Sid Meier's Civilization IV

 PC
User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1176 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 926 out of 1176
  2. Mixed: 148 out of 1176
  3. Negative: 102 out of 1176
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. CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    9
    Great game. Other than some issues with the ATI card I had at the time, I've thoroughly enjoyed this game. Definitely the high water mark of the series.
  2. Tubey
    Jun 30, 2012
    8
    Strategy gaming at it's finest. People may argue that the graphical development has taken precedence over gameplay in Civ 4 (the culture system a bit hit and miss, and the end game can end up a bit of a quagmire) but for me the game play is still exceptionally addictive.

    If you enjoy games that make you think before you act, Civ 4 is for you.
  3. Chaosmaker
    Oct 1, 2012
    10
    Actually the best installment of the series. With improvements over earlier titles and not being dumbed down as V, it stands solid and on the pedestal of strategic gaming. Better graphics, improved diplomacy, governments and religion, strategic resources plus goodies... And modding. Such power of modding that has never been seen before in Civilization series. I have honestly played thisActually the best installment of the series. With improvements over earlier titles and not being dumbed down as V, it stands solid and on the pedestal of strategic gaming. Better graphics, improved diplomacy, governments and religion, strategic resources plus goodies... And modding. Such power of modding that has never been seen before in Civilization series. I have honestly played this game for so many hours, and tried so many mods that I can't give it less than a perfect score. It would be unjust.… Expand
  4. JasonL.
    Jan 7, 2006
    9
    This game is so much better than Civ III. They have left out all the tedious micro-management and enhanced the areas which make it more fun. Obviously they have listened to players gripes and recommendations and produced a work of art. Fantastic.
  5. AlexW.
    Sep 3, 2006
    6
    Its hard to justify the pricetag for a game like Civ IV. In total it adds a few minor feature changes from Civ III, some worse and some bette. The engine is beautiful but excessive for the style of gameplay and problems running it are commmon even on game meeting the specs. Finally the game has serious holes related to balance, as well as strategic options. Any strategy hound would be Its hard to justify the pricetag for a game like Civ IV. In total it adds a few minor feature changes from Civ III, some worse and some bette. The engine is beautiful but excessive for the style of gameplay and problems running it are commmon even on game meeting the specs. Finally the game has serious holes related to balance, as well as strategic options. Any strategy hound would be better served by Civ III or Alpha Centari both of which while recieving less unanimous critical praise were far more solid games.… Expand
  6. refdxf
    Jul 6, 2012
    10
    Review includes both expansion packs. This and Master of Orion 2 are the best 2 strategy games I have ever played and everything else I compare to them.
  7. jarnold
    Dec 22, 2011
    9
    A revolutionary game for its time, Civ IV is still good nearly 7 years later. By far a better game than Civ V, IV is complex and engaging with more to learn every time you play. If you buy this game, there is a strong chance you will become obsessed and spend hours on end playing. So long as you have the time, Civ IV is much more worthwhile than many of the newer, more expensive games out now.
  8. island
    Aug 31, 2011
    9
    One of the best strategy games ever. The realistic and a little complex gameplay makes this game a masterpiece. The music is awesome, the graphics is acceptable and it has a great technology tree as well. I only don't like the limited rounds.
  9. cub317
    Jun 27, 2013
    9
    I can't say I really enjoy strategy games that much. Admittedly, I usually pick them up, and get bored of them really fast. However, I still play them anyway because despite how bored I get of them, I can often see where people who love this genre to death would love these games. That was the case with this game. While I got bored of it and hopped right back into Skyrim, I can totallyI can't say I really enjoy strategy games that much. Admittedly, I usually pick them up, and get bored of them really fast. However, I still play them anyway because despite how bored I get of them, I can often see where people who love this genre to death would love these games. That was the case with this game. While I got bored of it and hopped right back into Skyrim, I can totally see where strategy gaming fans will love this game. It truly is a fantastic game. It takes turn-based strategy to whole new levels. There is no real story to this game, however, it does not even need one. The story is really your own. You get to choose your own famous civilization, and set out to conquer the world through one of six victory conditions. You start out in ancient times with only one warrior and settler in most games. However, you will soon progress further to make giant civilizations that will span across the globe. The graphics and sound are also quite good. There is not a lot of detail in the graphics, however, there does not need to be any detail. The graphics are fine just the way they are. You can easily distinguish how everything looks in this game, so detail is not needed. Everything sounds just the way it should too. The game has a beautiful soundtrack, and the units also sound good. The gameplay is also very good. The game works perfectly as a turn-based strategy game. You make your decisions in turns, so you and your opponents (other civilizations) will each get a fair fight as if it were a more complicated game of chess. However, that's not to say the game is too complicated. The truth is, while this game is very advanced, it is simple at the same time. If you are unsure of what to do in the game, you can just set the difficulty level to its lowest setting, and the game will give you help by recommending certain options over others. It's one of those games that is easy to learn, but hard to master. That is probably the best thing about this game's gameplay. However, there is much more to it than that. The decisions you make can positively or negatively effect your civilization over time, and there is an almost limitless amount of decisions you can make in this game. You can form an alliance with other civilizations in hopes of having a peaceful victory in the end, or you can go to war with them to achieve a conquest victory. You can choose which technology your civilization should advance in, what landmarks it should have, what religions it should practice, and much much more. Believe it or not, there is even more to the gameplay than this. The game is also loaded with extra features. It has an encyclopedia, telling about every unit in the game, along with the history of every civilization (and yes, the history is 100% accurate). This makes the game a nice little history lesson. There are also several mods included with the game that change the way the game is played. There are some mods that follow history, such as mods that are made to completely recreate it, or a specific part of it such as World War II. There are also mods that tell a completely different story, such as a war going on between Russians, and mods that have absolutely nothing to do with history, and instead focus on a kind of fantasy. These mods included really change the game for the better. Overall, despite how bored I get of this game, it really is fantastic. I believe that every strategy gamer will love this game, and it is well deserving of a 9 out of 10.… Expand
  10. gist95966
    Dec 28, 2012
    9
    This is a really decent game. I've "only" played civilization 1, 4, and 5 and 1 and 4 were my best experiences. This isn't a review for the other civs, so I will try to limit it to this one. The graphics look better than the screenshots suggest so don't let something like that deter you. What makes this game and civ 1 so great is the level of complexity that goes into your relationshipsThis is a really decent game. I've "only" played civilization 1, 4, and 5 and 1 and 4 were my best experiences. This isn't a review for the other civs, so I will try to limit it to this one. The graphics look better than the screenshots suggest so don't let something like that deter you. What makes this game and civ 1 so great is the level of complexity that goes into your relationships with other countries and your many choices to make during the course of gameplay. Most things you don't like you can turn off. There are only 2 things that bring this game down from a perfect score for me.

    First, is the %'s that the game tells you that you have of winning a fight. It will say something like 98.9% chance for victory... and you lose more like 1/3 of the time. This makes combat a bit frustrating - you never really know your odds of victory and what you resort to doing is saving before a fight so that you don't have to rely on luck to win. If these percentages were accurate I might choose to live with the consequences, but they aren't.

    The other downside and perhaps one that is merely opinion - but I feel enough people agree that it's worth mentioning anyway... is that the game is difficult. I play on the lowest difficulty settings and without feeling like a total wimp (for example giving myself more allies than the enemy has) I usually don't win. I don't play with barbarians anymore, but when I did having them around made the game MUCH more difficult. You can turn them off but it's something to be aware of.

    The first flaw is the only one that feels like a major pain though.. win or lose I still have quite a bit of fun playing.    … Expand
  11. SamisGodzirra
    Nov 29, 2012
    9
    The best turn based strategy ever (in my opinion), better even than any of the empire earth games! A great game that keeps me entertained to this day.
  12. Errtai
    Apr 13, 2017
    10
    A thousand times better than Civ 5, a million times better than Civ 6. Definitely the best of the series, and nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Buy this game.
  13. BalazsC.
    Jul 7, 2008
    10
    Civ 1 was a revolutionary game. Civ 2 was a worthy successor. Civ 3 was well.. a step into a new direction. This game however. This game gives you the greatness of civ 1, the streamlined feeling you had in civ 2 and if that wouldn't be enough, civ 4 manages to do the impossible and takes the game even further. The only real negative i could mention in regards of this game is the Civ 1 was a revolutionary game. Civ 2 was a worthy successor. Civ 3 was well.. a step into a new direction. This game however. This game gives you the greatness of civ 1, the streamlined feeling you had in civ 2 and if that wouldn't be enough, civ 4 manages to do the impossible and takes the game even further. The only real negative i could mention in regards of this game is the fact, that it will completely take over your life. Other than that, its 10/10 +. One of the titles that truly deserve the maximum score.… Expand
  14. HarmLokesz
    Nov 7, 2005
    10
    This is a perfect game. Didn't play Civ 2+3 because I started with Call to Power and that wasn't the best version of Civ. Realy love Civ 4 though. It is easy to get started and you can learn more strategic depths while playing. The choice of music is also very good. I like the music before 1700. I also played it on my P4 1700 laptop with an ATI firegl graphics card. did not have This is a perfect game. Didn't play Civ 2+3 because I started with Call to Power and that wasn't the best version of Civ. Realy love Civ 4 though. It is easy to get started and you can learn more strategic depths while playing. The choice of music is also very good. I like the music before 1700. I also played it on my P4 1700 laptop with an ATI firegl graphics card. did not have any performance issues. Thats very nice. Found a few technical issues with the graphics but I must admit I didn't install the latest drivers. Don't expect too much from the graphics. It is just there to present the gameplay. And the gameplay is superb.… Expand
  15. BillC.
    Feb 19, 2006
    10
    This isn't Quake or Half-Life or Far Cry. It is a strategy game. If you can't handle strategy then don't buy this game. However, if you enjoy thinking and planning then you can't go wrong with Civ 4. Like others here Civ 3 was a let down in my eyes. However, Civ 4 storms back and is just awesome. Have completed the game three times now - each with a different This isn't Quake or Half-Life or Far Cry. It is a strategy game. If you can't handle strategy then don't buy this game. However, if you enjoy thinking and planning then you can't go wrong with Civ 4. Like others here Civ 3 was a let down in my eyes. However, Civ 4 storms back and is just awesome. Have completed the game three times now - each with a different strategry. There is tons of flexibility for just about any type of player. Trust me - you'll get your $50 back in gameplay. Hours and hours of fun!… Expand
  16. TobyM
    Dec 30, 2009
    9
    Whatever people say about the game being bad is likely because in all honesty it's not just insanely tough, it's also hard to get into. But i give this game a 9 because once you do get into it, it is one of the best strategy games i play to date, the indepth of the culture aspect of the game leads to a whole new way of getting victory, why kill your annoyingly AI oppents when Whatever people say about the game being bad is likely because in all honesty it's not just insanely tough, it's also hard to get into. But i give this game a 9 because once you do get into it, it is one of the best strategy games i play to date, the indepth of the culture aspect of the game leads to a whole new way of getting victory, why kill your annoyingly AI oppents when they can kill your tank with archers (which i've tested and isn't true) when you can expand your cultrual borders into theirs and then before they know it! The city is yours!… Expand
  17. Zac
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    A great improvement on the other Civ games, and that's saying a lot. The changes from Civ3 make the gameplay smoother and more emersive.
  18. MakaH.
    Nov 9, 2005
    10
    Civ 4 da best!!!!
  19. Nic
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    I never liked Civilization games before, but this one pulled me in. The graphics are superb and it's easier than ever for newbies. It's deeper and overall more satisfying.
  20. JussiA.
    Oct 2, 2006
    10
    I had thought my playing habits were falling for good as I more and more rarely found myself playing long hours of any game. But Civilization 4 took me by suprise. I got it at 11 'o clock when I was just about to goto the lecture. The lecture was skipped and after 16 hours I finally went to sleep. Also the next day I skipped all the lectures that day. Even now after a year I still I had thought my playing habits were falling for good as I more and more rarely found myself playing long hours of any game. But Civilization 4 took me by suprise. I got it at 11 'o clock when I was just about to goto the lecture. The lecture was skipped and after 16 hours I finally went to sleep. Also the next day I skipped all the lectures that day. Even now after a year I still find myself playing the famous "one more turn" all over again. But nowadays I only play on my leisure time. Civanonymous video was so funny, because it was true.… Expand
  21. Defianc4
    May 6, 2012
    10
    This game's genre is not my kind of thing, but I have to give it props for having the most meticulously balanced design and variety of paths to victory.

    The definitive turn-based strategy game of all time, and will continue to be considering the dismal failure that was V.
  22. MorganC.
    Mar 30, 2006
    10
    This is, quite literally, the best game I've ever played. Will keep you hooked for hours on end.
  23. MrFable
    Sep 1, 2011
    10
    Awesome game. One of the best Civs. If your trying to decide between this one and Civ 5 get this one Civ 5's a dumbed down peace of **** Also Ian277 is a retard.
  24. Tubie
    Oct 2, 2010
    10
    If you do not want to lose hours of your day without noticing... DO NOT get this game, but if you don't mind playing marathon sessions and being totally obsessed with conquering the world then this is the right game for you!
  25. JamesH.
    May 25, 2008
    2
    Civ four falls hard coming to the worst of the series. The graphics are about a 6.5 and only on par with other games in its class just barely better then those of Civ 3. In what they have made up for in streamlining the game they have lost in strategy. There is no middle ground in this game it is either ridiculously hard or boringly easy. The AI show little to no improvement from that of Civ four falls hard coming to the worst of the series. The graphics are about a 6.5 and only on par with other games in its class just barely better then those of Civ 3. In what they have made up for in streamlining the game they have lost in strategy. There is no middle ground in this game it is either ridiculously hard or boringly easy. The AI show little to no improvement from that of civ 2 While the negotiation is much more complex even on the easiest of level the player will find 80% of negotiations wasted and unusable. The civ knowledges are so dumb down that most of them are nonsensically as wells as their improvements they lead to throughout the game. Its hard to build cites through the map because of borders and war constraints based on the layout of most of the maps and area that each city consumes. The movies also take huge steps back compared to those of 3 and 2. The palace and animated counsel are completely missing as well as the large array of units and improvements. Civ 4 is almost an identical copy of Age of empires 2 and Total War crossed over and mashed together. How Sid Meiers could slap his name on this crap is beyond me. Over all advice is to save your money.… Expand
  26. bb
    Jun 29, 2008
    3
    It's very frustrating seeing your entire army get wiped out by 2 archers.. the 2nd time it happened (after rebuilding it AND having a Military "Great Person" assigned to some units) i was ready to throw my fist through the screen... anybody want to buy and barely used version of Civ4 Gold?
  27. ultraviper
    Mar 22, 2012
    10
    The best Civilization game of them all. If you can only play one of them, this is it! Note that this review was written AFTER Civilization V has been out for quite a while already. Yes IV is that good.
  28. cag11
    Nov 29, 2013
    10
    This game has exceeded my expectations after Civ3. I really don't think that this can be beat by almost any game. This is one of those games you can just play over and over and over, and have a completely different experience every time. Honestly, this is a game that would be in almost anyone's top 10.
  29. StaticHS
    Apr 4, 2014
    10
    The Sid Meier's Civilization series is a classic, hooking you with strategy that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

    There are many civilizations to choose from that are historically accurate.
    Many combinations of settings allow you to get a unique experience from the game every time.
  30. elbrowno
    Nov 14, 2014
    10
    I'm really amazed that anyone could rate this game below an 8 for any reason. IMHO Civ IV is the standard that all other strategy games must be measured. Even Civ V is a step backward. The flexibility, the options and different strategies you can employ is simply staggering. I've now played through at least 50 times, and will keep at it as long as other games fail to measure up.
  31. mc10
    Nov 11, 2013
    10
    Still, by far, one of the best games in the series, and one of the best games ever made. Don't play this game if you do not wish to spend hours upon hours conquering the world.
  32. JohnN
    May 31, 2009
    3
    Deeply disappointing. Above all, the geography stinks. What I mean by this is that in far, far too many cases one's civilization is bereft of any natural frontiers - obviously designed deliberately that way so that you HAVE to build massive armies. Unrealistic and tedious. A massive step backwards from Civ 3.
  33. RichardS.
    Sep 22, 2007
    0
    I have played CIV in most of its itterations for 16 years, and CIV IV is the worst game I've ever played. At the next to the easiest level, you have to contend with a never-ending supply of barbarians who can't be beat. If you build more than 6 or 7cities, the game crashes your economy. After playing for weeks, I still can't score higher than next to last. Now, I can't I have played CIV in most of its itterations for 16 years, and CIV IV is the worst game I've ever played. At the next to the easiest level, you have to contend with a never-ending supply of barbarians who can't be beat. If you build more than 6 or 7cities, the game crashes your economy. After playing for weeks, I still can't score higher than next to last. Now, I can't even delete it from my computer because it has some kind of error. The beauty -- I spent $100 to upgrade my computer so I could play this worthless piece of crap.… Expand
  34. GreatGamer
    Nov 26, 2009
    10
    Best Civ game ever made. Great technology tree, culture, military, superb graphic, music and the best gameplay in strategic games. There are "only" 18 nations (civilizations) but additional are added in the next addons ;P My score is 10-/10, but there are no "-" scores availabele, so i score maxumim ;)
  35. GimmeThat
    Nov 9, 2010
    5
    My previous experience with this type of game was Age of Empire II, so maybe that gives me a bias. That game felt more fast-paced and fun. Civilization IV is as much fun as reading an encyclopedia: I may enjoy some interesting moments, but it's mostly just wading through details. This seems like a game that might be more enjoyable if you invest the time to learn how to play, but that's notMy previous experience with this type of game was Age of Empire II, so maybe that gives me a bias. That game felt more fast-paced and fun. Civilization IV is as much fun as reading an encyclopedia: I may enjoy some interesting moments, but it's mostly just wading through details. This seems like a game that might be more enjoyable if you invest the time to learn how to play, but that's not the experience I'm looking for and my review is reflecting that. If you expect to get in and immediately start having fun, with maybe a in game tutorial to teach you as you go, you're in for a disappointment. If you do want to learn the game and you really enjoy having a ton of control over your empire (the negative way of saying that: "micromanaging"), then you'll be rewarded I'm sure. They could have done much better with the nation's leaders. When Ghandi himself is constantly threatening to commit genocide on my people if I don't give him some iron, something has gone horribly wrong.… Expand
  36. Damascus
    Oct 1, 2013
    10
    Best game of the series.
    .............................................
    .............................................
    .............................................
  37. RobertN.
    Mar 29, 2006
    10
    The ultimate in strategy. If you
  38. PaulT.
    Nov 4, 2005
    10
    Very addictive game. If you like Civ you will like this. Note to Julio: 'You're a blank'.
  39. MartyS.
    Feb 11, 2006
    1
    I give it a one, only because it might be a game small percentage of people could like. I find dull dull dull. pathetic. The grafics and the turn base stinks the zoom is worse and the movies are a waste of time. Warriors, fighting with spears, taller than sky scappers, come on! This game puts me to sleep. Just can't for the life of me see why it is rated so High. And as for any game I give it a one, only because it might be a game small percentage of people could like. I find dull dull dull. pathetic. The grafics and the turn base stinks the zoom is worse and the movies are a waste of time. Warriors, fighting with spears, taller than sky scappers, come on! This game puts me to sleep. Just can't for the life of me see why it is rated so High. And as for any game scorring a 10 that should be impossible. For a game to score 10 every person sould want to play it and forgo every thing else. Wake you game reviewers and get a ratting system that means something.… Expand
  40. BilgeG.
    Jan 14, 2008
    3
    First time I have tried an 'epic strategy game' in some years, and what can I say? its just not a sufficiently interesting strategic challenge for the time invested. My old complaints from (probably) Civ2 remain: the AI is not at all interesting, surprising, or even rational, and must cheat to be 'challenging'. The game soon bogs down in micromanagement, unless maybe First time I have tried an 'epic strategy game' in some years, and what can I say? its just not a sufficiently interesting strategic challenge for the time invested. My old complaints from (probably) Civ2 remain: the AI is not at all interesting, surprising, or even rational, and must cheat to be 'challenging'. The game soon bogs down in micromanagement, unless maybe you want to use the in-game helpers, which are as bad as the opposing AI... and then the graphics... they are worthless and distracting in such a strategy game. I had to turn on this extra layer of silly balloons to 'clarify' what is supposed to be displayed in the graphics, and still, something as significant as a huge hostile army at the border is not at all clear... so you are left to make your strategic decisions with incomplete information. and although it proports to be not solely a wargame, wars seem unavoidable, and are the worst and most tedious micromanagement of all. there are a lot of interesting aspects to this... but it certainly cannot be seen as any kind of meaningful 'historical simulation', so all this 'stuff' is mainly clutter, and not really that interesting strategically. maybe the makers should just play 'go' for a few years, and get back to the basics.… Expand
  41. JacobT.
    Jan 7, 2008
    2
    The gameplay is fully identical with rise of nations and sizes are wery weird
  42. Dave
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    I have played CIV I, II and III, this one sucks. 3D graphics detract from the game and are certainly not relevant to a CIV game. User Interface is clumsy. Too many sacrifices made in attempt to improve performance - probably a result of wasting too much computer time on silly graphics. It's a shame but this one is BAD.
  43. GrogerS.
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    I have to agree with all of the other low reviews. I loved the other civs, even civ 1 is fun to go back to. But this one is very boring and slow. Terribly disapointed and sad at the state of this game. Its addictive but only cause i'm hoping that at the next turn something, anything will finally happen to prove to me that this game doesn't suck , alas a few thousand years later I have to agree with all of the other low reviews. I loved the other civs, even civ 1 is fun to go back to. But this one is very boring and slow. Terribly disapointed and sad at the state of this game. Its addictive but only cause i'm hoping that at the next turn something, anything will finally happen to prove to me that this game doesn't suck , alas a few thousand years later the same boring lack of anything to make me stop from throwing this thing in the trash. Sad, so sad.… Expand
  44. Chris
    Dec 30, 2005
    3
    Extremely boring. Got tired of it after 30 minutes of constantly clicking end turn and next to nothing really happening.
  45. WeirdN.
    Feb 7, 2006
    4
    This is a great game totally spoiled by lazy programming. The concept is great and the gameplay is entralling. However my computer which vastly exceeds the minimum specs runs it at abour 2 Frames Per Second (P4 1.5Ghz, 512Mb Ram, Gefore6600 256Mb). The engine is slow and laggy, and it even skips during the in game movies. The last time my computer did this it was 1995 and I had a Pentium This is a great game totally spoiled by lazy programming. The concept is great and the gameplay is entralling. However my computer which vastly exceeds the minimum specs runs it at abour 2 Frames Per Second (P4 1.5Ghz, 512Mb Ram, Gefore6600 256Mb). The engine is slow and laggy, and it even skips during the in game movies. The last time my computer did this it was 1995 and I had a Pentium 133Mhz! The graphics aren't that great. When you look at what can be done with a good 3D engine I find it amazing that firaxis can get it so wrong with this game. I am returning this game as faulty as even with the recent patches and latest drivers it is all but unplayably slow. A great dissapointment.… Expand
  46. ChrisP.
    Jun 11, 2006
    3
    Tedious, buggy and complete lack of pace - the worst in the series.
  47. DavidL.
    Sep 27, 2006
    10
    Civilization IV is a great game, it is very addictive and requires alot of skill to play and win. When playing Civilization IV it teaches you about history and it also makes you have fun at the same time!
  48. TJYale
    Feb 17, 2008
    4
    I am particularly surprised how this game got such a high rating from reviewers... that is unless they were bribed. Sorry, but "wow great graphics! 100!" just isnt a solid, or even truthful review. There have been many games with significantly better graphics and more organic play than Civ4. Hell, the original Myst had better graphics than this tripe. The gameplay is actually quite fun, I am particularly surprised how this game got such a high rating from reviewers... that is unless they were bribed. Sorry, but "wow great graphics! 100!" just isnt a solid, or even truthful review. There have been many games with significantly better graphics and more organic play than Civ4. Hell, the original Myst had better graphics than this tripe. The gameplay is actually quite fun, which warrants a solid 4/5 points from me - however it gets bogged down quite quickly with all the war micromanagement required to beat cheating computer opponents. Other than the gameplay... I can't give this game anymore points. It hogs system resources and has not significantly improved anything at all since the second addition.... unless you consider the massive cost increase to be an improvement.… Expand
  49. fh
    Apr 8, 2009
    4
    Well i thinkn that this was a good game but the taking turn thing needs to mbe taken because it make the game go longer and you have to let it load and stuff like that and the years need to go unlimited not just stop at a ceartin year and the game is over that would amke it more realistic.
  50. BrianS
    May 15, 2009
    2
    If you are a fan of the Civilization series, don't buy this game. It will lessen what you think of the Civilization franchise. It is a very unbalanced game. If you have heard the game is like Civ 2, let me tell you it isn't nearly as good. It has somewhat sloppy graphics and devote a lot of timeto finish one game. This game is either loved or hated, I sure hated it.
  51. MarcelJ
    Jun 22, 2009
    3
    Loved Civ 2. Loved Civ 3 more, once I started a game I had to play "one more turn." This game never got me excited. The graphics are nice but I had to turn on the balloons to figure things out, and an army that was in your territory is sometimes overlooked. And devolping cities isn't as fun because each citie is different geographically....ok maybe in medevil times but not once you Loved Civ 2. Loved Civ 3 more, once I started a game I had to play "one more turn." This game never got me excited. The graphics are nice but I had to turn on the balloons to figure things out, and an army that was in your territory is sometimes overlooked. And devolping cities isn't as fun because each citie is different geographically....ok maybe in medevil times but not once you get to the modern age. The addition of religion is good I guess but it never seemed to matter. I'm gonna give this game a couple more shots and if that don't work I guess its time to buy Civ 3 on Ebay, and learn how to tweak "XP MODE" on my sys.… Expand
  52. TomS
    Jul 16, 2009
    0
    The worst Civilization I've played. Started with the first and played all since. This one forces all players to play the same game. It doesn't matter which civ you start with everyone ends up at the same place at the same time. No chance for playing outside the box or creating a unique strategy. In the end you may as well let the AI play by it's self, it would be just as The worst Civilization I've played. Started with the first and played all since. This one forces all players to play the same game. It doesn't matter which civ you start with everyone ends up at the same place at the same time. No chance for playing outside the box or creating a unique strategy. In the end you may as well let the AI play by it's self, it would be just as interesting.… Expand
  53. ChrisS
    Aug 10, 2009
    4
    I see many mixed reviews of this game and as I am an extreme fan of the series I have to say I'm very disapointed with this latest effort. I keep hearing people say that the graphics are the only improvement in the game over previous versions. I have to say this is probably the main point in which I dislike the game over previous versions. The oversized units and confusing City I see many mixed reviews of this game and as I am an extreme fan of the series I have to say I'm very disapointed with this latest effort. I keep hearing people say that the graphics are the only improvement in the game over previous versions. I have to say this is probably the main point in which I dislike the game over previous versions. The oversized units and confusing City borders just make it very difficult too manage your Empire. If they had added all the improvements and stuck to the Civ 3 size & isometric layout I would probably given this game more of a chance. Unfortunately it lasted a few hours gameplay before it was uninstalled.… Expand
  54. AndreC
    Jan 13, 2010
    3
    What can I say about CIV4? Well.....I was an avid player of CIV2; I loved it; really cool game. I purchased CIV3 a long while back and didn't really like it's mechanics and it seemed to be a bit much of a chore to really improve your civilization or get anything done. I eventually got fed up with trying it and traded it in to EBX for a $1 lol. I then got Alpha Centauri; an What can I say about CIV4? Well.....I was an avid player of CIV2; I loved it; really cool game. I purchased CIV3 a long while back and didn't really like it's mechanics and it seemed to be a bit much of a chore to really improve your civilization or get anything done. I eventually got fed up with trying it and traded it in to EBX for a $1 lol. I then got Alpha Centauri; an amazing game! So I figured, ok Sid is back. With that in mind, I tried out CIV4. At first I really liked it. The graphics weren't really my main concern so long as the game play was similar to CIV2 or Alpha Centauri. Well I played it on the second to easiest level, just to get familiar and like the other person who voted, I also started getting frustrated and noticing something was up when I had an army tanks and mechanized infantry and they couldn't seem to take down a cavalry unit from the 1800s. Are you freaking serious? I tried very hard to like this game and it does have a lot of likable qualities. However, they really dropped the ball on the unit balancing and mechanics, which doesn't make it challenging, it makes it infuriating. I uninstalled it immediately and went back to playing Alpha Centauri for my turn based strategy fix. If they could fix that "cant take any of my units down no matter how powerful your units are because I'm a cheating piece of crap AI" it would be a great game. Oh and one other thing that was SUPER annoying was if you built your city too close to a neighboring civilization occasionally your city would revolt and join the other civ. omg, such an annoying game, I'm done talking about it. It's making me mad just think about it's stupidity.… Expand
  55. Ed
    Nov 22, 2005
    3
    Dissappointed. I've played Civ 1 and 2 and now 4. I'm surprised by the lack of innovation in this game. It, like so many other games out now, just feels like an expansion pack that I paid full price for. If you've never played a Civ before, you should, but once you've played any one of them, you've more of less played them all. I expect more from "the world Dissappointed. I've played Civ 1 and 2 and now 4. I'm surprised by the lack of innovation in this game. It, like so many other games out now, just feels like an expansion pack that I paid full price for. If you've never played a Civ before, you should, but once you've played any one of them, you've more of less played them all. I expect more from "the world famous" Sid Meier.… Expand
  56. MichaelS.
    Nov 5, 2005
    4
    Hate the scale of the units. The religious aspect is interesting but underdone -- there's no distinction between them, and hence no value in choosing one over the other. The "feel" of the game is so... annoying to me as to make it the first Civ game (I've been there with Civ since buying Civ1 retail, through all the Civs, expansions, SMAC/X) I won't be playing anymore (and Hate the scale of the units. The religious aspect is interesting but underdone -- there's no distinction between them, and hence no value in choosing one over the other. The "feel" of the game is so... annoying to me as to make it the first Civ game (I've been there with Civ since buying Civ1 retail, through all the Civs, expansions, SMAC/X) I won't be playing anymore (and it's only week two). I still have Civ2, Civ3, SMAC/X on my hard drive and play them. Civ4 is there but it won't be for much longer. The "must play one more turn" feeling isn't there. The Civilopedia is a colossal disaster, worse than any prior Civilopedia. The graphics are a thing of individual taste -- I don't like the oversized units, nor the ability to use the free-zoom to reach a useable view (either too close or, if you pull out, you can't see what's going on and can't see units anymore). In this way, the "viewing aspect" of Civ3 and the size of the grid was far more useable. Kudos on the inclusion of "civics", which are an idea taken from Alpha Centauri (SMAC). Tech tree is fine and flexible enough, though the poor Civilopedia makes it hard sometimes to figure out what the heck you're looking at. The ability to "mouse over" and have a small window pop-up with information on the thing moused-over is useful, but inexplicably fails sometimes... Just stops working, then starts up again a few turns later, etc. etc. Worst. Civ. Ever.… Expand
  57. ShawnO.
    Nov 5, 2005
    4
    I can read all by myself so the first thing I did was shut off the speech so that I didn't feel like I was in Jr. High class. Cities now manage themselves to the point that there is not much for me to do but move these huge giants around (which gets really boreing quickly). In short, they dumbed everything down and replaced a lot of strategy with assisted AI, 3d graphics etc. It I can read all by myself so the first thing I did was shut off the speech so that I didn't feel like I was in Jr. High class. Cities now manage themselves to the point that there is not much for me to do but move these huge giants around (which gets really boreing quickly). In short, they dumbed everything down and replaced a lot of strategy with assisted AI, 3d graphics etc. It feels so much shallower compared to III. If this is the first effort to turn civ into ar 1st person shooter I quit now.… Expand
  58. Bill
    Dec 15, 2005
    0
    Do not buy this game!!! All of the reviews are either lying or not counting the hundreds of buyers who have experienced nothing but crashing and freezing from this game. I have an excellent gaming system with more than the needed requirements, i had the latest drivers, but this game freezes every time. This game was not properly beta-tested, and was released too soon.
  59. Lee
    Dec 8, 2005
    1
    Game crashes for most everyone....All the reviewers are lying...I have played this series for 14 years....THIS ONE SUCKS! The support page gives you some vague placebos to try. Talk about a website with nothing on it. This has to be deliberate. Fix the code! Fix the memory leak! Sheesh!
  60. dam1730
    Aug 9, 2011
    10
    This game never gets old. It is now six years since the game came out and I am still playing. This is one of those games that beats its successor. Civ V cannot stand up to this game. This game has the right amount of complexity to keep it interesting.
  61. Diddlethumb
    Oct 15, 2013
    9
    Sorry, went to the wrong game lol and reviewed the wrong game sorry. Can someone perhaps delete my previous one?...ugh...oh well! Off to visist the Civ 5 one!
  62. LeszekL.
    Oct 31, 2007
    6
    For the style of gameplay I enjoyed experiencing in previous civ games, I found this game made it difficult to impossible. I respect there efforts to project the series in a new direction, however, I'd rather spend my time with games that expand on the experience I enjoy, rather then engage in something new.
  63. JimBo
    Jan 12, 2010
    4
    Yup, great graphics and cool new stuff. But I can't care about all this anymore after some hours of gameplay of Civ4, while I could spend days playing 3. Can't get hooked by all these new features because the game loses its power to immerse the player. Why? Diplomacy useless through centuries. No future: Once the map is covered into borders, change stops happening. You need long Yup, great graphics and cool new stuff. But I can't care about all this anymore after some hours of gameplay of Civ4, while I could spend days playing 3. Can't get hooked by all these new features because the game loses its power to immerse the player. Why? Diplomacy useless through centuries. No future: Once the map is covered into borders, change stops happening. You need long and boring wars to conquer territories that low culture won't allow to use before eons... So when taking a first "row" of cities, you need to destroy the next row in order to make your first ones' grow. The system seeks to prevent you from doing daring conquests. Then the only best option is tech race, while you resist a few defensive wars, and while your workers just stand for centuries on a territory all covered by roads and improvements (which also happened in Civ3, but late), waiting for a new tech that'll let them improve a tile or two. To sum up: fine innovations worth the try, not addictive at all once the learning curve has been climbed. Still, I'll be the first to buy Civ5...… Expand
  64. Willie
    Dec 1, 2005
    4
    Looks great, but the same tired strategy still works from Civ 1-3. Pick an enemy. Beat up on him until he cries uncle. Let him surrender. Send the huge army against someone else to beat up on. Repeat as needed. Religion adds nothing. Resource concept needs to be fixed. All those resources and still, if your not LUCKY enough to have Iron or Horses or (20 game hours later) no Uranium, you Looks great, but the same tired strategy still works from Civ 1-3. Pick an enemy. Beat up on him until he cries uncle. Let him surrender. Send the huge army against someone else to beat up on. Repeat as needed. Religion adds nothing. Resource concept needs to be fixed. All those resources and still, if your not LUCKY enough to have Iron or Horses or (20 game hours later) no Uranium, you get to sit and watch you opponent beat up on you, with no hope of matching him. It would be nice if mining Gold was worth more then something like Clams. Great People? Great disappointment. Bottom line - Great game if you don't know Civs 1-3. But if you know them, then to me this is a flop.… Expand
  65. Warmonger
    Feb 23, 2006
    3
    Boy is this game overrated!! I don't understand why it got such a high rating, it's really not that good!! don't get me wrong, I liked the older versions and had fun playing them but the reason I bought the special edition is because I thought it would be, well.... "special" there is nothing really special about this game!! other than the fact that it is the same old rehash Boy is this game overrated!! I don't understand why it got such a high rating, it's really not that good!! don't get me wrong, I liked the older versions and had fun playing them but the reason I bought the special edition is because I thought it would be, well.... "special" there is nothing really special about this game!! other than the fact that it is the same old rehash of the older versions. I was really expecting a big change but was sadly disappointed to see that, apart from the graphics, there was really none. It's the same old dull routine over and over again!! Oh wel,l guess as long as it makes money why bother to change it right? wrong!! these people seriously need to change the formula a little... because this game is really getting stale and tiresome..... I think it's time to do something different!… Expand
  66. AJL
    Oct 16, 2009
    3
    Civ IV is extremely disappointing!! The huge size of the military units, as well as the pointless upgrades make them unwieldy and extremely difficult to use. They don't have defense/attack values which totally destroys the fun and strategy involved in military campaigns. There is too much going on in this game, nothing is simple, everything is a chore and its simply a waste of time.
  67. JulioR.
    Nov 1, 2005
    4
    What a sad, sad day. I sat awake at night until the game arived here last FRI. J.J. said it, a mess is right. The addictive quality of the game is gone, not endearing or fun. I seriously doubt I'll still be playing this one next week. Note to Sid... you're getting old man.
  68. Phil
    Mar 25, 2006
    0
    Ruined by technical problems. Customer support useless and slow. I'm never buying anything by these people again.
  69. MuffinBear
    Oct 4, 2007
    3
    Civilization 3 complete was better....Civilization 4 is horrible, the graphics are 3d but the game is more confusing, frustrating, glitchy.....I can't even uninstall the fuking thing from my computer because of some glitch...i hate this game with a passion, I smash the CDs into tiny little pieces and then set them on fire then sweet the ashes into a...container and weigh the containerCivilization 3 complete was better....Civilization 4 is horrible, the graphics are 3d but the game is more confusing, frustrating, glitchy.....I can't even uninstall the fuking thing from my computer because of some glitch...i hate this game with a passion, I smash the CDs into tiny little pieces and then set them on fire then sweet the ashes into a...container and weigh the container down and make it sink to the deepest darkest part of the ocean.… Expand
  70. RockitMan
    Feb 22, 2006
    1
    This game is plain stupid!
    I believe Sid Meier has done well paying off all the game reviewers as he consistently gets overinflated ratings for all of his games.

    Pirates was stupid too!

    Give me Age of Empires anytime anyday.

    This turn based system is for the birds.

    We're not playing Dungeons and Dragons Sid.

    I give this game a 1 only because there is no ZERO.
  71. KeithM.
    Nov 15, 2006
    2
    I played the game from beginning to end once, that's it. Civ 3 was amazing having me continually replaying the game, especially with the expansion. But #4? Honestly, I expected to have more race individualism, what happened, less races than #3? It didn't matter who you were really anyways. The 3D graphics weren't all that impressive anyways, just takes up more memmory to I played the game from beginning to end once, that's it. Civ 3 was amazing having me continually replaying the game, especially with the expansion. But #4? Honestly, I expected to have more race individualism, what happened, less races than #3? It didn't matter who you were really anyways. The 3D graphics weren't all that impressive anyways, just takes up more memmory to run! Don't sacrifice gameplay for crap graphics. I hope if there's a #5 that it lives up to #3's higher standards. Raise the bar!… Expand
  72. DaveR.
    Aug 13, 2006
    2
    This game is tedious, boring, graphically inferior, and the list goes on and on. Sid Meier is a wonderful game designer who needs to push the envelope with his next effort. Perhaps, a 3-D rendered remake of Gettysburg.
  73. Sylvio
    Nov 27, 2007
    3
    Map system is a shame if we compare it with Total War series for instance, and the battles are really poor and frustrating. I love Medieval Total War!! But I hated Civilization after about 10 hours playing it. As you can I see, I tried. I'd really like to love Civ but I couldn't.
  74. okamimiyazaki
    Jul 5, 2011
    6
    It's just not enough to justify buying it. After I spent $40 on it, I played ONE game and was already bored. It's not that it's a bad game, but I found it a bit less fun and a bit more tedious than Civ III, so I just went back to playing Civ III.
  75. Discord
    May 19, 2012
    6
    Civilization IV is a mediocre game at best... Diplomacy is average, combat is easily manipulated with huge STACKS OF DOOM, and micromanagement is rife in the cities... Honestly, the best thing about this game is the Rhye's and Fall of Civilization scenario that comes with Civ IV: BTS.
  76. kristoak
    Sep 27, 2014
    1
    This game is a waste of money. You sit there clicking mindlessly when it prompts you for new research you just click some more. There is no point to the game, it wants you to believe that your choices mean something, but it doesn't. It's a turn based game of waiting for nothing to happen. How people can waste their time playing such a mind numbing game is beyond me. Avoid.
  77. FrankH.
    Aug 18, 2007
    0
    This is much over rated game. It looks fun, it have "everything in it" but...it cheats so badly and it is adjusted so hard (AI is not so intelligent, but barbarians are overpowered and there is WAY too many of them and if you take them off, game becomes boring). Very very very unbalanced game.
  78. GrahamP
    Dec 12, 2009
    4
    Dissapointing. Once archers are in play attacking or launching a war is pretty much off limits for 50 turns of research. The eras don't last long enough for me. You start classical war and by time you just start to get into it, low and beholdit's medieval times already. And when you see archers able to defend cities vs tanks you know something is up with the game mechanics. The Dissapointing. Once archers are in play attacking or launching a war is pretty much off limits for 50 turns of research. The eras don't last long enough for me. You start classical war and by time you just start to get into it, low and beholdit's medieval times already. And when you see archers able to defend cities vs tanks you know something is up with the game mechanics. The game feels to narrow and doesn't give a chance for creativiety in tactics. There are to many gripes that ditract from mthe game. It's dissapointing becuase it had a lot of potential and could have been so much better, I was expecting better.… Expand
  79. CRL
    Jul 25, 2011
    4
    This game... average at best. Turn-based strategy has never been my favorite, but this game makes it monotonous. The higher levels are ridiculously difficult, and doing the same exact thing over and over is exactly as it sounds: repetitive and boring. Every once in a while I find myself enjoying it, but I can't play it for too much at a time before my eyes start to slip shut.
  80. Ian277
    Jan 24, 2011
    2
    I played this and and found the opening credits annoying. then i set up a game and there was no scenario maps! i started the game and played. the religeon aspect didn't impress me. i soon found the combat system has gotten worse. the nicely simpley animated wariors are gone they tried to make it look real but it looks worse. the game is a disapointment. all the people that have played theI played this and and found the opening credits annoying. then i set up a game and there was no scenario maps! i started the game and played. the religeon aspect didn't impress me. i soon found the combat system has gotten worse. the nicely simpley animated wariors are gone they tried to make it look real but it looks worse. the game is a disapointment. all the people that have played the recent civ's i know don't like this game. only new players like it. and that's because they dont know civ. disapointed. i am very mad that it has a better rating than 5, since 5 is great. i have played civ three for at least 1000 hrs. no im not lying. played from age 7 - 14 and i am still play off and on. this gets a F- as a grade dont be fooled by the overrated cliques. this is not CIV.… Expand
  81. fateappointed
    Feb 3, 2014
    5
    Story: 3 out of 10, Graphics: 6 out of 10, Fun: 5 out of 10, Controls: 6 out of 10, Ease to Learn: 5 out of 10, Length: 9 out of 10, Re-play: 5 out of 10, Value: 4 out of 10

    Why some people love this game I will never know. I played it and tried to have fun with it but it was far too clunky, unrealistic, pointless, and offered poor overall execution. I have above average intelligence    Story: 3 out of 10, Graphics: 6 out of 10, Fun: 5 out of 10, Controls: 6 out of 10, Ease to Learn: 5 out of 10, Length: 9 out of 10, Re-play: 5 out of 10, Value: 4 out of 10

    Why some people love this game I will never know. I played it and tried to have fun with it but it was far too clunky, unrealistic, pointless, and offered poor overall execution. I have above average intelligence and love strategy games, but this game offered non-sensible choices, poorly timed turn-based formatting, and no real sense of purpose.    … Expand
  82. tonys
    Aug 30, 2009
    5
    Another big fan of Civ 2 who cant play it on my new Vista computer. The main things I don't like about this are how slow it is to play, and the main gripe, the ridiculous numbers of units needed to conquer an enemy city, yet if the enemy has horse archer or elephant he'll take your city in one attack. In theory the idea of experience and strength/attack improvements is good, but Another big fan of Civ 2 who cant play it on my new Vista computer. The main things I don't like about this are how slow it is to play, and the main gripe, the ridiculous numbers of units needed to conquer an enemy city, yet if the enemy has horse archer or elephant he'll take your city in one attack. In theory the idea of experience and strength/attack improvements is good, but you get ridiculous situations of attacking a city and your tanks are getting wiped out by defending archers!!!! This is at Chieftan level, the second lowest. The graphics are pretty but I'd take Civ 2 any day as its better as a game. I almost feel I want to buy an old XP machine just to get back to Civ 2. The sounds and graphics are nice but this game has serious flaws.… Expand
  83. Wurm
    Feb 7, 2006
    0
    Avoid at all costs unless your computer meets or exceeds recommended specs! Minimum specs listed for game are completely insufficient and it will not play! Rushed to market, the game is truely un-playable on most systems. Review info on patches to see just how much had to be repaired after date of sale! (and see how much STILL has to be repaired) My advice would be if you really love the Avoid at all costs unless your computer meets or exceeds recommended specs! Minimum specs listed for game are completely insufficient and it will not play! Rushed to market, the game is truely un-playable on most systems. Review info on patches to see just how much had to be repaired after date of sale! (and see how much STILL has to be repaired) My advice would be if you really love the Civ series, wait until the price drops and the "Game of the Year" version is released.… Expand
  84. EdomT.
    Jun 4, 2006
    5
    There are some gameplay improvements over Civilization 3 but the terrible interface, lack of city governor options and frustrating unit selection/command system makes this inferior to Civ 3.
  85. AlessioP.
    Jul 27, 2007
    6
    Well, everyone has its taste... and i didnt like civ4, though i had been a huge fan of civ3. What did i not like? Hmmmm.... graphics was ok, altough i definitely prefere 2d in this kind of game... you know, everything is neater, clearer.... surely with mroe details than the poligonal images, that anyways are like 2s sprites, for what its worth. I didnt like some of the new adds.... Well, everyone has its taste... and i didnt like civ4, though i had been a huge fan of civ3. What did i not like? Hmmmm.... graphics was ok, altough i definitely prefere 2d in this kind of game... you know, everything is neater, clearer.... surely with mroe details than the poligonal images, that anyways are like 2s sprites, for what its worth. I didnt like some of the new adds.... religion, form of government etc were good, but the tech tree, the new type of terrain and similar... bah. Ok, it is civ after all... a nice game. But, for me, civ3 is 100% better.… Expand
  86. GuillermoW.
    Oct 15, 2007
    6
    Civ 3 is funny and very playable, i had great time playing it. Civilization 4 has nice graphics and all that but, it is disappointing, and boring, it looks like a different game.
  87. skibbi
    Dec 30, 2012
    7
    I played it, not bad but certainly not great. I enjoy making colonies but rather dislike how numbers generally determine the battle thanks to the crappy combat system. The pillar of doom is extremely annoying as well.
  88. Wafzal2
    Oct 12, 2014
    0
    This game is absolute crap. Being a Major Gaming Critic, This is the worst one I have played. Sure, I would give a 9 to Sid Meier's Civilization 4: Beyond the Sword, but I really hate this dull and life-wasting game, with no good civics, not enough leaders, and not enough units.
  89. HenryM.
    Oct 27, 2005
    10
    Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Sooo much better than AOE3. If you're an AOE fan but never thought you had the brain for CIV, then this is for you.
  90. CarloR.
    Jan 16, 2006
    8
    Good game. Potentially addicting for spurts of time, but also potentially repetitive, predictable and tedious. A 9.3?? Alongside such classics as Baldur's Gate II, Quake or Civ 2?!! Ridiculous. I was blown away by Civ 2, dissapointed w/ Civ3, and found this one to be good, but not deserving of the effusive praise seen here.
  91. PaulClarke
    Jan 17, 2006
    9
    Excellent game - after the dissapointment of Civ III (The day I bought Civ III ended with me re-installing Civ II) This game has everything.

    People her say you can't micromanage the cities...Oh yes you can - you just don't have to (it's an option) LIkewise the autoexplore etc YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF IF YOU LIKE.
  92. EddieB.
    Jan 8, 2006
    9
    I must say I really enjoy this game. I have been playing Civ since 1993. Oringal Civ was good, Civ II was excellent, Civ III had some neat ideas but cheated a lot and was a bit of a bummer although the "Conquest" expansion made it a bit better it still wasn't close to the excellent Civ II. Now there is Civ IV and I must say after playing two games for a total of 25 hours that I quite I must say I really enjoy this game. I have been playing Civ since 1993. Oringal Civ was good, Civ II was excellent, Civ III had some neat ideas but cheated a lot and was a bit of a bummer although the "Conquest" expansion made it a bit better it still wasn't close to the excellent Civ II. Now there is Civ IV and I must say after playing two games for a total of 25 hours that I quite like it. The game works very smooth for me, I have a Ati 9800 but have no problems at all. The game (version 1.09) has crashed once and with the new patch (1.52) it hasn't crashed at all. I love the fact that you can set it at Marathon now, the game takes a lot longer and you really have time to build up an army and go to war. In the past it happened a lot that by the time you were ready to attack your units were obsolete already. Non of this in marathon setting. The in game music is great also. I only don't like the 3D graphics, it's to hard to get a good view of your part of the world, and the in game movies are still a let down compared to the fantastic Civ II in games movies (classical music and very unique little movies). I highly recommend this game.… Expand
  93. EricS.
    May 3, 2006
    10
    Long time Civ fan and this is far and away an improvement on every level. The graphics, the playability, the new interface.
  94. sd
    May 6, 2006
    6
    a boring frustrasting game... about half the thing u need to now are not taught in the tutorial!
  95. BrettL.
    Jun 6, 2006
    10
    Absolutely awesome - 100% improvement on Civ III
  96. AlexV.
    Aug 20, 2006
    6
    Honestly, I expected more from the gameplay in Civ4 than in Civ3. The units are still horribly inferior, and when longbows can defeat my modern armor, I wonder how it was even possible in the first place. The combat of the game is horrifically bad in the sense that it still suffers from the technology differences. Civilization three was superior for its time, but Civ4, instead of being a Honestly, I expected more from the gameplay in Civ4 than in Civ3. The units are still horribly inferior, and when longbows can defeat my modern armor, I wonder how it was even possible in the first place. The combat of the game is horrifically bad in the sense that it still suffers from the technology differences. Civilization three was superior for its time, but Civ4, instead of being a sequel. Is more like a "Civ3 new and improved." Similar to the horrible sequels of the "Might and Magic" series where the graphics and gameplay were horrifically bad after every sequel, I hope Civilization does not fall into the same trap.… Expand
  97. NickU.
    Jan 8, 2007
    10
    I've been playing Civ since Civ I and Civ II was always my favorite. Now along comes Civ IV and it is the perfect upgrade. It brings back the fun of Civ II with a pretty face and removes some of the tedious stuff that brought Civ III down. Great game.
  98. NathanF.
    Feb 4, 2007
    7
    I think that Civ III is a better game than Civ IV. I think the global view was not the best view that they could have added to the game. I much prefer the view for Civilization 3, the 3D view is tacky in my opinion. I wish they gave the option to use the view used for Civ 3.
  99. AdamS.
    Mar 12, 2007
    9
    I have always enjoyed the civilization series and I think this is a great addition.
  100. Trav
    Apr 21, 2007
    7
    It is a really good game, the graphics are great and there are a few "new" things that keep me entertained but in the end civ3 was more playable. Tech problems and slooooow turns towards end of game make this game frustrating. And I agree it does feel a bit like a re-hash.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

1
#1 Best PC Game of 2005
7
#7 Most Discussed PC Game of 2005
8
#8 Most Shared PC Game of 2005

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
94

Universal acclaim - based on 50 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 50 out of 50
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 50
  3. Negative: 0 out of 50
  1. IGN
    94
    While the game hasn't lost any depth or detail, every aspect of the design has been streamlined to make it easier for new players to jump in and less monotonous for veterans. Die-hard fans will definitely find that the game offers up so much more variety this time around.
    Read full review
  2. Yahoo!
    90
    Firaxis shows an impressively consistent grasp of what to abstract and what to detail, and a remarkable talent for presenting large-scale strategic challenges in a format that's easy to digest.
    Read full review
  3. 1UP
    90
    From the mellow sounds of Leonard Nimoy's narration to the polished world view that allows you to smoothly scroll from satellite view to up-close and personal, this is the consummate update of a classic.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »