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
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 »