Sid Meier's Civilization V

 PC
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2963 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2,247 out of 2963
  2. Mixed: 454 out of 2963
  3. Negative: 262 out of 2963
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. Aldunis
    Sep 23, 2010
    7
    Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. First off, as of 2 days after the release of the game I have logged 16 hours of play time. About 12 of them on 2 to 4 player multiplayer games and the rest on single player.

    Civilization V is an amazing game, but it is not without its faults. The combat system is amazing. The use of hexes    Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. First off, as of 2 days after the release of the game I have logged 16 hours of play time. About 12 of them on 2 to 4 player multiplayer games and the rest on single player.

    Civilization V is an amazing game, but it is not without its faults. The combat system is amazing. The use of hexes and the fact that only one unit of each type can be on a hex opens the game up to much more challenging combat as well as unique tactics. However, while the combat system is very nice, the computer never uses any tactics when attacking you. Making defeating the enemies in all situations a cakewalk.

    The new culture system is also very nice. The removal of religion and civics will definitely annoy some, but the new system of policies is a pretty good replacement. One is forced to plan ahead by timing the construction of wonders, settlers, and military units to coincide with the adoption of new policies. The new method of expanding ones border is also very interesting, a combination of culture and gold. Gold allows to choose what tiles you wish to buy, while culture automatically claims tiles for you. The AI is typically pretty good about picking the best places, but you can always buy up the places you really want if its going too slow. My biggest complaint for this game is the very very very spotty diplomacy system. For a game that was made with the intention of being more diplomatic and AIs are uncommonly aggressive. Diplomacy is now like taking a shot in the dark. You have a good idea of how to lower it, very little idea of how to raise it and absolutely no idea about how you stand with the other nations. In the previous Civ games my favorite way to win was diplomatic victory. Now, having tried for 5 to 6 games and having not succeeded even once, I'm starting to question if its even possible. If someone figures out the diplomacy system, without the use of a guide, please let me know. Another complaint I have with the game is the very bad multiplayer support. You can't save a multiplayer game, only autosave, and the autosave is not very reliable and is prone to self deletion. Having lost 4 to 5 current games with my friends, this is annoying to say the least. Furthermore I have yet to figure out how to play mods on multiplayer, someone let me know when they figure it out? For a game that comes from a long line of epic multiplayer friendly games, this is a huge disappointment. Many of my friends have already said they're not gonna waste anymore time on this game until the multiplayer aspect is fixed. Yet, if you don't mind single player games. Or if you don't mind multiplayer games that you'll almost never finish. I actually enjoyed the single player games and unfinished multiplayers to refine my strategy (But I am an addict). This is the pinnacle of turn based strategy games, and the design of the game itself outweighs most of the negatives that come from stupid AIs, horrible diplomacy, bad multiplayer support (all of which I hope will be fixed by patches). But until they do, this is not worthy of the legacy of Civilization. For now, a 7 out of 10.    … Expand
  2. thehiredgun
    Oct 5, 2010
    6
    I'm baffled that "professional" critics rated such a buggy mess of a game so high. Perhaps they only played a few hours or were limited to a demo or some other nonesense, because if you go read the 2K Support forums, you'll see that CIV V is filled with buggy AI, missing features, and straight up silly bugs. If you are considering purchasing this game for Multiplayer LAN games with yourI'm baffled that "professional" critics rated such a buggy mess of a game so high. Perhaps they only played a few hours or were limited to a demo or some other nonesense, because if you go read the 2K Support forums, you'll see that CIV V is filled with buggy AI, missing features, and straight up silly bugs. If you are considering purchasing this game for Multiplayer LAN games with your family, strongly reconsider until they have a chance to fix numerous issues plaguing this game. This game was definitely not ready for release.… Expand
  3. PseudoElite
    Apr 28, 2011
    3
    I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY.I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY. Okay here are two different reviews: 1) YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED A CIV GAME BEFORE Game is pretty cool, a lot to do and discover in the world of civilization. Graphics are somewhat up to date and it's a fun learning experience. Not the best strategy game you've ever played most likely, but a solid outing nonetheless. GRADE: B- 2) YOU HAVE PLAYED OTHER CIVS AND ARE POSSIBLY A CIV FANATIC LIKE MYSELF If you've played any other Civilization game to date, you will almost instantly notice that the game has been dumbed down SOOOO much it possibly brings tears to your eyes.
    - You can no longer manage your economy, taxes, luxuries, culture, religion, research, espionage, or just about anything else. The only things you can manage are your cities and units. - Diplomacy has been dumbed down as well. You can no longer trade techs or maps, and there is very little reason to conduct diplomacy besides trading luxury resources to keep your empire happiness. - MANIFEST DESTINY? THINK AGAIN. Oh how unhappy the happiness in this game will make you. Happiness is not city based anymore, rather it is now on a universal +/- scale for your ENTIRE EMPIRE. On any difficulty above Prince (I usually play on Emperor/Immortal) your happiness cap will SEVERELY LIMIT your ability to expand around the world. You will most likely be stuck to a handful of cities for a long time and you will have to carefully and painfully slowly expand so that your precious happiness doesn't drop. THE RESULT? Somewhere around 40-60% of the world map will be unsettled depending on your map type. ON IMMORTAL DIFFICULTY, EVEN THE AI WHO IS CHEATING THROUGH HIS NOSE STRUGGLES TO EXPAND ACROSS THE MAP. - WANT TO MAKE A BUSTLING DEMOCRACY THEN SWITCH TO FASCISM LATER IN THE INDUSTRIAL AGE? I THINK NOT BISMARCK. Once you pick your Civics you're stuck with them until the end of time... literally. And it's not like civics are easy to get, late game with large empires it takes 100s of turns to get enough culture. - Single Unit tiles is good and bad depending on your perspective. Ultimately though, it makes it very difficult to position your 8 units every single time you want to move across the map and makes invading other empires/cities more of a chore than fun. - A LOT OF FUN.... for until you're in the middle ages. Then the game drags and drags and dragssssssssssss like no tomorrow. WITH SO MUCH OF THE MICROMANAGEMENT STRIPPED FROM THE GAME, there is almost nothing to do besides choose what buildings to make in your cities. If you're not constantly declaring war on your neighbors then expect to spend most of your turns STARING AT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN HOPING SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENS. USUALLY DOESN'T UNLESS YOUR HOUSE CATCHES FIRE. - WANT A CULTURE VICTORY? TOO BAD GANDHI, THAT 4TH CITY IS GONNA COST YA... the game. Different victory types in Civilization have almost always been choose what you want to do early/mid way through the game and stick with it. But with this civilization, you damn better well have a strategy set if you want to win. This makes the game oh so much more boring that it was before. - Despite it being the year 2011 now, the AI of Civilization is still almost as woefully bad as it was in CIVILIZATION I ON DOS. The AI is AMAZINGLY STUPID, and all ramping up the difficulty does is MAKE THEM CHEAT LIKE NO TOMORROW. AIs will outresearch you, make far larger armies in less time, build wonders in half the time you do, and YOU WILL STILL ALMOST ALWAYS STOMP THEM. A travesty for modern gaming. Don't even get me started about diplomacy, the majority of the AI leaders are schizophrenic on their best days when taking their medication. GRADE: D- I'm sorry but this ISN'T CIVLIZATION. Empire Total War has far more depth than this current outing and that REALLY PAINS ME TO SAY THIS because I've always far preferred Civilization to the Total War series. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING WITH THIS GAME, it's more suited to be played with on an arcade stick much less on a PC. WILL EXPANSIONS SAVE THIS DISASTER OF A GAME? It could, but it's going to need something absolutely BRILLIANT, and judging by how bad this game is I have my doubts. Fingers crossed though.... BOTTOM LINE: I REALLY DON'T RECOMMEND THIS GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SINCERELY: AMAZINGLY DISAPPOINTED LONG TIME CIV FANATIC :(    … Expand
  4. Soyaki
    Sep 26, 2010
    4
    I had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. OnceI had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. Once in-game, excitement at the new graphics and combat system are tempered by all the things that are missing. As others have posted, the missing details in the diplomacy screens are a huge problem that renders diplomacy almost useless. City States are even thinner in detail, and that is a feature that GalCiv 2 did way better. City management is a lot easier and the whole turn cycling interface improved is nicer, but the tech tree is also a dissapointment. And the whole anti-expansion philosophy is just un-fun.

    I can see why the game developer might have wanted to take the game in this direction. It's probably more accessible to more people--thus it has a larger potential market. But making the game easier to play didn't have to mean taking a lot of features away. It's easy to imagine ways that religion and detailed technology--even espionage!--could have been left in, yet hidden from novice players or those players uninterested in detail. Instead, lots of fun stuff is just gone.

    Finally, while I presume that the game will be patched quickly, it is crash-prone and has poor performance. The protracted time between turns is just unacceptable by even the middle of a Marathon game.    … Expand
  5. Shaddock
    Sep 23, 2010
    5
    If you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order toIf you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order to understand your neighbors. You can see current deal but have no sense of why or if the other civilizations like you or not. Also you cant make your own saves during multiplayer and need to rely on autosaves, and you have no other option other than simultaneous turns when playing multiplayer. This option when using the combat model simply does not work and feels more like an RTS or console game than what many of us have grown to love about CIV. If you have not played a CIV game before start here, if you own CIV IV stick with that.… Expand
  6. Blogomattic
    Sep 25, 2010
    3
    Being a long time fan of the Civilization franchise and having played Civ4 so much that I wore out 2 copies of the game, I have to say that Civ5 was a true disappointment. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, not even with the hex tile switch, but I did expect to get what I had gotten out of the others. I bought Civ5 because I liked how the series didn't change much, just got prettier.Being a long time fan of the Civilization franchise and having played Civ4 so much that I wore out 2 copies of the game, I have to say that Civ5 was a true disappointment. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, not even with the hex tile switch, but I did expect to get what I had gotten out of the others. I bought Civ5 because I liked how the series didn't change much, just got prettier. Overall, my biggest pet peeve is that the over-simplicity of this newest version has made the game less of a challenge and more of a tedious waste of time. I liked Civ4 because micromanagement seemed to really have an effect in the grand scheme. However, doing so in Civ5 feels like playing a pretty spread-sheet. First the bad:
    -The adjustment of the game length makes it feel like Civ3, which I like, but combining that with the extended length of turns makes for an over drawn out experience.
    -Difficulty is not adjusted by leader craftiness, but by the number of units that they bring to the fight.
    -The introduction of city-states was nice, but their nagging gets old really quick.
    -Not allowing unit stacking promotes strategy, but makes for increasingly frustrating front-lines.-
    In the 30 hours that I've played, I have found that there doesn't seem to be any kind of situation other than war to win. The readjustment of victory conditions makes domination more accessible, but the others become easily forgotten when trying to keep enough units around for defense (I've always been a cultural/space race victory kind of guy).
    -Boring, tedious, and exasperating war. I'm not kidding, even if a rival has basically no military, it will still take 10 turns to conquer a city.

    Now the good:
    -The introduction of straight purchasing of city improvements and units is a huge boon to the game. Assuming you can afford it, popping out much needed military support doesn't waste time in production.
    -Barbarian activity is better balanced. In Civ4 at the 5th difficulty level, barbarians would wipe you out way to quickly.
    -Ranged attack. Finally, logical ranged attack. Why did this take so long?

    Maybe it's just my play style, but Civ5 doesn't pull me in like previous iterations. More often then not, I find myself wishing that I hadn't bothered with the game that enjoying it. If you are looking for the fun challenge found in previous versions of Civ, I suggest that you go back and play those as this one just doesn't cut it.    … Expand
  7. Dipex
    Sep 26, 2010
    0
    I'm a long time Civ fan, I've been playing back since the days of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, but this game just sucks. In a nutshell, the UI is non-functional, the AI is broken, the diplomatic system doesn't work, and the game is buggy as hell. It feels rushed, looks rushed, and will play like its rushed when it either crashes or grinds to a halt an hour or so in due to a memory leak.

    As    I'm a long time Civ fan, I've been playing back since the days of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, but this game just sucks. In a nutshell, the UI is non-functional, the AI is broken, the diplomatic system doesn't work, and the game is buggy as hell. It feels rushed, looks rushed, and will play like its rushed when it either crashes or grinds to a halt an hour or so in due to a memory leak.

    As to the new combat system that everyone seemed to go so crazy about- its just Civ 4s combat system with one unit per tile. I will say that its actually a nice improvement, because wars are much more about strategic position and tactical maneuvers. However, its also applied to non-combat units and has a tendency to break workers that you have set to any level of automation. And, as nice as it is it just can't fix the fact that everything else in the game is so bad.

    On a final note, I know that a lot of hardcore Civ fans don't exactly have the best computers. Well, you might want to rethink this game. If you don't meet the rather high recommended requirements you will not be able to play on a map larger than standard- and even then the game will run like crap. I'm just below the recommended reqs, and with all my settings on minimum the game starts to chug on mid-late game standard maps. I have to say, for the performance the game doesn't even look that good so be warned.    … Expand
  8. not_good
    Sep 27, 2010
    4
    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you!

    New features include: Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire! They    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you!

    New features include:

    Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire!

    They removed all the bothering elements like religion, spies and diplomacy, so all you have to worry about is letting the game play for you! Another fantastic feature added is the settler bomb! Against all odds, are you somehow losing a war to an opponent? Well just drop a settler and all your troubles are over, you now have a unit with some of the best defense in the game, another city!

    Expect new dlc coming soon featuring an updated graphic pack; now this game will actually look like it uses its monstrous system requirements!    … Expand
  9. unitas83
    Sep 22, 2010
    10
    A fantastic addition to the Civ franchise. My greatest complaint with previous Civ games, which I've been playing since 1991, was that large armies were extremely unwieldy and frustrating to manage. Sea transportation logistics were also a frustrating time sink. Both of these problems have been solved with Civ V. Everything about the game screams polish and it runs like an absolute dream,A fantastic addition to the Civ franchise. My greatest complaint with previous Civ games, which I've been playing since 1991, was that large armies were extremely unwieldy and frustrating to manage. Sea transportation logistics were also a frustrating time sink. Both of these problems have been solved with Civ V. Everything about the game screams polish and it runs like an absolute dream, haven't had a hitch yet which is becoming so rare with new releases.… Expand
  10. napalm
    Sep 22, 2010
    6
    Let me start of by saying I am a long time fan of the Civilization series. I have owned all versions of civilizations from the day they were releases. Heck I am an old timer that was playing games like simearth back in the day.

    With that rant over, on the the game. I will give the highlight of it is pretty much the same old civilization we played for 20 years with better graphics    Let me start of by saying I am a long time fan of the Civilization series. I have owned all versions of civilizations from the day they were releases. Heck I am an old timer that was playing games like simearth back in the day.

    With that rant over, on the the game. I will give the highlight of it is pretty much the same old civilization we played for 20 years with better graphics with combat changes. There is nothing revolutionary and ground breaking in the game. If you played any of the other Civ's then you already played this one.

    Sure you have Hexes now and you can not stack units, but the heart of the game has been the same for 20 years and to be honest the developers are playing it too safe and are not giving us anything unique.

    I am not going to give it a zero as it is not a bad game... the problem is they already sold this game 4 times over the last 20 years. If you never played Civ before, check it out... but if you played the others, this the the same old game.

    Maybe but Civ VII or Civ X they will give us something new :)    … Expand
  11. Discerning
    Sep 30, 2010
    2
    What an enormous disappointment. I am shocked that this game came from Sid Meierâ
  12. mianosm
    Sep 22, 2010
    10
    Continuing the tradition of sucking the soul from your body, Sid keeps up the legacy that is Civilization. After only one play through the thought of jumping into the next full work days worth of playing to feel the happiness in victory over the other Civilizations is still there. Slight tweaks are definitely noticeable in terms of cultural changes, military changes, and clearly definedContinuing the tradition of sucking the soul from your body, Sid keeps up the legacy that is Civilization. After only one play through the thought of jumping into the next full work days worth of playing to feel the happiness in victory over the other Civilizations is still there. Slight tweaks are definitely noticeable in terms of cultural changes, military changes, and clearly defined tech tree development. The new policy choices are a great new take on the game, I can't wait for the game to have added depth with mods. Best purchase I've made all year. = )… Expand
  13. Sivus
    Jun 5, 2014
    7
    This game feels like it's about half the quality of the previous and famous Civilization 4. It looks better than 4 but it should, it's a newer game. I feel like many of the streamlined changes from "revolution" found their way into 5, as in many of your actions lack depth. Still, hundreds of hours of play has to count for something and it's certainly enjoyable despite being shallow.
  14. NP-complete
    Oct 25, 2016
    7
    The game is fun because it's a Civilization game, but I disprove many of the additions from Civilization IV. Changing your government to adapt your gameplay to the situation is never recommended because of the number of perks you'll lose (why did devs think civics are permanent perks? Politics do not work as RPGs), and the one-unit-per-tile rule is the source of absurd traffic jams. Also,The game is fun because it's a Civilization game, but I disprove many of the additions from Civilization IV. Changing your government to adapt your gameplay to the situation is never recommended because of the number of perks you'll lose (why did devs think civics are permanent perks? Politics do not work as RPGs), and the one-unit-per-tile rule is the source of absurd traffic jams. Also, I don't know why city-states cannot eventually become normal empires. I definitely prefer Civilization IV.… Expand
  15. Lich_Master
    Jan 8, 2016
    8
    Good ideas were wasted here.
    Hexes and 1upt cover the fact that this game was released as CIV for dummies - and even after 2 expansions it is screaming STREAMLINES! STREAMLINES EVEYWHERE!

    Good game on it's own
    Bad step for series
  16. Fonzy
    May 28, 2014
    7
    The latest installment in franchise games can often be the victim of their own previous success and it appears that Civ V is no exception.

    Taken by itself, Civ 5 is a solid game. In a vacuum, I would say my biggest gripes are that the city-state system feels a bit unloved and leaves a lot to be desired. Additionally, diplomacy is a bit of a black box that's difficult to wrangle with.    The latest installment in franchise games can often be the victim of their own previous success and it appears that Civ V is no exception.

    Taken by itself, Civ 5 is a solid game. In a vacuum, I would say my biggest gripes are that the city-state system feels a bit unloved and leaves a lot to be desired. Additionally, diplomacy is a bit of a black box that's difficult to wrangle with. Plus sides are the level of complexity that allow for different playstyles and paths to victory that provide a lot of replayability.

    Compared to the other Civ games, I feel like the updates are a wash - things have become less complex, but I really appreciate the removal of the infamous stacks of doom we saw in Civ 4.

    Bottom line is, if you're a Civ freak, you might be disappointed with Civ 5 if you compare it to the previous installments. If you're a casual Civ fan, or have little-to-no familiarity with the series, you'll find Civ 5 to fun and engaging and offer you many hours of enjoyment.    … Expand
  17. TsukasaHiiragi
    Oct 9, 2015
    7
    Civilization V is the the best Civ game to date and its my favorite in the series, however that being said, there are some highly negative aspects to the game, and that is mainly because the A.I is programmed to cheat at higher difficulty settings instead of being programmed to adapt to player strategies, and this has been a problem since the very first Civilization games and hasn'tCivilization V is the the best Civ game to date and its my favorite in the series, however that being said, there are some highly negative aspects to the game, and that is mainly because the A.I is programmed to cheat at higher difficulty settings instead of being programmed to adapt to player strategies, and this has been a problem since the very first Civilization games and hasn't really improved that much - okay, at least the AI doesn't spawn/teleport nukes next to your cities in this one....but still....

    I'd really hope to see a really decent AI in a future game, something that is a challenge to the player, but without getting insane bonuses, or spawning instant units or more or less breaking the rules that the player is forced to follow - such as having extremely large armies whilst ignoring caps, happiness and upkeep or instantly building wonders when you have 1 or 2 turns left on building them yourself.

    Playing at higher difficulty settings the cheating starts to become obvious and heavily lets the game down - we've all witnessed it, there isn't any denying it. Even Firaxas themselves have openly admitted it that is just easier to program AI with bonuses and 'unseen' abilities working in the background to give the player more challenging gameplay, this is fine when its hidden and not openly obvious, and that is where Civilization V fails the most, because it is that obvious.

    Sid Meier//Firaxas - I openly dare you to create a proper adaptable AI for Civilization VI without resorting to these cheap AI tricks of the trade. Give us something that can best Civilization V -

    For new players to 4X games - Civilization V is the best of the best, but just be warned on its infamous AI.

    + Best turn-based strategy
    + Best in class 4X
    + Classic and loved franchise
    + High replayability

    - Poor AI
    - AI cheats at high difficulty settings    … Expand
  18. spasmoid
    Jul 5, 2011
    7
    Will moving civ towards a social game gain more loyal fans than it loses? Only time will tell. Civ 5 tries to innovate a bit more than being just an incremental civilization UI refresh, but the features get boring ratgher quickly. This is the first Civ game that I did not play 6+ hours the day I got it. Ia few hours then I lost interest. I try it again now and then but, I won't be buyingWill moving civ towards a social game gain more loyal fans than it loses? Only time will tell. Civ 5 tries to innovate a bit more than being just an incremental civilization UI refresh, but the features get boring ratgher quickly. This is the first Civ game that I did not play 6+ hours the day I got it. Ia few hours then I lost interest. I try it again now and then but, I won't be buying anymore civ stuff until the inevitable civ 6. The game mechanics have more of a casual game feel. Heck, I almost epected the city screens to have me play Gems with resources. City states are interesting, but otherwise Diplomacy is marginal. War is launching marching wave after wave onto a city. Archery and artillery was kind of neat at first, but couldn't carry the game. Worth a try if you can pick it up on sale or if you're new to the series. Not for me.… Expand
  19. dionissos
    Dec 31, 2011
    6
    I am fan of civilization franchise but i think this game is not the best of them and didn't has the same quality and deep gameplay of the previous games.
  20. Cruel100
    Jul 30, 2013
    3
    I've played all versions of civilization: Civ Dos, Civ II, Civ III, Civ, IV and all Civs expansions. Played Call to Power, C-Evo, Freeciv, too. By far this is the worst version already launched.
  21. Everyone
    Oct 18, 2010
    5
    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

    The good: Graphics are great, especially the diplomat renderings. The sound effects are mostly the same as old civ    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

    The good: Graphics are great, especially the diplomat renderings. The sound effects are mostly the same as old civ games, giving some nice nostalgic moments. The soundtrack list is huge. Combat is an enormous improvement over old games: the combination of hexagonal tiles, and no unit stacking makes it much more dynamic than previous Civ iterations. The bad: Simplification! Civs aren't action games. Civ players don't want action games. They want a cerebral experience that challenges them over and over again, each time they play. Firaxis has taken steps to streamline the experience that end up detracting from the game as a whole. Civ IV's religion and civic system is now a non-dynamic culture system, where you spend accumulated culture points for a once-off gameplay bonus. It is a step backwards. Diplomacy is terrible: the opaque system leaves you in the dark about what is going on. Want to enter a pact of secrecy? Uh, sure... I have no idea what that is!

    The ugly: The soundtrack! Civ4's soundtrack was a masterpiece. The choice to progress the time period of origin for music based on the age of your civilization lent a feeling of progression to the game, as you ushered your civilization from the ancient era, to the future era. In Civ5, the soundtrack is now based on the (real life) origin of your civilization, and further whether it is engaged in war or peace. While the song-list is enormous (possibly larger than Civ 4's), you'll find that if you play a mainly peaceful civilization, you listen to the same songs from 4000BC to 2050AD. The fact of the matter is this: after months of Civ4, I still loved the soundtrack. After a week of Civ5, the soundtrack had become repetetive to the point that I started muting it.

    The REALLY ugly: Remember how bad Civ4 used to tank your system when the AI was thinking during the later portions of the game? Remember how your computer would slow to a crawl for 20 seconds when you clicked 'next turn'? Civ5 is worse. By the 1800s, clicking 'next turn' becomes a dreaded thing: it means your computer will be out of commission for 30-60 seconds while the AI slogs through what it wants to do next. I find that post-1800AD, I typically spend more time reading stuff on my cell phone, or watching TV, than I do during my turns. It is bad enough that after playing through my first four or five full-length games, I had no desire at all to take another game into the later stages, as it was just tedious. Don't blame this on my system: it was built recently, and is more than capable.

    Add to this a large list of other bugs, such as(the camera wildly swinging around as the game auto-selects units available for action from across the map, even though it is already positioned directly over another such unit, and you have a game that wasn't ready for primetime. For the civilization series, 5 was a step forward, and multiple leaps backwards. If you have a hankering for a good game of civilization, fire up Civ4. You'll have a better time.

    On top of all of this is the single worst part of the game: the computer AI takes entirely too long to think on its turn. Civ4's early days had a similar problem, with the late-game turning into a slog-fest as clicking 'next turn' inevitably resulted in anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds of down-time during which your computer tanks to a crawl. By the end game, I typically find myself spending more time reading news on my cell phone than actually playing the game. As such, it got to the point where playing past 1800AD was more chore than fun. (Don't try to    … Expand
  22. emeraldstorm
    Jul 17, 2011
    6
    The days of plunking down $50 dollars for something in the Civilization series without thinking are over for me. As many of the other reviewers said, this game was just not ready to go. If it were a first release of Civ ever I'd give it much higher marks. But it's not. It's the 5th major version of the main game, and has had a ton of other manifestations, patches, add-ons, etc. Because ofThe days of plunking down $50 dollars for something in the Civilization series without thinking are over for me. As many of the other reviewers said, this game was just not ready to go. If it were a first release of Civ ever I'd give it much higher marks. But it's not. It's the 5th major version of the main game, and has had a ton of other manifestations, patches, add-ons, etc. Because of that, Civ 5 should be an embarrassment to the franchies. A new version of a game should build on the positive things in past versions. But there are features (particularly in the user interface) that are MISSING. They didn't bother to include a lot of the things (mostly little) that they included in *previous* versions. It's very difficult to get easily accessible information about profits and cities in a format that is intuitive and informative. It feels like one step forward and two steps back. It could be recoverable with some relatively minor fixes, but if they haven't done so yet, I doubt they are going to. As others have said, they lost their credibility with me on this game and the 'brand trust' has been eroded. -- I've raised my rating 2 since the last patch.… Expand
  23. Torger
    Sep 27, 2010
    6
    As a longtime fan of the series, I unfortunately have to say that Civ5 has been vastly overrated by professional reviewers. That's probably because the game looks great and the real flaws don't start to show up until after a few hours of play.

    There are certain things I really like about this game. City states were a great addition and make the game a lot more interesting. Being able    As a longtime fan of the series, I unfortunately have to say that Civ5 has been vastly overrated by professional reviewers. That's probably because the game looks great and the real flaws don't start to show up until after a few hours of play.

    There are certain things I really like about this game. City states were a great addition and make the game a lot more interesting. Being able to purchase land is awesome and realistic. Easier rushbuying is a lot of fun and doesn't unbalance the game.

    The new combat system is pretty goofy (for example, archers are a ranged unit but riflemen are not). It's a bit more fun than the old "stacks of doom," but I see reviewers praising the new combat system as "more streamlined" when it is definitely not. Moving an old stack of doom required 2 clicks (click on SOD, click on destination). Now you need to do the same thing 5-10 times as much to move an army.

    The new Civic talent tree offers more customization of specific traits, which is fun to plan around. However you can't swap civics to match a change in strategy in-game (eg. teching up at the beginning of the game and then turning to a warlike theocracy once you realize you're likely to lose the space race). This is disappointing. Overall, when Civ5's civics are compared to Civ4 its a wash. In-between-turn load times suck. On a normal size map in the modern age, I was sitting and watching the hourglass for an average of 15 seconds in between each turn--even when I wasn't watching animations of enemy moves. I'd blame my computer but it runs pretty much every other game at high settings without a hint of a problem.

    Music is bad, particularly the asian themed music. I can't believe they wasted time animating leaders and making them talk in their own languages. It doesn't add much to the game and some of their voices (Queen Elizabeth) actually detract from it by being annoying.

    The lack of science/gold/culture sliders takes away a lot of customization potential that was fun to tinker with in previous Civ games. This became painfully apparent when going for a cultural victory. A cultural victory doesn't require the last 25% of the tech tree, but you can't stop researching until you run out of money. And in the meantime, because you're still researching new tech, your puppet states are building more and more new buildings and costing you more money. And when you run out of money you can't do a LOT of things, like rush-build or more importantly buy luxury resources and establish good relations with city states that provide culture. Basically you lose the ability to do the things that make the game fun. This is especially frustrating when it have been so easily solved with the old-school sliders, which were never that difficult to manage in the first place. Overall, it's a good, but not great game. It reminds me of Civ3, in that it attempts to add interesting new game concepts and surprisingly flops at aspects in which its predecessor excelled. On the bright side, Civ4 did a great job of combining the best of Civ2 and Civ3, so hopefully history repeats itself and Civ6 will be awesome.    … Expand
  24. moonkies
    Oct 20, 2010
    6
    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

    I also appreciated the hex-grid and new battle system, but can please make the AI more LOGICAL and SMARTER in battle? I literal kill 15 units without damage 1 of my unit by defensing . I beat deity level within 60 hours.(I wasn't able to beat deity in civ4)    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

    I also appreciated the hex-grid and new battle system, but can please make the AI more LOGICAL and SMARTER in battle? I literal kill 15 units without damage 1 of my unit by defensing . I beat deity level within 60 hours.(I wasn't able to beat deity in civ4)

    This game is mediocre and didn't live up with the hype. I hope they will do better on the next expansion.    … Expand
  25. Ultimata
    Oct 13, 2010
    5
    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

    Civilization V fixes most of the problems that plagued    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

    Civilization V fixes most of the problems that plagued Civilization IV. Gone are the 'Stacks of Doom', outlawed by the '1 unit per tile' rule. Economies are again driven by the land, not by cottages or great people. Happiness has been consolidated to an economy-wide focus, rather than a city-centric focus, which saves time. Geographic constraints on city expansion have been relaxed. The largely pointless and annoying disease/nutrition system is gone. The combat system has been beefed up, with ranged units and squares replaced by hexes (why wasn't that part of Civ 1?). The need to check diplomacy every turn to trade techs efficiently has been replaced by a system of collaborative research agreements. And some entertainment has been added through single city states. These are all substantial leaps forward.

    The game fails because despite all of these improvements, I can attest after 80 hours of gameplay, it just isn't fun. The four fun-killers are:

    First, the focus has clearly moved towards military conquest. The AI declares war on you because it can - the United States wants to conquer Canada in CivVWorld. But the AI sucks at war. If you can build an army of 6 units you can hold off an infinite attack from an enemy civ. Build an army of 12 units and you can advance on 2 fronts, which is enough to win constant war against everyone. To be fair, Civ AI has ALWAYS made for a poor man's wargame, but that has never really been the point before (well maybe in Civ 3, but ...), rather the fun has come from building up the civ and watching it thrive. Which brings me to ...

    Second, foolish humans, such as my good self, have always enjoyed the Civ franchise because of the micro payoffs, the "just one more turns" ... This game shows all the hallmarks of squished or hurried design. Tech advances are greeted by quotes both less sage and delivered less compellingly than Leonard Nimoy's efforts in Civ IV. The tech payoffs are sometimes nonsensible - the technology of 'Telegraph' lets you build battleships, miltary based and Rio de Janeiro's Christo Redento. Stop. Most of the Great Wonders confer largely irrelevant advantages, which is perhaps why Firaxis got rid of the beautiful wonder movies and replaced them with inane pictures, so no more do you curse and punch the wall when some other civ beats you by 1 turn. And the rewards for victory ... well, I wouldn't want to spoil the disappointment for you. Game designers everywhere need to understand that if you play for 20+ hours to achieve some condition that they set, you expect some quid pro quo.

    Third, there are design flaws - things that clearly just don't work the way any sane person would make a game work. Such as the maritime city states that provide a quantum of food to each of your cities, no matter how many cities there are in your civilization. Or the 'bonus' resources you wish you didn't have so you could just build a farm. Or the fact that in 1820 you should still build cavalry spearman so you can upgrade them to knights, then rifle-armed cavalry, because the upgrade system is so cheap. Fourth, there are bugs. Lots of bugss. Suffice to say that when you've played a game for 20 hours pushing for a domination victory and then find you can't kill your last opponent because the 10 turn peace treaty you signed 200 turns ago is still in effect, you'll probably consign this game to the dustbin, as I did. I've know doubt these will be fixed in time. So wait before you buy.

    In summary, I see in this product noble efforts to improve on civ 4 that, on balance, failed. The game is less likely to keep me up until 4am pressing the 'Next turn' button than did Civ IV because I care less about my little baby civs then I used to, and find it more inane beating up on my supid enemies than in the past. Nice try Firaxis, but no good. Thumbs down.    … Expand
  26. Viper
    Oct 7, 2011
    5
    This game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the olderThis game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the older games, it takes few inventions in the later years to develop flight and eventually win through a space race. I have reinstalled Civilization IV with its expansion sets to really immerse in a realistic tech tree (and accept the fact of huge stacked armies).… Expand
  27. rant
    Oct 16, 2012
    3
    I've been a Civ addict since the first version, and I was excited when I heard this was coming out. Unfortunately, it's probably the worst game to ever bear the name. I don't know what was going on in the studio when it was being developed, but the result looks as if nobody involved had ever designed a strategy game before. They had some interesting ideas but they failed to implementI've been a Civ addict since the first version, and I was excited when I heard this was coming out. Unfortunately, it's probably the worst game to ever bear the name. I don't know what was going on in the studio when it was being developed, but the result looks as if nobody involved had ever designed a strategy game before. They had some interesting ideas but they failed to implement them. I don't like to post bad reviews, but I think they earned this one. It's pretty much the "strategy game for people who don't like strategy games". Superficial, clumsy design, bad AI (even worse than usual), it might be an interesting failure from a new studio, but it loses a couple of points due to the pedigree.… Expand
  28. Nmesk22
    Jul 23, 2011
    6
    Civilization V is a deep, refreshing take on the Civilization franchise. In past iterations the player needed to be diplomatic in order to rule the world. Oh, did I say deep and refreshing? Forgive me, I meant to say that Civilization V, in comparison to its predecessors, is shallow in game mechanics which ultimately left me regretful for not reading more reviews before the big purchase.Civilization V is a deep, refreshing take on the Civilization franchise. In past iterations the player needed to be diplomatic in order to rule the world. Oh, did I say deep and refreshing? Forgive me, I meant to say that Civilization V, in comparison to its predecessors, is shallow in game mechanics which ultimately left me regretful for not reading more reviews before the big purchase. Luckily I found Civ V on sale for about $20 dollars and that's just about what this game seems to be worth. Why Sid Meier and his teams left critical gameplay features on the cutting room floor escapes me. Religion, a major staple of the Civilization franchise, has been completely removed. Diplomacy consists of few clickable options such as trading, war, and "discussions," which truly only serves as a shortcut to the trading screen. However, Civilization V is not a hole-filled game.

    After playing several long matches on standard settings I will say that Civilization V picks up the slack of its former iterations. Cities are much harder to capture. They require the coordination of several units, all on the offensive against powerful city cannons that can brush away small forces. Military combat is much more streamlined; with hexagonal tiles and no unit stacking, smart tactical management of the player's units takes a major role in world dominance. Although combat is much improved, other methods of winning matches are shadowed by the polished combat systems. In every match I played, online and offline, I found that players and AI opt for the Dominance victory instead of the more peaceful options such as cultural or scientific victories. Towards the end of long games, many players will have a hefty income of gold and will be able to instantly purchase whole armies or buildings, easily turning the tide of a battle. Whether or not this option is a glorious feature or a mechanic hinderance still eludes me, perhaps some sort of penalty for abusing the new system could be set in place.

    Civilization V would have worked at a higher plane had it choose to adopt the micro mechanics of Civilization IV while keeping the new military system. Diplomacy definitely needs more depth; the detail of the different world leaders and their backdrops are fun and animated, but it's only the icing on a cake made from rocks.    … Expand
  29. zigazaga
    Nov 27, 2015
    2
    Having played a previous version of Civ, I thought this one might be an improvement. Sure, the graphics are nicer, but it still gets very boring very quickly. Build monument, build granary. Settler. Worker. Click - build, click - build. Annex city. Build armory, harbour, barracks etc. This unit is out of moves. Discover same technologies as last time. Picture of half naked man. He'sHaving played a previous version of Civ, I thought this one might be an improvement. Sure, the graphics are nicer, but it still gets very boring very quickly. Build monument, build granary. Settler. Worker. Click - build, click - build. Annex city. Build armory, harbour, barracks etc. This unit is out of moves. Discover same technologies as last time. Picture of half naked man. He's angry. I promise not to settle in your lands. Oh, no! It's war. Upgrade artillery unit. Hexagons. Wait your turn. Yawn. Exit to windows. Uninstall.… Expand
  30. OneVoice
    Nov 20, 2012
    6
    It's a good game, but just not nearly what Civ IV was (or Civ III for that matter). I've been playing Civ since the original was released many years ago, and have never been disappointed by anything the series has ever done. But once I played Civ V I became worried about the future of this series. Civ V has been dumbed down significantly from it's predecessors. It's a sad change.
  31. RedKey
    Mar 7, 2013
    2
    If this game was the first of a series I wouldn't rate it so low, but this is Civilization 5 not 1! The Civ series should be nearing perfection not becoming worse. Civ4 is a better game even without any of its expansions. I will break up the rest of my review into what Civ5 did better, different, and worse than Civ4.

    The only part of Civ5 game play that I found better than Civ4 was that    If this game was the first of a series I wouldn't rate it so low, but this is Civilization 5 not 1! The Civ series should be nearing perfection not becoming worse. Civ4 is a better game even without any of its expansions. I will break up the rest of my review into what Civ5 did better, different, and worse than Civ4.

    The only part of Civ5 game play that I found better than Civ4 was that there is a limited quantity of strategic resources like iron.

    Civ5 has some things that are different than Civ4. To me these things don't really make the game play better or worse, just different. City states, more ranged combat, hexes instead of squares, and updated graphics are examples.

    Now the list of things Civ5 does worse: 1 unit per tile (this one has a lot of repercussions on the pacing of the game), global happiness, the AI, less flexibility in your economy due to the removal or research/culture sliders, less flexibility in your government due to policies that last eternity rather than civics, removal of the health system with nothing to take its place, and probably many more things I'm forgetting at the moment.    … Expand
  32. Dozmo
    Oct 14, 2014
    6
    Oh dear. While the graphics have improved, many core gameplay elements have been changed from prior versions of the Civ series, and not typically for the better. For example, you can now only put one unit on each tile - which makes moving your army a massive chore compared to previous games. City-states also require a lot more micromanagement than previous games where you dealt only withOh dear. While the graphics have improved, many core gameplay elements have been changed from prior versions of the Civ series, and not typically for the better. For example, you can now only put one unit on each tile - which makes moving your army a massive chore compared to previous games. City-states also require a lot more micromanagement than previous games where you dealt only with the big empires. All in all, it feels like the game has been dumbed down, with too much focus on graphics over gameplay, relative to the previous titles in the series. If you haven't played strategy games before, you can try it. If you have, though, you're better off with Civ 4, or one of the older games in the series.… Expand
  33. Vayra
    Jul 15, 2013
    3
    As deep as its previous installments were, Civilization V in its original form simply does not deliver an experience that even remotely approaches the finesse of its prequels. While the hex tile change does add some freedom and depth, too many options have been removed and replaced with very uninteresting combat mechanics that, especially at endgame, result in a clickfest without any soulAs deep as its previous installments were, Civilization V in its original form simply does not deliver an experience that even remotely approaches the finesse of its prequels. While the hex tile change does add some freedom and depth, too many options have been removed and replaced with very uninteresting combat mechanics that, especially at endgame, result in a clickfest without any soul or body to it.

    Graphics 6/10 High detail but has various graphical glitches (such as terrain changes applying far too late).
    Sound 8/10 The soundtrack and fx add a lot to the experience of immersion and never annoy.
    Gameplay 5/10 Fun to play once or twice, tedious and boring after having seen the first few games you play. The AI is not up to scratch either and very easily defeated, even at high difficulty.
    Mechanics 1/10 Extremely lacking game mechanics that get worse as a game progresses along the tech tree late game virtually always results in mass nuking everyone, because every other option results in an endless, tedious clickfest to push through your turns and execute the attacks.

    Final note: the DLC's and expansions to this game, completely change the picture and fix most of its flaws.    … Expand
  34. BrightShadowA
    Nov 19, 2014
    5
    Let's be clear, I've been a fan of this franchise for a very long time now. I am a great fan of strategy games and relish playing against others. This game, despite being fascinating at first (It's a big change from civilization 4, whether that's a good thing or not will be discussed later in the comment) but very quickly, the only thrill you'll recieve from civilization 5 is from mods andLet's be clear, I've been a fan of this franchise for a very long time now. I am a great fan of strategy games and relish playing against others. This game, despite being fascinating at first (It's a big change from civilization 4, whether that's a good thing or not will be discussed later in the comment) but very quickly, the only thrill you'll recieve from civilization 5 is from mods and multiplayer.

    Multiplayer is fun, I've poured more than one thousand hours into it and quite enjoyed it. But it's sub par, and there is an extreme lack of innovation. Most reviewers usually review the single player game, and since that's the case I'll cover that segment first. Single player get's boring quick, the AI doesn't become much smarter in later difficulties and just cheats with higher perks. The game is unbalanced as hell and you can basically win any war against the AI no matter what difficulty or scenario. In the base game, there is no religion, no spying and relatively boring social policies (By the way, some of it is just poor thinking, there is absolutely NO reason why you don't grab some then the other). The game, at a glance is fun and quite friendly to new unexperienced players, but if your looking for a decent game as a down to heart civilization fan you will be disappointed.

    The DLC mongering is terrible, there are so many DLCs (some even demanding you pay 5$ for one civilization) Regrettebly, if you want to play with religion, tourism, spies, and so on you need pay over 60$! Don't even get me started by the "map packs" which are for some reason client side when it comes to multiplayer(Yes, if the host has a generation configuration that the players don't have, you can't play the game... It's not like the maps offer any new content that would make those who don't have the DLC incompatible)
    Diplomacy is shortsided, it's not much better then civilization 4, but there should be more innovation on civilization 5's part. City states can be useful in singleplayer, but sometimes actually get in the way of expansion. Speaking of which, I love the new city bombardment and health, but the health is way too overpowered. In late games units can't even touch a city, even when the city is completely surrounded.
    Now on to multiplayer; the multiplayer is basically what you should play for, the AI is blunt and uninteresting but even the multiplayer experience has it's own flaws. For one thing, when playing against others does the inbalances in the game show, some civilizations are overpowered, you can win early game wars by spamming ranged units (Yeah, warrior versus archer. Archer wins!) which completely defies strategic logic. Some resort to what we players call "turtling" and "wonder hoarding (the less vulgar version of the term) to address those who sit on their corner of the map with 1-2 cities and take all the wonders (Buildings that can only be built once in the world that give large bonuses) and beeline technologies. In the end, the people who just turtle and hit next turn win over those who actually try to play the game. Granted, turtling can be done legitimately (With none of the exploits or anything) but most don't really care about everyone else's game. There are many glitches, one that hasn't been fixed launch until AFTER their "Sid Meier's Beyond Earth" is released. The particular glitch I'm talking about was the "trade glitch" were people can basically demand and accept anything from another player (Pretty much everything they had) without the other player even having a say in the whole matter. That's just one of many glitches that Fireaxis appearently doesn't care about, as they fix that ONE glitch after the next game has been released (Thanks Fireaxis). The community on multiplayer, though some are legit, are mostly trolls, kids who are drawn by the increased simplicity, exploiters and those who will quit on a minutes notice. City states are abused, exploits are used... and I almost forgot... no MULTIPLAYER MOD SUPPORT. This angers me because independent modders have been able to do this unofficially, Firaxis has done this in the past and since mods fix and enhance the game it seems insane that they don't allow us multiplayer users to play with mods without a third party program. Even with DLCs (You pay more then double the price for original game for these) multiplayer and singleplayer is below average. Now, let me remind you, I love this game and I have played multiplayer vigorously but I am tired of the DLC mongering, the catering to simplicity, the lack of innovation, none of these problems EVER being addressed. I rarely ever finish a multiplayer game because people crash left and right late game (and sometimes early game), sometimes games freeze up randomly and other times the game crashes when one person experiences difficulty. To sum up, this game is not worth buying without mods or the overpriced and numerous DLCs. If you are new to the franchise I recommend you buy previous titles first.    … Expand
  35. whitepawn
    Jun 19, 2014
    5
    A classic example of trying to make up for lack of depth with high level graphics. So, it's pretty. Then what?

    CONS: Dumbed down, bigtime. Another example of catering to the post BC WoW crowd that whine about stuff being too hard. Like the foregone conclusion of helicopter mommies and the bubble wrap generation where kids now are raised to get everything for almost nothing, cuz    A classic example of trying to make up for lack of depth with high level graphics. So, it's pretty. Then what?

    CONS: Dumbed down, bigtime. Another example of catering to the post BC WoW crowd that whine about stuff being too hard. Like the foregone conclusion of helicopter mommies and the bubble wrap generation where kids now are raised to get everything for almost nothing, cuz they're special, right? Don't give my kid a markdown on her paper cuz she has excuses for the late turnin creates monsters. These monsters are affecting gaming in a bad way. /rantoff Seriously, CIv III and IV fans are going to cry after playing this game.

    No religion, corporations, fine tuning, etc.

    Culture on takeover doesn't make sense. I did breathe a sigh of relief on seeing the borders unchanged, but such a thing doesn't make sense. City flipping by culture is gone. Again, doesn't make sense.

    Diplomacy makes no sense. You can have good relations with someone only to have them scream at you the next turn for no known reason.

    Loss of discovery on mining sites. The mined resources are set, they don't deplete, ever, and you can never discover anything new elsewhere. Doesn't make sense.

    No armies. There is room here for the old 3 stack on a general, I think. Could add some complexity.

    PROS:

    Ranged combat. Done right.

    Non-stackable units. Allows for real tactics over, for example, China showing up with 70 endgame units on a single tile to attack a city in a single turn.

    City defense: Common sense addition. Adding structures like walls adds more to these defenses. A garrison, more defenses. Again, you cannot stack 70 units on a single tile, though one could argue more than 1 for the city, you have an option for 1. The inherent defenses of the city compensate for this though...and the city itself can fire a ranged barrage every turn.

    Navy: A powerful navy can take over coastal cities without any need of land units. Adds balance.

    REPLAYABILITY: Honestly, couldn't play a game through until the expansions. I got bored, even with an audiobook running. With III and IV losing half a day wasn't uncommon, this was a drag.    … Expand
  36. maximgorky
    Dec 11, 2014
    1
    Wow, what a complete snoozer. I really enjoyed the earlier versions of Civ which at least had the virtue of moving right along but this one, OMG, how utterly slow and un-fun. When I first started playing Civ it took me a couple of minutes to figure out how to get started and then to have fun while learning how to play. This sluggish piece of dreck took forever to do anything. I gave up,Wow, what a complete snoozer. I really enjoyed the earlier versions of Civ which at least had the virtue of moving right along but this one, OMG, how utterly slow and un-fun. When I first started playing Civ it took me a couple of minutes to figure out how to get started and then to have fun while learning how to play. This sluggish piece of dreck took forever to do anything. I gave up, let it gather dust and resurrected one of my old 32 bit machines so I could use that to play earlier versions.… Expand
  37. Adzmc
    Sep 26, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The short of it is: if you have, and like Civ IV BTS, then don't bother. The only people who don't think that this is major dumbing down of the series obviously just don't 'get' strategy games. I've played through two full games now, one marathon and one normal. I like to play Huge, Marathon, Earth maps because of the 'epic' feel. this virtually can't be done on CIV V. Marathon is simply too slow (my rig exceeds recommended specs and hasn't crashed once). City-states make ridiculous demands eg "build a road to my town (on the other side of the planet) and they get really old really fast. On normal it was a bit better, except there's no way of telling if your neighbours are happy with you, so it's easy to descend into bloodshed if you're not disciplined. The end screens on Civ IV were short little movie, depending on which victory you attained. Civ V doesn't even have this - it's more like a "Conglaturation!, you have completed a great game" screen, and that's it. Combat is better, but the dumbing down of naval invasions means it's really easy to snatch the enemy's capital from sea. Capture all the enemy capitals and you win the game. That is of course if your units don't get lost on the way. Civ V has a really annoying habit of 'losing' units. it's a bit like the Total War series, where you have the remember where your units are. Not cool if you come back to a game after a long break. Likewise their "goto" commands break when they embark, often leading to a huge build up of units on the wrong coast. Aerial combat isn't much better, animations for the planes don't play properly. The ranges of combat missions aren't clear. etc etc. It just doesn't 'feel' epic anymore.
    I'll be looking forward to the first patch for this game and expansion, but at the moment my advice is to steer clear, definitely not worth the $$$    … Expand
  38. gyrate
    Jul 21, 2013
    7
    This game in vanilla form is a middle finger to all Civ IV fans. After all the DLC are added it becomes a pretty nice game. You will need ton increase the difficulty level as they didn't do a good job with the AI.
  39. EvilxFish
    Nov 10, 2013
    4
    This game is an insult to the Civilization series, compared to Civilization 4 it lacks the depth of gameplay and has some serious balancing issues as well as containing AI that don't know how to play. As a stand alone game it isn't too brilliant either, with the game revolving around playing as the best civilizations and getting wonders which are overpowered the fastest. The rest of theThis game is an insult to the Civilization series, compared to Civilization 4 it lacks the depth of gameplay and has some serious balancing issues as well as containing AI that don't know how to play. As a stand alone game it isn't too brilliant either, with the game revolving around playing as the best civilizations and getting wonders which are overpowered the fastest. The rest of the features one would expect from a Civilization game were released in the form of DLC meaning the vanilla Civ 5 is an incomplete game. I do frequently play this online as my friends moved to it from other Civilization titles however we can agree this game is flawed. A terrible disappointment.… Expand
  40. Rome
    Sep 28, 2014
    0
    Civilization V was pure crap when it was released in 2010. And despite all it's expansions and pointless DLC's it is still utter crap.

    Civ 5 is a dumbed down arcade game. As the game progresses you find that nothing interesting really ever happens. Turn after turn of pointlessly pressing the end turn button. Every design decision seems to come from the developers wish to do stuff    Civilization V was pure crap when it was released in 2010. And despite all it's expansions and pointless DLC's it is still utter crap.

    Civ 5 is a dumbed down arcade game. As the game progresses you find that nothing interesting really ever happens. Turn after turn of pointlessly pressing the end turn button.

    Every design decision seems to come from the developers wish to do stuff differently and cater to the casual masses. The results is the mentioned dumbed downed piece of turd, which is no doubt loved by casual gamers around the globe.    … Expand
  41. redmike
    Oct 24, 2014
    2
    If you enjoyed Civ 4, this game is... not good. It continues the painful trend from Civ 3 of making you focus on smaller civilizations. Happiness is hard to understand, the units look all the same, and the game is slow... Stick to Civ 4.
  42. K1ller
    Oct 3, 2010
    6
    Simplified so a chimapnzee can play it, full of bugs and crashes, it is the worst of all Civ games. One leader for each nation? So if you want to play a specific nation, but do not like the leader traits, you are screwed. One unit per tile? Nice idea until the map is full of spawned units blocking each other's way. And how the is it possible for another empire units to come through mySimplified so a chimapnzee can play it, full of bugs and crashes, it is the worst of all Civ games. One leader for each nation? So if you want to play a specific nation, but do not like the leader traits, you are screwed. One unit per tile? Nice idea until the map is full of spawned units blocking each other's way. And how the is it possible for another empire units to come through my units as the are not there? How are we suppose to protect our city states at war with another major when not beiing at war witht the said major?… Expand
  43. Ghostrider
    May 11, 2011
    3
    Huge disappointment.

    I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago. It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable. 1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to    Huge disappointment.

    I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago.

    It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable.

    1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to raze all enemy cities except capitals (that you can't raze) because I just couldn't afford the extra population (even as puppet cities). by the modern ages most of the map consisted of unworked, uninhabited land where barbarians roamed. Even if I didn't go for conquest and wouldn't burn the cities there still would be tons of unused land.

    2) the game is slow. There is little to do and whatever you do is snail slow. Computer turns take forever despite my rig having latest gen CPU, 8GB of RAM and SSD.

    3) AI is terrible. computer players don't take advantage of the new combat system (which is great by the way). You can have an unprotected archer slowly killing off a warrior from a distance with warrior making no attempts to attack your archer. Dumb!

    4) Diplomacy is a random mess

    5) all nice concepts from Civ 4 like religion, corporations, espionage are gone.

    The only improvements are hexagon tiles and one unit per tile limit. But it doesn't nearly outweigh all the disadvantages listed above.

    Mr. Sid Meyer, I'm very disappointed.    … Expand
  44. Tridus
    Sep 29, 2010
    6
    Civ 5 starts off awesome. The graphics are great, the new combat mechanics are cool, and there's lots of neat things to explore...

    Then you start getting good at it. The empire building aspect is shallower then it was in Civ 4. There's less to build. There's incentive for building a lot of cities but not letting them grow. You can buy most of your food from city states if you want to, and    Civ 5 starts off awesome. The graphics are great, the new combat mechanics are cool, and there's lots of neat things to explore...

    Then you start getting good at it. The empire building aspect is shallower then it was in Civ 4. There's less to build. There's incentive for building a lot of cities but not letting them grow. You can buy most of your food from city states if you want to, and come out ahead by just spamming trading posts. You notice that only a few Wonders are really worth their cost, let alone the difficulty in building them when the AI gets building speed boosts on higher difficulty.

    Combat is awesome, except that the AI is REALLY BAD at it. Once you know how to use rivers, hills, great generals, and ranged attacks strategically, you will dismantle armies significantly larger without difficulty.

    That's the problem here. The AI is bad and it makes the game really easy once you know how to play it. The shallower nature of the game means there's less fun without a challenging AI to push you.

    The game isn't bad, and if you're not a Civ fanatic you will probably find a lot to like. But for the people who are good at the TBS genre and Civ in particular, there won't be much to hold your attention over Civ 4.    … Expand
  45. TotalNyan
    Jul 22, 2012
    8
    Having never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was prettyHaving never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was pretty enjoyable and provides a lot of play time for your money. It must be said that the steamworks modding system is really good and some of the mods are useful and others change the game enough to keep it interesting.… Expand
  46. czajmen
    Nov 7, 2011
    5
    I like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build aI like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build a atomic bomb. Playing with more people is better, but sill a average.… Expand
  47. Zeeshan-Abid
    May 29, 2015
    0
    I have been playing Civilization series since 1998. Didn't play Civ 1 too much, but since Civ 2, I stuck to the game. I even played Call to Power by Activision (which were deviations from Sid Meier games, but had the same game concept). I bought Civ 3 twice. Civ 4 became my most favorite game. For Civ 5, I bought a new computer, and had a new graphic card. Honestly, I could never believeI have been playing Civilization series since 1998. Didn't play Civ 1 too much, but since Civ 2, I stuck to the game. I even played Call to Power by Activision (which were deviations from Sid Meier games, but had the same game concept). I bought Civ 3 twice. Civ 4 became my most favorite game. For Civ 5, I bought a new computer, and had a new graphic card. Honestly, I could never believe that I would be writing a bad review for a Sid Meier's game. I loved almost every game by them. And I tried very hard to like Civ 5, but I could not. This game is simply not the usual 'Addictive' tag that all the civilization games had.

    Civ 5 is not a game of the series, made for the fans of the series. Off course, it can be fun for many others. But the people who enjoyed 'Strategy' in terms of empire management, this game is a simple piece of trash. In Civ games you usually made the decisions based on the situation. In this game, you would have to build a simple chain of tactics, and once you would have that, you would be repeating that for almost every game. It's all based on the gaining 'Bonuses' by selecting different options. Once you know which bonuses are better than others, nothing would be anymore 'Optional'. No strategy, no tactics.

    The only place this game tries to excel is the war tactics. However, even in that it fails miserably. In the early game it gives you a feel of fun to play one unit on a hex tile. But after middle age, and mainly in late ear, when you have enough troops, managing them becomes a real problem. The game gets too boring if you're not at war. And if you're at war, it becomes simply irritating. With civilization game, I want to play an empire building/management game, and not a war tactics game. I can play lots of games much superior on war tactics.

    I know most of the Civ fans would not listen to me and would still try this game. But in the end, they will also quit the series. So sad, as we all all loved this series greatly.    … Expand
  48. Seraphael
    Nov 1, 2010
    6
    Civilization V has promise, but is ultimately a very flawed game riddled with bugs and poor or even unfinished implementations. Coupled with sluggish performance on decent computers, my advice would be to stay clear of the game until it can be patched to a decent level. Check back in in 6 months or more.

    5.0 out of 10.0.
  49. JesusHKriest
    Mar 14, 2011
    6
    I think Civilization 5 is an okay game by itself, but if you compare it to Civilization 4 it... yeah. To sum it up as best as I can, I think Civilization 5 is just "dumbed down" a bit. You don't have to focus on as many things, religions were completely removed from the game, and hexagon upgrades were way more obvious. Speaking of hexagons, I absolutely hate the hex system. It means youI think Civilization 5 is an okay game by itself, but if you compare it to Civilization 4 it... yeah. To sum it up as best as I can, I think Civilization 5 is just "dumbed down" a bit. You don't have to focus on as many things, religions were completely removed from the game, and hexagon upgrades were way more obvious. Speaking of hexagons, I absolutely hate the hex system. It means you have way less plots of land available per city, which took away a lot of the fun. The city-state system was a little lame too; I didn't want to have to bother dealing with greedy and disobedient city-state allies when I could just conquer them and use them and their land for myself. The AI has some of the same, if not worse, problems that Civ 4 had. Why in the world my best ally spontaneously decides to declare war on everyone, including myself, is beyond me. The expansions for Civ 4 were definitely worth it on Steam when you could get Civ 4 + all expansions for like, 20 USD/Euros, but Civ 5's DLC that adds just one civilization choice makes me want to vomit. Honestly, most games of this current era tend to "dumb down" their gameplay, but the Civilization series is all about strategy.… Expand
  50. AlekKolchak
    Apr 12, 2011
    6
    With the fifth series the developers made some radical changes for the civilization series, including some bold new choices. I spent a long time playing the game before commenting as it is difficult to review a classic franchise. The best improvement is the combat system. Combat is now on a hex system. One army per hex. Ranged units can fire from hexes away but are generally weaker fromWith the fifth series the developers made some radical changes for the civilization series, including some bold new choices. I spent a long time playing the game before commenting as it is difficult to review a classic franchise. The best improvement is the combat system. Combat is now on a hex system. One army per hex. Ranged units can fire from hexes away but are generally weaker from attack, making the organization of your army critical. Non fast units move as fast like scouts in prior game (2 hexes over open ground, 1 hex over rough terrain), which makes terrain important. One bad change, and a baffling design choice, is the UI. In Civ 4 the UI told you everything you needed to know. You could tell how you were doing in points, and could hold your pointer over a resource to instantly know how many you have. No longer, for some reason. Advisors are back, but they only give general advice that most experienced civ players should already know. They are not an adequate replacement for Civ 4's excellent information screens. Cities take much more time to produce both buildings and units. Which means you must be selective about what you build. I can see why this was done, but the effect is that the game feels much slower than its predecessors. Happiness is now an empire wide trait. Instead of having happy and unhappy cities, every city has an equal amount of happiness which rises and falls together. Unfortunately, this means that a game of conquest and annexing conquered cities (which is now much harder, as cities take several turns to fall and can defend themselves with ranged attacks) can cripple your entire kingdom. This also slows down the game. I'd give this game a hesitant recommendation. I would also strongly advise having a very fast hard drive if you wish to play on any map beyond the smallest.… Expand
  51. julian_zizzle
    Oct 8, 2011
    6
    I have been playing strategy games (rts and turn based) ever since Age of Empires 2. I prayed god like a thousand times to finally see a game which is as good as my old and beloved Age of Mythology. And civilization 5 was no exception on this. This game grabs you with a weird kind of addiction if you start playing. You may sit to play this for 30 minutes and find out that 2 hours areI have been playing strategy games (rts and turn based) ever since Age of Empires 2. I prayed god like a thousand times to finally see a game which is as good as my old and beloved Age of Mythology. And civilization 5 was no exception on this. This game grabs you with a weird kind of addiction if you start playing. You may sit to play this for 30 minutes and find out that 2 hours are already passed. But the important part is the Civilizations actually have no difference than the other in particular. This makes the game really basic in variety. For godsake the only difference Between Aztecs and French are 1 different unit for each and 1 more unit/building if you are in luck. And uh there is also 1 more bonus between any 2 countries(For example Aztecs get some culture bonus for each enemy units they killed). I don't study history but even i can tell you at least 10 difference between the Aztecs and French People. This game really needs some more variation.… Expand
  52. dprkforum
    May 22, 2012
    5
    Civilization V attempted something grand, and lost its way. While the game has wonderful graphics, hex grid, and intense battles, there is much to be desired. Depth was simply stripped away for a more action-based experience. This game never felt like a grand strategy game to me. Hopefully, the new expansion pack will address some of the shortcomings, but in my opinion, it is too little, too late.
  53. steevm
    Mar 30, 2012
    0
    You've probably already noticed that loads of Civ fans are unhappy with Civ V. I'm one of them. I bought Civilization I on release, and every other version since. Civ V is the first one that I can't even begin to enjoy. It's a massive step backwards. It's basically no longer Civilization, but some weird war game without any of the depth that made all the previous versions fun to play andYou've probably already noticed that loads of Civ fans are unhappy with Civ V. I'm one of them. I bought Civilization I on release, and every other version since. Civ V is the first one that I can't even begin to enjoy. It's a massive step backwards. It's basically no longer Civilization, but some weird war game without any of the depth that made all the previous versions fun to play and saw the series progress with each iteration. If anything, Civ V is kinda like Civ I in that it essentially removes all the additions to the series in between. Except that Civ I was actually fun to play and gave you the feeling of building a "Civilization to stand the test of time". This is a monstrosity not worthy of the name. I definitely won't be purchasing Civ VI in blind faith - and I never thought that I'd say that about a Civ game! Please Sid/Firaxis: focus on what made the Civ series so great - the "interesting decision paradigm". If you want to make a war game, by all means do, but then don't call it Civilization.… Expand
  54. Chaosmaker
    May 10, 2012
    5
    I have played all Civilization titles from day one. With each new one, we were offered a steady (yes) upgrade of quality and experience - I was brilliant at its time, but II introduced new things, III even more, and IV was clearly the pinnacle. Yes, you can see where it comes to...

    I mean - V feels as an inferior one to IV in almost all things. Religions are gone. Science is now just    I have played all Civilization titles from day one. With each new one, we were offered a steady (yes) upgrade of quality and experience - I was brilliant at its time, but II introduced new things, III even more, and IV was clearly the pinnacle. Yes, you can see where it comes to...

    I mean - V feels as an inferior one to IV in almost all things. Religions are gone. Science is now just linked to population, no game of balancing the budget. Diplomacy is worse. Diplomacy with city states is just laughable in its stupid simplicity (you just pay cash to buy points, straightforward as that). Gone is the choosing of governments - you get to keep all civics earned to the end of time, eliminating deep play and any resemblance to real governments. Combat is actually worse than in IV - one unit per tile! Gone are the Stacks of Doom, say hello to the Carpet of Doom! Land units become weak transports at sea - but no convoys - one unit per tile! And cities just defend themselves like some damn forts. Ridiculous! And - one leader per civ. Not even multiple DLCs change that.

    There are however a few things done good. Hex tiles are nice. Border spread is better, one tile not entire range, and you can buy land. Ranged bombardment is back - though I don't get it how riflemen can't have it while archers do. Graphics are noticeably better. Great people can build special improvements on tiles, and this is quite neat.

    Gameplay is even interesting, but seriously lacking the full depth of previous titles. In itself, it is not a completely bad game, hence score of 5. But after playing it once, I can hardly come back to it. I can safely recommend it to people who didn't play previous titles or thought they were too complex - they will have quite a fun with this title. But old veterans like me will feel disappointed, and frankly - rightly so.    … Expand
  55. MayhemMike83
    Mar 23, 2013
    6
    I'm a big fan of the Civ series but this one is the first civ game that bored me after only a couple of hours. Tons of dlc but no innovation, odd new combat mechanics (1 unit per hex but the maps are too small), a lot of missing features from the old games, less management,....

    Feels like a "Civ Light" for newcomers to the genre
  56. mikhail_lem
    Nov 17, 2012
    6
    Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing,Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing, since it encourages tactical thinking instead of just sending the infamous "Stacks of Doom" and watching things burn. The graphics look awesome, yeah, but I would have sacrificed the eye candy for some gameplay depth. In a nutshell: If you liked Civ4, odds are you won't like this.… Expand
  57. lach1223
    Nov 7, 2013
    9
    I particularly enjoyed the additions to Civilization V. The introduction of city states adds a layer of depth to the game. You can develop alliances with them and this can result in them giving you free units, or you can fight with them. The interface is also much cleaner in Civilization V, with the exact level of happiness and culture produced clearly displayed. The graphics have alsoI particularly enjoyed the additions to Civilization V. The introduction of city states adds a layer of depth to the game. You can develop alliances with them and this can result in them giving you free units, or you can fight with them. The interface is also much cleaner in Civilization V, with the exact level of happiness and culture produced clearly displayed. The graphics have also been vastly improved, with terrain surfaces looking highly detailed and vibrant, especially the water which reflects the sunlight. The sound effects and music is also good, although I did prefer the Leonard Nimoy voice overs in Civilization IV than the voice overs in Civilization V. Some of the gameplay mechanic changes have drastically altered the tactical aspects of the game. Having only one unit on a tile encourages more tactical unit placement rather than just mass unit rushes like you can do in Civilization IV. The capture mechanics of cities is also better with cities having a health rating. I also like the fact that cities can bombard nearby units, and this is especially useful in counteracting annoying barbarian attacks.… Expand
  58. Demonac
    Sep 21, 2013
    5
    Good: The game is a fun game. Right off the bat. It's fun, and addicting like all of the other Civ games. Graphics are great (they don't make or break a game, but it's still nice that the game at least looks good). Also, hexagon tiles are far superior to squares in terms of tactical game play.

    The medium: Combat is both good and bad. The good news is that combat is much more    Good: The game is a fun game. Right off the bat. It's fun, and addicting like all of the other Civ games. Graphics are great (they don't make or break a game, but it's still nice that the game at least looks good). Also, hexagon tiles are far superior to squares in terms of tactical game play.

    The medium: Combat is both good and bad. The good news is that combat is much more strategic, and is based on chance anymore. The bad news is that the AI doesn't know how to use 1 unit per tile!!! This makes the AI so easy to just destroy.

    The Bad: And that's another horrifying aspect of this game, the ai. Unless you are a new guy to the series, or are playing like in Deity, if you lose, you probably screwed something up horribly. Also, the game seems WAY too over simplified, and there aren't as many features to shape the way you want your empire to be run as there were in Civ 4! Now, this is fixed in 2 expansions (plus the AI is way better), but the fact that you have to buy two expansion packs to make a below average game turn into an amazing strategy game is highway robbery.    … Expand
  59. asfj
    Apr 18, 2014
    6
    Not replayable. Why? because, except for their leader appearances and city overviews, all civs are almost the same, same improvement, same policy, same research, same army... After knowing this fact, you will know how hollow this game is and no any desire to play the game again using other civs.
    In addition, the battle part is indeed the game's weakness, you have to control every army one    Not replayable. Why? because, except for their leader appearances and city overviews, all civs are almost the same, same improvement, same policy, same research, same army... After knowing this fact, you will know how hollow this game is and no any desire to play the game again using other civs.
    In addition, the battle part is indeed the game's weakness, you have to control every army one by one and see their laggy animations. When in later game, this is more disturbing so that I just gift most of them to city states.
    IMO, This game is about parameters balancing (you play with numbers), mainly food, culture, science, gold and fairy. you control them by actions, mainly building, diplomacy, research and policy. And you enjoy how wonderful values you can achieve.
    So, if you prefer more direct stimulation like graphics diversity in many RTS games, Civ is not for you. In graphics, Civ looks very repetitive. The difference between civs are distinct parameter enhancing.    … Expand
  60. Novelist
    Dec 11, 2013
    5
    It's an undeveloped game. It misses all the fun parts of the "Civilization" games such as technology trading and religion. Including city-states to the game is interesting, but the fact that you can't see the relations between different civs is depressing and frustrating.
  61. sandutter
    Jan 30, 2016
    0
    I loved Civ 1 (yes, 1). After that, things started to go wrong. I've tried several later versions, but to me, the 3D view is horrible. It just doesn't give you the overview that makes it enjoyable. Another thing with Civ5 is that it's so SLOW. I spent 2 hours trying to capture a tiny city-state with like 8 cannons. I think it must have been a bug, but what does it matter. It's a lousyI loved Civ 1 (yes, 1). After that, things started to go wrong. I've tried several later versions, but to me, the 3D view is horrible. It just doesn't give you the overview that makes it enjoyable. Another thing with Civ5 is that it's so SLOW. I spent 2 hours trying to capture a tiny city-state with like 8 cannons. I think it must have been a bug, but what does it matter. It's a lousy game. And oh yeah, you can no longer control your city's economy, i.e. relocate tile production. The whole thing is boring, slow, confusing, idiotic, completely forgettable...… Expand
  62. LongSlayer
    Aug 6, 2014
    9
    Sid Meier's Civilization V can be summed up in one word: addicting. I find it extremely difficult to pull myself away from this game at most times, and I end up playing for hours upon hours. It's exhilarating to choose a civilization and try to dominate the other opposing civilizations. Whether winning by cultural, domination, diplomatic, or science victory, it's all really fun. It's aSid Meier's Civilization V can be summed up in one word: addicting. I find it extremely difficult to pull myself away from this game at most times, and I end up playing for hours upon hours. It's exhilarating to choose a civilization and try to dominate the other opposing civilizations. Whether winning by cultural, domination, diplomatic, or science victory, it's all really fun. It's a great experience to see your civilization explore the area, meet new civilizations and city-states, and fight off barbarians, as they grow and technologically advance from ancient times to modern times. Multiplayer can be really fun, but it's almost impossible to finish a game because either the random people you get paired up with leave the game right away or everyone gets disconnected, so it can be frustrating at times. This is a fantastic game but also addicting so beware.… Expand
  63. Derringer
    Jun 28, 2015
    1
    You ruined this game!

    Its almost impossible to reach the scientific victory from the Prince difficulty & above, Also the 2050 Time Victory (If nobody achieve any kind of victory the one who has more points instantly win at turn 300) is a F***** BS! Besides, You cant manage your culture and religion like CIV IV. You cant trade maps or technologies with other players. So tell me exactly    You ruined this game!

    Its almost impossible to reach the scientific victory from the Prince difficulty & above, Also the 2050 Time Victory (If nobody achieve any kind of victory the one who has more points instantly win at turn 300) is a F***** BS! Besides, You cant manage your culture and religion like CIV IV. You cant trade maps or technologies with other players. So tell me exactly how this game could have the merit to call itself "The V game of the franchise" if it is worst than the others?    … Expand
  64. ully
    Oct 25, 2014
    6
    This game is alright. It lacks the complexity of the full Civ V with all DLC. This means it will improve with DLC which will be really expensive so thanks 2K
  65. Jumbles69
    Apr 14, 2015
    6
    CIV1 was the best game ever made! Until CIV2, then CIV3 and CIV4 (however I miss my throne room and palace from the earlier iterations.
    CIV5 looks great, however lacks the single biggest facet of realism, that all the previous iterations provided. Distance. There are so many different civilizations on our planet and they are brilliantly diverse. By allowing every nation to travel across    CIV1 was the best game ever made! Until CIV2, then CIV3 and CIV4 (however I miss my throne room and palace from the earlier iterations.
    CIV5 looks great, however lacks the single biggest facet of realism, that all the previous iterations provided. Distance. There are so many different civilizations on our planet and they are brilliantly diverse. By allowing every nation to travel across water in Civ5, so early and so easily in the game, there is no diversity. Everyone grows and learns at the same rate.
    The early Mayans were one of the most advanced cultures on the planet and then the Greeks and romans, further down the tracks the English where it was said the sun never set on the empire.
    All of these were achievable in all earlier versions of the game. Now, you cannot, in any way provide the single greatest part of being human, diversity. In CIV5 its everyone, at the same technological level (or ridiculously close to it), for eternity. No religious path, no progressive path and no dark ages.
    While the game is pretty, has nice no stacking dynamics and makes even the fastest system chug under its behemoth of calculation, there is no way to be any different to any one else.
    I've clocked hundreds of hours playing each version of Civilization, though after 40 playing this, I wish I'd never bought it. I've tried so hard to enjoy it, but once you've played it once, nothing ever changes    … Expand
  66. JimmerSD
    Apr 24, 2011
    4
    Like many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available inLike many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available in older versions that are just plain missing here. I have also run into a number of massive technical issues ranging from the game over stressing my GTX465 to random lockups and crashes. There is a whole series of complaints about these issues and hopefully they will be repaired without requiring that I reach deep for another purchase.

    Based on my experience so far; if Civilization VI were offered tomorrow, I wouldn't buy it .    … Expand
  67. Lavres
    Apr 26, 2011
    5
    Too much bugs in this game!. In Big maps is impossible to finish due to recurrent crash. It's fun, but too frustrating when you couldn't load a game in turn 400. I hope that Sid Meier fix the game!
  68. Ulnari
    Feb 3, 2012
    2
    The lead designer of Civ5, Jon Shafer, made a lot of changes to the game mechanics of previous versions, in order to make the game more simple, stylish, and streamlined. Hex tiles, less roads (due to maintenance costs), one unit per tile (1UPT), global happiness, no religions, no change of policies, less tech/no tech trading. Unfortunately the many changes are badly integrated, and makeThe lead designer of Civ5, Jon Shafer, made a lot of changes to the game mechanics of previous versions, in order to make the game more simple, stylish, and streamlined. Hex tiles, less roads (due to maintenance costs), one unit per tile (1UPT), global happiness, no religions, no change of policies, less tech/no tech trading. Unfortunately the many changes are badly integrated, and make the game feel rushed and boring.… Expand
  69. Hobbamock
    Nov 5, 2010
    3
    The game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a poorThe game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a poor marketing decision. A unique game name should've been applied, for example "Civilization: Reborn" or something like that. That would've indicated to us experienced Civilization gamers that the game is totally different and to expect big changes.… Expand
  70. Purplepeanut1
    Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Since i was 6 i've been playing Civilzation and Civilization V is the best and easiest for me to use (so far). It may be because i was younger and not able to fully understand the keyboard a few years ago but i find Civilization V easy to control and i really enjoy playing it.
  71. haileris2
    Sep 11, 2011
    5
    Civilization - Lite Edition is what I call this. If you want the complexity of the last games look elsewhere. If you want a turn based strategy game with average to poor AI and the depth of the shallow end of the paddling pool then this will be just for you!
  72. JaguarXJ6
    Nov 23, 2012
    5
    I can't recommend this Civ game. In the franchise, great steps were made to separate this from previous games with new concepts from hex, unit stacking, graphics, social policies, and city states. These succeed in creating new challenges for the player and add to the military strategy game. However, what the game does not deliver is an adaquate AI that fails at even the simplest of tasks.I can't recommend this Civ game. In the franchise, great steps were made to separate this from previous games with new concepts from hex, unit stacking, graphics, social policies, and city states. These succeed in creating new challenges for the player and add to the military strategy game. However, what the game does not deliver is an adaquate AI that fails at even the simplest of tasks. For example, an automated worker in an unhappy, fledgling empire at game start will not attempt build immediately on resource one tile from the capitol to connect it. Increasing difficulty beyond King (L6) doesn't incorporate new AI routines, it simply handicaps the player by huge bonuses for production, happiness, science, and gold output for all AI players. I have over 200 hours into this Civ with another 500+ for Civ4 and another 500+ hours for every Civ incarnation before it. Even if purchased on a Steam sale, it doesn't overcome the disappointment at the lack of re-playability compared to previous Civs. The game can be fun at times, but those moments of enjoyment are too rare. Like a tribal hut, you get the immediate sense of reward and that is about as good as it gets as the game goes back to tedium of micro-management to overcome a weak AI.… Expand
  73. Shaitan87
    Apr 7, 2012
    4
    I tried this game again after about 14 months, waste of my time. I am extremely disappointed the flawed gameplay mechanics are still around, I am even more disappointed about the technical bugs. There is no reason that my cursor should disappear in a section of city management after 18 months of release, It should support dual monitors, my cities shouldn't disappear occasionally, II tried this game again after about 14 months, waste of my time. I am extremely disappointed the flawed gameplay mechanics are still around, I am even more disappointed about the technical bugs. There is no reason that my cursor should disappear in a section of city management after 18 months of release, It should support dual monitors, my cities shouldn't disappear occasionally, I shouldn't have red sprites appear, etc etc. I think these things are the biggest proof of what a failure this game is. People argue that the gameplay is well done and thought out, if they thought so they would have completed the rest of their game. If an Indie game had this many issues a couple months after release it would be unacceptable, for a series with this much renown to suffer from these types of bugs 18 months after release is completely unacceptable. I am in the camp of never buying another firaxis/2k game on day one, I'm going to wait for extensive reviews before I purchase one. I think this is an extremely good example of how ridiculous critic reviews are, for this to be one of the highest rated games of all time is shameful.… Expand
  74. e_k
    Sep 26, 2010
    6
    **If you've played, and enjoyed, the previous installments, you may be disappointed.** The changes that are neutral or positive are : ditching the religion (neutral) and corporation elements (good), a hex-based grid (good), full ranged warfare (good), end of roads-everywhere (good). The changes that are negative are: 'embarking' where almost any unit can cross water without the need for a**If you've played, and enjoyed, the previous installments, you may be disappointed.** The changes that are neutral or positive are : ditching the religion (neutral) and corporation elements (good), a hex-based grid (good), full ranged warfare (good), end of roads-everywhere (good). The changes that are negative are: 'embarking' where almost any unit can cross water without the need for a ship, incomplete information regarding your diplomatic relations, a simplified tech-tree. These and other tweaks make the game 'smaller' in it's feel. (There are also some oddities - e.g., great person buildings are now built outside of the city, and are harvested like any other resource). Somehow, even on larger maps and longer duration games, it doesn't feel as absorbing as the previous versions did. Sure - the 'stack of doom' is now gone, but defending against such a force was a drama of its own, and doesn't result in the strange mechanic that only one unit can be stationed in a city (which makes it feel more like a board-game then an empire simulation). Overall, I am sure this is a good game, but it has to be compared to Civ IV, which was excellent. And in that comparison it fails. My guess is that future expansions may address some of these issues.… Expand
  75. goshnya
    Sep 28, 2010
    5
    Unfortunately, this is yet another case of "let's release the game now, and patch it later." The AI is, frankly, incomplete, the game is unstable, and some selections in the options menu don't even work. This will undoubtedly become a great game once it's patched and the modders do their magic -- the same happened to Civ 4. However, even hardcore fans like me will be disappointed by theUnfortunately, this is yet another case of "let's release the game now, and patch it later." The AI is, frankly, incomplete, the game is unstable, and some selections in the options menu don't even work. This will undoubtedly become a great game once it's patched and the modders do their magic -- the same happened to Civ 4. However, even hardcore fans like me will be disappointed by the state the game is currently in.… Expand
  76. Mr_HatNClogs
    Aug 9, 2011
    7
    It was good......when I got it to work - which took forever!

    But when I say "good"....not as good as Civilization 4 - not as good as beyond the sword either, it has a lot of the strategy and abilities removed, and to be honest, it is in essence a prettier dumbed down version of Civ 4, it isn't as good as Civ 4 - which is a game I did enjoy, albieit it was a very buggy game I was    It was good......when I got it to work - which took forever!

    But when I say "good"....not as good as Civilization 4 - not as good as beyond the sword either, it has a lot of the strategy and abilities removed, and to be honest, it is in essence a prettier dumbed down version of Civ 4, it isn't as good as Civ 4 - which is a game I did enjoy, albieit it was a very buggy game I was enjoying.

    All in all - you can buy this game, but don't go in expecting much revolution from the older Civ games - and certainly don't go in expecting it to be as good as those Civ games - it's good, but not THAT good    … Expand
  77. Gamed2long
    Mar 8, 2013
    1
    If you haven't played another civilization game before and are looking to start I suggest you go out and buy Civ 4. Its significantly better than this one. I was amazed when I first saw the graphics of this game. They are beautiful and seamless. I also liked the idea of resource scarcity where an iron supply can allow you to build up to 5units. (For example) In Civ 4 once you have theIf you haven't played another civilization game before and are looking to start I suggest you go out and buy Civ 4. Its significantly better than this one. I was amazed when I first saw the graphics of this game. They are beautiful and seamless. I also liked the idea of resource scarcity where an iron supply can allow you to build up to 5units. (For example) In Civ 4 once you have the critical resource there is no incentive for you to get another one of it. You'd have to be stupid to trade it and so except for the shield bonus it goes to waste. I was unsettled by the move to hexagonal tiles and the no unit stacking. Also cities acting as their own (Flawed it turns out) defense. However I found all 3 changes tolerable and even enjoyable for a time. I like the move to range units however what unit is "ranged" seems kind of arbitrary. The fact that two units can attack each other for a few turns without utter destruction of one in a way compensates for the lack of "stack".

    The main thing however that I cannot abide is the dumbed down gameplay. I only played 1 game on medium difficulty. Won with the top score. And uninstalled the game knowing I never want to do that again. There was no challenge to it. Worse it felt like the game was steering. To do modestly well I needed only to click whatever was flashing and do the suggested thing. Same with suggested buildings/units. It was the difference between strategizing and being the guy who says "I approve this message".

    Due to the lack of stack it is quite easy to gang up on individual units making military conquest quite easy. Even when you are the supposed underdog. While I initially enjoyed the city states they quickly turned into an annoyance always demanding gold or new things to stay payed off and under my influence. I started wiping them out to build my empire and was glad I did. Even though it did mean they ganged up on me and all declared war. Nothing came of it. Just more cities for me. I found it was more efficient just to have the city then to be trying to bribe my way into their good graces.

    When it came to technology I understand the move away from tech trading. Much kinder on isolated starts. But doing so removed 90% of diplomacy for me. The "research deals" which replaced them were a sad surrogate. As well sometimes a civic would make a research deal with you and then break it prematurely. Costing you both gold to no ones benefit. That is either spite or poor game design. All and all this game is beautiful. But being a strategy game stripped of any real strategy it is quite pointless. I wish they would re-release civ 4 with this level of graphics.    … Expand
  78. Thomaswiden
    Oct 6, 2016
    1
    A friend convinced me to buy this crap game. I had read that it was dumbed down but I let myself be persuede i deeply regret that. I loved Civ 4 this is an insult to all the fans. The game took forever to play a round and that they had removed all the micro manegment. 2 hours play was enough for me. Hated it so much that I deleted it of steam. They have a lot to do to make up for thisA friend convinced me to buy this crap game. I had read that it was dumbed down but I let myself be persuede i deeply regret that. I loved Civ 4 this is an insult to all the fans. The game took forever to play a round and that they had removed all the micro manegment. 2 hours play was enough for me. Hated it so much that I deleted it of steam. They have a lot to do to make up for this **** hope civ 6 can save the series… Expand
  79. Bullfrog1983
    May 3, 2011
    4
    I played a few games of Civilization V and I have to say that it is clearly inferior to Civilization IV in tactics and strategy. The change from multiple units being allowed to occupy a single square to one unit per square severely limits a player's strategy, making combat cumbersome, and less interesting. The ability to defend cities without an army seems ridiculous, especially whenI played a few games of Civilization V and I have to say that it is clearly inferior to Civilization IV in tactics and strategy. The change from multiple units being allowed to occupy a single square to one unit per square severely limits a player's strategy, making combat cumbersome, and less interesting. The ability to defend cities without an army seems ridiculous, especially when combined with their ranged attack that is automatically upgraded as the game progresses; starting with a ranged attack even without the knowledge of archery. The scientific aspect of the game is much more simplified, and the amount of civilizations/leaders available to play is abysmal. The city building is more or less the same as in Civilization IV and Gandhi is still as treacherous as ever. In my opinion it is one of the more mediocre versions of Civilization, far inferior to the previous installment in the series.… Expand
  80. panbient
    Oct 6, 2010
    5
    All these 90+ reviews have me wondering if the reviewer ever made it past the Industrial age and into the endgame.

    Out of the box Civilization 5 is a disappointment, the endgame is bloated beyond words. On the lowest settings possible I still watch the world drawing in tile by tile (with a 1GB Radeon HD 4890) but I don't mind, it's a strategy title. What I do mind is the average 3    All these 90+ reviews have me wondering if the reviewer ever made it past the Industrial age and into the endgame.

    Out of the box Civilization 5 is a disappointment, the endgame is bloated beyond words. On the lowest settings possible I still watch the world drawing in tile by tile (with a 1GB Radeon HD 4890) but I don't mind, it's a strategy title. What I do mind is the average 3 minute wait between turns because the ONLY time you can turn off combat animations is if you happen to click the much smaller 'advanced options' button while setting up your game then scrolling down to find the check box.

    Diplomacy is a farce, for the past 4 titles it was always right there in clear view and easy to interpret. In a half dozen play throughs I have yet to figure out a way to find out how the other cultures feel about each other aside from noting Pacts of Secrecy they have with me. Even finding the 'Global Politics' requires you to poke down through 3 screens and yet there's no information about the other cultures besides how they relate to yours. The lack of detail and attention to diplomacy renders the AI 'personalities' at best minimal and on average completely non-existent. The worse though, is the victory. What a let down / slap in the face. After having to sit through the first 20-30 seconds of that intro animation every time I tried loading the game I expected a little something at the end. instead - a splash scree with 4 tabs - that's IT. There's more animation involved in transporting your spaceship parts to your Capital(some) than there is when you actually launch it (none at all).

    The first one if your victory image WHEE!!! the next are the global demographics, best and worse only, no actual way to view demographics by culture. Then you get your score, and the final tab is a player hall of fame. There's no graph or replay - elements that have been STANDARD since the original Civilization - NINETEEN YEARS AGO. It completely removes the players ability to see what else was happening in the world while they were establishing themselves at the start. Even with all that negativity this game is super fun and that's what makes the gripes even more disappointing. If this was a brand new game from some unknown developer it wouldn't get the critical praise this NAME is getting. As the 5th entry in one of the longest standing and most popular series made, shipping with these issues / expecting the mod community to finish up their title is just not cool. Maybe if the game would have actually shipped with a manual I'd be able to figure out where or why my gripes stem from, especially while waiting for my next turn, but they stripped that out too.

    Thankfully I still have Civ4 installed.    … Expand
  81. PCmarcondes
    May 19, 2011
    3
    It is a reasonable game, but far worse than civ's previous incarnations, (including Civ 3...). The main focus moved to combat, to small tactics rather than long term strategy. Civ IV is, by far, a better, more complex game.
  82. Fench21
    Dec 1, 2012
    1
    Want to know how boring this game is. Type the word boring over and over again for ten hours straight. Do that, and you'll be starting to get a notion of how boring this game is.

    The game is very pretty, and there are some nice tweaks. But,I don't play a game to just look at pretty pictures. I play it, and I bet most other folks do as well, for the challenge. Where CIV IV had one of    Want to know how boring this game is. Type the word boring over and over again for ten hours straight. Do that, and you'll be starting to get a notion of how boring this game is.

    The game is very pretty, and there are some nice tweaks. But,I don't play a game to just look at pretty pictures. I play it, and I bet most other folks do as well, for the challenge. Where CIV IV had one of the best AI 's I've ever seen CIV V has a zombified AI. The computer run civ's are in desperate need of BRAINS! They aren't out to conquer the world, or even knock off your particular civilization. Instead they're largely content to let you slowly fossilize or conqure the world yourself. Conquering the world is actually the easiest way to win this game...yeah, go figure. Partly though, that because you can get started early and get the pain over with sooner. IF you have the patience, you could go for the space race victory. But, if you have that kind of patience, you should be able to hold off on buying this waste of computer memory of a game and spend your time finding something worth your time and money.    … Expand
  83. RiceWarriior
    Feb 13, 2013
    2
    I have to say, when i first saw this game, I was very impressed with it. The atmosphere, the choices, the models, all of it. However, as I played more than just a few games, Civ 5 's many shortcomings became apparent to me. The absolutely horrendous AI, for example, renders diplomacy useless. It is impossible to trade with any AI, because they will not accept any reasonable offer. Instead,I have to say, when i first saw this game, I was very impressed with it. The atmosphere, the choices, the models, all of it. However, as I played more than just a few games, Civ 5 's many shortcomings became apparent to me. The absolutely horrendous AI, for example, renders diplomacy useless. It is impossible to trade with any AI, because they will not accept any reasonable offer. Instead, they will demand everything you own for a scraps of iron or horse. Plus, the unpredictable way in which AIs act makes it impossible to make plans that relies on AIs. Random civs denounce me for no reason, or acts aggressive despite have an army a tenth of mine. The gameplay is also very shallow. The tile improvements look good at first, but eventually one realises that the only way to win is to spam build trade posts and farms. Every time. The combat is the same. There is no hint of infrastructure or anything, and the combat animations are repetitive and breaks one's immersion by being very cartoonish. Overall, I disliked this game mostly because of the absolutely horrendous AI. After all, it is no fun building an empire if everyone around you is acting like a dumbass.… Expand
  84. scrutch
    Oct 3, 2010
    3
    man you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should haveman you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should have quit this franchise when it was still good enough. im deinstalling it and i play civ 4 again.… Expand
  85. Wanguard
    Nov 30, 2011
    3
    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I played for months after release and often came back after a break for a game or two. With Civilization V I only played two full games to the end and one unfinished then it was time to shelf the game.
    It's obvious that simple patches or DLC's can't fix the game. It needs serious overhaul in so many aspects. Civilization V could have been so much better if all the new features had been implemented properly.    … Expand
  86. sams
    Sep 30, 2010
    6
    Great game. Fun. Worth picking it up if you enjoy the genre.

    This game is a 6/10 because some things are currently not working right. Diplomacy is pretty useless at the moment, the tech tree is still just a "research all of it" thing, and the AI is anything but intelligent.
  87. tobas1
    May 30, 2011
    5
    Meh - definitely not what I was hoping for - It's still fun to play for few hours but when i finished 2nd one like 20 times (my favorite game for a loooong time -strong 10) and was little disappointed with 3 (would give it around 7), but hooked again with 4 (9 in my scale) this one definitely didn't went in good direction for me. It has few nice new elements (like hex fields, nationMeh - definitely not what I was hoping for - It's still fun to play for few hours but when i finished 2nd one like 20 times (my favorite game for a loooong time -strong 10) and was little disappointed with 3 (would give it around 7), but hooked again with 4 (9 in my scale) this one definitely didn't went in good direction for me. It has few nice new elements (like hex fields, nation specialization or barbarian activity) but a lot more were disappointing or just plain bad - happiness was definitely this thing for me - it is just unlogic why it had so global scale - i mean i could understand that if i have 1 revolting city I would get some negative bonus for every other city in empire - but we do not have this kind of mechanics here - here every new citizen gives negative impact doesn't matter if he was born in reachest city at plannet or poorest one with blazing borders- and when i build coloseum in 1 city it makes my every citizen little happier - the hell why??? It's like I should be happy when I live in New York that stadium was built in Denver - and like I would even care. Because of this global impact of happiness this killed my main tactics - to be an expansionist asap- you can't -every new city gives bigger negative impact than it can produce hapiness in next 30 turns. Another thing coming from hapiness is conquering cities - when you do that the only intelligent step is to burn it to the ground and place right away new city in the same spot - because you pretty fast will have population boom there anyway (especially if you have few free states providing food as allies-then new citizen every turn) and won't get such a big negative happiness bonus for different culture. What a hell? the only right way in conquer is total extermination? I don't like that - and it's not teaching kids nowadays to think properly and we don't want to raise new hitlers are we? I won't be pointing every other change that I wasn't found of - others did that already, so will only focus at happiness as main reason why this CiV has butchered gameplay - and in long term is just not fun to play. - So meh. No expansions or DLC that i'll buy for this one - going back to 4 or will wait for 6.… Expand
  88. PositiveCritic
    Jan 25, 2012
    0
    Part II of II .
    Part B. The issues. The fact that in 2010 you get just a DVD in a box could already raise an eyebrow or two, with the exponential development of solid state memory, graphics, computer power etc, I would have expected more data, even a solid state item, and here is a marketing thoughtâ
  89. evvo
    Dec 23, 2012
    3
    Signed up to metacritic purely to not recommend this game. Buy Civ4 which is superior in almost all aspects. They've taken all of the depth out of city building, empire maintenance, diplomacy, subterfuge, trade... the list goes on. The only improvement is the new combat system, but they didn't match that with an AI that could utilise it. Such a disappointment - glad I got it on the steamSigned up to metacritic purely to not recommend this game. Buy Civ4 which is superior in almost all aspects. They've taken all of the depth out of city building, empire maintenance, diplomacy, subterfuge, trade... the list goes on. The only improvement is the new combat system, but they didn't match that with an AI that could utilise it. Such a disappointment - glad I got it on the steam sale, otherwise I'd be furious....… Expand
  90. CrestedCrane
    Sep 30, 2010
    4
    This game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refineThis game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refine problematic but life-like features, not yank them out altogether.

    In particular, I was looking forward to a game that handled religion more realistically than the baby-steps of Civ IV -- one in which Islam, Confucianism, and Hinduism were not equally congenial to aspiring world empires, and in which a Christian-Jewish-Muslim city was not a model of ecumenical harmony -- but what the developers gave us was a backing off from the subject again.

    The "one unit per tile" rule is not bad -- it makes war feel less like Civ 3 and more like, well, war -- but I didn't know that archers had a range of several hundred miles; I also didn't know that classical armies raised entire armies (division-strength? Larger?) equipped with nothing but bows. The right solution for this kind of thing is to train brigades and use a theater model, like that of _Hearts of Iron III_; will game development ever get over _Panzer General_ and its cartoonish style of combined arms?

    And lastly, what is _up_ with this game's graphics? Ruinously high requirements; it chugs on my new laptop (which is Windows 7, but with Aero disabled); and it doesn't even look as good as Civ 3 (let alone 4)! I think it's a matter of bad artistic design... although even bad artistic design doesn't explain why the game has late-1990s-level lag in loading ground textures.    … Expand
  91. TomSEA
    Oct 13, 2010
    7
    Pros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it aPros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it a better score. But there are times when I feel like I'm in a grind. Like trying to level up in a MMORPG. Can't put my finger on it specifically, but to "tidy up" the game so that strategic moves seem more compelling and the game doesn't tend to tread water in places.

    Nevertheless, if you're a RTS fan, you'll definitely want this one. No doubt there will be patches and other content made available and hopefully some of the concerns people have voiced here will be resolved.    … Expand
  92. Erathil
    May 17, 2011
    8
    Civ V is a good game. I've been a fan of the series for over a decade and I can confidently say it stands well among its peers. It is greatly simplified over Civ IV, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. While I do miss the sheer depth of the last title Civ V has the sort of simplification that, more often than not, works well for the game. It's certainly a moreCiv V is a good game. I've been a fan of the series for over a decade and I can confidently say it stands well among its peers. It is greatly simplified over Civ IV, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. While I do miss the sheer depth of the last title Civ V has the sort of simplification that, more often than not, works well for the game. It's certainly a more approachable title for newcomers to the franchise, and there's still plenty for experiences players to finesse. The process of waging war is undeniably superior in this version, with the new hex grid adding a tactical element none of the other games ever had. The hex grid itself makes the playable world look and handle much nicer too. There are some definite improvements here, but the game doesn't quite live up to Civ IV's grandeur. Civ IV, especially after its expansions, is the better game, but Civ IV is one of the best 4x games ever conceived. By its own merits, Civilization V is still one of the best releases of the last year and well worth anyone's attention.… Expand
  93. dam1730
    Aug 6, 2012
    3
    In the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usualIn the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usual square ones. I think it makes the map look much better. The graphics are better in Civilization V, which you would expect. I like how accessible mods are in this game. It is much easier to use mods than past installments in the series. Now, the bad. The one unit per tile was a nice try, but it simply doesn't work. What should have been done is a Victoria II style supply limit system, where each tile could support a certain number of units. You could put as many units as you want on the tile, but there would be significant combat penalties for going over the limit. One unit per tile makes wars something you dread, as opposed to something you enjoyed in Civ IV. The diplomatic system is still messed up even two years after release. The AI leaders are inconsistent and change their minds quickly. The game got rid of religion which makes it less interesting. Finally, I'll explain my review score. Automatically, the game receives a four point deduction for not improving on its predecessor, the receives a 3 point deduction for OK gameplay.… Expand
  94. Rumpelstiltskin
    May 24, 2011
    0
    Piece of crap. Espionage and Religion are gone in place of a garbage diplomacy system. Unless the deal you offer them is completely in their favor they will not agree to it, as well with the friendship system. You can agree to announce your friendship then they will turn around and **** on you. The enemy A.I. will endlessly harass you with you crap deals, declare war on you and call youPiece of crap. Espionage and Religion are gone in place of a garbage diplomacy system. Unless the deal you offer them is completely in their favor they will not agree to it, as well with the friendship system. You can agree to announce your friendship then they will turn around and **** on you. The enemy A.I. will endlessly harass you with you crap deals, declare war on you and call you the warmonger, denounce you out of nowhere when you've supplied them with resources and gold for many turns and not to mention the barbarians in this game are incredibly annoying; coming into your territory only a few turns into the game with multiple units and taking your workers then leaving. The happiness system is trash and the game punishes you for expanding and conquering. All options with conquered cities give large amounts of unhappiness and only decrease if you waste points on policies or have a large amount of luxuries that counter the unhappiness. Also, the tech tree has been severely trimmed... turning many technologies into one thing instead of taking multiple trees to complete it.

    Other than the unique traits and few unique units nothing really sets the civilizations apart from eachother. Multiplayer is extremely laggy and even a 100 or so turns into a quick game it takes several seconds sometimes minutes to go to the next turn... Marathon is a nightmare. What really disappoints me about this game is the fact that the computer will declare war on you or something of that nature and then try to make peace... asking for everything you have and if you decline they keep harassing you even though it's extremely easy to defend against them so it becomes just a hassle.

    Overall it's just a huge disappointment. Too many features cut and too many things dumbed down to appease the idiots and lazy people who don't want to take the time to learn and play the game correctly. If it's not spoon fed to them they complain and it totally shows in the way Firaxis designed this game. Total piece of crap to be honest.    … Expand
  95. samssf
    Sep 28, 2010
    4
    The 1up review has it right.

    This game is highly over-rated. I played it for 30 hours and really got into it, but the game has a tremendous amount of bugs and what I personally consider severe problems. I strategy game should have the proper UI to be able to see at a glance your resources, diplomacy, maintenance costs, etc. Instead, TONS of info is left out of both the UI and the manual,    The 1up review has it right.

    This game is highly over-rated. I played it for 30 hours and really got into it, but the game has a tremendous amount of bugs and what I personally consider severe problems.

    I strategy game should have the proper UI to be able to see at a glance your resources, diplomacy, maintenance costs, etc. Instead, TONS of info is left out of both the UI and the manual, making it difficult to know what's going on.

    On top of that, the UI is non-existent. To the developers, an AI is just handicapping the user and making the AI attack you and then call you the warmonger. Sorry, but 9.0+ games should be reserved for Blizzard games which might take forever to release but are polished and not released until QAed and finished.

    Many game developers now have a nasty habit of just rushing out unfinished games filled with problems.    … Expand
  96. krunsH
    Sep 30, 2010
    3
    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

    That's until you play your first two complete games. This game is full with bugs! You might wonder if they even played through the    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

    That's until you play your first two complete games. This game is full with bugs! You might wonder if they even played through the whole game once before its release because it seems to be in beta status. Major performance issues followed by a wide range of ingame bugs, glitches and crashes.
    But if you think that singleplayer is broken you clearly haven't played multiplayer games.
    The word "broken" doesn't even come close to its unplayability. It simply doesnt work to play a complete game without someone dropping out, glitching through the game or having other issues that make it impossible to play.

    But there you sit having it bound to your steam account and there is no way to get your money back.

    I recommend you to better think twice before you might waste your 50 bucks on a game that seems to be hyped by the majority of review sites and sources but in reality is an accumulation of bugs.

    Do yourself a favour and wait at least a month or two until the first big patches are release... that's if the developers have the courage to support the game..    … Expand
  97. Justin_A
    Dec 29, 2010
    3
    I was looking for more depth from Civ IV, so it's not surprising that I don't find Civ V very appealing as it is now. Defenders say Civ IV wasn't very good until the expansions, but it was a better game. Civ V is a boring war game. As other reviewers have noted, there is one efficient way to win: domination. The frustrating and illogical happiness system that punishes players for doingI was looking for more depth from Civ IV, so it's not surprising that I don't find Civ V very appealing as it is now. Defenders say Civ IV wasn't very good until the expansions, but it was a better game. Civ V is a boring war game. As other reviewers have noted, there is one efficient way to win: domination. The frustrating and illogical happiness system that punishes players for doing anything other than razing makes this not only a war game but a game of near genocide. (You can't raze other capital cities, but that's the only restriction.) Diplomacy is a joke. As other reviewers have said, the AI players feel like "angry speed bumps". The new patch tries to fix some of this, but the Social Policy system is linear, slow, and very boring. A cultural victory is about as fun as making a full-size house out of Elmer's glue and straws. Somehow having more cities means having less culture. The city states have no personality. It's not empire building. You're punished for expansion. The AI leaders endlessly harass you with bogus deals, bogus agreements, complaints, and taunts. Barbarians are numerous, designed to make the game seem less empty and pointless, but their distraction itself is empty and pointless. They can't be reformed/educated/assimilated. No... they don't even heal. I guess they're not really human, just speed bumps and gold caches. Boring war game. The barbarians are the hack/slash element for when players aren't hacking/slashing each others' cities. "Barbarian riflemen" that spring out of little huts that randomly appear and "barbarian destroyers" are really... Did I mention that multiplayer is barely functional? One can't even use custom maps, which makes the use of the SDK to create maps rather pointless. You can't even choose where certain human players and AI players specifically will start. I want an empire building game, not a bland repetitive war game resting on the laurels of its superior predecessors. The graphics are what sell this game, at first. They're pretty good, although the renderings of the leaders aren't all that great. Do the pro reviewers who give this game stellar marks actually play it more than an hour or two? Setting aside the many crash bugs, the "do nothing AI" bugs, and the brokenness of various game design elements -- there just isn't much to do during turns, at least not much that's interesting. Chasing the latest randomly spawned barbarian camp isn't interesting. Getting a request from one city state to destroy another (don't or you'll be denounced as a warmonger even when nearly all of the city states are simultaneously demanding that their peers be destroyed) gets old quickly. An interactive diplomacy system does not consist of being taunted and denounced. It's like the game's programming thinks "Gee, you haven't done much for X turns. You must be getting bored. Better get a war going." I'd like to see the next massive patch have absolutely nothing to do with war at all. The game is called Civilization. It is not called Conquest.… Expand
  98. antaresrising
    Oct 1, 2010
    4
    Disappointing and flawed. Another rush job for these modern times.

    Diplomacy and Customized progression have been sacrificed in favor of "BETTER COMBAT", of which only a marginal improvement can be discerned from its predecessors.

    They are counting on you to beta test their product for them. Deny them that privilege.
  99. Mateops
    Oct 6, 2010
    0
    Bugs, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator... this game is half finished and it will need a miracle patch or some modders to actually finish this game. ALOT of features of the previous games have just been dropped; the best we can hope is to be spoon fed the rest.
  100. jalad
    Sep 28, 2010
    3
    The lack of any replacement for city corruption/maintenance concept is a huge disappointment for me. You can find a city at the very end of the world with no cost. Very unrealistic. In a few games i played (i must say i tried to play through crashes), AI civs borders were all mixed up because of this issue. Distance from capital must be a real problem in any next-gen civ game. Period. YesThe lack of any replacement for city corruption/maintenance concept is a huge disappointment for me. You can find a city at the very end of the world with no cost. Very unrealistic. In a few games i played (i must say i tried to play through crashes), AI civs borders were all mixed up because of this issue. Distance from capital must be a real problem in any next-gen civ game. Period. Yes road maintenance is a drawback but definitely not enough. And also no religion, no espionage, no focusing on science or culture via sliders... I did go back to civ 4 happily. Guess what! i was really impressed with its depth after couple of hours:) Maybe i can look back if good mods come up in the future.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

4
#4 Best PC Game of 2010
5
#5 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
3
#3 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
90

Universal acclaim - based on 70 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 70
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 70
  3. Negative: 0 out of 70
  1. Thunderbolt
    Apr 3, 2011
    90
    Despite my gripe with the animations in multiplayer, Civilization V is the perfect entry for the series' debut in the current generation of gaming.
    Read full review
  2. games(TM)
    Jan 20, 2011
    80
    We're just a little bit disappointed that this Civ evolution isn't as polished as we'd expected. [Issue#102, p.108]
  3. Eurogamer Spain
    Jan 15, 2011
    80
    An old franchise that knows who to evolve to adapt to modern times. Its latest new ideas might not be perfect, but serve the purpose of making the game even more interesting.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »