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. c87
    Dec 8, 2010
    3
    It seems like a good game, but it just keeps on crashing in the middle of a game. Get the problem fixed and it would be a decent game. I wouldn't recommend anyone buys the game until this problem is fixed, as it's just a waste of money at the moment.
  2. Mantriur
    Jan 14, 2011
    3
    First of all let me say that it is a bit unfair to rate a game 0, just because you had specific expectations it did not match. :P

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

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

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

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

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

    If you are new to the franchise, have an obscenely overpower CPU (AI load is mostly on one core), and too much time, go for it. If you are a hardcore Civ fan, don't waste your money.    … Expand
  3. 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
  4. los_majklos
    Oct 27, 2012
    3
    Well this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it'sWell this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it's possible today to make it faster and save you from all the tedious activities, deciding what to build on every single hex in every single turn. You should be able to set your typical path through the tech and build trees and reuse those. The final spoiler is, that anything you do, you will end up in war. Even if you try to be polite and nice, there is no peace alternative in real game, it is only theoretical. I managed to win peacefully once from like 30 attempts and it was by mere luck anyway. So this game does copy typical american colonial consumeristic philosophy - expand, fight, kill and consume. More means always better. What a disappointment.… Expand
  5. 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
  6. jarnold
    Mar 10, 2011
    0
    I am sorely disappointed. I love the old civilization games, and was looking forward to this game for quite some time. The graphics are hardly better than Civ 4, and there are loads of glitches. The lag is horrible, and there are fewer choices of people or options. They dumbed it down. This may be fine for an introduction to the Civilization series, but I wanted a step forward, notI am sorely disappointed. I love the old civilization games, and was looking forward to this game for quite some time. The graphics are hardly better than Civ 4, and there are loads of glitches. The lag is horrible, and there are fewer choices of people or options. They dumbed it down. This may be fine for an introduction to the Civilization series, but I wanted a step forward, not simplification.… Expand
  7. kruelgor
    Mar 12, 2011
    1
    The game was designed by a young novice, John Shaffer. The end result is an unfinished and unpolished mess. The game itself is okay. The mod tools that came included are extremely user unfriendly and are bug ridden. Very poor game.
  8. Repper
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    If I were to sum up this game using just one word I'd use the word "Disappointment." They've conjured up a great deal of new ideas to revolutionize this game, but in combination with all the flaws this game isn't worth it at all. If you are a fan of previous Civ games that liked the created depth of the game, that liked having multiple ways to win the game, that liked better diplomacy,If I were to sum up this game using just one word I'd use the word "Disappointment." They've conjured up a great deal of new ideas to revolutionize this game, but in combination with all the flaws this game isn't worth it at all. If you are a fan of previous Civ games that liked the created depth of the game, that liked having multiple ways to win the game, that liked better diplomacy, espionage, religion, and cooperations, then stick with Civ 4.… Expand
  9. 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.
  10. andreaskarlsson
    Mar 27, 2011
    0
    The game runs very poorly on my new macbook pro i5 with SSD. In addition to this the game crashes after playing only a few minutes. The graphics have to be set to the lowest quality for the game to run at all and thus are awful. A purely horrible experience and such a disappointment that I had to make an account here and express my opinion. I would gladly take my money back for this one!
  11. WookieInHeat
    Oct 26, 2011
    1
    as a long time fan of the civ series, this one was a massive disappointment. it seems they've removed or "streamlined" many aspects of the civ formula that made all the predecessors to this one great games.

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

    by far the most glaring issue is the AI. the AI in civ games was always a weak point, but in this one the stupidity of the AI players is on a whole new level. small empires with no army will declare war on huge empires with massive armies, friendly empires will denounce you for having too many units in their territory after you've just rescued them from being conquered and returned their cities, declaring war on too many other civs will cause friendly civs to denounce you as a "war monger", even if all the civs you declared war on were attacking your friends, etc.    … Expand
  12. 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
  13. vasek45
    Jun 2, 2012
    1
    The single player is good and works fine. The games itself is not as deep as previous games but that's not the worst thing for me. The worst thing is: my 3 friends and me have bought this game on steam last weekend to play multiplayer. It's been like 1.5 years since realese, right? But it's still incredibly unstable. The "please wait" bug is ridiculous. For each 100 turns we reloaded theThe single player is good and works fine. The games itself is not as deep as previous games but that's not the worst thing for me. The worst thing is: my 3 friends and me have bought this game on steam last weekend to play multiplayer. It's been like 1.5 years since realese, right? But it's still incredibly unstable. The "please wait" bug is ridiculous. For each 100 turns we reloaded the game around 6-7 times. And after the second time our save became corrupted and we couldn't make it to the next turn because of the bug, we simply deleted the game. Multiplayer is simply unplayable. Also, typos in russian version are horrible. 1C-Softclub just as usual did their awful job.
    If not for multiplayer, i'd put it 6/10, because despite the lack of religion and other cool things previous parts had, it's still a rather enjoyable game. But the multiplayer just doesn't work properly for us. Therefore => 1/10    … Expand
  14. dsacedon
    Jun 9, 2012
    0
    I can`t play, I waste myI can`t play, I waste my time.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................… Expand
  15. toad_svk
    Jul 29, 2012
    3
    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city - stupid, dumb,    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city
    - stupid, dumb, irrational AI ever: I am at war with some Civ, we make peace, another Civ crushes them, I liberate them, they're on guard towards me (despite the liberation..) then 20 rounds later, when they spawn one pikeman, they decide its a good thing to declare war on me (with my numerous tanks and foreign legion, good going AI!)
    - advisors interface completely designed by indian staff (yes offense): like 10 pages saying the same thing about which city is best to develop military units (instead of putting it on one page...)
    - talking about the advisors: they're high, and I mean real high: I am at war with a more powerful CIV (at least I guess in term of number of units) and Im kicking their asses (like 13 victories on 15 battles -> resulting in destruction of enemy units) and still the military advisor tells me the war is going bad.
    - nasty scrolling bug when you click on next turn: if you go on some side of the screen, it will scroll forever until the end of opponent actions
    - automatic selection of unit horrible: like you manually select an unit at some critical place in the game (like a big fight), it will then go somewhere else completely (despite the fact you actually shown interest for THIS specific place), ok maybe there was a setting for that, I didnt look for it.
    - there is no automatic focus on enemy / ally movement sometimes so you might miss what is happening (not when it involves you - thanks god)

    If you want the rolls of management game, try Anno series, if you want the rolls of Turn based strategy / fighting game (well the fighting is more deep so it might not be the best choice for you), try Total War series...    … Expand
  16. Qgal5kap
    Mar 8, 2013
    2
    As a kid, I remember waiting for the original Civilization to come out. I don't know how many times I read the review and how much I waited. The actual experience was amazing. I've played every single Civ game since then, and I've always been a huge fan of the franchise. I feel the quality of it all, started to fall with civ4,
    and came to it's climax with Civ5. It's almost like a    As a kid, I remember waiting for the original Civilization to come out. I don't know how many times I read the review and how much I waited. The actual experience was amazing. I've played every single Civ game since then, and I've always been a huge fan of the franchise. I feel the quality of it all, started to fall with civ4,
    and came to it's climax with Civ5. It's almost like a derivative of the music industry. They make cool bands play crap songs, in order to sell more records.

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

    I am not going to mention the bugs in this review, but the game is full of them!    … Expand
  17. Velia
    Apr 10, 2014
    0
    More crashes and more money spent on my computer trying to prevent crashes than any game I've ever played. I will never buy another game from this company, ever. As far as gameplay it's poor to fair, but the fact that it crashes every other turn (literally; this is NOT an exaggeration) prevents me from enjoying the gameplay. At first I loved the no unit stacking. I thought it was aMore crashes and more money spent on my computer trying to prevent crashes than any game I've ever played. I will never buy another game from this company, ever. As far as gameplay it's poor to fair, but the fact that it crashes every other turn (literally; this is NOT an exaggeration) prevents me from enjoying the gameplay. At first I loved the no unit stacking. I thought it was a wonderful improvement over the Civ 4 unit stack of death. But it's not. It's hugely tedious to escort a settler, and don't quote the phrase "two ships passing in the night" because two ships can't actually pass each other. With two expacs, you think they'd fix the simple stuff, but they never did. (As an aside, I like hexes better than squares, but that is this game's ONLY redeeming feature.)… Expand
  18. RRRay
    Apr 4, 2015
    1
    I'm never playing this game again! Super boring. Very aggressive and plentiful barbarians. Stupid and greedy city states. Super slow game play. Cannot stack units. Uninstalling...!
  19. Doublecross
    Sep 3, 2011
    1
    Wow, what a load of disappointing crap. If this game would just have the exact same graphics and the same game mechanics CIV 4 had, this game would be already better lol. But they dummed it down that my dicks dick could be my advisor in the game. Very dissapointed and sad :(
  20. chris999
    Oct 7, 2010
    0
    Great graphics, very beautiful to play, a lot of potential here. But it is like a great car ... that keeps stalling on you. This game has such a huge crashing problem that it is virtually unplayable, unless you stick with small maps and only 3 or 4 civilizations ... and you turn everything down to low, etc ... so what is the point then of all the eye candy then? Play Civ 4 instead.Great graphics, very beautiful to play, a lot of potential here. But it is like a great car ... that keeps stalling on you. This game has such a huge crashing problem that it is virtually unplayable, unless you stick with small maps and only 3 or 4 civilizations ... and you turn everything down to low, etc ... so what is the point then of all the eye candy then? Play Civ 4 instead. This game has to be seriously patched. Oh, the problem won't show up right away (usually), but just try playing a large map with lots of stuff happening ... and then see if you can actually win the game ... be prepared for big pauses, sloowwww map scrolling .... and then a total freeze up. Did the company release a beta or something?
    ... Until it is patched, make sure you turn everything to low or medium, make sure you have a powerful system (quad core, high end video card, etc.). Doesn't seem to make any difference whether you are running XP or Vista or Windows 7, the game game still crashes. Especially when you play a large map with many civilizations. After a while, it's like your PC just can't cope - indicates a big memory leak problem in the game. Type into Google "Civ 5 crashes" and you'll get the picture. I have a Core 2 Duo 2.16 with 9800GT and 4 gigs Ram, XP sp3. I have the latest nVidia drivers (256) .. and none of my other PC games crash like this baby. Hopefully firaxis can fix what should be an incredible Civ experience.    … Expand
  21. CmdrSoCal
    Nov 9, 2010
    3
    another incomplete rip off video game that got rave reviews from moron review sites. out of the box this game has bugs, crashes and apparently the ai is either very poorly made or just was not finished. the diplomacy/ai part of civ games is the most important part for single player. if you dont yet own i would 1) wait for it to get cheaper than 50$ and 2) check the forums to make sure theanother incomplete rip off video game that got rave reviews from moron review sites. out of the box this game has bugs, crashes and apparently the ai is either very poorly made or just was not finished. the diplomacy/ai part of civ games is the most important part for single player. if you dont yet own i would 1) wait for it to get cheaper than 50$ and 2) check the forums to make sure the ai fail and the bugs have been fixed before bying. otherwise try proven strategy games over this junk. oh and its only playable through steam as well.… Expand
  22. dddd2
    Jan 28, 2011
    1
    Dumbed-down version of Civ 4, very dissapointed, the only reason i spent 2 weeks playing it was because the everytime I pressed end turn it took up to 5 minutes for the next turn to start.
  23. Pandalicious
    Feb 2, 2011
    2
    This is a game that seems great at first but loses its shine once you dive in. The deep strategy that's been the hallmark of the Civ series just isn't there. It feels like all the years of stored up wisdom and lessons learned that had culminated in Civ 4 were thrown out the window for this one. The game is just boring now. The AI utterly sucks at combat and is schizophrenic when it comesThis is a game that seems great at first but loses its shine once you dive in. The deep strategy that's been the hallmark of the Civ series just isn't there. It feels like all the years of stored up wisdom and lessons learned that had culminated in Civ 4 were thrown out the window for this one. The game is just boring now. The AI utterly sucks at combat and is schizophrenic when it comes to diplomacy (and there's not much you can do through diplomacy anyways), so there's just not much in the ways of interesting gameplay. Huge disappointment.… Expand
  24. Serinde
    Feb 2, 2011
    1
    I was so looking forward to this game, but it was a waste of money! I have loved and played all the Civ games as well as Alpha Centauri, yet with this game I have yet to get past the 1700's due to repeated crashes. I hope it is patched soon as this is absolutely ruining the franchise for me.
  25. Bootsy1
    Feb 15, 2011
    3
    Like many have mentioned, Civ5 is a big disappointment. The main reason I give the game a barely 4 rating is because the game is very unstable and buggy. It has dozens of glitches and a big memory leak. After an hour of playing the game runs at 1.8Gb memory which is insane and shows how bad optimized it is and how rushed the game has been released. I waited to buy the game (50Euro's)Like many have mentioned, Civ5 is a big disappointment. The main reason I give the game a barely 4 rating is because the game is very unstable and buggy. It has dozens of glitches and a big memory leak. After an hour of playing the game runs at 1.8Gb memory which is insane and shows how bad optimized it is and how rushed the game has been released. I waited to buy the game (50Euro's) till now, cos I expected it to be patched several times by now, but no. It seems that the game has not been patched at all and they just left it buggy and unstable like it is now. __ The interface in the game is huge, the map is litteraly filled with huge tags and obtrusive HUDs. There supposed to be an option to make the interface smaller, but it does not work. ___ Anywho, buy this game and you get a once every 30 minutes crash, long load times and random freezes after 100 turns of playing and even start up crashes. The game also seems to be made more noob friendly and reduced the amount of real diplomatic strategy and spionage etc. Civ5 is Civ for dummies. I recommend buying Civ 4 instead of this unfinished and unstable version. This page does not alow me to rate it a 4!… Expand
  26. Slackerman
    Mar 15, 2011
    3
    As a fan of the entire series (in particular, Civ II and Civ IV), Civ V was a near-total letdown. It's marched backwards in almost every way, and it's interesting that the system requirements are steeper than Civ IV's, because Civ IV had better graphics. Diplomacy is horrible, the City States are incredibly annoying and feel like speed bumps (BIG speed bumps) on one's way to worldAs a fan of the entire series (in particular, Civ II and Civ IV), Civ V was a near-total letdown. It's marched backwards in almost every way, and it's interesting that the system requirements are steeper than Civ IV's, because Civ IV had better graphics. Diplomacy is horrible, the City States are incredibly annoying and feel like speed bumps (BIG speed bumps) on one's way to world domination. In addition, their alliances are nonsensical - how in the hell they could maintain a trade route with a rival civilization by going through MY territory is farcical. They are far too difficult to conquer. A friend of mine plays the game with the city-states turned off, which I guess is available through options. It's rather telling that a portion of the game the developers obviously spent a great deal of time on is improved when it's removed from play. Combat was not improved with the removal of stacking, as the scale of the map doesn't lend itself to formations where you can protect missile units. Add to all this the incredibly laggy (in single-player!) and worthless Diplomacy screens, the removal of espionage and religion, the dumbed down UI, the memory leaks and crashes, the fewer number of civilizations unless you pony up more money for DLC. . . . . . summed up, a huge march backwards and a horrible game. This was the game that finally taught me to ignore most "professional" reviewers on Metacritic, as it's incomprehensible that they scored it a 90. This game isn't even worth it if they dropped the price to $10 USD. Avoid it, and just keep playing Civ II or IV.… Expand
  27. Thothistox
    Oct 15, 2011
    0
    This is the most disappointing sequel I have ever played. I played Civ4 for well over 1000 hours of my life. I played Civ5 for 36 hours according to Steam, and I haven`t had the slightest urge to pick it up again. Civ 5 is like Civ4 with slightly better graphics, a hexagonal playing field and a whole lot of things removed including everything I considered fun, and it was clearly made byThis is the most disappointing sequel I have ever played. I played Civ4 for well over 1000 hours of my life. I played Civ5 for 36 hours according to Steam, and I haven`t had the slightest urge to pick it up again. Civ 5 is like Civ4 with slightly better graphics, a hexagonal playing field and a whole lot of things removed including everything I considered fun, and it was clearly made by people who don`t know why gamers played the previous Civ games. Where do I begin... Let`s start with the AI. It has obviously not received any QA time whatsoever. You will repeatedly encounter the other civs behaving in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. The other civs will declare war at random, and ask you for help and then brand you a warmonger and hold a grudge against you for thousands of years because you did what they asked for and helped them. The other civs have a way of ganging up on the human-controlled civ and making demands of it that they don`t make of each other. Wonders feel useless, and instead of animations you just get a cheesy image.There is no technology trading. The technology race feels irrelevant. Making research pacts is idiotic. Renewing research pacts is idiotic. Neutral nation states that give you `missions` -- idiotic. Punishing civs for expanding by making cities exceedingly expensive while half the world map remains empty well into the industrial age -- idiotic. On occasion, other civs won`t bother to build a second city or any units for that matter. Cities are weapons -- idiotic. Archers can fire over hundreds of kilometres. Only one unit can fit per tile, meaning that vulnerable units often have no protection. This game feels like the war is actually happening between 10 soldiers versus a tank rather than a unit that symbolizes a whole infantry or armored division. The war is a cartoon of Civ4`s war. Hexagonal tiles are a very lazy improvement, and the game gains little through them. There are no ending animations and no summary of history, probably because it would expose how broken the AI is.

    If I were to make a real sequel to Civ4 here`s what I would include: 1) theatres of war: when you fight inside a tile the camera zooms in to a strategic view where your divisions are split up into smaller units that you can move around on the zoomed-in map. These units support each other with indirect fire, flanking and fighting at short range. This would be far better than having one unit per tile or having stacks of doom like in civ4. It would also be a lot more work to implement, but that is exactly what I expect from a whole new game -- which civ5 is not

    2) Better population dynamics. Assuming I have the same amount of food, it shouldn`t make any difference whether I train settler and split into two cities or not. My total population should be the same. In civ5 the population dynamics make no sense.

    3) Intead of building an army, I should build equipment and employ a segment of my population to use it. You can`t build soldiers, only give birth to them.

    4) Smart and logical AI that doesn`t attack at random.

    5) More techs and more units, including many more in the modern era.

    6) Allowing backward civs to get third-rate versions of modern weapons (the equivalent of African AK47s) without a lot of research.

    That is the kind of civ game I would like to play, but of course it would take some thought to appreciate and lots of time and effort to construct. Civ5 on the other hand was rushed and designed to look good for 5 hours, just long enough for the reviewer to give it its high mark and then give up on it.    … Expand
  28. pazmacats
    Apr 14, 2011
    1
    Civ5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian bossCiv5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian boss tribes) don't know who they are what they are where they are and what they are supposed to do, so it is a single player. Mulitplayer is broken, but totally ROCKS according to the devs. I recommend thsi game to enyone who is short of hate and / or boredom.… Expand
  29. phil24
    May 2, 2012
    2
    This is a very addictive game. HOWEVER. No normal human has the time to play it. I have put 40 hours into this game, finished 1 match (wich i lost in the 1400s) and just lost my second after putting 20 hours into a match. The game itself is so enraging that i almost punched my computer. you should never be able to put 20 hours into a single match and loose the entire game in a matter ofThis is a very addictive game. HOWEVER. No normal human has the time to play it. I have put 40 hours into this game, finished 1 match (wich i lost in the 1400s) and just lost my second after putting 20 hours into a match. The game itself is so enraging that i almost punched my computer. you should never be able to put 20 hours into a single match and loose the entire game in a matter of minutes. its sickening.… Expand
  30. Mittsies
    Jan 14, 2014
    0
    Trash game. Horrendous multiplayer. Incredibly boring and weak compared to its predecessors. Is 0 out of 10 a fair score? Probably not. But it's an insult to the franchise, disrespecting its own line of games, so why should I leave a respectful review? Even if the game was free to play, I'd be more worried about wasting my time. Go play Civ 4 or something.
  31. TheTim
    Jan 9, 2011
    0
    Highly overrated game. It can take dozens of turns for a single small event to happen and there's not a single interesting thing in the entire game. Anyone who plays actual games such as Starcraft II will fall asleep watching or playing Civ V because it's such a dumbed down simple game that a 5 year old could play it.

    If you build 1 thing every 15 turns there's no skill or thought    Highly overrated game. It can take dozens of turns for a single small event to happen and there's not a single interesting thing in the entire game. Anyone who plays actual games such as Starcraft II will fall asleep watching or playing Civ V because it's such a dumbed down simple game that a 5 year old could play it.

    If you build 1 thing every 15 turns there's no skill or thought needed.
    Attacks can take dozens of turns to do anything, again making people simply fall asleep.
    Play the demo if you'd like, skip buying it.    … Expand
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. Alex767
    Jan 2, 2015
    0
    Super boring....... such a waste of time and money, I heard from my friends that it was a good game, so I gave a shot , but it was so boring, Total war it is so much better....
  35. scotius
    Mar 17, 2011
    0
    well, another game has been dumbed down in order to appeal to the WoW audience. CiV is a real crying shame of a game. Instead of building on the achievements olf Civ 4 they havespoiled it by making an entirely new game.

    A game that is shallow, too easy, dumb and has very little going for it once you get into the industrial age. Be very aware that Firaxis employees are spamming    well, another game has been dumbed down in order to appeal to the WoW audience. CiV is a real crying shame of a game. Instead of building on the achievements olf Civ 4 they havespoiled it by making an entirely new game.

    A game that is shallow, too easy, dumb and has very little going for it once you get into the industrial age. Be very aware that Firaxis employees are spamming Metacritic with good reviews in order to bump its rating up.    … Expand
  36. RamaMan
    Jun 2, 2016
    0
    Civilization, more like UNcivillized, because of terrible characters, boring game play, badly paced story, an unlikable main character, and dull set pieces.
  37. VidsRule
    Jul 7, 2012
    3
    I hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part onI hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part on the map becomes a convoluted mess, and every action is a complete chore. And then other civs start complaining constantly. I know some people are very good at the game and they can handle all that, but I would like to have some fun added to the games I play.… Expand
  38. jlg28429
    May 28, 2014
    1
    The game itself is awesome... Maybe a 9/10. Unfortunately it is ruined by STEAM, like most PC gaming nowadays. This was the first and last game I will ever buy that forces me to use STEAM. Adios PC gaming.
  39. volumass35
    Jul 13, 2019
    0
    It's a boring copycat of previous games. The graphics is adequate, the gameplay too. The Civ cant get any fresh idea.
  40. BFG-1337
    Apr 24, 2021
    3
    Things i hate the most: Gambling, drug and alcohol addiction and soulless addictive games like WoW, Candy Crush and so on..

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

    This game falls under the soulless addictive games category.
    Most people do the "MUST PRESS NEXT TURN", I however didnt feel that it was fun pressing next turn, i felt dread every time i pressed next turn because nothing would happen for 20+ turns and every time something happened it was very slow.
    This game isnt the fun type of addicting, its the ALCOHOL type of addicting, every time you press next turn its like "just one more shot and im going home". I personally didnt fall for the **** "gameplay" of this "game".
    I played Civ 3, Civ5 and Civ 6
    Civ3 was a great 4x strategy game that required thinking and real strategy, this and civ 6 dont require any brains, its a pure **** of a game.    … Expand
  41. coachdds
    Jan 16, 2020
    0
    the amount of crap necessary to install the game is ridiculous. from steaming pile of dogcrap to the game itself
next
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 »