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. EP
    Nov 13, 2005
    9
    This is easilly the best civ game ever made. The quantity of viable options and strategies available has exploded while issues with the arduous micro management and boring end game have been all but erased. I will have to deduct a point from my rating for two things, though: Firstly, while the new graphics look nice, I find them somewhat superfluous and unnecessarily restrictive. I'd This is easilly the best civ game ever made. The quantity of viable options and strategies available has exploded while issues with the arduous micro management and boring end game have been all but erased. I will have to deduct a point from my rating for two things, though: Firstly, while the new graphics look nice, I find them somewhat superfluous and unnecessarily restrictive. I'd love to play this game on my laptop as well. Secondly, some areas of the game, such as the civilopedia and the advisor screens, lack a bit of polish. I'm sure official patches or fanmade mods will address these issues eventually.… Expand
  2. YannickB.
    Oct 29, 2007
    9
    It's a great game with a whole range of concepts and stuff, you can spend hours creating your empire, it's just sad there's only a turn-based mode, i'd love to play without the turns.
  3. JohnR
    Dec 14, 2008
    9
    This is my first experience of Civilisation and I'm impressed. I love the 'Great Person' feature and the Golden Ages. There are some excellent unique units and buildings - I always play as Peter The Great because Cossacks give me a distinct advantage over Cavalry in the middle part of the game. There are some excellent wonders to build as well. Always save the Globe Theatre This is my first experience of Civilisation and I'm impressed. I love the 'Great Person' feature and the Golden Ages. There are some excellent unique units and buildings - I always play as Peter The Great because Cossacks give me a distinct advantage over Cavalry in the middle part of the game. There are some excellent wonders to build as well. Always save the Globe Theatre and National Park wonders until the end of the game when you'll have a large population (my biggest city had a population of 40) ! My only gripe is a complaint I would also level against games such as Rise of Nations : at the end of the game the original uniqueness of the different civs has disappeared and every civ is pretty much the same. I suppose this is realistic though. Also, micromanagement can get a bit tedious when you have 30 or 40 cities. However, this is a game that I'll come back to time and time again because it has plenty of depth and every game is different. I wish there were more old school PC games in development. We can only hope. Another winner from Sid Meier.… Expand
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. Ydun79
    Feb 11, 2019
    9
    Very good and addictive game. Also very good in multiplayer. It has somewhat of a learning curve but stick with it.
  12. Archoniz
    Jul 5, 2015
    9
    1 of the most anticipated game through my life, next to Starcraft 2 and Sins of Solar Empire. The game is quite a good time-consumer which are varied in different way to win or deviate a plan on every part of the game. Good time to spend on 6 hours ++, Good animation, less 'buggy' and its awesome. CIV IV is fun to be in multiplayer and Skirmish, even it doesn't have campaign. THE verdict1 of the most anticipated game through my life, next to Starcraft 2 and Sins of Solar Empire. The game is quite a good time-consumer which are varied in different way to win or deviate a plan on every part of the game. Good time to spend on 6 hours ++, Good animation, less 'buggy' and its awesome. CIV IV is fun to be in multiplayer and Skirmish, even it doesn't have campaign. THE verdict is, its a real-time long chess match to be honest.… Expand
  13. Babutto
    Jan 20, 2022
    9
    I hated this game after Civ 3. But now, I changed my mind.

    Pros.: - The main advantage - it's simpler and faster. Game mechanics now are super convenient. There is no need to make dozens of units. Just have one dozen and it's enough to advance your troops. - Religion made some problems but with the proper management it creates a deep boundaries between neighbors. - Sharing borders is    I hated this game after Civ 3. But now, I changed my mind.

    Pros.:
    - The main advantage - it's simpler and faster. Game mechanics now are super convenient. There is no need to make dozens of units. Just have one dozen and it's enough to advance your troops.
    - Religion made some problems but with the proper management it creates a deep boundaries between neighbors.
    - Sharing borders is not a big issue now.
    - Dimplomacy became significantly better.
    - More civic policies.

    Cons.:
    - Maybe the same as before. If you fail to invest in the army at the beginning - you're done. The neighbors will attack.
    - A bit complicated with the city attacks. But it elevates the role of the artillery. Developed further in the following games.

    So, it's almost a perfect game. Lol. 20 years ago I would have said it's a disaster.    … Expand
  14. KaleSungurCrane
    Nov 20, 2020
    9
    OVERALL - 93%

    Gameplay - 8/10
    Graphics (for time) - 6/10
    Story - 5/10
    Game Length - 10/10
    Characters - 6/10
    Level/Area Design - 8/10
    Atmosphere - 7/10
    Sound Effects - 9/10
    Soundtrack - 9/10
    Replay Value - 10/10

    The best Civ game since Civ II. Leonard Nimoy adds so much character to the game and I'd happily play this game even now.
  15. MPGSpotter
    Dec 12, 2020
    9
    By far the best Civilization game vanilla. With mods it takes on the entire 4X genre
  16. ertyz
    Jan 13, 2022
    9
    very addictive
    very nice game if I need to compare among all other games by the way.
  17. RTCWFAN
    Aug 29, 2023
    9
    Civ IV is the best entry of the franchise. After getting into the mechanics, I played about six hours without a pause. Overall rating: 9.2.
  18. Keron_Heruman
    Aug 24, 2023
    9
    As good as all previous civs, with beautiful graphics and more options... Objectively the best civilization of the saga, but each new version loses freshness step by step
  19. 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.
  20. SaschaP.
    Nov 1, 2005
    8
    It's no Alpha Centauri, but better than Civ 3 at any rate. I would greatly prefer a classical iso perspective, but every game has to be 3D nowadays, whether it makes sense or not.
  21. EarlG.
    Nov 5, 2005
    8
    Ok, did some extensive "testing". The game is really impro?ved and immersive - in general. But... - As already said, the eras pass too fast and your units get obsolete before you can use them. - Religions need to be improved by patches. Christianity and Islam are almost never adopted as state religions. There is no incentive for the AI and the player to do so. - Streamlined gameplay also Ok, did some extensive "testing". The game is really impro?ved and immersive - in general. But... - As already said, the eras pass too fast and your units get obsolete before you can use them. - Religions need to be improved by patches. Christianity and Islam are almost never adopted as state religions. There is no incentive for the AI and the player to do so. - Streamlined gameplay also causes the cities to get easily idle. To few buildings to build. - The PC can't keep up with the late game on a standard map. The delays and lag can become horrible. The same when you zoom out on a messy map. (CPU 2,8 and 512 RAM) Obvious pros: - Religion adds a new layer. - Culture conversion is a viable option, but not too easy achieved. - Civics are nice. I'm not sure if I am happy with the graphics. From a perspective of functionality 3D was surely not necessary. And it's a drain on system performance. On the other hand... well, I don't know. I guess you get used and grow fond of them. All in all a good game. I hope it will get better with patches.… Expand
  22. WalterR.
    Oct 30, 2005
    8
    I'm a big fan of the series but this time around I'm left wondering why such a big departure from the others. I still rate Alpha Centauri as the best and still play it on occasion. Most of what disappointed me about this one is the combat units... too big for one, no reliable way of knowing defensive strengths and why the bowman is such a defensive powerhouse. The graphics are I'm a big fan of the series but this time around I'm left wondering why such a big departure from the others. I still rate Alpha Centauri as the best and still play it on occasion. Most of what disappointed me about this one is the combat units... too big for one, no reliable way of knowing defensive strengths and why the bowman is such a defensive powerhouse. The graphics are beautiful but sorry to say they aren't easier on the eyes, leaves me cockeyed really and why the change from left to right click for unit movements. Here's hoping for Alpha Centauri II...… Expand
  23. EdoardoD.
    Jan 2, 2006
    8
    Excellent game! Not as complex as Civilization 3, but there are some new things to compensate! I don't understand the need for a 3d world, it makes the game graphic quite heavy and slow down everything, especially in multiplayer. Nevertheless the best Sid Meyer's Civilization!
  24. PeterM.
    Jul 2, 2006
    8
    Great game, although it stops in 2780 AD. Probably my civ is too large. At end turn, the game stops.
  25. ClaudC.
    Nov 29, 2005
    8
    It improves on some points of the game such as getting rid of waste/corruption and replacing it with a city maintenance cost. But I would have to agree with some of the other people here that they broke the civilopedia, and not being able to trade resources and tech is silly. To Lee H. what civ have you been playing in the previous versions of civ the combat animation consisted of a guy It improves on some points of the game such as getting rid of waste/corruption and replacing it with a city maintenance cost. But I would have to agree with some of the other people here that they broke the civilopedia, and not being able to trade resources and tech is silly. To Lee H. what civ have you been playing in the previous versions of civ the combat animation consisted of a guy swinging a sword or firing a gun real "in-depth". To Ed "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" if you tell me you played civ 1 and then civ 2 and you think they are all the same then you were sleeping when you played 1. Wel I think this game is an improvement overall even though they did break some things so it get an 8.… Expand
  26. Oyster
    Jun 18, 2008
    8
    This game is very fun to play, but it's pretty unbalanced.
  27. 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.
  28. Sean-M
    May 27, 2020
    8
    This is probably the best entry in Civ series. Considering when you have all the expansions. 8 out of 10.
  29. danielrocks
    Feb 3, 2014
    8
    This game is very time consuming and can get frustrating at times but overall it is amazing.....
    It is worth getting defiantly but play other games.
    P.S. Play on the american revolution mod. Its good
  30. Wiebe
    Feb 25, 2020
    8
    Best of the Civs, an 8 for its time, even though the game play on the board with the tiles and army movement is quite limited (and the balance for the army part as well).
  31. Hotair
    Jul 25, 2018
    8
    I have played thousands of Civ IV games -- literally -- mostly at the low-moderate levels of difficulty, viz. 'Chieftain' and 'Warlord' levels. I've enjoyed the game immensely; this game certainly deserves its 8+ score, but is not without its aggravating AI aspects. It's pretty common to have high, i.e. relentless, levels of barbarian activity early in the game; this can greatly scoreI have played thousands of Civ IV games -- literally -- mostly at the low-moderate levels of difficulty, viz. 'Chieftain' and 'Warlord' levels. I've enjoyed the game immensely; this game certainly deserves its 8+ score, but is not without its aggravating AI aspects. It's pretty common to have high, i.e. relentless, levels of barbarian activity early in the game; this can greatly score you down and compromise your chance of eventually getting good score. Personally I pursue a strategy of peace and rapid educational economic growth, however almost inevitably another civilization will attack you unprovoked. Some opponent civs, notably Montezuma, will attach even without prospect of beating you; you will eventually hold them off but at the cost of a huge set-back to you score. The only way to perhaps avoid or hold off attach is to invest in huge military resource. Apart from these annoying AI quirks, it's a great game.… Expand
  32. Amorph0us
    Jan 11, 2022
    8
    Maybe the best installment in the series. The level of detail on strategy is satisfactory and I really enjoyed my time playing it.
  33. Sprixy
    Sep 6, 2020
    8
    A good place to start playing Civilization and a fun gaming experience. Its strategy, history, and thinking all coming together to craft a masterpiece of a game. Overall, this game is something everyone should play.
  34. wf1675
    Jul 9, 2023
    8
    definitely one of my fav civs as of late but I don't like the happiness system feels like a bottleneck and I don't care for city-states and there's too many barbarians but its soooo much better than civ 6
  35. KTheSlayer
    Jun 18, 2021
    8
    Great game, with enormous amount of content and abilities to explore. Very high replayability
  36. HydrophobikFish
    Jun 9, 2023
    8
    Lots of fun nation building in this game. Interesting factions and development. Leaders ahd strong character and campaigns seemed well balanced
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. RichardL.
    Nov 29, 2005
    7
    Probably overrated, but still the only game out there which keeps you playing the same 'map' for hours., in a good way. Unfortunately the game crashes pretty often even with a good AMD system w/ 1gb RAM. I would have preferred more depth in the gameplay - the only way you can really affect your world is still through borders, miltary and city upgrades. I'm disappointed they Probably overrated, but still the only game out there which keeps you playing the same 'map' for hours., in a good way. Unfortunately the game crashes pretty often even with a good AMD system w/ 1gb RAM. I would have preferred more depth in the gameplay - the only way you can really affect your world is still through borders, miltary and city upgrades. I'm disappointed they removed many technologies and units, as a result the standard game is quite short even on 'epic'. For the non-civ fans, wait until the SDK is released when new, free mods (such as one based on SMACentauri) start being developed. Still, all this is unfortunately to be expected from a game offered via retail channels by a commercial developer.… Expand
  40. KevinP.
    Oct 26, 2005
    7
    Amazing game - absolutely streamlined and oh my god the multiplayer works! Finally! However, I've taken off three points for the two things that keep me from totally dedicating my life to this game: 1) lesser units can still destroy greater units, e.g. cavalry destroying an Apache helicopter, and 2) why are the units so large? Tanks and soldiers tower over cityscapes. I'd love Amazing game - absolutely streamlined and oh my god the multiplayer works! Finally! However, I've taken off three points for the two things that keep me from totally dedicating my life to this game: 1) lesser units can still destroy greater units, e.g. cavalry destroying an Apache helicopter, and 2) why are the units so large? Tanks and soldiers tower over cityscapes. I'd love to see a more realistic sense of scale, so that the game itself takes on a greater sense of scale.… Expand
  41. Zhan
    Nov 15, 2005
    7
    Excellent new look and interface (with some glitches), and the best opportunities for modding and customizing. However, some of the changes to the rules and gameplay seem poorly thought out and/or lack imagination.
  42. 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.
  43. eraybeycik
    Dec 24, 2020
    7
    Oyun zamanında iyidir belki ama şu an daha iyi seçenekler var oynamak için.
  44. nazarkin123
    Mar 10, 2021
    7
    It's always cool game to play. From year to year mostly graphics changes but in this case it's good.
  45. sd
    May 6, 2006
    6
    a boring frustrasting game... about half the thing u need to now are not taught in the tutorial!
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. SP
    Nov 17, 2005
    6
    Vastly over rated, slow, boring, and half the time nothing to do but click end turn. I can't be the only one out there who thinks this surely?
  49. UnzarJ.
    Nov 4, 2005
    6
    Lets you control cities without any immersive feel of actually controlling cities. The most addictive cartoon spreadsheet invented. At the risk of overusing the word "addictive", it's addictive, but burnout factor will come quick.
  50. J.J.
    Oct 31, 2005
    6
    "Kind to n00bs!" (Dumbed down to the extreme), hate the civics system, the interface is a mess... BUT IT'S CIV!!!! Feel really ambivalent about this one.. but if this is the way that PC gaming is going, I might have to stop playing games and get a life ;0)
  51. JohnC.
    Apr 14, 2006
    6
    I originally purchased this game for my 10 year old son. After spending $50 AND upgrading my video card, I found that this is the optimal age range for this game. While the variation from game to game may keep older people interested, long spells consisting of only "Click To End Turn" while waiting for things to happen will make you wish you just downloaded a Beta version.
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. 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.
  55. davidm
    Dec 26, 2005
    6
    AI does almost everything for you -- and poorly. Don't like the interface, units too large, can't see the big picture, hard to control precise unit movements. Very pretty and has some of the features of the original civ(s), but, believe me, if this had been Civ I, there never would have been a Civ 4. A bloated, pretty, shallow monstrosity of an ending to the series. Overall,AI does almost everything for you -- and poorly. Don't like the interface, units too large, can't see the big picture, hard to control precise unit movements. Very pretty and has some of the features of the original civ(s), but, believe me, if this had been Civ I, there never would have been a Civ 4. A bloated, pretty, shallow monstrosity of an ending to the series. Overall, kinda sad.… Expand
  56. 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.
  57. 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.
  58. 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
  59. 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.
  60. marca
    Nov 21, 2009
    5
    Loved Civ 1 and 2, played Civ 3 quite possibly more than any game, so take it from me this is not a low score from someone who rarely plays such games....but Civ 4 is just well, meh....so disappointing. Graphically I actually prefer 3 in many ways, the units look bad, the cartoony leaders just shout out that they're dumbing the game down for more casual gamers....the religion aspect Loved Civ 1 and 2, played Civ 3 quite possibly more than any game, so take it from me this is not a low score from someone who rarely plays such games....but Civ 4 is just well, meh....so disappointing. Graphically I actually prefer 3 in many ways, the units look bad, the cartoony leaders just shout out that they're dumbing the game down for more casual gamers....the religion aspect is a welcome addition, but it wasn't long before I was playing mods to keep the interest going. I have since played Civ 3 a few times, but Civ 4 is gathering dust on my shelf. Galactic Civs 2 is my current game of choice for this genre.… Expand
  61. LeeH.
    Nov 18, 2005
    5
    This is one of the few games that I disliked enough to take back. 1. I love the original Civ. But here we are at Civ IV and *nothing substantial has been improved*. There
  62. JohnV.
    Nov 21, 2005
    5
    I know a 5 rating is kinda harsh but deserving for ruining the whole feel of Civ. Forget playing this game without at least 1Gig of ram. I'm a huge fan, play old Civ games all the time but this one I've only played 2x and go days between sittings. The game goes too slow early on then really fast at the end. Too many wonders, a lot of good old ones are gone in favour of alot of I know a 5 rating is kinda harsh but deserving for ruining the whole feel of Civ. Forget playing this game without at least 1Gig of ram. I'm a huge fan, play old Civ games all the time but this one I've only played 2x and go days between sittings. The game goes too slow early on then really fast at the end. Too many wonders, a lot of good old ones are gone in favour of alot of new American ones. A really good concept of armies from CivIII has been abandoned, what a shame. I prefer playing with the single unit option, the multiple unit option really bugs me. A real system hog, I remember playing Civ II as a regular windowed program, I must have played that game a hundred times. NOw I can't cross mountains..., forests provide greater defence than hills, why? Artillery can only bombard cities, that's just not right. Not enough time to build spaceship in harder games. Can't trade techs and resources at the same time, a real step backwards. The better graphics don't justify the sacrifice in system resource penalty. I've got to use a cliche here,... One step forward, two steps back!… Expand
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. JakubTyszko
    Feb 14, 2021
    5
    Good game but failed historical background lowers my ranking. This game could give a lot education but instead gives only propaganda.
  66. Yaav13
    Apr 7, 2022
    5
    My truthful honorable incorruptible conclusive rating of this considered game: 5.
  67. 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
  68. 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.
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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.
  78. 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
  79. 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.
  80. 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.
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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.
  84. 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
  85. 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.
  86. ChrisP.
    Jun 11, 2006
    3
    Tedious, buggy and complete lack of pace - the worst in the series.
  87. 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?
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. 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
  91. 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.
  92. JacobT.
    Jan 7, 2008
    2
    The gameplay is fully identical with rise of nations and sizes are wery weird
  93. 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
  94. 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.
  95. 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
  96. 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.
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. 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.
  100. 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!
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 »