Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization

 PC
User Score
7.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 135 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 69 out of 135
  2. Mixed: 45 out of 135
  3. Negative: 21 out of 135

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. webgovernor
    Jun 27, 2016
    1
    It's like they took the original, and attempted to make it worse in every single way. The rebel sentiment is broken, the King's army is broken. Building times are broken. It's like the devs didn't even play the original, though they both share the Sid Meier's namesake.
  2. andri
    Jan 5, 2014
    2
    I confirm what the others have said before the AI makes strange assignement décisions, the trade routes and the import/export features are tedious (if not buggy), the european units are too powerful. Too much time is spent on manual actions such as loading/unloading carts and ships. It has so many gameplay flaws i can't cite them all. Moreover, Steam says that I played 49 hours but stillI confirm what the others have said before the AI makes strange assignement décisions, the trade routes and the import/export features are tedious (if not buggy), the european units are too powerful. Too much time is spent on manual actions such as loading/unloading carts and ships. It has so many gameplay flaws i can't cite them all. Moreover, Steam says that I played 49 hours but still I never figured how to win againt the wave of units from europe...

    Being a big fan of Civ games, I never got in the game and found it at most boring.    … Expand
  3. JonoD.
    Sep 28, 2008
    4
    I wasn't particularly impressed. Some of the best features from the original game such as trade have been made far more difficult to use (for instance, when you want to set up a trade route you must scroll through an unorganisable list of all the routes you've created and select the ones you want. Routes between each of my 20 or so cities, each with about 4 goods = (20*4)! = a I wasn't particularly impressed. Some of the best features from the original game such as trade have been made far more difficult to use (for instance, when you want to set up a trade route you must scroll through an unorganisable list of all the routes you've created and select the ones you want. Routes between each of my 20 or so cities, each with about 4 goods = (20*4)! = a lot of scrolling). There are also significant balance issues at the end of the game. I played through the game trying to declare independence quickly so the kings forces wouldn't be too strong (i managed mid 1600's which i was happy with) and was still confronted with 330, yes, three hundred and thirty royal man o war's (the most powerful ship in the game). To put it in context i had 5 military ships, which may have been enough to bring the enemy down to 328 if i was lucky. It's a bit of fun but i wouldn't recommend this game until a patch comes out.… Expand
  4. KS
    Jun 8, 2009
    3
    The good news is that this is a remake of Sid Meier's amusing non-Windows Colonization. The graphics are much improved. The bad news is that overall, this game is worse, and far less fun. There is much tedious detail in play and less care was spent on the manual. You'd be better off starting with the beautifully done manual from 15 years ago! Critical assumptions aren't The good news is that this is a remake of Sid Meier's amusing non-Windows Colonization. The graphics are much improved. The bad news is that overall, this game is worse, and far less fun. There is much tedious detail in play and less care was spent on the manual. You'd be better off starting with the beautifully done manual from 15 years ago! Critical assumptions aren't spelled out. For example, in the original there was a way, after angering the king about trade, to buy your way back into favor. Not here. The lack of a comprehensive manual is particularly painful, because as usual with Meier's games, the computer doesn't play by the same rules. So, first, your rules aren't explained, and then, once you've figured them, out, the computer follows other ones. For example: one of your units leaving a ship to open shore cannot move that same turn. The computers' can. But you may not find that out until many hours, and hundreds of turns have passed. Surprise! Another fun (and more realistic) aspect of the original was that developing virgin forest was an exploration. Something, or nothing might be found. Instead here, everything is laid out from the beginning, adding to the very complex planning process that a player needs to use soon into the game. Overall? A failure, except for those who will do anything to relive a few of their fond memories from a far superior game 15 year old.… Expand
  5. Dave
    Jan 31, 2010
    3
    There is no reason to play this game when you could be playing Civ4 instead. The mechanics of trade, while interesting in theory, are just tedious in this game. You spend most of your turns loading and unloading ships and redistributing labor instead of actually exploring the new world and interacting with the natives.
  6. ehtehtG
    Nov 11, 2009
    0
    the original civ 4 was an amazing step up from civ 3, and the other expansions added a lot of cool new features, and then came colonization. They introduced a completely new gameplay with no tutorial! I don't know what made them think that was smart at all. I know it's called an expansion, but this was an implosion. from over 30 civs down to 4 playable civs.....wtf Sid Meier. the original civ 4 was an amazing step up from civ 3, and the other expansions added a lot of cool new features, and then came colonization. They introduced a completely new gameplay with no tutorial! I don't know what made them think that was smart at all. I know it's called an expansion, but this was an implosion. from over 30 civs down to 4 playable civs.....wtf Sid Meier. And as far as I can tell they also scratched the concept of technology from the game.....wow.....this game already sucks, but wait there's more! There are even less turns then in the previous games. You can no longer travel the entire world, instead now the border of the map is "europe". And if europe attacks you, guess what, you can't do anything but fight them off and let more come because they aren't a destroyable civ. That's ok though because if you let them be your allie they suck the llife out of you in gold, and nobody else has to deal with it. There even less types of tiles!!!! There is only one type of ocean, and even less resources, and less terrianes...why....? Also the scenarios are all real places, but since they take up only parts of America now, the concept of seperate continents is gone now, so it's possible to meet every AI from the start.....great, but wait it's not so bad because there are only 3 other civs....genius. The only good things about this game are the very slightly improved graphics (oh joy) and the fact that the barbarians aren't always at war with you and have trading capabilities (the 1 actual good thing worth shit). On top of everything I perfer starting from ancient times, but that's just me. So, overall they butchered the game down in every gameplay view, and tried to make up for it with graphics, because graphics make the game sooooo much better (-.-). I think sid was high while making this because this could have been a decent game had he not taken out every last feature possible, but even then I still wouldn't like it because I like Civilization, not Colonization. Above all though a tutorial at least would have made my vote a 1 not a 0, but no Sid had to be high while making this.… Expand
  7. EllEzDee
    Dec 31, 2012
    0
    Absolutely hilarious game. Everything about it suggests it's made for young American children. Whimsical kings who make random demands for money; Natives without land borders (allowing you to traipse all over their land); Natives who don't mind you pillaging their burial sites (i'm serious, you can literally pillage native burial sites for money, and nobody will mind). The game serves asAbsolutely hilarious game. Everything about it suggests it's made for young American children. Whimsical kings who make random demands for money; Natives without land borders (allowing you to traipse all over their land); Natives who don't mind you pillaging their burial sites (i'm serious, you can literally pillage native burial sites for money, and nobody will mind). The game serves as another piece of US propaganda to pretend the revolution wasn't simply about colonial greed, and that it was "really" about "freedom" from "oppression". Bwah-hahahahahahaha. As for the gameplay, if you enjoyed Civ IV, this is essentially Civ without all the interesting bits.… Expand

Awards & Rankings

25
#25 Best PC Game of 2008
45
#45 Most Discussed PC Game of 2008
48
#48 Most Shared PC Game of 2008

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 32 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 32
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 32
  3. Negative: 0 out of 32
  1. Game Informer
    90
    The random map generator, several unique factions and difficulty levels, and many approaches to the ultimate goal of independence give Colonization as much replay value as any title you care to name. [Oct 2008, p.112]
    Read full review
  2. NZGamer
    83
    What is particularly interesting about Colonization, as against the Civ games, is the relationships between the different factions. There isn't, for example, the same emphasis on war.
    Read full review
  3. PC Gamer
    84
    If you missed Col the first time around (and most of you probably did), now is an excellent chance to pick it up and dive into the colonial era. [Nov 2008, p.62]
See all critic reviews »