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. DzibanM.
    Oct 31, 2008
    5
    This game doesn't draw me in as much as Civ IV did. I get bored with it after 20 or 30 minutes of play; with Civ IV I would (and still do) play for hours and be angry about having to sleep so I can function at work the next day. Colonization doesn't offer very compelling gameplay. AI makes some strange decisions in putting your colonists to work (Master Ore Miner growing crops, This game doesn't draw me in as much as Civ IV did. I get bored with it after 20 or 30 minutes of play; with Civ IV I would (and still do) play for hours and be angry about having to sleep so I can function at work the next day. Colonization doesn't offer very compelling gameplay. AI makes some strange decisions in putting your colonists to work (Master Ore Miner growing crops, even with an ore mine outside the settlement? Meanwhile a Master Farmer is fishing?) which requires lots of micromanagement. AI also misses some great industry growth...a settlement near a tobacco resource should be growing tobacco and making cigars, but the AI decides on cotton instead and doesn't bother putting settlers to work making coats. Interaction with your home country is irritating and can be as strange as the AI (King asks for 2500 credits on the 3rd turn of the game?) Trade route system is cumbersome. Growing your settlements while trying to create Liberty Bells (to attract Founding Fathers), building structures, and making money is difficult to achieve...which is the point, I suppose, but the "reward" for playing just isn't worth it. I'll stick with Civ IV and its expansions.… Expand
  2. BillH.
    Oct 5, 2008
    5
    This game has critical design errors in gameplay mechanics and many half-finished features. It's hard for me to say it's a product of laziness on the part of Firaxis as they have clearly upped the ante of the graphics for the Civ IV engine, however, it seems like that was their main focus, as they then failed to smooth out too many rough edges to make it worth mentioning in this This game has critical design errors in gameplay mechanics and many half-finished features. It's hard for me to say it's a product of laziness on the part of Firaxis as they have clearly upped the ante of the graphics for the Civ IV engine, however, it seems like that was their main focus, as they then failed to smooth out too many rough edges to make it worth mentioning in this review. I've played it through to victory for over a week straight, something in the neighborhood of 92 hours. My feeling is that they screwed up many gameplay aspects that needed to be updated to such an extent that it would've been better to leave it the way it was in 1993. It's great first, but as you continue playing and realise the many many small problems add up to a deeply flawed game, you find yourself cursing Sid Meier for sucking at the tit of another incomplete cash cow. My hope is they patch many of the problems as they did with Civ IV, but I'm not holding my breath on it. Another running problem I have with the Civ games is they have removed the capacity of Artillery/Cannon to bombard units and cities in the realistic fashion present in Civ II-thru-III. This is just a personal pet peeve and would've been forgivable if it were not simply one more problem in a sea of problems with this game's design, but I really do wish game developer's could get their head's wrapped around how you use Arty and why you would want it in the first place, rather than making it into an infantry unit that charges the front lines.… Expand
  3. [Anonymous]
    Sep 24, 2008
    5
    The game itself is decent. If this were an original game release I'd probably give it a 7. But for a remake of an old game using an existing game engine? The quality is just pretty poor and it comes off as nothing more than a cash in on an old IP that's been sitting in the closet. Based on my memory of the old colonization there's really nothing added at all with this The game itself is decent. If this were an original game release I'd probably give it a 7. But for a remake of an old game using an existing game engine? The quality is just pretty poor and it comes off as nothing more than a cash in on an old IP that's been sitting in the closet. Based on my memory of the old colonization there's really nothing added at all with this release other than some minor stuff perhaps related to the civ 4 engine. As it stands though it's a short game based on a 14 year old game (not just it's concept) that adds nothing. It's certainly nostalgic but the poor ai, poor gui and limited options don't fit with a 2008 release. Sure they've put the price down ($29.99 on Steam) from a regular game release but at 30 bucks it's still asking to be taken seriously and it does nothing to earn it.… Expand
  4. pierrem
    Sep 25, 2014
    7
    Do you like micromanagement? You'll love it. Otherwise, run away! Some features of this game could be adapted to the other Civ, with success I think. This very game looks unfinished to me.
  5. Izoeros
    Jun 1, 2022
    5
    qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
  6. PedroD.
    Oct 5, 2008
    5
    Is it too much to expect that 'some' changes be made to a classic game to evolve it into 2008 standards. I loved the classic version and to be honest there's not much different, the graphics are nice but the trading system and ai i think have moved backward. This got about 30 mins of excitement and by now I'm ready to give up.
  7. Bob
    Nov 23, 2008
    6
    I am a fun of the original colonization. One of the greatest game by its time (more than 10 years ago). This version has improved the graphics and that all. It sticks with the original with no improvements in the game except better graphics. It is not worth money, I seriously expected much more than that. Technicallly the interface is awful, buttons respond too slow or not respond. The AI I am a fun of the original colonization. One of the greatest game by its time (more than 10 years ago). This version has improved the graphics and that all. It sticks with the original with no improvements in the game except better graphics. It is not worth money, I seriously expected much more than that. Technicallly the interface is awful, buttons respond too slow or not respond. The AI simply doees not exist and just make random and stupid decisions. The trade system is terribly bad conceived with some serious problems and bugs. The automatization of units make too stupid decisions. So, it is a great mod of Civ IV, but it is not the kind of game that you expected to pay off.… Expand
  8. JonathanS
    Feb 8, 2009
    7
    As a big fan of the original Colonization, I had high hopes for the remake. For the most part, these were met: they kept most of the basic mechanisms, including allocating workers. The graphics are very pretty, especially the water effects, and the music is good too. It's absorbing, like almost all Side Meier games it's very hard to put down! I do have some peeves, including a As a big fan of the original Colonization, I had high hopes for the remake. For the most part, these were met: they kept most of the basic mechanisms, including allocating workers. The graphics are very pretty, especially the water effects, and the music is good too. It's absorbing, like almost all Side Meier games it's very hard to put down! I do have some peeves, including a couple of big ones, that keep this from being a near-perfect game. First, as near as I can tell, the only realistic way to victory is Time. The King's forces are freakin' VAST, and each unit is more powerful than yours. Go ahead, put five or six soldiers in every city. A fortress, sure; cannons, why not; hundreds of muskets stockpiled. All you'll do is slow him down for a few turns. Even on low difficulty, achieving independence seems to be impossible. Related to that, attacking the natives doesn't seem to be a viable strategy either. In the original, you could take your starting soldier and start burning villages on turn 1. It was risky, one unlucky fight and you're toast, but it was an option. You could do quite well as the Spanish with this strategy. Now the natives have large armies and they grow over time to be even stronger. My final peeve, which for now has me giving up in disgust: in two separate games now, my "pleased" native allies have turned on me for no reason, BURNING MOST OF MY CITIES TO THE GROUND IN ONE TURN. No chance to mobilize defenses, no explanation for their sudden viciousness. Just game over. Has no one playtested this game?… Expand
  9. JasonB.
    Sep 24, 2008
    7
    Certainly a departure from the Civ IV franchise. The graphics have improved somewhat (the water most of all). But there's a steep learning curve from starting out the game. When I played my first game, I didn't know what the hell I was doing. After a couple of games, I finally realized I had to import all the specialists I needed to actually get my colony to thrive. But the game Certainly a departure from the Civ IV franchise. The graphics have improved somewhat (the water most of all). But there's a steep learning curve from starting out the game. When I played my first game, I didn't know what the hell I was doing. After a couple of games, I finally realized I had to import all the specialists I needed to actually get my colony to thrive. But the game makes it extraordinarily difficult since cities expand really, really slowly and their influence never increases (so far as I've seen). So the hardest part is trying to find a colony that's a good balance between food production (which is essential to getting new citizens and maintaining a colony) and goods production (which gets you the essential money you need to buy specialists and pay those pesky tributes to the King). I was also disappointed that you couldn't be any of the native civilizations, you only can choose between four European nations. All in all, things take forever to get going, but once they do, the game starts to gain a little steam. I have yet to figure out how to produce military units yet, but I'm sure that'll come soon. If you're looking for a really difficult challenge and a complete departure from the Civ IV experience, then Colonization is your game. If you're looking for something familiar, you're going to be disappointed.… Expand
  10. island
    Aug 31, 2011
    5
    I didn't expect this. Didn't really like the game. I loved the original one but this was a disaster. The changes made the game boring and expectable. I wasn't impressed.
  11. ChoicestGames
    Mar 3, 2012
    7
    The new Colonization, although not a totally faithful remake, is pretty close to the mark and offers some fun gameplay for new and old players alike. However, the difficulty of the game maybe off-putting for some and the old-school micromanagement may seem annoying too. However considering the price, you really can't complain too much and if you want to play a game that simulates theThe new Colonization, although not a totally faithful remake, is pretty close to the mark and offers some fun gameplay for new and old players alike. However, the difficulty of the game maybe off-putting for some and the old-school micromanagement may seem annoying too. However considering the price, you really can't complain too much and if you want to play a game that simulates the colonisation of the New World and the War of Independence, there's no better game out there than this.… Expand
  12. gracjanski
    Nov 12, 2020
    6
    The original game is boring, but "The Ancient Colonization" is simply perfect: It makes the progress slower just like in the original game from 1994 and improves some gameplay mechanics, to that here the gameplay is even better then in the original game. The only thing I dont like in this game is the micromanagement, it is too lot and destroys the game.
    The texts are so funny, you will    The original game is boring, but "The Ancient Colonization" is simply perfect: It makes the progress slower just like in the original game from 1994 and improves some gameplay mechanics, to that here the gameplay is even better then in the original game. The only thing I dont like in this game is the micromanagement, it is too lot and destroys the game.
    The texts are so funny, you will surely laugh sometimes, when your king is contacting you.    … 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 »