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. 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
  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. 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
  4. Dipex
    Sep 26, 2010
    0
    I'm a long time Civ fan, I've been playing back since the days of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, but this game just sucks. In a nutshell, the UI is non-functional, the AI is broken, the diplomatic system doesn't work, and the game is buggy as hell. It feels rushed, looks rushed, and will play like its rushed when it either crashes or grinds to a halt an hour or so in due to a memory leak.

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

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

    On a final note, I know that a lot of hardcore Civ fans don't exactly have the best computers. Well, you might want to rethink this game. If you don't meet the rather high recommended requirements you will not be able to play on a map larger than standard- and even then the game will run like crap. I'm just below the recommended reqs, and with all my settings on minimum the game starts to chug on mid-late game standard maps. I have to say, for the performance the game doesn't even look that good so be warned.    … Expand
  5. 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
  6. Discerning
    Sep 30, 2010
    2
    What an enormous disappointment. I am shocked that this game came from Sid Meierâ
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Rome
    Sep 28, 2014
    0
    Civilization V was pure crap when it was released in 2010. And despite all it's expansions and pointless DLC's it is still utter crap.

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

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

    Every design decision seems to come from the developers wish to do stuff differently and cater to the casual masses. The results is the mentioned dumbed downed piece of turd, which is no doubt loved by casual gamers around the globe.    … Expand
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. Zeeshan-Abid
    May 29, 2015
    0
    I have been playing Civilization series since 1998. Didn't play Civ 1 too much, but since Civ 2, I stuck to the game. I even played Call to Power by Activision (which were deviations from Sid Meier games, but had the same game concept). I bought Civ 3 twice. Civ 4 became my most favorite game. For Civ 5, I bought a new computer, and had a new graphic card. Honestly, I could never believeI have been playing Civilization series since 1998. Didn't play Civ 1 too much, but since Civ 2, I stuck to the game. I even played Call to Power by Activision (which were deviations from Sid Meier games, but had the same game concept). I bought Civ 3 twice. Civ 4 became my most favorite game. For Civ 5, I bought a new computer, and had a new graphic card. Honestly, I could never believe that I would be writing a bad review for a Sid Meier's game. I loved almost every game by them. And I tried very hard to like Civ 5, but I could not. This game is simply not the usual 'Addictive' tag that all the civilization games had.

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

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

    I know most of the Civ fans would not listen to me and would still try this game. But in the end, they will also quit the series. So sad, as we all all loved this series greatly.    … Expand
  18. steevm
    Mar 30, 2012
    0
    You've probably already noticed that loads of Civ fans are unhappy with Civ V. I'm one of them. I bought Civilization I on release, and every other version since. Civ V is the first one that I can't even begin to enjoy. It's a massive step backwards. It's basically no longer Civilization, but some weird war game without any of the depth that made all the previous versions fun to play andYou've probably already noticed that loads of Civ fans are unhappy with Civ V. I'm one of them. I bought Civilization I on release, and every other version since. Civ V is the first one that I can't even begin to enjoy. It's a massive step backwards. It's basically no longer Civilization, but some weird war game without any of the depth that made all the previous versions fun to play and saw the series progress with each iteration. If anything, Civ V is kinda like Civ I in that it essentially removes all the additions to the series in between. Except that Civ I was actually fun to play and gave you the feeling of building a "Civilization to stand the test of time". This is a monstrosity not worthy of the name. I definitely won't be purchasing Civ VI in blind faith - and I never thought that I'd say that about a Civ game! Please Sid/Firaxis: focus on what made the Civ series so great - the "interesting decision paradigm". If you want to make a war game, by all means do, but then don't call it Civilization.… Expand
  19. sandutter
    Jan 30, 2016
    0
    I loved Civ 1 (yes, 1). After that, things started to go wrong. I've tried several later versions, but to me, the 3D view is horrible. It just doesn't give you the overview that makes it enjoyable. Another thing with Civ5 is that it's so SLOW. I spent 2 hours trying to capture a tiny city-state with like 8 cannons. I think it must have been a bug, but what does it matter. It's a lousyI loved Civ 1 (yes, 1). After that, things started to go wrong. I've tried several later versions, but to me, the 3D view is horrible. It just doesn't give you the overview that makes it enjoyable. Another thing with Civ5 is that it's so SLOW. I spent 2 hours trying to capture a tiny city-state with like 8 cannons. I think it must have been a bug, but what does it matter. It's a lousy game. And oh yeah, you can no longer control your city's economy, i.e. relocate tile production. The whole thing is boring, slow, confusing, idiotic, completely forgettable...… Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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
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 »