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. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. ChrisP.
    Jun 11, 2006
    3
    Tedious, buggy and complete lack of pace - the worst in the series.
  21. 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?
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. JacobT.
    Jan 7, 2008
    2
    The gameplay is fully identical with rise of nations and sizes are wery weird
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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.
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 »