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. MTR
    Dec 19, 2010
    4
    Muy por debajo de los anteriores civ a nivel jugable, lleno de bugs, la IA tanto enemiga como propia (automatizar unidades) es bastante pobre. Sistema de evolución tecnológica OK, copia de los anteriores. Nuevas opciones como el mapa táctico que hacen recordar al alpha centauri. Conclusión: o esta saga se reconduce bien, o poco mas le queda.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. Helios
    Oct 11, 2010
    4
    I've been a fairly long-term fan of the series; I played Civ2 when I was a kid and then a couple of years ago got into Civ4, and it really immersed me in a beautiful and epic world of unparalleled strategy and thoughtfulness. After spending over $50 on Civ5 and playing for just over 20 hours, I can tell you that Civ5 is the death of all that was good about the Civilization series. TimeI've been a fairly long-term fan of the series; I played Civ2 when I was a kid and then a couple of years ago got into Civ4, and it really immersed me in a beautiful and epic world of unparalleled strategy and thoughtfulness. After spending over $50 on Civ5 and playing for just over 20 hours, I can tell you that Civ5 is the death of all that was good about the Civilization series. Time and time again we are seeing the profit motive take precedence over well-developed and ground-breaking games and this is the saddest instance I've ever experienced of that. Below is just a short list I've compiled of the problems experienced after 20 hours of play:

    - No micromanagement of happiness in individual cities
    - Many culture policies are absolutely useless, and you 'buy' them with culture 'points' just like technology... why have two tech trees?
    - Most culture policies are repeated verbatim in a wonder that does exactly the same thing
    - Most wonders cost way too much production to build and it's actually better to not bother building 3/4 of them at all
    - No civics, no religion, no health, no forest regrowth, less technologies, no espionage, and no tech/culture slider... - City states offer so little in terms of strategic advantages (you have to pay to maintain the relationship with gold) that you are better just invading them
    - Many buildings are simply copies of earlier buildings that you have to build first (eg. market and bank both just give 25% wealth increase; coliseum and theatre are the same, university and observatory are practically the same as well...) -Only a handful of buildings are worth building at all once you factor in their huge production cost
    - The diplomacy system is next to useless, there is no useful information on other civs as in Civ4, and vassalage is not even an option in the game
    - There is no indicator telling you how another civ feels about you, so you can't tell whether they are 'friendly', 'pleased' etc. outside of the fact that they either threaten you or declare war on you out of nowhere
    - The AI is terrible - in the Noble-difficultly game I was playing, Suleiman, despite being able to expand across islands, only built two cities by the industrial period and was still using spearmen against my riflemen...
    - When I invaded him and took his two cities the rest of the civs went nuts and 4 of them (out of 9) invaded me even though previously they traded with me and signed defensive pacts ....talk about aggressive AI. None of them were allied with each other as far as I could tell, some hadn't even met one another (so it wasn't a brilliant strategy like the religious alliances in Civ4, it was basically just terrible AI)
    - Although the war wasn't really a problem as such because the Japanese leader just 'embarked' all of his knights etc. into the ocean (a new feature that allows you to send units into the sea, but they have 0 strength so get owned by anything hostile). So in the space of 8 turns I destroyed 8 of his units trying to cross the sea with ONE solitary caravel - he hadn't even bothered to build one ship...
    - Aside from these problems, the game is really poorly balanced - depending on the map you get the 'special abilities' each Civ gets (a poor substitute for the two traits from Civ4) are completely useless...eg. playing as Bismarck on an island map (he gets a 50% chance to convert a barbarian unit when he captures a barbarian camp, I didn't get one out of about the 6 that I encountered). Similarly with Suleiman - he gets the same thing but with barbarian naval units... why would you even bother? I would only expect this poor degree of balance in a beta release... Overall I have to say, definitely save your money and if you haven't got Civ4:BtS buy that instead. I will be uninstalling civ5 from my computer and going back to 4, at least until they release the proper modification code and the people over at Civfanatics put together a Civ5 to Civ4 total conversion mod that brings back what made the predecessor a brilliant game. Come to think of it, aside from the shiny graphics , single units and hex squares I can't think of anything new that Civ5 introduces that is actually worthwhile. Where Civ4 was nuanced and rewarded deep strategy, this deeply flawed thing was put together just to make money. The best analogy I can think of to sum up Civ5 is that where Civ4 was a piece of art, Civ5 is a used condom.    … Expand
  8. 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
  9. dismuter
    Feb 15, 2011
    4
    I've played all the Civilization games since the first one came out. I like the gameplay changes in Civilization V like hex tiles and not being able to stack units. It makes sense, and it's probably something I'd be missing if I played earlier games. It's a shame to lose civilizations and gameplay features such as religion and espionage which were in Civ4 BtS, but the game can definitelyI've played all the Civilization games since the first one came out. I like the gameplay changes in Civilization V like hex tiles and not being able to stack units. It makes sense, and it's probably something I'd be missing if I played earlier games. It's a shame to lose civilizations and gameplay features such as religion and espionage which were in Civ4 BtS, but the game can definitely be fun without them and I can understand that they need reasons to release expansion packs or DLCs for Civ V too.
    What I find totally unacceptable is how rushed out the game seems to be. I only started playing it 5 months after its release and even with the patches released in those first five months, the multiplayer experience is still abysmal.
    First, there is no button in the interface to manually save the game, you have to either rely on auto saves, or know and use the shortcut : Ctrl+S. This is probably the single most stupid thing in the game. But it gets worse because if you decide to load the game later, you can only choose from the auto saves! You can circumvent that by manually moving your manual save in the auto save folder, but it's still very stupid.
    So that was the most stupid problem, now let's move on to the most annoying:
    After a good number of turns, when you get to the medieval times, it takes ages for anything you want to do to actually happen. If you give out any command (moving units, setting a construction in a city, requesting a deal with another civ, *anything*), you have to wait a significant number of seconds before the games acknowledges it, and in the meantime it looks like it didn't get your command and needs you to repeat it. For example, when you move a unit, the unit just stays where it was, as if it completely ignored what you just asked it to do. The game doesn't hang, you can continue doing other stuff (which will also be temporarily ignored), then after a few seconds the unit suddenly decides to obey your instructions and move.
    Another annoying thing that comes to mind is when a worker is automated at the beginning of the turn it asks for instructions, but then figures out that it's automated.
    It's not even a problem with computer performance or network bandwidth, as neither was maxed out on my system and those of the friends I tried to play the game with. It's simply bad programming.
    I don't have time enumerate everything which defines the game as hardly beta-quality, but I can assure you that if you plan on using the multiplayer part of the game, you'd better wait to see if the publisher releases a patch which makes it playable.
    And for those who already bought the game, you can boycott the DLCs and expansions until they get the basic game fixed.
    I give 7 points for the acceptable single-player experience (which apparently was also bug-ridden when the game came out) and subtract 3 for treating gamers like beta-testers. I do hope they fix the multi-player, but I'm not holding my breath.    … Expand
  10. Duncan922
    Mar 9, 2011
    4
    I've played ALL the Civilization games, including Alpha Centaury, and this is the first time that I've been disappointed by Sid Meier! Let's get the obvious out of the way first.... The game is gorgeous! But Civ games have never been about the graphics anyways, so focusing on that is like reviewing a Ferrari for it's interiors. First and foremost... The loading times! JEeeezz... TheI've played ALL the Civilization games, including Alpha Centaury, and this is the first time that I've been disappointed by Sid Meier! Let's get the obvious out of the way first.... The game is gorgeous! But Civ games have never been about the graphics anyways, so focusing on that is like reviewing a Ferrari for it's interiors. First and foremost... The loading times! JEeeezz... The code-monkeys behind this atrocity should be whipped! Perhaps in supercomputers with a Core i7 with liquid-cooling and 16Gb of Ram the game plays smoothly, but in down-to-earth specs, the wasted time between loading and turns is just inexcusable. Then there's the new interface. Can someone please tell me how the heck do I figure out which of my cities is producing the most "production" so I can tell it to build a wonder? Or what type of luxury resources and how many do I hold so I can make proper trade agreements BEFORE I go into a trade agreement? A strategy game is all about information so you can... believe it or not... build up a strategy. But this incarnation of Civilization is dumbed down to cater to a new audience, which boggles my mind! The Civ franchise has always sold well... Why did they need to mess up the formula? If it ain't broke....… Expand
  11. gianfrc
    Mar 19, 2011
    4
    There is no comparison with Civilization IV, it has less features and and major flow in politics and in expanding your territory. War is no fun any more. Civ V just has cool graphics and, nah that is all. Since i bought Civ IV each time I played I spent 5 -7 playing. In CIV V i get bored at the first hour.
  12. 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
  13. Skulb
    Feb 13, 2014
    4
    In the fine new tradition of dumbing classic franchises down to appeal to the blind, the mentally impaired and people who hate gaming, Civilization takes a nosedive in the horrible fifth installment. Tons of stuff that made Civ IV timeless has been removed, including map trading, vassals, religions, flexible civics, unit stacks and attrition to name a few things. Meanwhile dubious thingsIn the fine new tradition of dumbing classic franchises down to appeal to the blind, the mentally impaired and people who hate gaming, Civilization takes a nosedive in the horrible fifth installment. Tons of stuff that made Civ IV timeless has been removed, including map trading, vassals, religions, flexible civics, unit stacks and attrition to name a few things. Meanwhile dubious things have been added like global happiness ratings which makes it pointless to make big empires (In a Civ game. It`s true) and city states that reposition your camera on them every time they have some pointless task for you to perform.
    The worst part is that some of it had been tried out in Civ 3, which was the least impressive installment until this release, and removed for Civ 4 because it made the game dull and uncool.
    So compared to Civ 4 there is less complexity, less freedom, much hand holding and worthless fluff, poor diplomacy and many many questionable design features. It is slow, boring and unexciting. The economy doesn`t work properly, there are no active trade routes like in Civ 4 but just automatic ones when you build roads and harbors. And to top it all off there is basically no AI anywhere.
    I just played a game as Persia and had 10 workers on auto. By the year 1100 AD all these workers had built 0 roads. None, zip, nada. Presumably they were waiting until all the forests had been cleared and every possible resource tile and farm had been finished before starting the roads. In other words the automation is pointless and you have to manually build roads if you want any.
    The less said about the enemy AI the better. It is unpredictable, stupid and never improves at higher levels. It just cheats. Give this turkey a wide berth and go get the real Civilization (Civ 4. hell even Civ 2 or the original DOS game is better than this.) immediately.
    Casual gaming at its worst.    … Expand
  14. Jumper_351
    Oct 4, 2011
    4
    What a disappointment! This game is basically a dumbed down version of Civ 4, with slightly better graphics. The AI is a joke. The cutscenes are gone and the game gets very old quite fast. With the removal of religion, civics, espionage and meaningful diplomacy, Civ 5 represents what is wrong with the gaming industry. Namely, "dumb it down and add shiny graphics - but not cut scenes orWhat a disappointment! This game is basically a dumbed down version of Civ 4, with slightly better graphics. The AI is a joke. The cutscenes are gone and the game gets very old quite fast. With the removal of religion, civics, espionage and meaningful diplomacy, Civ 5 represents what is wrong with the gaming industry. Namely, "dumb it down and add shiny graphics - but not cut scenes or movies when you win, because that is hard." Lame.… Expand
  15. 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
  16. BlueBangkok
    Jun 29, 2011
    4
    I have played all the Civ games since the very first one. After playing Civ 5 for a few days and fiddling with mods, I've finally decided to give up. This game probably has the most inconsistent gameplay I have ever seen.
    THE GOOD
    The graphics look really nice, especially if you run it under DX11 and have a pretty beefy PC. The new combat system, ranged attacks, and one hex = one military    I have played all the Civ games since the very first one. After playing Civ 5 for a few days and fiddling with mods, I've finally decided to give up. This game probably has the most inconsistent gameplay I have ever seen.
    THE GOOD
    The graphics look really nice, especially if you run it under DX11 and have a pretty beefy PC. The new combat system, ranged attacks, and one hex = one military unit rule are just brilliant. Too bad AI is unable to utilize it effectively. Oh, and I like the new UI. That's about it.
    THE BAD
    Everything else is just plain broken. The AI is so stupid it's breathtaking. It is simply not an option to evade war and win a non-combat victory. AI just keeps insulting you and declaring war for no reason. I've tried playing as Gandhi and did everything the AI asked (even not settling near their borders which is, frankly, retarded request). Still, they kept denouncing me and declaring war. No matter what you do, no matter who you befriend, you always end up in a global conflict with AIs declaring war on you and each other. And when you actually get in combat with AI, it is laughable. They NEVER send more than 4-5 units at once, even on higher difficulties.
    It's fascinating someone is actually able to program an AI that is stupider than Civ 1's and slows down to a crawl even on high end quadcore systems (late turns during an epic game on huge map slowed down to 1-2 MINUTES on 4Ghz i7 processor). Moreover, there are annoyingly long load times. Add poor optimization and frequent crashes to the mix and realize you will be spending a LOT of time doing virtually NOTHING!
    Granted, Civ 5 was developed for multiplayer - but even multiplayer is somewhat disappointing due to the lack of any depth and features (no espionage, no religion, no government...). You could redistribute your national income any way you saw fit even in Civ 1. You cannot do so here. No research or culture boosting... In other words, Civ 5 has been bastardized in every possible way. Fewer playable civs (without DLCs) than in Civ 4? Check. Idiot-friendly micromanagement (no wealth redistribution, global happiness...)? Check. Stupid AI and super-easy gameplay? Check. No vanilla Earth map? Check.
    After playing a few games, I realized Civ 5 is not a game. It is more like a framework for future DLCs, patches, and most importantly, mods. The AI, balancing (you research really really fast while everything else takes ages), engine.... nearly everything is either broken or in stages of beta version (even AFTER many patches Firaxis has released!). Wait for a year or two before buying this game. Hopefully by that time it will be patched properly and some nice modpacks will allow you to play a balanced game with more features. Until then save your money for something else.    … Expand
  17. f0lly
    Mar 5, 2012
    4
    I played Civ 1 right at the beginning, and then Civ 2. Missed the other iterations. Coming back to Civ V is a big disppointment. Very dumbed down version of what I remember Civ to be. No complexity, no challenge, no fun. Boo. UPDATE: I've now bought Civ IV, and played it for a few hours. Immediately obvious that its much better than Civ V. Its what a Civ game should be; not dumbed downI played Civ 1 right at the beginning, and then Civ 2. Missed the other iterations. Coming back to Civ V is a big disppointment. Very dumbed down version of what I remember Civ to be. No complexity, no challenge, no fun. Boo. UPDATE: I've now bought Civ IV, and played it for a few hours. Immediately obvious that its much better than Civ V. Its what a Civ game should be; not dumbed down for the button masher crowd.… Expand
  18. mgstewart
    Nov 6, 2011
    4
    The game has come along way but took a wrong turn at Civ 4 and from there things have gotten worse. I started playing these games at Civ3 brilliant strategy game where you build an empire and gather culture or conquer the enemys. The best ever game was Civ3 Conquest which was able to maintain science-production-growth-gold really well and city building. However when civ4 was introduced itThe game has come along way but took a wrong turn at Civ 4 and from there things have gotten worse. I started playing these games at Civ3 brilliant strategy game where you build an empire and gather culture or conquer the enemys. The best ever game was Civ3 Conquest which was able to maintain science-production-growth-gold really well and city building. However when civ4 was introduced it focused more on not needing citys and how can u have an empire with 5 citys the bonus to civ4 was the fighting mechanics that was a great improvement. However now civ5 has changed once again the same problems as civ 4 but adding more content to make it even worse.

    Pros- Beautiful graphics - graphics dont make a good game but they do make for a fake review by critics    … Expand
  19. Redoer
    May 27, 2012
    4
    I've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplifiedI've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplified to attract a larger market. No unit stacking is more of a pain than anything, micromanaging doesn't seem worth it, time between turns is agonizingly long. The long wait between turns is not helped by the boring background music that doesn't seem to ever change. All in all, I'd probably recommend Civ 4 over this if you haven't bought it already.… Expand
  20. ghostknight
    Mar 12, 2012
    4
    A big disappointment. I'm a big fan since Civ 1. A year ago i was still playing Civ 2 on my laptop from time to time. The only thing i liked was the combat system. Game is pretty shallow for a civ game and lacks lots of things previous games had. Policy system is a joke, probably taken from tabletop it's not suitable for a computer game. I can only recommend this game to people who areA big disappointment. I'm a big fan since Civ 1. A year ago i was still playing Civ 2 on my laptop from time to time. The only thing i liked was the combat system. Game is pretty shallow for a civ game and lacks lots of things previous games had. Policy system is a joke, probably taken from tabletop it's not suitable for a computer game. I can only recommend this game to people who are novice to turn based games or casual players who don't want to spend too much time for a single game.

    The fact that this game had a high score from the critics is another joke in my opinion.    … Expand
  21. Krown90
    Apr 15, 2012
    4
    Total Disappointed... CIV 5 is a FAIL game.. with a fail AI and a fail strategic concept. The only thing I liked is the introduction of city-states and the particular attention to the graphics. The rest is all garbage. Poor diplomacy. Ridiculous combat system. Accelerated timing too much. Do yourself a favor: play CIV III, is the best of the series.
  22. Thagun
    May 10, 2012
    4
    I have an 2nd Gen I5 2500K Cpu. A GTX 460 1 GB card, 8GB of ram and new Z68 chip motherboard.

    All my gear was new.mine is the best machine out of all my friends. It runs battlefield 3 on 1920 - 1080p at high/ultra with filters x16. I CAN'T RUN THIS. Early game the jerking is bad, but late game its torturous. The wait from clicking end turn until getting to go is    I have an 2nd Gen I5 2500K Cpu. A GTX 460 1 GB card, 8GB of ram and new Z68 chip motherboard.

    All my gear was new.mine is the best machine out of all my friends.

    It runs battlefield 3 on 1920 - 1080p at high/ultra with filters x16. I CAN'T RUN THIS. Early game the jerking is bad, but late game its torturous. The wait from clicking end turn until getting to go is seemingly endless and if you where expecting to manage a war or something it would send you mental. I have clocked Civ 4 maybe 6 - 8 times. You dust it down ever so often and spend a day of taxing enjoyment, once completed back it goes till the next time. I will not be playing 5 again until probably 2 computers from now, then it might just work well enough for me to enjoy. Yours Thagun.

    Ps There is a demo, so if you want to get it, try that first. Save some heartache later maybe. :)    … Expand
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. eliang98
    Sep 30, 2010
    3
    For a huge fan of the previous versions, Civ V is a HUGE disappointment.
    The game interface response is very slow. So slow that after playing for a couple of hours, I feel that I am not accomplish anything other than waiting for the turns to get over. To allocate the population of a city to work on a specific tile, it took me a few hours of menu reading to click-and-explore to figure it    For a huge fan of the previous versions, Civ V is a HUGE disappointment.
    The game interface response is very slow. So slow that after playing for a couple of hours, I feel that I am not accomplish anything other than waiting for the turns to get over. To allocate the population of a city to work on a specific tile, it took me a few hours of menu reading to click-and-explore to figure it out.
    I am definitely going back to play my Civ IV    … Expand
  27. Nafod
    Sep 30, 2010
    3
    Overall it feels unfinished. Necessary information is difficult to come by if not missing in total. Production queues are so ridiculously slow that tech progression will usually cause one to obsolete units before building (m)any. And you'll be building units mostly as buildings are unimpressive, have ridiculously maintenance costs, and one CANNOT destroy them at a later date. WondersOverall it feels unfinished. Necessary information is difficult to come by if not missing in total. Production queues are so ridiculously slow that tech progression will usually cause one to obsolete units before building (m)any. And you'll be building units mostly as buildings are unimpressive, have ridiculously maintenance costs, and one CANNOT destroy them at a later date. Wonders are extremely disappointing. Expansion leads to significant penalties to culture, making only a diplomacy or conquest win feasible if one has more than 5 or so cities.

    The one unit per hex limit and the hex game in general is an improvement. But simply put, Firaxis made a game it's AI cannot play. The AI is woefully inadequate at forming any sensible type of battle line and simply throws units at the player. Who with any hint of a strategy can destroy them in detail. It's a $60 nice looking game of Whack-a-mole.    … Expand
  28. 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
  29. chris_evans
    Oct 3, 2010
    3
    This is a franchise that has lost it's way. Civ2 is perhaps my all time fav game, I am no hater. Civ5 is a piece of bloatware that has lost it's focus.

    Perhaps the developers felt that it was not commercially viable to release a 2D game, but the 3D characters do not serve the core vision of what the game is, they detract from it and limit the potential audience. I have an 8 core PC, why    This is a franchise that has lost it's way. Civ2 is perhaps my all time fav game, I am no hater. Civ5 is a piece of bloatware that has lost it's focus.

    Perhaps the developers felt that it was not commercially viable to release a 2D game, but the 3D characters do not serve the core vision of what the game is, they detract from it and limit the potential audience. I have an 8 core PC, why does it take up to 25 seconds to go to complete a turn?

    I will not nit pick individual decisions I feel were poor; which there were plenty of. But central core things, like the interface, are extremely lacking. The interface is a complete unreadable mess as you progress. Civ is a game about dealing with data, so why is it getting harder and harder to view and manage the data in these games?

    The user experience at the time the game should be the most fun (lots of cities, lots going on) is a complete, barely usable mess, and the game grinds to a halt.

    I don't need 3d animated flocking swarms of fish on the map, I will take a fun game and an easily readable fish icon.    … Expand
  30. 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
  31. HLB
    Oct 10, 2010
    3
    Simplistic game. Nothing special graphical or in gameplay. Use of DX11 is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I uninstalled the game already because I don't intend to spend even more time with work-arounds for the bugs. They obviously spend more money on marketing then on game development.
  32. almaniac
    Oct 12, 2010
    3
    What's good? the new hex-based terrain and the combat are both vast improvements over previous versions of the game.

    What's bad? Everything else. The game mechanics are seriously dumbed-down. A lot of the interesting trade-offs are gone. Elimination of health and religion really hurt the game mechanics. The tech-tree is over simplified. Allowing any unit to self-embark into water    What's good? the new hex-based terrain and the combat are both vast improvements over previous versions of the game.

    What's bad? Everything else. The game mechanics are seriously dumbed-down. A lot of the interesting trade-offs are gone. Elimination of health and religion really hurt the game mechanics. The tech-tree is over simplified. Allowing any unit to self-embark into water is a mixed blessing. The AI very predictable, especially in diplomacy. AI army use is very bad; you can always destroy them in detail.

    I love the CIV franchise and I've owned literally every single version (including the board game). This could have been the best ever but the dumbing-down of the game mechanics has ruined it. Spend your money on CIV 4; you'll be much more satisfied.    … Expand
  33. Jerik02
    Oct 4, 2011
    3
    Having enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviewsHaving enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviews as the user reviews are resoundingly negative and disappointed. I agree with comments stating how the AI is poor, diplomacy is neutered and practically meaningless. The new civics program doesn't gel well with the historical policies of civilizations. It is also virtually impossible to maintain a large army due to special resources being required for certain units. Please tell me why I need aluminum to build modern armor or a missile cruiser, when neither use aluminum in the "real world". Overall the game is poorly designed and rushed to the market. It is a crappy product hidden in a nicely wrapped box. I want my money back.… Expand
  34. 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
  35. CmdrSoCal
    Nov 9, 2010
    3
    another incomplete rip off video game that got rave reviews from moron review sites. out of the box this game has bugs, crashes and apparently the ai is either very poorly made or just was not finished. the diplomacy/ai part of civ games is the most important part for single player. if you dont yet own i would 1) wait for it to get cheaper than 50$ and 2) check the forums to make sure theanother incomplete rip off video game that got rave reviews from moron review sites. out of the box this game has bugs, crashes and apparently the ai is either very poorly made or just was not finished. the diplomacy/ai part of civ games is the most important part for single player. if you dont yet own i would 1) wait for it to get cheaper than 50$ and 2) check the forums to make sure the ai fail and the bugs have been fixed before bying. otherwise try proven strategy games over this junk. oh and its only playable through steam as well.… Expand
  36. mccoyjf
    Nov 20, 2010
    3
    I've had Civ 5 for a couple of months now and played several games to completion. And now I'm getting bored with it. I expected better from a sequel to a game I played regularly for several years. But the fact is Civ 5 isn't very interesting or challenging.

    It's not like I'm a super-skilled player or anything. I make plenty of mistakes. But even at the highest difficulty levels I win    I've had Civ 5 for a couple of months now and played several games to completion. And now I'm getting bored with it. I expected better from a sequel to a game I played regularly for several years. But the fact is Civ 5 isn't very interesting or challenging.

    It's not like I'm a super-skilled player or anything. I make plenty of mistakes. But even at the highest difficulty levels I win easily. Where's the fun in that? The issue is that the computer opponents are very weak. They will fight wars with you, but are bad at it so that's not too hard to deal with. As for beating you through peaceful strategies like culture, science, or diplomacy, I don't think they can. At least, I've never seen them do it, even though in some cases had I switched places with one of them I could have achieved victory in just a few turns by taking fairly simple steps.

    So the game poses very little challenge after the first session or three. There are also plenty of annoying little glitches, the sort of stuff one might overlook in a really good game but that really get your attention if you're already a little bored or frustrated. Graphical overlays that don't disappear when they should. Bad pathfinding that forces you to micromanage unit movement, that sort of thing.

    In sum, it's not nearly as fun as Civilization IV. I'd recommend that game over this one any day.    … Expand
  37. VidsRule
    Jul 7, 2012
    3
    I hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part onI hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part on the map becomes a convoluted mess, and every action is a complete chore. And then other civs start complaining constantly. I know some people are very good at the game and they can handle all that, but I would like to have some fun added to the games I play.… Expand
  38. 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
  39. c87
    Dec 8, 2010
    3
    It seems like a good game, but it just keeps on crashing in the middle of a game. Get the problem fixed and it would be a decent game. I wouldn't recommend anyone buys the game until this problem is fixed, as it's just a waste of money at the moment.
  40. Ramus
    Dec 13, 2010
    3
    Having been there in the days of Civ 1 I look forward to each new game with bated breath. But the latest effort has left me wheezing and coughing. Hex grids? Why? 8 directions of movement with squares, 6 with hexes..... doesn't make sense. And the graphics do not seem to fit in the hexes either, trading posts apparently require wading a mile out to sea?? There are so many glitches theyHaving been there in the days of Civ 1 I look forward to each new game with bated breath. But the latest effort has left me wheezing and coughing. Hex grids? Why? 8 directions of movement with squares, 6 with hexes..... doesn't make sense. And the graphics do not seem to fit in the hexes either, trading posts apparently require wading a mile out to sea?? There are so many glitches they cannot be named here but here's just a few : missing textures, animations that don't play, graphics that do not disappear when they should, UI corruption, and so on. The decisions the AI makes seem to be just dice rolling (I rolled a double 5 that means I'm at war with you). Diplomacy is non existent . And whenever I get to about 1950 EVERYONE goes to war with you at the same time?! WHAT? WHY? Very disappointed in this. Needless to say I shan't be holding my breath for Civ 6. I'm going now to put Civ 4 on.… Expand
  41. 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
  42. SeverinHansen
    Jan 3, 2011
    3
    I really have been looking forward to this version of the Civilization series. It had taken my a while to get used to Civ IV from Civ III, but it had become the game that controlled my time. It's almost impossible to write in words the disappointment I fell when I first played the game. Just the lack of stacking units at all frustrated me unbearable. Even that was enough for me to lay downI really have been looking forward to this version of the Civilization series. It had taken my a while to get used to Civ IV from Civ III, but it had become the game that controlled my time. It's almost impossible to write in words the disappointment I fell when I first played the game. Just the lack of stacking units at all frustrated me unbearable. Even that was enough for me to lay down the game. Now everything they removed from the old games, and everything they changed. For me it seemed like Civilization wasn't the head master in strategy anymore. The game that could make you stay all up night just to conquer the world. The game that made you feel something, you never have or will feel in any other game. The feeling og control, uprising, nationality. The feeling that made Civilization the best game for me. Now they just changed everything into an arcade game. It doesn't even feel the slightest realistic anymore.

    So Sid, why?    … Expand
  43. Mantriur
    Jan 14, 2011
    3
    First of all let me say that it is a bit unfair to rate a game 0, just because you had specific expectations it did not match. :P

    That being said, Civilization V is most obviously not a sequel to what we have come to know as the Civilization series. Yes, there are similarities on a very shallow level, but comparing Civ IV with Civ V is like comparing a Ferrari with a compact car. Yes,    First of all let me say that it is a bit unfair to rate a game 0, just because you had specific expectations it did not match. :P

    That being said, Civilization V is most obviously not a sequel to what we have come to know as the Civilization series. Yes, there are similarities on a very shallow level, but comparing Civ IV with Civ V is like comparing a Ferrari with a compact car. Yes, they are both cars. The latter isn't useless and does get the job done, but it's no Ferrari.

    Civ V does introduce very few interesting concepts, which could have improved the series overall. But it fails to deliver any depth whatsoever. It is a decent strategy game, but also suffers from quite a few bugs and performance issues, which spoil the little good it has going for it.

    Waiting between 20 seconds and two minutes for one AI turn, when you don't have anything to do during your turns anyway, is pretty much the last straw. It just leaves one wondering how Civ IV manages to deliver a much better AI in a much more complex environment much faster. Design is a matter of taste, but code quality is a hard factor, and the coders for Civ V were exceptionally bad.

    All in all, this isn't more than a 4. It does have the potential to be a 6 or 7, if all issues can be ironed out, but that is rarely the case with any game.

    If you are new to the franchise, have an obscenely overpower CPU (AI load is mostly on one core), and too much time, go for it. If you are a hardcore Civ fan, don't waste your money.    … Expand
  44. wolverdick
    Mar 15, 2011
    3
    Take everything you ever loved about the CIV franchise and then delete half of it. Then dumb it up some more so a twelve year-old can play it on his X-box and that is CIV five. This game is a huge disappointment. The graphics upgrades are less than exemplary, almost cartoonish. The removal of all the sophisticated strategy elements leaves you wondering why. Recent patches have fixedTake everything you ever loved about the CIV franchise and then delete half of it. Then dumb it up some more so a twelve year-old can play it on his X-box and that is CIV five. This game is a huge disappointment. The graphics upgrades are less than exemplary, almost cartoonish. The removal of all the sophisticated strategy elements leaves you wondering why. Recent patches have fixed some of the game imbalances and absurd city-state mechanics, but on a whole this is the worst CIV game ever.… Expand
  45. Bootsy1
    Feb 15, 2011
    3
    Like many have mentioned, Civ5 is a big disappointment. The main reason I give the game a barely 4 rating is because the game is very unstable and buggy. It has dozens of glitches and a big memory leak. After an hour of playing the game runs at 1.8Gb memory which is insane and shows how bad optimized it is and how rushed the game has been released. I waited to buy the game (50Euro's)Like many have mentioned, Civ5 is a big disappointment. The main reason I give the game a barely 4 rating is because the game is very unstable and buggy. It has dozens of glitches and a big memory leak. After an hour of playing the game runs at 1.8Gb memory which is insane and shows how bad optimized it is and how rushed the game has been released. I waited to buy the game (50Euro's) till now, cos I expected it to be patched several times by now, but no. It seems that the game has not been patched at all and they just left it buggy and unstable like it is now. __ The interface in the game is huge, the map is litteraly filled with huge tags and obtrusive HUDs. There supposed to be an option to make the interface smaller, but it does not work. ___ Anywho, buy this game and you get a once every 30 minutes crash, long load times and random freezes after 100 turns of playing and even start up crashes. The game also seems to be made more noob friendly and reduced the amount of real diplomatic strategy and spionage etc. Civ5 is Civ for dummies. I recommend buying Civ 4 instead of this unfinished and unstable version. This page does not alow me to rate it a 4!… Expand
  46. los_majklos
    Oct 27, 2012
    3
    Well this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it'sWell this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it's possible today to make it faster and save you from all the tedious activities, deciding what to build on every single hex in every single turn. You should be able to set your typical path through the tech and build trees and reuse those. The final spoiler is, that anything you do, you will end up in war. Even if you try to be polite and nice, there is no peace alternative in real game, it is only theoretical. I managed to win peacefully once from like 30 attempts and it was by mere luck anyway. So this game does copy typical american colonial consumeristic philosophy - expand, fight, kill and consume. More means always better. What a disappointment.… Expand
  47. Slackerman
    Mar 15, 2011
    3
    As a fan of the entire series (in particular, Civ II and Civ IV), Civ V was a near-total letdown. It's marched backwards in almost every way, and it's interesting that the system requirements are steeper than Civ IV's, because Civ IV had better graphics. Diplomacy is horrible, the City States are incredibly annoying and feel like speed bumps (BIG speed bumps) on one's way to worldAs a fan of the entire series (in particular, Civ II and Civ IV), Civ V was a near-total letdown. It's marched backwards in almost every way, and it's interesting that the system requirements are steeper than Civ IV's, because Civ IV had better graphics. Diplomacy is horrible, the City States are incredibly annoying and feel like speed bumps (BIG speed bumps) on one's way to world domination. In addition, their alliances are nonsensical - how in the hell they could maintain a trade route with a rival civilization by going through MY territory is farcical. They are far too difficult to conquer. A friend of mine plays the game with the city-states turned off, which I guess is available through options. It's rather telling that a portion of the game the developers obviously spent a great deal of time on is improved when it's removed from play. Combat was not improved with the removal of stacking, as the scale of the map doesn't lend itself to formations where you can protect missile units. Add to all this the incredibly laggy (in single-player!) and worthless Diplomacy screens, the removal of espionage and religion, the dumbed down UI, the memory leaks and crashes, the fewer number of civilizations unless you pony up more money for DLC. . . . . . summed up, a huge march backwards and a horrible game. This was the game that finally taught me to ignore most "professional" reviewers on Metacritic, as it's incomprehensible that they scored it a 90. This game isn't even worth it if they dropped the price to $10 USD. Avoid it, and just keep playing Civ II or IV.… Expand
  48. Repper
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    If I were to sum up this game using just one word I'd use the word "Disappointment." They've conjured up a great deal of new ideas to revolutionize this game, but in combination with all the flaws this game isn't worth it at all. If you are a fan of previous Civ games that liked the created depth of the game, that liked having multiple ways to win the game, that liked better diplomacy,If I were to sum up this game using just one word I'd use the word "Disappointment." They've conjured up a great deal of new ideas to revolutionize this game, but in combination with all the flaws this game isn't worth it at all. If you are a fan of previous Civ games that liked the created depth of the game, that liked having multiple ways to win the game, that liked better diplomacy, espionage, religion, and cooperations, then stick with Civ 4.… Expand
  49. Grim13
    Jun 23, 2011
    3
    What has happened to Sid Meier? Has he lost all self-respect? First Revolutions and now this piece of crappola! Next he'll be putting out a Facebook version of Civ, for F's sake! Oh, wait... What's that!? HE IS!?! Sid, 2K, Firaxis... some or all of the former are to blame for the decimation of this storied franchise. I've played this series since Numero Uno, spent thousands of hours onWhat has happened to Sid Meier? Has he lost all self-respect? First Revolutions and now this piece of crappola! Next he'll be putting out a Facebook version of Civ, for F's sake! Oh, wait... What's that!? HE IS!?! Sid, 2K, Firaxis... some or all of the former are to blame for the decimation of this storied franchise. I've played this series since Numero Uno, spent thousands of hours on every subsequent iteration, but can not bring myself to complete a SINGLE game of Civ V! They dumbed down all of the strategy elements that make a Civ game a F'N CIV GAME!!! Gotta get that casual/console market interested. Apparently, Core Fans just aren't good enough any more... Who cares if I've helped pave the way for you! Just another in a long line of greed induced SELLOUTS! F**K YOU, YOU GREEDY BASTARDOS!!!… Expand
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Atr0s
    Jun 23, 2012
    3
    It's actually insulting to think of this game as the sequel of the much-more-awesome Civilization 4. Besides the combat system, which saw some neat improvement, everything else was dumbed down to the point your only management consist of choosing what's next on your cities' production queue. Extremely accessible for newcomers, an insult for old gamers. The User Interface looks good if youIt's actually insulting to think of this game as the sequel of the much-more-awesome Civilization 4. Besides the combat system, which saw some neat improvement, everything else was dumbed down to the point your only management consist of choosing what's next on your cities' production queue. Extremely accessible for newcomers, an insult for old gamers. The User Interface looks good if you say you're playing it on facebook though.… Expand
  56. toad_svk
    Jul 29, 2012
    3
    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city - stupid, dumb,    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city
    - stupid, dumb, irrational AI ever: I am at war with some Civ, we make peace, another Civ crushes them, I liberate them, they're on guard towards me (despite the liberation..) then 20 rounds later, when they spawn one pikeman, they decide its a good thing to declare war on me (with my numerous tanks and foreign legion, good going AI!)
    - advisors interface completely designed by indian staff (yes offense): like 10 pages saying the same thing about which city is best to develop military units (instead of putting it on one page...)
    - talking about the advisors: they're high, and I mean real high: I am at war with a more powerful CIV (at least I guess in term of number of units) and Im kicking their asses (like 13 victories on 15 battles -> resulting in destruction of enemy units) and still the military advisor tells me the war is going bad.
    - nasty scrolling bug when you click on next turn: if you go on some side of the screen, it will scroll forever until the end of opponent actions
    - automatic selection of unit horrible: like you manually select an unit at some critical place in the game (like a big fight), it will then go somewhere else completely (despite the fact you actually shown interest for THIS specific place), ok maybe there was a setting for that, I didnt look for it.
    - there is no automatic focus on enemy / ally movement sometimes so you might miss what is happening (not when it involves you - thanks god)

    If you want the rolls of management game, try Anno series, if you want the rolls of Turn based strategy / fighting game (well the fighting is more deep so it might not be the best choice for you), try Total War series...    … Expand
  57. jesterx7769
    Jan 13, 2013
    3
    I enjoy strategy games but this game is unbearable to play. It is SO slow moving and boring. A single game will take you 20 some hours to play even on the quickest time setting. There is a multi-player option which is pointless because you will never finish a game. If you want to play on a tiny/small map with the quickest time setting you may finish some games but what is the fun in that?I enjoy strategy games but this game is unbearable to play. It is SO slow moving and boring. A single game will take you 20 some hours to play even on the quickest time setting. There is a multi-player option which is pointless because you will never finish a game. If you want to play on a tiny/small map with the quickest time setting you may finish some games but what is the fun in that?

    The game does everything to slow you down it seems. The movement restrictions are ridiculous, hills/forest/marshes are everywhere and waaaay overloaded simply to slow you down. When it comes to actual gameplay it is your average typical strategy game and you will be able to get way ahead of the computer barring the hardest difficulties.

    If you want a strategy game play Crusader Kings 2, this game is a dumbed down pour excuse for a game with their length making it seem hard and deep. There are no special diplomatic mechanics with the game and the units are very bland to choose from. Even if you spend hours to get your research up you will be disappointed.

    There is also not much difference in leaders which is lame. Each leader gets a bonus and some are clearly better than others which limits who you will play as right away. Some of the special units or building are helpful but hardly make a huge difference on the overall game.    … Expand
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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.
  61. Hanzl
    Oct 16, 2013
    3
    Big dissapointer. The only thing i liked were the graphics and animations. For the rest the game sucks and is nothing more then a cheap quick, simpel wargame. I played Civ 1 and 2 and i love Civ 2 (still do and play it now and then). I just got Civ 5, played it a few hours and removed it. Not going to play it anymore. The negs? To small world, slow responding... well read the negativeBig dissapointer. The only thing i liked were the graphics and animations. For the rest the game sucks and is nothing more then a cheap quick, simpel wargame. I played Civ 1 and 2 and i love Civ 2 (still do and play it now and then). I just got Civ 5, played it a few hours and removed it. Not going to play it anymore. The negs? To small world, slow responding... well read the negative reviews here. No need to say more. I support them all. This game is a waste of time and money. The reviews gave me hope and i will try Civ IV. Otherwise i stay to Civ II. I can't believe the positive reviews. They dont come from ppl who played Civ before (or they are payed by Sid Meier).… Expand
  62. BFG-1337
    Apr 24, 2021
    3
    Things i hate the most: Gambling, drug and alcohol addiction and soulless addictive games like WoW, Candy Crush and so on..

    This game falls under the soulless addictive games category. Most people do the "MUST PRESS NEXT TURN", I however didnt feel that it was fun pressing next turn, i felt dread every time i pressed next turn because nothing would happen for 20+ turns and every time    Things i hate the most: Gambling, drug and alcohol addiction and soulless addictive games like WoW, Candy Crush and so on..

    This game falls under the soulless addictive games category.
    Most people do the "MUST PRESS NEXT TURN", I however didnt feel that it was fun pressing next turn, i felt dread every time i pressed next turn because nothing would happen for 20+ turns and every time something happened it was very slow.
    This game isnt the fun type of addicting, its the ALCOHOL type of addicting, every time you press next turn its like "just one more shot and im going home". I personally didnt fall for the **** "gameplay" of this "game".
    I played Civ 3, Civ5 and Civ 6
    Civ3 was a great 4x strategy game that required thinking and real strategy, this and civ 6 dont require any brains, its a pure **** of a game.    … Expand
  63. Discerning
    Sep 30, 2010
    2
    What an enormous disappointment. I am shocked that this game came from Sid Meierâ
  64. arkangel
    Nov 4, 2010
    2
    Oh dear. I've been a Civ addict for many years and I was really looking forward to this one. What a disappointment! I want to like it; I've tried to like it - but I've played for many hours and I still hate it. I play the dx10/11 version with maxed-out graphics and I still don't agree that it looks better than Civ4 - it simply looks like those trading/settling games that I find ratherOh dear. I've been a Civ addict for many years and I was really looking forward to this one. What a disappointment! I want to like it; I've tried to like it - but I've played for many hours and I still hate it. I play the dx10/11 version with maxed-out graphics and I still don't agree that it looks better than Civ4 - it simply looks like those trading/settling games that I find rather tedious. In my (very humble) opinion, strategy games should be about strategy - tactics, planning, logic, and common sense. (You don't improve chess by painting the board pretty colours!) Why can't more workers be used to build a road more quickly? How can I use a ship before I've built one? And (unless I'm missing something here), why can't I know what workers are doing or how long they'll take without having to click on them all? And why did I only get a DVD in the box? (Okay, that one's easy - they've saved money on the manual and chart.) Oh well, it's back to BTS...… Expand
  65. Arctarus
    Dec 24, 2010
    2
    2 points for graphic improvement over previous versions. The rest is garbage and the same old concept with this Civ traditional game. It looks like Civ 5 has seen an upgrade in graphics but got a downgrade in the process by it. Since it is turn-based, it plays like a risk game, but the turns are creating a new phenomenon called "creative boring royale" syndrome. You wait and wait and2 points for graphic improvement over previous versions. The rest is garbage and the same old concept with this Civ traditional game. It looks like Civ 5 has seen an upgrade in graphics but got a downgrade in the process by it. Since it is turn-based, it plays like a risk game, but the turns are creating a new phenomenon called "creative boring royale" syndrome. You wait and wait and wait and wait until kingdom come to the point it's ridiculous to even try. That tells you there is a problem with the game code programming in itself. Good games runs flawlessly and require less space to begin with. Looking at the game sheer size for a turn-based, you get a good idea how bad it will be on your pc. I dub Civ5 The "please wait" civ game instead, and I'm certainly not alone with that saying. Saying no to 2k games for a while and you may actually get better results. Why give them good grades when they don't deserve it? Peace.… Expand
  66. Suyadon
    Dec 25, 2010
    2
    I give this game a FAIL. I would rate this game quite differently based upon its playability, but considering the fact that the game can become unplayable due to CTD's. No crashes BEFORE the December '10 patch release, but now always crashes one I reach the 1600's. I don't deal with games crashing on my PS3 or Xbox360 and don't feel I have to settle for less on my PC. OK, update driversI give this game a FAIL. I would rate this game quite differently based upon its playability, but considering the fact that the game can become unplayable due to CTD's. No crashes BEFORE the December '10 patch release, but now always crashes one I reach the 1600's. I don't deal with games crashing on my PS3 or Xbox360 and don't feel I have to settle for less on my PC. OK, update drivers and some tweeking, I'll take that and I make exceptions when this happens with mods, but c'mon, a clean install of civilization V? I would prefer to get slugged in the face then spend another minute getting half-way through an epic strategy game only to have the game end with CTD's.… Expand
  67. hk-47
    Dec 30, 2010
    2
    I permanently hate turn based strategy games because of Sid Meier i had the game en in the first ten minutes i put it in the blender so there is one less copy of that lame game .
  68. Pandalicious
    Feb 2, 2011
    2
    This is a game that seems great at first but loses its shine once you dive in. The deep strategy that's been the hallmark of the Civ series just isn't there. It feels like all the years of stored up wisdom and lessons learned that had culminated in Civ 4 were thrown out the window for this one. The game is just boring now. The AI utterly sucks at combat and is schizophrenic when it comesThis is a game that seems great at first but loses its shine once you dive in. The deep strategy that's been the hallmark of the Civ series just isn't there. It feels like all the years of stored up wisdom and lessons learned that had culminated in Civ 4 were thrown out the window for this one. The game is just boring now. The AI utterly sucks at combat and is schizophrenic when it comes to diplomacy (and there's not much you can do through diplomacy anyways), so there's just not much in the ways of interesting gameplay. Huge disappointment.… Expand
  69. phil24
    May 2, 2012
    2
    This is a very addictive game. HOWEVER. No normal human has the time to play it. I have put 40 hours into this game, finished 1 match (wich i lost in the 1400s) and just lost my second after putting 20 hours into a match. The game itself is so enraging that i almost punched my computer. you should never be able to put 20 hours into a single match and loose the entire game in a matter ofThis is a very addictive game. HOWEVER. No normal human has the time to play it. I have put 40 hours into this game, finished 1 match (wich i lost in the 1400s) and just lost my second after putting 20 hours into a match. The game itself is so enraging that i almost punched my computer. you should never be able to put 20 hours into a single match and loose the entire game in a matter of minutes. its sickening.… Expand
  70. Drakan
    Mar 21, 2011
    2
    In one word: boring.

    A complete letdown for a long-time Civ fan (since Civ II). Abundant technical problems mar gameplay causing huge lags between turns that allow you to peacefully read Tolstoy's War and Peace and even finish it in between turns. Huge lags just firing up the game FGS! Continuous CTD ( I must have suffered easily over 200 CTD) litter gameplay killing off immersion. And    In one word: boring.

    A complete letdown for a long-time Civ fan (since Civ II). Abundant technical problems mar gameplay causing huge lags between turns that allow you to peacefully read Tolstoy's War and Peace and even finish it in between turns. Huge lags just firing up the game FGS! Continuous CTD ( I must have suffered easily over 200 CTD) litter gameplay killing off immersion. And yes my rig is high-end so I shouldn't be having these problems but I do. In fact I even upgraded specifically it for its release. What a sucker. Now let's talk gameplay. The biggest change by far is the one-unit-per-tile rule, which although opens up a bevy of new strategy paths and may seem interesting on paper, in practice kills all the fun and addictiveness the game is renowned for. Lack of movies on winning, lack of statistics, INDIVIDUAL DLC's for each and every additional civilization (WTF!! you have to be kiddin's us) at 7 USD the pleasure...I must have "rich civ sucker" tatooed all over my forehead and the list goes on and on. On the positive side, undoubtedly the most beautiful graphics and sound a civilization game has ever been graced with. But then again, strategy games are NOT about pretty graphics (SMAC I'm looking at you). If I want them, I pick up Crysis 2 instead. Strategy games are about gameplay. Let me write that gain, "gameplay". You know, immersion, fun, addictiveness (one-more-turn), wife yelling at me, playing until the wee hours of the morning with a coffee. That sort of thing. Let me just add the civic tree is a great addition that spices up the game.

    I hope the Civilization franchise has not been killed off as a result of this disaster.

    Conclusion:

    It feels dumbed down from Civ IV and I wasn't even a great fan of the latter mind you. Hey, I LIKE MM my workers and fielding huge armies with hundreds of units you know...don't remove these things, make them optional at most.

    My advise, wait until they release the GOTY edition and see if it's been patched up or something. Although the biggest killer, the one-unit-per-tile rule, cannot be fixed with a patch. Pick up Shogun 2 Total War instead. It crashes from time, but compared to Civ V it is "stable" and runs smoothly; worth every penny.    … Expand
  71. Levarneus
    Apr 2, 2011
    2
    Lets start with the good.
    I'm not necessarily a hardcore Civ fan. I only started playing at 4, and in comparison with 4, 5 is quite fun (imo). I never liked the stacks of doom that the ai packed tons of, and I feel what they did with the combat was a huge improvement. The flanking bonuses/ability to fend off dozens of units with 3-4 well placed ones is a really awesome concept.    Lets start with the good.
    I'm not necessarily a hardcore Civ fan. I only started playing at 4, and in comparison with 4, 5 is quite fun (imo). I never liked the stacks of doom that the ai packed tons of, and I feel what they did with the combat was a huge improvement. The flanking bonuses/ability to fend off dozens of units with 3-4 well placed ones is a really awesome concept.
    Unfortunately, the AI are duuumb as anything and instead of realizing they have no hope, they'll move to stupid places and get slaughtered. The worst of all is when you have a naval unit by the coast and they embark right next to it, free kills >.>
    I've clocked over 300 hours playing it, and its an alright game. I haven't tried multiplayer, because like yahtzee I believe a game should be judged by its single player. But I've heard it's crap.

    I *would* have given this game a 9/10 if there was hotseat, which would counter the necessity of stupid ai by allowing me to play for them =D
    But 6 months after this games release, and 6 months of promises have passed, and hotseat is not here. Hotseat isn't a big deal for some people, but paying 50 bucks to support a company that makes false promises isn't worth it in my books.    … Expand
  72. CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    2
    CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    2 CivforBrains Jun 2, 2011 3 I've been playing Civ games since the Civ I and have thoroughly enjoyed them all. (Civ III was my least liked Civ though.) This latest Civ however, I have tried my hardest to like but I just can't do it. Besides an awful AI and terrible diplomacy, this game flat out isn't very fun at all. It's streamlined and frankly quite dumbed down.    CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    2
    CivforBrains Jun 2, 2011 3 I've been playing Civ games since the Civ I and have thoroughly enjoyed them all. (Civ III was my least liked Civ though.) This latest Civ however, I have tried my hardest to like but I just can't do it. Besides an awful AI and terrible diplomacy, this game flat out isn't very fun at all. It's streamlined and frankly quite dumbed down. Expect a console version within 1 1/2 years after they finish their true love Civ World.

    It is truly incredulous how the "professional" reviewers gave this piece of crap such high marks. Something definitely is rotten in the state of the gaming industry. Likely there are more than a few guerrilla posters on here as well. The developers also seem more intent on releasing DLC than properly fixing the game. In my opinion, 2K Games is largely responsible for ruining the Civ franchise. I don't blame Jon Shafer very much. This game was clearly released at least one year too early. Not much more to say. Perhaps they'll right the ship with Civ VI but I wouldn't count on it.    … Expand
  73. skuby
    Jul 24, 2011
    2
    I would recommend either part IV and or part III over part V.
  74. 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
  75. mrpepperkitty
    Nov 2, 2011
    2
    Terrible, played it for 4 hours, won, put it back in the box. Where is the 'civvyness' in it? My enemies never scheme against me, never see through me mechanations against them, Hard here feels like beginner in civ IV. If you're new to the series, don't like thinking too hard, love mediocre graphics and gameplay, then this is for you. And if all the Civ games had been like that I would notTerrible, played it for 4 hours, won, put it back in the box. Where is the 'civvyness' in it? My enemies never scheme against me, never see through me mechanations against them, Hard here feels like beginner in civ IV. If you're new to the series, don't like thinking too hard, love mediocre graphics and gameplay, then this is for you. And if all the Civ games had been like that I would not be nearly as disappointed, or for that matter, have bought it. But as a sequel it is an Elementary school play released after a Blockbuster movie, and it even costs more than the movie! Disappointing.… Expand
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. Qgal5kap
    Mar 8, 2013
    2
    As a kid, I remember waiting for the original Civilization to come out. I don't know how many times I read the review and how much I waited. The actual experience was amazing. I've played every single Civ game since then, and I've always been a huge fan of the franchise. I feel the quality of it all, started to fall with civ4,
    and came to it's climax with Civ5. It's almost like a    As a kid, I remember waiting for the original Civilization to come out. I don't know how many times I read the review and how much I waited. The actual experience was amazing. I've played every single Civ game since then, and I've always been a huge fan of the franchise. I feel the quality of it all, started to fall with civ4,
    and came to it's climax with Civ5. It's almost like a derivative of the music industry. They make cool bands play crap songs, in order to sell more records.

    Civ 5 was massively dumbed down, in order to reach a broader audience. As so many others have said,
    the lack of proper politics, tech trading and the likes, just makes this a very boring experience.

    I am not going to mention the bugs in this review, but the game is full of them!    … Expand
  80. 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.
  81. Caobei
    Oct 20, 2010
    1
    Beautiful graphics and some nice changes, but this game took a turn for the worse and seemed to feed off the PS3 version more than the PC games. I highly anticipated this game and feel quite let down having been a player of Civ I on up, the lack of depth in diplomacy,no espionage, homogenized leaders and countries. I do not recommend this game if you're a big fan of the PC games. If youBeautiful graphics and some nice changes, but this game took a turn for the worse and seemed to feed off the PS3 version more than the PC games. I highly anticipated this game and feel quite let down having been a player of Civ I on up, the lack of depth in diplomacy,no espionage, homogenized leaders and countries. I do not recommend this game if you're a big fan of the PC games. If you enjoyed the style of PS3 version this is an upgrade and quite enjoyable at that level.… Expand
  82. dddd2
    Jan 28, 2011
    1
    Dumbed-down version of Civ 4, very dissapointed, the only reason i spent 2 weeks playing it was because the everytime I pressed end turn it took up to 5 minutes for the next turn to start.
  83. Serinde
    Feb 2, 2011
    1
    I was so looking forward to this game, but it was a waste of money! I have loved and played all the Civ games as well as Alpha Centauri, yet with this game I have yet to get past the 1700's due to repeated crashes. I hope it is patched soon as this is absolutely ruining the franchise for me.
  84. pazmacats
    Apr 14, 2011
    1
    Civ5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian bossCiv5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian boss tribes) don't know who they are what they are where they are and what they are supposed to do, so it is a single player. Mulitplayer is broken, but totally ROCKS according to the devs. I recommend thsi game to enyone who is short of hate and / or boredom.… Expand
  85. kruelgor
    Mar 12, 2011
    1
    The game was designed by a young novice, John Shaffer. The end result is an unfinished and unpolished mess. The game itself is okay. The mod tools that came included are extremely user unfriendly and are bug ridden. Very poor game.
  86. Doublecross
    Sep 3, 2011
    1
    Wow, what a load of disappointing crap. If this game would just have the exact same graphics and the same game mechanics CIV 4 had, this game would be already better lol. But they dummed it down that my dicks dick could be my advisor in the game. Very dissapointed and sad :(
  87. maettsook
    Jul 19, 2011
    1
    Played Civ on the playstation, then moved to PC for II,III and IV. Loved IV and spent many many hours playing it. Installed Civ V, what a dissappointment. It's very slow, no fun, ultimately tedious. I'm back on Civ IV these days and Civ V sits on the bookshelf gathering dust, they won't catch me out again!
  88. Reo
    Aug 22, 2011
    1
    I have been a CIV 1 to 4 addict. I am trying to get into CIV5, but over the last 4 months every time I get a good game going I get to around turn 390 to 410 and then somthing always goes wrong. It wont load, or validate. The game crashes. I am sick of it. The only game I have completed is one I started in the industrial age and beat the game in under 200 turns. It seams you can only playI have been a CIV 1 to 4 addict. I am trying to get into CIV5, but over the last 4 months every time I get a good game going I get to around turn 390 to 410 and then somthing always goes wrong. It wont load, or validate. The game crashes. I am sick of it. The only game I have completed is one I started in the industrial age and beat the game in under 200 turns. It seams you can only play the game on standard or quick speed, on normal or small worlds. Have not been able to play past 400 turns on a large world. The game looks great and plays great only on standard settings with very few civs. The whole steam thing sucks! It takes for ever to load a game and then it crashes. Worse, it freezes and you dont know, becouse it normaly takes 5 minutes to load. Check integrety? This has never worked. It says it cant be verified and it has to be reloaded. You wait and wait and finaly its done and you go threw the 5 min wait to load another game and the it freezes. You try to post about the problem and they tell you a patch is coming, only I get the patch and it works fine on a new game, so you play it and boom the same thing at about the same point. I like the social policy thing and the game is balance tword world domination, thats ok. But I think the MODS may be the problem becouse all my crashes and freezes tend to happen during a mod game. But the vanilla civ 5 is not that fun. There are alot of aspects to this game I like, but what good are they if you cant play a game from ancient to futer with alot of turns. I am trying for a culter victory or a science, but I always end up freezing or crashing. Gonna try Historic speed as the only mod on a random map and see if that crashes or freezes, if it does I am putting this game away.… Expand
  89. DrIron
    Sep 8, 2011
    1
    Get Civilization 4 and BtS instead (you don't need Warlords, BTS has all of Warlords in it).
    5 has worse AI, only just barely matches the visual quality of modded Civilization 4, is much harder to mod and thus barely enjoys any modding community unlike 4, and the game is just too damn easy due to how unbalanced everything is. On top of that, there's hardly any multiplayer support.
    Just get    Get Civilization 4 and BtS instead (you don't need Warlords, BTS has all of Warlords in it).
    5 has worse AI, only just barely matches the visual quality of modded Civilization 4, is much harder to mod and thus barely enjoys any modding community unlike 4, and the game is just too damn easy due to how unbalanced everything is. On top of that, there's hardly any multiplayer support.
    Just get Civ4. Want more civilizations than 4 has to offer? They've been modded in. Want better graphics? They've been modded in. Hell, you can get mods that make each nation's units look unique, so that a Portugese and a Dutch unit will not be clones like they are in 5. Then to make things worse, Firaxis has actually started -selling- civilizations, putting less work into them than modders do, for $5 each.
    This sequel doesn't even deserve to exist if it can't compete with its predecessor on any field.    … Expand
  90. WookieInHeat
    Oct 26, 2011
    1
    as a long time fan of the civ series, this one was a massive disappointment. it seems they've removed or "streamlined" many aspects of the civ formula that made all the predecessors to this one great games.

    by far the most glaring issue is the AI. the AI in civ games was always a weak point, but in this one the stupidity of the AI players is on a whole new level. small empires with no    as a long time fan of the civ series, this one was a massive disappointment. it seems they've removed or "streamlined" many aspects of the civ formula that made all the predecessors to this one great games.

    by far the most glaring issue is the AI. the AI in civ games was always a weak point, but in this one the stupidity of the AI players is on a whole new level. small empires with no army will declare war on huge empires with massive armies, friendly empires will denounce you for having too many units in their territory after you've just rescued them from being conquered and returned their cities, declaring war on too many other civs will cause friendly civs to denounce you as a "war monger", even if all the civs you declared war on were attacking your friends, etc.    … Expand
  91. Choppa
    Sep 10, 2013
    1
    I bought the game with the Inca expansion pack, I had just finished reading about the Incas and was hoping to get some sort of Spaniards vs Incas gameplay. The Inca set has NOTHING to do with the Incas and the landscapes do no even begin to reflect it (ooooh +2 agility points to maneuvering through mountains!! GMAFB). After accepting it has little bearing on the historical figures itI bought the game with the Inca expansion pack, I had just finished reading about the Incas and was hoping to get some sort of Spaniards vs Incas gameplay. The Inca set has NOTHING to do with the Incas and the landscapes do no even begin to reflect it (ooooh +2 agility points to maneuvering through mountains!! GMAFB). After accepting it has little bearing on the historical figures it portrays, I continued to play this game for 7 hours straight, with every turn you're hooked thinking something will happen, maybe a few more turns, a few more, then you finally give up realizing it's a joke... nothing happens, efforts in this game amount to nothing, it is a time wasting cycle of thinking something will happen. Civ5 is one of the most pointless game I've ever encountered in 20 years of gaming. If you get this, don't come crying to me about wasting your time and money.… Expand
  92. vasek45
    Jun 2, 2012
    1
    The single player is good and works fine. The games itself is not as deep as previous games but that's not the worst thing for me. The worst thing is: my 3 friends and me have bought this game on steam last weekend to play multiplayer. It's been like 1.5 years since realese, right? But it's still incredibly unstable. The "please wait" bug is ridiculous. For each 100 turns we reloaded theThe single player is good and works fine. The games itself is not as deep as previous games but that's not the worst thing for me. The worst thing is: my 3 friends and me have bought this game on steam last weekend to play multiplayer. It's been like 1.5 years since realese, right? But it's still incredibly unstable. The "please wait" bug is ridiculous. For each 100 turns we reloaded the game around 6-7 times. And after the second time our save became corrupted and we couldn't make it to the next turn because of the bug, we simply deleted the game. Multiplayer is simply unplayable. Also, typos in russian version are horrible. 1C-Softclub just as usual did their awful job.
    If not for multiplayer, i'd put it 6/10, because despite the lack of religion and other cool things previous parts had, it's still a rather enjoyable game. But the multiplayer just doesn't work properly for us. Therefore => 1/10    … Expand
  93. ZEMTEK
    Aug 18, 2012
    1
    I have been playing civ since the first one came out. I bought civ5 from a store and you cant even play the game if ya dont have internet to activate. Which is stupid. To cap it off you had to sit there and download yet another aplication to activate it. Why did the game designers not have this other ap on the disc? poor design ? Then after i fianlly got the game activated I was so veryI have been playing civ since the first one came out. I bought civ5 from a store and you cant even play the game if ya dont have internet to activate. Which is stupid. To cap it off you had to sit there and download yet another aplication to activate it. Why did the game designers not have this other ap on the disc? poor design ? Then after i fianlly got the game activated I was so very disapointed in the game. Less options than other versions. time between turns is stupid long. Load times take for ever and i have 4gigs of ram dual core. I would feel sorry for anyone trying to play this game on some older model computer. The only thing i actually liked about civ5 is razing cities. Unless they were former capitols or those city states which could not be razed. They also got rid of the stupid public works which was a nice change.liked the new culture thing. Things i hated were not able to raze capitols and city states. Not able to pass or do anything with mountains,
    No mags to move troops faster. Could not terriform. Stupid other nations would not even trade resources i had to go over an just take the resources from them.
    Could not activate till i went to a place with internet.
    Had to down load another stupid program to activate. the scenario editor dont work. When Civ VI comes out i hope it will actually be an improvement all the options of the old civs.    … Expand
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. jlg28429
    May 28, 2014
    1
    The game itself is awesome... Maybe a 9/10. Unfortunately it is ruined by STEAM, like most PC gaming nowadays. This was the first and last game I will ever buy that forces me to use STEAM. Adios PC gaming.
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. RRRay
    Apr 4, 2015
    1
    I'm never playing this game again! Super boring. Very aggressive and plentiful barbarians. Stupid and greedy city states. Super slow game play. Cannot stack units. Uninstalling...!
  100. 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
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 »