider Sid Meier's and their new games as . very good example of money leeches (like a lot of other videogaming companies). They give up any attempt to make a good deep game.They're recycling any good idea they had in the past and they are doing it wrong they are killing the very essence of Sid Meiers. only after the moneySo from now on, after playing this one and Civilization V, I will consider Sid Meier's and their new games as . very good example of money leeches (like a lot of other videogaming companies). They give up any attempt to make a good deep game.They're recycling any good idea they had in the past and they are doing it wrong they are killing the very essence of Sid Meiers. only after the money now. Huge dissapointment.

    Instead you should save your bucks and play again Alpha Centaury or Civilization II.    … Expand
  5. Chaeote
    Oct 25, 2014
    7
    The customization of your Civilization is nice. You're not stuck with just picking a nation, and getting the pros and cons of it. You can actually pick each bonus.

    It's also a bit different to play. Rapid expansion is basically useless from what I can see, it's a lot better to concentrate on 5 or less cities. The problems however, are kinda infuriating. Each Civ starts at a different    The customization of your Civilization is nice. You're not stuck with just picking a nation, and getting the pros and cons of it. You can actually pick each bonus.

    It's also a bit different to play. Rapid expansion is basically useless from what I can see, it's a lot better to concentrate on 5 or less cities.

    The problems however, are kinda infuriating. Each Civ starts at a different point in time, which is kinda cool, but the problem is, the drop-ship locations where they start seem random. Which causes them to sometimes drop in RIGHT next to your borders you've already established as your own, and then they **** at YOU everytime you expand or make a new town, even though you were there first, and they're the invaders.

    Then, there's your early units...they're basically USELESS. The first soldiers can't win a fight toe-to-toe, even against the simplest alien. The scouts die in 2 hits, if you're lucky. The Aliens are completely unpredictable. They aren't suppose to be overtly hostile, but sometimes they just decide "I KILL YOU!" even if you aren't near their nest, which makes exploration impossible without an alien unit of your own.

    Then if you get in a fight with another civ in the early game, you CANNOT take their towns. Yuu just can't.

    I obliterated every military unit the Civ had, surrounded his capital, and just could not do enough damage to the city. Taking losses are fine, but required 30+ units to take one city is ridiculous. In Civ 5 you could manage it with some decent range attackers and a couple siege units.

    But it just comes back to your units being far too weak for combat, even with a few upgrades, they're gonna lose 50% of their health in 1 round.

    There just doesn't seem to be a way to build an army without concentrating on nothing but making one, even as a defensive only military, they just have zero survivability.

    The Tech web, while neat, is a HUGE learning curve, and I think one thing that would be great would be to be able to zoom out on it completely, and still be able to read what each node does, but you can't. It just goes to an Icon-only view-mode, and completely obscures the subsets of each technology.

    The game isn't bad, but, honestly, it's just not worth playing of Civ 5 w/ the expansions.

    Maybe after some time, people cna make some Mods that'll flesh out and fix some things, but until then... Don't expect anything ground breaking.    … Expand
  6. Ferigad
    Oct 27, 2014
    6
    It´s a good game with flaws, that´s why i can´t give it more then a 6 in my opinion. The singelplayer mode is interesting, but still feels a bit unfinished. It has balance issues and the multiplayer experience is spoiled. Any game with more then 4 users will end in a close to guarantee crash/disconnect of some or all players in the first 50 rounds.

    The look of the game is like civ 5,    It´s a good game with flaws, that´s why i can´t give it more then a 6 in my opinion. The singelplayer mode is interesting, but still feels a bit unfinished. It has balance issues and the multiplayer experience is spoiled. Any game with more then 4 users will end in a close to guarantee crash/disconnect of some or all players in the first 50 rounds.

    The look of the game is like civ 5, only with alien planets this time. Many colors, but no real difference between the different tile sets of the planets. Some of the text segments seems to be 1:1 copy from civ 5. That leads to the assumption that at least some parts , like the diplomatic system, was simple copy past over. Even with a moderate or high difficult scale, the AI won´t react very clever or creative, so the singleplayer experience will run dry at some point. Still you get 50-100 game hours out of it, but after that you have done it all and seen it all.

    So in the end, whats left? It´s a good game. And it has still flaws that compromises the game play experience. If i had to put my finger on it, i would say it is a game in mid/late beta. Singleplayer is deffinitly release ready, even if it´s shallow, but multiplayer is still beta. The issues with mutliplayer goes from crashing/disconnects to not calculated bonuses from the start screen, gui freezes and some other minor issues. Games with more then 4 Persons are not possible, and even with a max. of 4 ppl it will sooner or later lead to a crash or disconnect of an player.

    At other circumstances i would give it a 7-8 (more like a 8 because i am a civ fan, but honestly, it would maybe a 78 or 77 because in the end it´s not a new game, it´s civ 5 with a new look, far less content and slightly different systems), but the game is composed out of multiplayer and singleplayer.    … Expand
  7. LegLock
    Oct 28, 2014
    0
    A hatefully unfair and poorly balanced game, filled with bugs.

    I have never before played a 4x game that was so nonsensically stingy with its upgrades. On standard settings the absolute most basic technologies (board a ship, start a trade route) will take decades to research. The building upgrades are almost worthless (10 years to build, +2 production) and incredibly limited in options.    A hatefully unfair and poorly balanced game, filled with bugs.

    I have never before played a 4x game that was so nonsensically stingy with its upgrades. On standard settings the absolute most basic technologies (board a ship, start a trade route) will take decades to research. The building upgrades are almost worthless (10 years to build, +2 production) and incredibly limited in options. The AI opponents on the non-cheat settings hardly bother to expand in the first century, 3 colonies at most. The diplomacy continues to be a joke ("hi china, shall we start a cooperation agreement?" "no" no explanation given. One turn later china asks "hey should we start a cooperation agreement?")

    And then there's siege worms. Ah the joys of siege worms. Your city is your only unit in the first century that can do any reasonable damage (all other units will do exactly 1% damage to it) so you will be firing continuously at every one of them for at least 7 years. And hey better hope they don't touch miasma or they will be massively healed. I wouldn't worry though, most of the time they just hand around in bombardment range not doing anything. They occasionally will wander over and annihilate your improvements (2 years to repair) so are more frustrating that dangerous.

    Killing one will immediately spawn another though (I had to fight 3 in the first 65 years), so faced with completely lackluster A.I. opponent civs but almost continuous alien siege you'll wonder if this game was ever playtested.

    Finally: hills. For a game supposedly set in a sci-fi future alien planet, small hills continue to be a massive strategic obstacle. Your ranged units apparently walk astonishingly slowly but have ultra long range weapons, unless a hill is involved. Whatever distance 1 hex represents it will take you 2 years to cross a hilly area, but your ranged units can fire with perfect accuracy that same distance (unless a deadly hill is in the way). This is the same stale gameplay rules as using spearmen and archers in Civ V.

    That's all this game is: all the same tired, unbalanced formula of a series that has gone downhill since Civ III with a fresh coat of sci-fi but none of the endemic flaws and absurdities addressed.    … Expand
  8. Gameforfun
    Oct 24, 2014
    3
    Nothing has been changed that much. beside the idea of space was a horrible decision !.................................................................
  9. ravinhood
    Dec 9, 2014
    0
    I give this game a 1/10. I do this after reading all the reviews, and I AGREE with them and will say why.

    Why I agree: People wanted an entirely different game? Like Alpha Centuari was to Civilization? Everyone I know LIKED Alpha Centuari. It differentiated itself from Civ A LOT, and over-all was GREAT. Then when they make a this POS Civlike game and keep many of the mechanics that    I give this game a 1/10. I do this after reading all the reviews, and I AGREE with them and will say why.

    Why I agree: People wanted an entirely different game? Like Alpha Centuari was to Civilization? Everyone I know LIKED Alpha Centuari. It differentiated itself from Civ A LOT, and over-all was GREAT.

    Then when they make a this POS Civlike game and keep many of the mechanics that worked LIKE CHIT well people complained... and a very darn good reason to complain too..

    Review:

    Graphics: I HATE them. I HATE them I tell yah. They are an NOT an improvement over Civ V, and DO NOT work well. Now on some planets It can be a bit tough to differentiate Tundra and plains at a glance, but it's an alien world and the terrain, flora and fauna are different than that of earth. It just makes DOO DOO NON sense.

    Sound: Again, I HATE the sound. It's NOT an improvement over Civ V. Less traditional music but that's the case, it's the future and you left tradition behind.

    Game Mechanics: (the big part)

    1) Cities. HATE THEM. Build buildings, then get a choice of customization on their function/abilities through a choice. ASSanine! I can play differently (who cares), plan out what I want to (who cares). The Unit customization based on what you do and how you do it is AWFUL. I can make an army designed to kill other units or attack cities, heal quickly etc BFD. lol

    I HATE the new espionage functions. It's NOT an improvement over Civ V's. The Level gain is also WORSE, and if you're in the lead there is NOTHING your Spies can do. Technology isn't linear anymore, it's a web. (WhooptifarkinDOO)

    The Tech Web: HATE it. Linear tech IS realistic future, decisions, Values, Philosophy, Play-style all should and can play a part in how you advance. Once I got FIGURED it out, I say it's the WORST part of the game.

    Diplomacy: Meh. It's the same as Civ V (you got that right) :) except you can trade with people who have nothing to give to you with "favours" I can trade Titanium I'm not using and don't plan on using for a while to Civ's that may or may not need it for Favours. I can effectively bank them for later. I don't really like this. In Civ games I NEVER ignore diplomacy, not because It's a bad feature, but because I care about my opponents. I play to HELP them not work with them. For my play-styles I just wish some of the phrases the AI used in the screen were more varied and different than Civ V when I refuse 100% of the time to aid them in war, and I always refuse all requests to stop settling near them etc.

    I'm sure there are people who play civ, and by the comments I can see it, that HATE diplomacy... I find that it's the same as liking the garnish in a 6 course meal. I play to interact diplomatically with AI's. I give them and their wants/needs I'm so nice. :)

    War, movement, is all the same as CIv V but with the added unit complexity. And I HATE this. Resources are a little hard to figure out at first (cause he's a dumbchit lol). I know what Wheat does, but what about Chitin? Or Fibre? all it takes is a few 100 games to get this as 2nd nature. A

    Alien Life: They could have done a LOT better job of taking advantage of this, and it's why this game gets a 1 and not a 0. You can kill the roaming aliens but still 'preserve' Life on the planet and that makes sense. Some life is hostile, you deal with it, and the rest isn't. As tech advances I'd have liked to see alien life not interrupt your use of a tile for resources, or even try to attack you, and they get small (graphic wise) and become part of the background animations. Or you can keep killing them.

    I HATE the ideology of Purity, supremacy and harmony. I also HATE how virtues replace several key racial bonuses or wonder bonuses of Civ V that were mandatory and you needed to RUSH (I like to RUSH) to have a given play-style.

    Wonders: they are there, just a tad hidden, and when you look for them on the tech tree you're uncertain if it is or not until you figure it out and just remember it. They also could have done a LOT more art-work on the wonders graphics... they are all whiteboxed...

    Overall this is a CRAP POS game. Some EXTREME fixes they should put in and then this game is a 5/10 lol    … Expand
  10. rodericrinehart
    Feb 7, 2015
    4
    Civilization has to be one of my 10 favorite franchises over the past 30 years and has brought me possibly thousands of hours of entertainment and great memories.

    This game honestly was disappointing and does not live up to the Civ name. It was tedious, lacked the depth of Civ V, and is really a watered-down, poorly done skin on Civ V. I wish I had never bought it.
  11. Spiralus
    Nov 2, 2014
    6
    This one started out really rough for me. After discovering that I had to leave and then re-enter full screen (huge bug?) frame rate and resolution stabilized enough to be playable. I actually wound up liking the U.I. After two play-throughs I can't give the game a lower rating than a five. No game that I willingly play for more than six hours deserves a lower score than that. That beingThis one started out really rough for me. After discovering that I had to leave and then re-enter full screen (huge bug?) frame rate and resolution stabilized enough to be playable. I actually wound up liking the U.I. After two play-throughs I can't give the game a lower rating than a five. No game that I willingly play for more than six hours deserves a lower score than that. That being said - the criticism that keeps coming up here - that the game doesn't do much new is pretty much spot on. That said, there ARE some fresh mechanics that I found interesting. The affinities while awfully named are neat in that they link the tech tree directly to your civ's cultural personality - which makes a lot of real world sense. The other noteworthy criticism is that the game DOES play a lot easier than Civ V. I annihilated both my first two games on normal +1 then normal +2 - which just shouldn't be possible in this type of game. We the players expect to loose our first game when we select anything harder than normal in a strategy game.
    In short: if you loved Civilization V and would like to play it again in space then buy this game. It IS a good turn based civ builder. It's expensive but it's a pretty big budget development for a small target market.    … Expand
  12. Nican
    Nov 1, 2014
    6
    Definitely not one of the better installment of the series.

    The user interface is lacking. The soundtrack mediocre. But most of all, the game is a bit simplistic. The strategic choices you make have significantly less impact then in the previous civ games. Managing the military units in particular has become almost boring. You can safely skip this title to save some money. If you    Definitely not one of the better installment of the series.

    The user interface is lacking. The soundtrack mediocre.

    But most of all, the game is a bit simplistic. The strategic choices you make have significantly less impact then in the previous civ games. Managing the military units in particular has become almost boring.

    You can safely skip this title to save some money. If you want to discover the Civilisation series, go for Civ 5.    … Expand
  13. MarioNvano
    Nov 3, 2014
    5
    Some say this game is not bad. This is not true, it's technically a mess but it plays smoothly enough to keep you going. I don't get why more reviews mention the actual short comings of the game.

    Good: It's a nice refreshing approach for those who are not that familiar with the older Sid Meier's games. The interface is pretty good and the aliens bring a nice challenge to the early game    Some say this game is not bad. This is not true, it's technically a mess but it plays smoothly enough to keep you going. I don't get why more reviews mention the actual short comings of the game.

    Good:
    It's a nice refreshing approach for those who are not that familiar with the older Sid Meier's games. The interface is pretty good and the aliens bring a nice challenge to the early game and have a better role strategy wise than the barbarians of the previous games.
    Later on you pick from three unique directions to grow in which will influence the way your army looks and feels. This is done mainly by researching, so the faction you pick will greatly influence your tech choices. This is way better than the few unique country bonuses from the older games and because of this, the replay ability is way better.

    Bad:
    The game focuses so much on streamlining a lot of features that give a game a nice feel are removed.
    For example if it's becoming a close game between you and an AI. You have a pretty strong army but they researched fast and are close to an alternative win situation. First off you get no notion of them doing this. There is a small tab that shows their progress but it goes in heeps. One turn it's 25% another turn it's 75%. Some Nps's or players jump to 75% instantly or finish the game. Secondly once it's done you get this game over screen and it's basically over. You don't get to see who won. No time line, nothing. You don't see what win ended the game. In mp anyone could have won. You can't know.

    And the game is filled with these things that show a rushed triple A title. Further examples of this are trade and politics screen. You can no longer figure out underlying politics. And you have to refresh every trade route, open borders, alliance every couple turns. Let's say you have 7 cities with each 3 trade routes. You set up trade routes with foreign players and internal cities. But these expire every couple turns. It doesn't give you the option to automatically continue trade route or to keep borders open. No it cancels the route or open borders with all problems that arise from it. This becomes messier and messier as the came continues. As units randomly get rejected from friendly countries, trade routes get reset etc.

    The ai is pretty bad in war scenarios. A couple of times they moved in without any regard on the losses they made. Ships reacting to threats just after every ship arrived ( by this time my navy shot em up nicely).

    Verdict:
    Sadly for all the promise it has it cuts short. It will blow you away with a lot of things if you go in unbiased. But how can you play a game that doesn't let you know who won in mp. You pay a decent amount of cash for something that has a lot going for it but it so rudely cut at some points it kind of ruins the game experience in the long run. I think most review sites went through 2 games and experienced some positive redeeming features to score it high. But if you want to spend more time into this it will cut short on a lot of fronts.    … Expand
  14. MoreBokeh
    Dec 23, 2014
    6
    Although I played Civ 5 to death (have beaten Deity and share strats online), I've always been a larger SMAC fan. However, this game is a disappointment as it's just a Civ5 reskin and not a spiritual successor. It seems most of the budget was spent on 3D artists but even the new assets aren't that great (in terms of style and quality).
  15. xspidermanx322
    May 13, 2016
    4
    I'm a huge fan of the Civ series and I was very excited for this version of Civilization. However, since Civ VI is coming out and they've only released one expansion trying to fix this game I can't give it more than a 6. It's just not that great. It's pretty, but everything that makes a Civ game great seems incredibly lacking in this version. Diplomacy is a big deal for me and theI'm a huge fan of the Civ series and I was very excited for this version of Civilization. However, since Civ VI is coming out and they've only released one expansion trying to fix this game I can't give it more than a 6. It's just not that great. It's pretty, but everything that makes a Civ game great seems incredibly lacking in this version. Diplomacy is a big deal for me and the diplomacy in this game is AWFUL. It's laughably bad. I suggest buying this if it's ever on a damn good sale. Until then, you might as well stay away.… Expand
  16. Greywolf2001ca
    Feb 10, 2016
    7
    A good game that upgrades the Alpha Centauri and bring it into the 21st century.

    But like all civilization games, it does have a limited replayability albeit a bigger one than the usual crap that has been released since the year 2000. Unlike other civilization games, computer controled factions do not declare war on you for no reason although there is one exception that I have    A good game that upgrades the Alpha Centauri and bring it into the 21st century.

    But like all civilization games, it does have a limited replayability albeit a bigger one than the usual crap that has been released since the year 2000.

    Unlike other civilization games, computer controled factions do not declare war on you for no reason although there is one exception that I have noticed. Sometimes, at average difficulty level, a faction declares war on you for no reason and that faction is like a quarter of your size!!! makes no sense, maybe if he had allies, but he is alone. I had three times the number of cities he had and same for units. Why would the faction declare war on me? No point, he will be obliterated within 25 turns!

    So the AI needs some tweaking still.

    The game is also heavy for no reason. They have spent too much time on graphics and not enough on the game itself, resulting in questionable AI and AI decisions.

    Albeit this, it is still a good game, but try it first, do not buy blind, way too expensive for that. I suggest no paying more than 25$ for everything.    … Expand
  17. dannieeddie2008
    Oct 27, 2014
    7
    First time playing Civilization: Beyond Earth I thought this looks amazing and suc as different game to Civilization V. I got into the game and everything was the same the way the game played is the same, the look of the game is the same, they have also taken out quotes from Civilization V and put it into Civilization: Beyond Earth. The game in it self is a different game, and I love howFirst time playing Civilization: Beyond Earth I thought this looks amazing and suc as different game to Civilization V. I got into the game and everything was the same the way the game played is the same, the look of the game is the same, they have also taken out quotes from Civilization V and put it into Civilization: Beyond Earth. The game in it self is a different game, and I love how you choose your own Civilization to play as. I like the new tech tree and how the aliens are a lot more harder to attack.… Expand
  18. lordythegreat1
    Oct 28, 2014
    7
    Having now played a few games of this, I will say Beyond Earth is good if a bit limited.

    pros: fewer leaders but very customizable, lots of different worker improvements, lots of resources, deep tech tree. cons: due to being so focused on building and tech i never bothered to really try to play as a warmongering player, tech tree is massive and due to not being able to see entire    Having now played a few games of this, I will say Beyond Earth is good if a bit limited.

    pros: fewer leaders but very customizable, lots of different worker improvements, lots of resources, deep tech tree.

    cons: due to being so focused on building and tech i never bothered to really try to play as a warmongering player, tech tree is massive and due to not being able to see entire tree at once I found myself going off in one direction and often forgetting that there were simpler technologies in the other direction that were important, units arent very interesting or useful early game for much more than alien eradication, no more luxury resources or their trading, no religions, no world congress.

    It feels like civ 5 did on first release, good but in need of an expansion or two. lots of sitting around pressing next turn in the mid game (as with civ 5 vanilla). Got lots of neat ideas but not all of it pulls off neatly and not all of it makes for a better game.

    Most important point to make: Ultimately feels like a full price mod. If its on special get it, but I cant yet recommend a full price purchase    … Expand
  19. Hutopu
    Nov 5, 2014
    6
    It's not really a bad game, but still I'm very disappointed. As an old civ veteran (started with civ 2) I was so excited about the announcement, read every article and watched every video out there.
    It looked really good at the beginning, but after eight games (one game with every leader) I realized there is just something missing in this game and it's not what I expected....
    - Leaders    It's not really a bad game, but still I'm very disappointed. As an old civ veteran (started with civ 2) I was so excited about the announcement, read every article and watched every video out there.
    It looked really good at the beginning, but after eight games (one game with every leader) I realized there is just something missing in this game and it's not what I expected....

    - Leaders have no character, no unique units or unique buildings. It doesn't really matter who you pick, basically they all play the same

    - Most wonders are boring like hell and totally useless. I mean WTF? A wonder at the end of the game with just +4 culture for 750 production? Who would ever build this ****?

    - there is no replay after winning the game..... i just don't understand why

    - Even Apollo difficulty is way to easy. You can just rush to important techs, build the few good wonders and choose one of the victory's or just destroy your opponents. Firaxis had four years since the release of Civ 5 to work on the AIs, but they play even worse....

    Still it's not a bad game and I hope they will improve it soon like they did it with Civ 5, but until then I prefer the predecessor!    … Expand
  20. stephale000
    Nov 26, 2014
    5
    I have been a longtime fan of the Civilization series, with Civilization 4 being one of the all time best RTS games I've ever played. That being said, I was hopelessly confused when I started my first game. I selected the New to Beyond Earth option but the tutorial person didn't explain very much of what I needed to do. The map was completely overwhelming with tons of strange new resourcesI have been a longtime fan of the Civilization series, with Civilization 4 being one of the all time best RTS games I've ever played. That being said, I was hopelessly confused when I started my first game. I selected the New to Beyond Earth option but the tutorial person didn't explain very much of what I needed to do. The map was completely overwhelming with tons of strange new resources which weren't explained at all. All of that being said, I'm going to continue to play and try and figure out everything that is going on because the potential for this game is off the charts.… Expand
  21. dshuflin
    Dec 11, 2014
    3
    Pros: Beautiful graphics. Excellent game concept. Fun early game play.
    Cons: Ergonomic nightmare warning. User interface is poorly thought out causing lots of pain. All the upper screen information is very small leading to problems for most people over 35-40. All small writing should be at the bottom of the screen.
    Inconsistent menu commands. All menus should work the same. You should    Pros: Beautiful graphics. Excellent game concept. Fun early game play.
    Cons: Ergonomic nightmare warning. User interface is poorly thought out causing lots of pain. All the upper screen information is very small leading to problems for most people over 35-40. All small writing should be at the bottom of the screen.
    Inconsistent menu commands. All menus should work the same. You should not have to reach from the bottom of the screen to the top and then back to the bottom to click something in a menu screen.

    I have played Alpha Centuri for 15 years because of the infinite game play. It has true customization features. Beyond earth is pretty low on the control side of things. Basically only a few strategies to play.

    My biggest complaint is that after completing the required steps to reach a victory you are left guessing who will get there first. Turn after turn you are clueless. Then you get a screen that says. You lost. No explanation, No out come, you don't even know who won. A beautiful intro video took lots of time to watch. The endgame leaves you wondering what happened and who won.    … Expand
  22. pettina
    Jan 18, 2015
    1
    This game was a huge disappointment. It's trying to be something what they couldn't do. Game is just too complicated even oldschool civ fan. Tech trees is too complicated. Units get killed one shot by aliens in field. I can recommended this game only for star-craft people. And only if you like turn-based combat !
  23. JonnyEsco
    Oct 25, 2014
    3
    Yea, this game is pretty bad... I loved civ 5 but this I can't follow this one... The tech trees are damn near impossible to follow! I played the game for an hour and my Major city got converted and I couldn't figure out how. It happend without any warning what-so-ever. Learning the game takes a lot of time, and I mean a lot of time. Its like chess times 1000... WTF! Building a strategyYea, this game is pretty bad... I loved civ 5 but this I can't follow this one... The tech trees are damn near impossible to follow! I played the game for an hour and my Major city got converted and I couldn't figure out how. It happend without any warning what-so-ever. Learning the game takes a lot of time, and I mean a lot of time. Its like chess times 1000... WTF! Building a strategy vs 1000 other strategies that can destroy you is absolutely pointless. It's challenging but doesn't match it in the fun factor.… Expand
  24. sherbz
    Oct 25, 2014
    7
    In all, BE is slightly disappointing. It does many things right, but misses out on the golden nougat. It has a very poor UI and there is a distinct lack of narrative. This is important because in a sci fi game, you need one. It didnt matter so much in civ 5, because the Egyptians and romans are familiar entities. You dont have that in BE. So you need a story to fill in the gaps. TheIn all, BE is slightly disappointing. It does many things right, but misses out on the golden nougat. It has a very poor UI and there is a distinct lack of narrative. This is important because in a sci fi game, you need one. It didnt matter so much in civ 5, because the Egyptians and romans are familiar entities. You dont have that in BE. So you need a story to fill in the gaps. The other problem is that the AI has still not been properly sorted out from civ 5. I think 1UPT is a failed experiment. Lets go back to SOD because at least the AI could play better that way. BE is not a terrible game, and as a civ fan, you will like it. But dont expect it to blow your mind.… Expand
  25. Zeriel
    Jan 6, 2015
    0
    Wow is this game a huge disappointment! basically the same exact thing as Civ V but remove ALL OF THE CIVILIZATIONS and replace them by some customizations that will always play the same! The game is repetitive and boring! It may not deserve a Zero, maybe a 4 but I'm giving it a 0 to combat all of the dishonest critics giving it 10s just because is a Civ game

    I want another Warlock game!
  26. genix79
    Oct 27, 2014
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The game is okay. There is certainly enjoyment to be had. It is more than just a reskin of Civ5, but not quite a full title unto itself. The engine evidently had to have some reworking for it to support some of the changes. Some things which stand out for mentioning:
    - Tech web is better than a tree. Its a futuristic game so with little tie-in to present technologies, you will need to learn what the techs grant and what improvements do.
    - Affinities *are* a nice concept, but they do have the unfortunate effect of railroading the player through some of the decisions in the game (since the end game is directly tied to 'finishing' the affinity of choice)
    - There is a fair amount of customization in the pregame menu's with being able to select a sponsor, packing equipment in for planetfall, and other bonuses to begin with. I think this is a major plus. I love it.
    - There are numerous decision points in-game wherein some small customization of one's empire is possible (selecting an additional bonus which applies empire-wide). They *do* make a difference and it is a really nice addition for tweaking ones empire.
    - Unfortunately the AI is still lacklustre in many regards. Not just the other factions (which feel dead in character), but the games general AI such as automated workers travelling dangerous routes, quests being offered which are not reasonable to complete.
    - There are fewer kinds of military unit in the game and I think perhaps too few now.
    - Many improvements seem to be variations on others. One gives +2 Science, another might give +1 Science +1 Health while another +2 Health. They kind of just blend into each other. I was hoping this edition of the Civ series might break that and have improvements giving more utility rather than variations on modifications to base stats.
    - Aliens are superior to Barbarians. I think they do have some character. I have played both as an aggresor toward them and leaving them alone. They add a bit more character to the game but not as much as early talks by the game designers made out.

    All up it is a decent game. I'm teetering on a 6.5/10 if I were to tell you a score which allows halves. I'll push it to a 7. I do wish the game had a bit more distinction in terms of mechanics from Civ5. This *is* future tech afterall! I want to reshape terrain, build cities underwater, change the weather...    … Expand
  27. gaynorvader
    Oct 29, 2014
    7
    Disappointing, but still good.

    I've played a lot of Sid Meier over the years and love 4x games. Recently however, the games have been extremely lackluster before their expansions. First I'd like to address the ridiculous point that it's "just" a Civ 5 expansion. Yes, it uses the same engine, so looks and plays in a fairly similar fashion. The amount of difference in just about every    Disappointing, but still good.

    I've played a lot of Sid Meier over the years and love 4x games. Recently however, the games have been extremely lackluster before their expansions. First I'd like to address the ridiculous point that it's "just" a Civ 5 expansion. Yes, it uses the same engine, so looks and plays in a fairly similar fashion. The amount of difference in just about every concept of the game make it much more than an expansion though. New terrain features, new tech tree, new unit upgrade system, quest system, new barbarian ai, no natural wonders, orbital layer, and so on.

    -The good

    -The new tech web means you can't just dominate scientifically and collect all the wonders, coasting to an easy culture victory.
    -The quest system gives you constant mini-objectives which help new players learn without a long tutorial and provide nice little boosts for more experienced players to take advantage of.
    -Trading is quite a bit more meaningful, particularly between your own and independent cities(stations)
    -Aliens are a serious menace to expansion early on as opposed to the slight irritation barbarians were.
    -Explorers are useful, in place of natural wonders are excavation sites which can yield some great bonuses
    -It's fun. The choices you make are all small at the time, but have a huge effect on your late game. Particularly after building a new building. Some of them are pointless as one is obviously better, but most are well balanced.

    -The bad

    -AI is about the same as Civ 5, no real improvement
    -Units are set, AC fans will be disappointed they can't customise their units the way they wish.
    -Unit upgrades are forced upon you, if you reach level 4 in Unity, but want to give your unit the level 12 supremacy upgrade, you can't, you have to reach level 12 in supremacy first.
    -Lack of diplomacy options. Sometimes you'll be trading with a station and the AI will swoop in and destroy it, harming your economy. There's no way you can tell them to stop, the only solution is to declare war and destroy their units
    -Way too easy. The 3 affinity victory conditions are far to simple to pull off, you just research a small enough amount of tech and build something next to your capital and not lose for a few turns and you'll win. You can disable these, but then you are left with domination as the only recourse (I don't think having all the remaining players as allies even counts as a win).
    -Too much impassible terrain. On every setting, there seems to be a large portion of the map covered in mountains or chasms which are largely impassable.
    -Aliens rule the seas. Your ships always suck at melee battles and the aliens excel in it. They also seem to ignore the AI and focus every alien on the planet on your ships or troop transports.
    -It could have much more character. The techs and factions never seem to be all that different. The changes according to their affinity choices are quite subtle and when ever you research a new tech or build a wonder it doesn't have the little description, quote and/or video that made Alpha Centauri such a rewarding game to play.

    It's a fun game in and of itself, but fails to live up to its predecessors. I've sunk a good few hours into it already and enjoyed them immensely. Though I think it works better on marathon mode as opposed to quick or standard.    … Expand
  28. Spectre486
    Nov 4, 2014
    7
    I'm giving this a 7 because as a stand-alone game, C:BE a good 4X strategy game. But, I'm so used to the masterpiece that is Civilization 5 : Brave New World, that this rendition sadly pales into insignificance. Many of the features that made Civ 5 what it was have either been heavily simplified or removed entirely - good examples being the unit variety and faction identities/bonuses.I'm giving this a 7 because as a stand-alone game, C:BE a good 4X strategy game. But, I'm so used to the masterpiece that is Civilization 5 : Brave New World, that this rendition sadly pales into insignificance. Many of the features that made Civ 5 what it was have either been heavily simplified or removed entirely - good examples being the unit variety and faction identities/bonuses.

    Good/New features :

    I like the addition of the orbital layer - it adds another dynamic to empire building and warfare.
    The new Affinities (Ideologies) are a different spin on Civ 5, and I think do give you a feel of what your Civ represents in terms of values.
    Miasma - it feels like a major pain to start out, and if you play as Harmony, you can turn it to your advantage - a nice touch.
    The Virtues tree (social upgrades) are a nice touch giving you the option to progress either in a single tree or multiple trees - each having bonus boosts (i.e. you get bonuses for spreading across multiple trees - unlike Civ 5).
    The Quests - it adds a nice way to customise buildings to your specific playstyle, and gives nice little boosts to your empire. Ultimately, it's a mechanism to reduce the number of buildings in the game.
    The favour system in diplomacy is a nice touch. If you don't need anything from another faction, they trade you an IOU which can be called in later.
    The visual appeal is a nice change from dull and boring earth :o)

    Things that disappoint me :

    The tech web - although a decent idea, it just seems to be a random collection of upgrades that you stumble into. I never get a feel that I'm progressing towards something meaningful. Example : In Civ 5, acquiring Dynamite was a major boost for your Artillery capabilities, and you would often divert resources to getting it as early as possible if you were planning a war. You don't get that feeling in C:BE.

    The wonders are........Meh. They are small and fairly insignificant boosts that have little synergy with each other. Again, Civ 5 often required you to build/acquire certain wonders to achieve certain victories.

    The lack of "atmosphere". This is a new planet shrouded in mystery! The quest system is good for customisation, but they could have done so much more with it to give you that feeling that this is a weird and wonderful new place that you have to grapple with to get the most out of it. The Aliens are basically the "Barbarians" of Civ 5 - but they seem to flip a coin as to whether or not to attack you. Once you get to mid-game, they are irrelevant as a force - you might as well terminate them on sight, even playing as Harmony! Would have been much better if they made the natural inhabitants an AI-only faction in their own right, and link quests to them depending on your Affinity.

    The "health" system. It's basically "happiness" from Civ 5, but seems to be more forgiving. You can expand very aggressively in C:BE and not suffer too much. If you did that in Civ 5, you'd find life very difficult if your people weren't happy. The "softening" of this expansion bottleneck means that you are engaging far less with your neighbours to acquire happiness or manipulate the game in your favour via a league of nations/UN - oh wait, luxury goods don't exist anymore either. Why do I need to talk to anyone again?

    The NPC stations; the C:BE equivalent of City States. They are a trading option for a single trade route - nothing more. You don't fight over them. They don't fight for you. They don't consume land and foil your best laid expansion plans. You can't take them over. They don't give you a bigger voice at the table of international diplomacy - nope...they just sit there and give you a few extra resource points - and if you're unlucky they appear out of the blue and stop you from planting an outpost where you want it. Meh.

    Economy - I never feel like Energy (Gold) is a bottleneck. If you had an abundance of gold in Civ 5, you could do so much with it. If you weren't a gold friendly faction, you'd often struggle to make ends meet - to field that Dynasty crushing army. So far - Energy is just something I casually look at. It's rarely in the negative per turn. It's just not a resource that needs to be carefully managed.

    Lack of unit diversity - There are not many units at all. Only different ways to customise them via increases in Affinity. It's like the buildings - less of them, but you can customise them.

    All in all I'm disappointed - After Civ 5 and X-COM, Firaxis were the only software house I'd ever pre-order anything from. I'll be thinking twice now.

    That said - this game does have potential for modding and future expansions. My advice is to park it until that happens. Civ 5 only became truly great after the second expansion.    … Expand
  29. GaelicWarrior
    Oct 31, 2014
    0
    Another poorly thought out modern Civ game from Firaxis. Civilization keeps declining. Since the awful 'Brave New World' DLC for Civ V, the 'strategy' part of Civ games have become so much less important and the game is extremely 'luck' focused. Beating the AI on the hardest setting in 95 turns on my first play through is just not right. Then to multiplayer. Firaxis have again refused toAnother poorly thought out modern Civ game from Firaxis. Civilization keeps declining. Since the awful 'Brave New World' DLC for Civ V, the 'strategy' part of Civ games have become so much less important and the game is extremely 'luck' focused. Beating the AI on the hardest setting in 95 turns on my first play through is just not right. Then to multiplayer. Firaxis have again refused to revamp Civ's defunct and derelict multiplayer engine. Please give us the global chatroom lobby back from Civ 4! The game simply does not function online with more than 4 players in its current state and even then it'll most likely crash. Civilization needs to be developed by someone who understands the game from a multiplayer perspective. This is how civilization will grow its fan base and please its original fans like me. A single player focused strategy game for PC is far too niche in the 21st century. Design this game to be balanced and competitive online and the single player experience will be enhanced and more rewarding. Firaxis needs to move forward and not keep such an eye on what worked 15 years ago.… Expand
  30. Masterhummel
    Oct 24, 2014
    7
    Civ: BE fells most of the time like 'more of the same'. This is not a bad thing, as the game uses a formula that works. So, the setting launches into space, but BE does not manage it to elevate the concept and game mechanics to a new level as well. Most of the time i felt like i'm playing a heavily modded Civ V with BNW. I mostly did stuff that i did in Civ V - just with different names.Civ: BE fells most of the time like 'more of the same'. This is not a bad thing, as the game uses a formula that works. So, the setting launches into space, but BE does not manage it to elevate the concept and game mechanics to a new level as well. Most of the time i felt like i'm playing a heavily modded Civ V with BNW. I mostly did stuff that i did in Civ V - just with different names. Aside from stagnation with it comes to gameplay, the biggest Problem might be the lack of stereotypes and nations. Shaping your own civ and building the eifeltower in Washington was part of the fun in earlier civ games. I feel like BE does not have a good enough replacement. They really tried, and i appriciate that, but the new alliances of nations just feel bland and somewhat uninteresting.

    That all said, Civ: BE is still a lot of fun and if you loved Civ V you will most likely like Civ: BE.    … Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

57
#57 Best PC Game of 2014
21
#21 Most Discussed PC Game of 2014
4
#4 Most Shared PC Game of 2014

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 78 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 65 out of 78
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 78
  3. Negative: 1 out of 78
  1. CD-Action
    Jan 9, 2015
    90
    Cancel all your plans and fill up the fridge, because once you launch Beyond Earth you will not want to leave your home. [13/2014, p.46]
  2. Worth Playing
    Dec 23, 2014
    85
    Passive AI and lackluster online support from the community isn't enough to make Civilization: Beyond Earth a total wash. If you've enjoyed the series over the years, you'll likely spend many hours with this entry as well.
    Read full review
  3. Games Master UK
    Dec 21, 2014
    80
    Prepare for tech tree troubles, but the amount to discover and overall quality wins out. [Christmas 2014, p.64]
See all critic reviews »