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. Crimson9
    Jul 28, 2023
    6
    The decision to remove unit stacking is absolutely genius and makes the civ franchise 100 times better.

    With Vox Populi this game becomes a 7 or an 8. Without it the AI is bad and the game is unbalanced and simple so 6.
  2. Hyperfailure
    Nov 27, 2022
    7
    (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
    ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ)

    ┻━┻ ︵ ＼( °□° )／ ︵ ┻━┻

    ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)

    (ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ ┻━┻

    ┬──┬ ¯_(ツ)

    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻

    ┻━┻ ︵ ¯(ツ)/¯ ︵ ┻━┻

    (╯°Д°）╯︵ /(.□ . )

    ʕノ•ᴥ•ʔノ ︵ ┻━┻
  3. Jollyolfun
    Nov 18, 2022
    6
    i played this for roughly 4 hours in one sitting and then quit but it was pretty dope
  4. Wrathzo
    Mar 21, 2022
    6
    Sid Meier's Civilization V is a 4X video game in the Civilization series developed by Firaxis Games. In Civilization V, the player leads a civilization from prehistoric times into the future on a procedurally generated map, attempting to achieve one of a number of different victory conditions through research, exploration, diplomacy, expansion, economic development, government and militarySid Meier's Civilization V is a 4X video game in the Civilization series developed by Firaxis Games. In Civilization V, the player leads a civilization from prehistoric times into the future on a procedurally generated map, attempting to achieve one of a number of different victory conditions through research, exploration, diplomacy, expansion, economic development, government and military conquest. The game is based on an entirely new game engine with hexagonal tiles instead of the square tiles of earlier games in the series. Many elements from Civilization IV and its expansion packs have been removed or changed, such as religion and espionage (although these were reintroduced in its subsequent expansions). The combat system has been overhauled, by removing stacking of military units and enabling cities to defend themselves by firing directly on nearby enemies. In addition, the maps contain computer-controlled city-states and non-player characters that are available for trade, diplomacy and conquest. A civilization's borders also expand one tile at a time, favoring more productive tiles, and roads now have a maintenance cost, making them much less common. The game features community, modding, and multiplayer elements.… Expand
  5. KTheSlayer
    Jun 18, 2021
    7
    The upgraded 4'th Civ. A lot of new mechanics, some of which are not that great
  6. KevLooney
    May 12, 2021
    7
    The game is inaccessible. I had at one point felt flow while playing though.
  7. kezzyhko
    Jan 9, 2021
    7
    ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍
  8. BobbyTarantino
    Aug 15, 2020
    7
    a man goes to the doctor. says he's depressed. he says life seems harsh and cruel. says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. the doctor says "the treatment is simple. the great clown pagliacci is in town tonight. go and see him, that should pick you up." the man bursts into tears. he says "but doctor... i am pagliacci."
  9. Sean-M
    Jul 23, 2020
    7
    This is a nice game, but comparing to CIV IV, it is not as good. 8 out of 10.
  10. EsteticBomzh
    Jun 23, 2020
    7
    Люблю эту игру из-за тех воспоминаний, которые она дарит, когда я о ней вспоминаю.
  11. Svetlendrius
    Jun 19, 2020
    7
    A good strategy for playing a party, with many varieties of victory, good dls, but a poor device for online games. Chilli game. Of the minuses, a long one, they never played out to the end.
  12. Wiebe
    Feb 27, 2020
    5
    Too much like the old games, but then without the previous DLCs, bad AI, easy to game, showing its age
  13. HaloFever
    Nov 22, 2019
    7
    This review is for Civ V complete, with the Gods & Kings and Brave New World expansions. The "vanilla" game is a stripped down version that offers very little game play. Fortunately for you, the game is so old that the complete edition is super cheap.

    Civ V is a delicacy. The game is missing core features from old civ games but adds a lot of great features for fans of strategy games.    This review is for Civ V complete, with the Gods & Kings and Brave New World expansions. The "vanilla" game is a stripped down version that offers very little game play. Fortunately for you, the game is so old that the complete edition is super cheap.

    Civ V is a delicacy. The game is missing core features from old civ games but adds a lot of great features for fans of strategy games. The good: the hex based strategic combat feels smart for the first time in civ history. No more stacking units to take a city or facing a stack of doom from the computer. You can win wars by playing smart. The bad: the game rewards only a few styles of play and does not offer a risk-reward for player choices.

    On that bad part, the game punishes the player for building an empire. Ever new city increases unhappiness to the point that any amount of cities greater than 4 leads to happiness problems in the early game. Conquering enemy cities generates even more unhappiness, and many a campaign of conquest ended with a peace treaty because of it. The notion of happiness if fine, but the execution is terrible. The result is that most players stick with civilizations that reward small empires.

    More on the bad. While some choices are essential, such as choosing to focus on a few cities to preserve happiness, others are inconsequential. For example, you can choose the Patronage social policy tree to lower the cost of gold needed to bribe city states. Or you can choose a policy tree that increases you gold earnings. Later on, you can choose the Freedom ideology to increase the generation of great people by 25%. Or you can choose Order and to increase the generation of great people by 25%. None of these choices have a drawback. Choosing Patronage will not hamper you ability to generate money or increase science. The same goes for Rationalism, which increases science with no extra cost to your civilization in happiness, culture, or gold generation. Every choice you make is a winner, which makes the choices extremely boring.

    A little side note on city states: you can buy their allegiance or do some very gamified quests to gain their allegiance. There is little nuance, and for the most part, the city states do little to enhance the game. For the most part, I used the city states as shields in the early game and then as a source of votes in the late game for a diplomatic victory. Overall, though, I think they clutter the map and are a sink for gold in the diplomatic game. I often half the number of city states or leave them out of the game entirely.

    Civ V has a great mod support from the community. If you are on PC. On Mac, you have access to many mods, but not the most game changing mods that fix all of the problems I mentioned above. On PC, you want to go with the Steam version (even though I find it bothersome to have to launch Steam to play a game) and find the Vox Populi mod. I would have preferred if the developer opened up the game to tweaking by the user as old civ games did. (For example, I edited some text files in Civ II to increase gold per turn so I wouldn't have to bother moving caravans. Fortunately Civ V automates caravans.) At least the mods add some life to the game. Mult-player still works and people do play it. Head over to the Civ V reddit page if you are looking to find people still playing.

    I would love to score this game higher as Civ is my favorite game series of all time (though I hated, hated, Civ III). Maybe if I would love the game more if had a PC instead of a Mac, and ran the Vox Populi mod. But I don't, and after hundreds of hours of gameplay, I can safely say this game has much less to offer than it seems, which is kind of sad.    … Expand
  14. Broyax
    Aug 9, 2019
    5
    J'ai passé pas mal d'heures sur ce Civ 5 avec les deux principales extensions et tous les **** à-côtés qui rajoutent un paquet de concurrents dans cette course à l'échalote mondiale (j'avais pris la Complete Edition à la faveur d'une solderie chez le gros).

    On apprécie l'interface bien pratique ma foi, de même que les jolis graphismes (pour un Civilization...) et on gère tout ça assez    J'ai passé pas mal d'heures sur ce Civ 5 avec les deux principales extensions et tous les **** à-côtés qui rajoutent un paquet de concurrents dans cette course à l'échalote mondiale (j'avais pris la Complete Edition à la faveur d'une solderie chez le gros).

    On apprécie l'interface bien pratique ma foi, de même que les jolis graphismes (pour un Civilization...) et on gère tout ça assez tranquillou... puis, on commence un tantinet à se faire chier... oui un petit peu quand même. On peste sur les villes ennemies qui sont devenues quasiment imprenables... si on peut plus guerroyer à son aise, alors à quoi bon finalement ?

    L'extension qui apporte la religion est particulièrement hermétique en ce qui concerne ses possibliités et ses unités et plus globalement, le jeu laisse l'impression éminemment désagréable de pédaler dans la semoule : privé de possibilités guerrières, on vivote et on s'échine à micro-gérer, micro-optimiser afin de viser l'une des autres conditions de victoire.

    Le jeu principal reste pourtant bien fait et s'avère plutôt plaisant mais en définitive un brin usant et répétitif sur le long terme.    … Expand
  15. Schism78
    Nov 27, 2018
    7
    It is an entertaining, a little addictive, but it can be boring once you have won a couple of games because by then the game will be easy for you.
    At first glance it seems a complex game and full of options, but once you get to know it it can become boring and simple.
    AI is one of the worst aspects, because it is very predictable and often irrational. You can not trust anyone because if    It is an entertaining, a little addictive, but it can be boring once you have won a couple of games because by then the game will be easy for you.
    At first glance it seems a complex game and full of options, but once you get to know it it can become boring and simple.
    AI is one of the worst aspects, because it is very predictable and often irrational.
    You can not trust anyone because if you neglect your army, it is very likely that they will betray you and declare war on you even though you have had a good relationship with that civilization.
    Sometimes they make you deal with unfair and meaningless trades.
    For all this, winning by conquest is the most entertaining and satisfying way to play because in the victories for culture or science is boring and you know that you will win after the industrial age since literally not much to do besides produce buildings and wait many turns to reach the limit year to win.
    The AI ​​is so incompetent as to do something to overcome the game. If your borders are on the other side of the map of another civilization with more power, it is likely that you declare war but can not do anything because it is on the other side of the map, and in the end it will make you sign a peace treaty with a Couple of luxury resources or a free city for you. That is why after those of more difficulty modes than "Normal" they put advantages to the AI, any player minimally experienced can win a game.    … Expand
  16. hiltong55
    Jul 16, 2018
    7
    Before I start my ramble I would like to say that only played the base game and from what I hear the game was greatly improved with DLC. My personal taste for turn-based strategy was shaped by the Total War series so naturally, I have that bias so take my opinion for what it is.

    With all that being said I can tell you that Civ V definitely has that one more turn, addictive nature to it.    Before I start my ramble I would like to say that only played the base game and from what I hear the game was greatly improved with DLC. My personal taste for turn-based strategy was shaped by the Total War series so naturally, I have that bias so take my opinion for what it is.

    With all that being said I can tell you that Civ V definitely has that one more turn, addictive nature to it. I actually really enjoyed the beginning moments of the game as you are trying to discover new blocks and getting into small battles with barbarians. This element of discovery and not knowing what is around you gives the game a sense of wonder. Building and expanding your nation is pretty easy to figure out without many handholdy tutorials in your face. You can find what you need to learn in the menu fairly easily. The technology upgrade system has a lot of different choices and is surprisingly detailed. The combat is kind of dull and simulation-based but that was to be expected. I was just hoping for some varied animations and creativity.

    The game for me really started to show its flaws around mid-game as I was discovering other nations. I quickly started to realize that the diplomacy system is not in anyway detailed or functional enough for what I would expect out of a civilization game. Trading seemed overly simplistic. If the nation likes you they will trade, if they don't they won't. From the very beginning, I was very confused as to what the winning conditions were and equally confused as to who I should be attacking and who I should be allying with (this just may be my lack of experience with this specific game).

    Overall I guess I can say I enjoyed the game but was disappointed with the overall mechanics of the AI. I would say to the developers that if this is the style of turn-based strategy that you are going to present you really need to focus on the depth and detail of your diplomacy. Also, just be a little more clear on what I should be focusing on to achieve victory. Good game 7/10.    … Expand
  17. Kbek
    May 15, 2018
    5
    I have been playing Civ since the first one, logged my share of hours on the second and third title also.

    Civ 5 has nothing more to offer in my opinion. It's not a bad game. Someone that never played Civ can discover the franchise and think it's a very good game but as the fifth of the serie, it does not offer enough to deserve more than a 5/10 in my opinion. Good game taken out of    I have been playing Civ since the first one, logged my share of hours on the second and third title also.

    Civ 5 has nothing more to offer in my opinion. It's not a bad game. Someone that never played Civ can discover the franchise and think it's a very good game but as the fifth of the serie, it does not offer enough to deserve more than a 5/10 in my opinion.

    Good game taken out of context but if you are going to push a franchise to it's 5th, 6th, etc.. game, you will get tired along the way. Anyway, for fans that were here since the beggining. Maybe they don't care about us and are aiming at the new players.    … Expand
  18. auditbadger
    Jul 30, 2017
    7
    I think that this is truly a unique game and I would recommend that if you are a fan of this type of genre then I think you should give this game a try.
  19. hassall
    May 14, 2017
    5
    This game is fun when you play it with friends but if you play it on your own it can get boring . Happiness is hard to understand, the units look all the same, and the game is slow.
  20. VoxMare
    Mar 15, 2017
    7
    Настоятельно рекомендую к покупке. В общем-то, я не знаю чего можно написать о Циве такого, все знают, что такое Цива, но выделю моменты, которые мне НЕ понравились.

    1. Боевые действия невыгодны. Может я неправильно воюю, но куда проще нафармить злата и подружиться со всеми взятками и уступками, чем тратить деньги на армию, время не перекидывание войск и вообще все осуждают войну. Мой    Настоятельно рекомендую к покупке. В общем-то, я не знаю чего можно написать о Циве такого, все знают, что такое Цива, но выделю моменты, которые мне НЕ понравились.

    1. Боевые действия невыгодны.
    Может я неправильно воюю, но куда проще нафармить злата и подружиться со всеми взятками и уступками, чем тратить деньги на армию, время не перекидывание войск и вообще все осуждают войну. Мой милитарист негодуетЪ

    2. Убрали статистику в конце игры, а ту, что оставили, порезали до примитива и это весьма плохо!

    3. Дипломатия здесь сводится к тому, кто больше заплатит. Можно, например, подкупить все города-государства на выборах ООН и победить в дипломатической победе, даже если вы будете страной-изгоем. Да и вообще, вся дипломатия тут -- один сплошной недостаток.

    4. Долгие загрузки. Игра довольна стара и почему она так долго грузится -- мне не понятно.

    5. Стратегический режим слишком громоздок, а некоторые значки неинформативны. В 6 с этим, вроде как, получше будет.

    6. Шпионаж бесполезен(времени на воровство технологии нужно столько, что к тому моменту вы уже на 10 технологий вперед уйдете), а зачем нужна религия -- я так и не понял, ее единственная польза -- в закупках за очки веры. А, ну и возможность создать веру в Бога-Императора радует.

    Если говорить в целом, то 4 часть мне нравилась больше. Может со временем, я смогу снова запустить Циву5 и наконец-то распробую ее сполна и тогда начну ее любить, но пока что 4 лучше. Но это не значит, что пятую часть нужно проигнорировать -- в пятой части много интересных фишек, как то новая система войск или "артефактов", которая позволяет создать страну-"курорт". А учитывая низкую цену игры -- то сомнений быть не должно, надо поиграть.    … Expand
  21. NP-complete
    Oct 25, 2016
    7
    The game is fun because it's a Civilization game, but I disprove many of the additions from Civilization IV. Changing your government to adapt your gameplay to the situation is never recommended because of the number of perks you'll lose (why did devs think civics are permanent perks? Politics do not work as RPGs), and the one-unit-per-tile rule is the source of absurd traffic jams. Also,The game is fun because it's a Civilization game, but I disprove many of the additions from Civilization IV. Changing your government to adapt your gameplay to the situation is never recommended because of the number of perks you'll lose (why did devs think civics are permanent perks? Politics do not work as RPGs), and the one-unit-per-tile rule is the source of absurd traffic jams. Also, I don't know why city-states cannot eventually become normal empires. I definitely prefer Civilization IV.… Expand
  22. godunow
    Sep 19, 2016
    7
    Great game, most of the changes (unstacking, switch to hexes) turned out good.

    Maybe policy system was bit better in Civ 4, and I will miss Leonard Nimoy saying "Meditation brings wisdom; lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know what leads you forward and what holds you back and choose the path that leads to wisdom."
  23. TsukasaHiiragi
    Oct 9, 2015
    7
    Civilization V is the the best Civ game to date and its my favorite in the series, however that being said, there are some highly negative aspects to the game, and that is mainly because the A.I is programmed to cheat at higher difficulty settings instead of being programmed to adapt to player strategies, and this has been a problem since the very first Civilization games and hasn'tCivilization V is the the best Civ game to date and its my favorite in the series, however that being said, there are some highly negative aspects to the game, and that is mainly because the A.I is programmed to cheat at higher difficulty settings instead of being programmed to adapt to player strategies, and this has been a problem since the very first Civilization games and hasn't really improved that much - okay, at least the AI doesn't spawn/teleport nukes next to your cities in this one....but still....

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

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

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

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

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

    - Poor AI
    - AI cheats at high difficulty settings    … Expand
  24. jeanphilt
    May 27, 2015
    6
    Background :
    I bought the complete edition with all DLCs on the Humble Bundle store for about 15$. Younger, I played similar games a little but I've not played any since years. I played the default game mode using all default settings (difficulty beginner). Usually I rarely rush a game but this game feels more like work than entertainment so I rushed it like I would rush finishing a task    Background :
    I bought the complete edition with all DLCs on the Humble Bundle store for about 15$. Younger, I played similar games a little but I've not played any since years. I played the default game mode using all default settings (difficulty beginner). Usually I rarely rush a game but this game feels more like work than entertainment so I rushed it like I would rush finishing a task and it took me 2 days (16 hours) to finish the game.

    Review :
    I'm pretty new to Civilization so obviously I don't review it like a fan would. Personally, I think that they should change the default settings to make the game simpler/shorter and more fast paced. Despite the in-game tips provided, the complexity felt overwhelming. I know you can somehow change the settings but I would like the default settings to be more "user-friendly". I'm a programmer and I hardly see how a casual gamer can start being interested in this game, except a kid with tons of hours in front of him. Personally, I would prefer a game where the focus is more on the war and less on culture/religion/faith/science/happiness.    … Expand
  25. Jumbles69
    Apr 14, 2015
    6
    CIV1 was the best game ever made! Until CIV2, then CIV3 and CIV4 (however I miss my throne room and palace from the earlier iterations.
    CIV5 looks great, however lacks the single biggest facet of realism, that all the previous iterations provided. Distance. There are so many different civilizations on our planet and they are brilliantly diverse. By allowing every nation to travel across    CIV1 was the best game ever made! Until CIV2, then CIV3 and CIV4 (however I miss my throne room and palace from the earlier iterations.
    CIV5 looks great, however lacks the single biggest facet of realism, that all the previous iterations provided. Distance. There are so many different civilizations on our planet and they are brilliantly diverse. By allowing every nation to travel across water in Civ5, so early and so easily in the game, there is no diversity. Everyone grows and learns at the same rate.
    The early Mayans were one of the most advanced cultures on the planet and then the Greeks and romans, further down the tracks the English where it was said the sun never set on the empire.
    All of these were achievable in all earlier versions of the game. Now, you cannot, in any way provide the single greatest part of being human, diversity. In CIV5 its everyone, at the same technological level (or ridiculously close to it), for eternity. No religious path, no progressive path and no dark ages.
    While the game is pretty, has nice no stacking dynamics and makes even the fastest system chug under its behemoth of calculation, there is no way to be any different to any one else.
    I've clocked hundreds of hours playing each version of Civilization, though after 40 playing this, I wish I'd never bought it. I've tried so hard to enjoy it, but once you've played it once, nothing ever changes    … Expand
  26. BrightShadowA
    Nov 19, 2014
    5
    Let's be clear, I've been a fan of this franchise for a very long time now. I am a great fan of strategy games and relish playing against others. This game, despite being fascinating at first (It's a big change from civilization 4, whether that's a good thing or not will be discussed later in the comment) but very quickly, the only thrill you'll recieve from civilization 5 is from mods andLet's be clear, I've been a fan of this franchise for a very long time now. I am a great fan of strategy games and relish playing against others. This game, despite being fascinating at first (It's a big change from civilization 4, whether that's a good thing or not will be discussed later in the comment) but very quickly, the only thrill you'll recieve from civilization 5 is from mods and multiplayer.

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

    The DLC mongering is terrible, there are so many DLCs (some even demanding you pay 5$ for one civilization) Regrettebly, if you want to play with religion, tourism, spies, and so on you need pay over 60$! Don't even get me started by the "map packs" which are for some reason client side when it comes to multiplayer(Yes, if the host has a generation configuration that the players don't have, you can't play the game... It's not like the maps offer any new content that would make those who don't have the DLC incompatible)
    Diplomacy is shortsided, it's not much better then civilization 4, but there should be more innovation on civilization 5's part. City states can be useful in singleplayer, but sometimes actually get in the way of expansion. Speaking of which, I love the new city bombardment and health, but the health is way too overpowered. In late games units can't even touch a city, even when the city is completely surrounded.
    Now on to multiplayer; the multiplayer is basically what you should play for, the AI is blunt and uninteresting but even the multiplayer experience has it's own flaws. For one thing, when playing against others does the inbalances in the game show, some civilizations are overpowered, you can win early game wars by spamming ranged units (Yeah, warrior versus archer. Archer wins!) which completely defies strategic logic. Some resort to what we players call "turtling" and "wonder hoarding (the less vulgar version of the term) to address those who sit on their corner of the map with 1-2 cities and take all the wonders (Buildings that can only be built once in the world that give large bonuses) and beeline technologies. In the end, the people who just turtle and hit next turn win over those who actually try to play the game. Granted, turtling can be done legitimately (With none of the exploits or anything) but most don't really care about everyone else's game. There are many glitches, one that hasn't been fixed launch until AFTER their "Sid Meier's Beyond Earth" is released. The particular glitch I'm talking about was the "trade glitch" were people can basically demand and accept anything from another player (Pretty much everything they had) without the other player even having a say in the whole matter. That's just one of many glitches that Fireaxis appearently doesn't care about, as they fix that ONE glitch after the next game has been released (Thanks Fireaxis). The community on multiplayer, though some are legit, are mostly trolls, kids who are drawn by the increased simplicity, exploiters and those who will quit on a minutes notice. City states are abused, exploits are used... and I almost forgot... no MULTIPLAYER MOD SUPPORT. This angers me because independent modders have been able to do this unofficially, Firaxis has done this in the past and since mods fix and enhance the game it seems insane that they don't allow us multiplayer users to play with mods without a third party program. Even with DLCs (You pay more then double the price for original game for these) multiplayer and singleplayer is below average. Now, let me remind you, I love this game and I have played multiplayer vigorously but I am tired of the DLC mongering, the catering to simplicity, the lack of innovation, none of these problems EVER being addressed. I rarely ever finish a multiplayer game because people crash left and right late game (and sometimes early game), sometimes games freeze up randomly and other times the game crashes when one person experiences difficulty. To sum up, this game is not worth buying without mods or the overpriced and numerous DLCs. If you are new to the franchise I recommend you buy previous titles first.    … Expand
  27. ully
    Oct 25, 2014
    6
    This game is alright. It lacks the complexity of the full Civ V with all DLC. This means it will improve with DLC which will be really expensive so thanks 2K
  28. Dozmo
    Oct 14, 2014
    6
    Oh dear. While the graphics have improved, many core gameplay elements have been changed from prior versions of the Civ series, and not typically for the better. For example, you can now only put one unit on each tile - which makes moving your army a massive chore compared to previous games. City-states also require a lot more micromanagement than previous games where you dealt only withOh dear. While the graphics have improved, many core gameplay elements have been changed from prior versions of the Civ series, and not typically for the better. For example, you can now only put one unit on each tile - which makes moving your army a massive chore compared to previous games. City-states also require a lot more micromanagement than previous games where you dealt only with the big empires. All in all, it feels like the game has been dumbed down, with too much focus on graphics over gameplay, relative to the previous titles in the series. If you haven't played strategy games before, you can try it. If you have, though, you're better off with Civ 4, or one of the older games in the series.… Expand
  29. pierrem
    Sep 28, 2014
    6
    This game series needs some work. They seem to try to do the same game over and over, and this one gets boring quickly. Not much to tell against it, it is clearly not bad, but it is not fun either. Hex & no stack is a good feature (for combat units, for others it is not), but otherwise, what changed since the first of the series? 6 is a bit harsh, but punishes the lack of improvements &This game series needs some work. They seem to try to do the same game over and over, and this one gets boring quickly. Not much to tell against it, it is clearly not bad, but it is not fun either. Hex & no stack is a good feature (for combat units, for others it is not), but otherwise, what changed since the first of the series? 6 is a bit harsh, but punishes the lack of improvements & the DLC politics.… Expand
  30. XenonGTX
    Sep 9, 2014
    7
    It feels rushed. A lot of hardware compatability issues. Over all a unique experience. Great mods and scripts available. Features many civs and map choices. Pushes your CPU to the limit though.
  31. DaveAus
    Sep 3, 2014
    5
    While Civ V is a great game, and probably the best turn based 4x game out, that is mostly because it has no competition. It has a lack of unit and civilization diversity, with poor patching and performance issues.

    The AI is as dumb as ever, despite it apparently focusing on winning the game, rather then just role playing a country. Some AI civs will go for a cultural, or diplomatic    While Civ V is a great game, and probably the best turn based 4x game out, that is mostly because it has no competition. It has a lack of unit and civilization diversity, with poor patching and performance issues.

    The AI is as dumb as ever, despite it apparently focusing on winning the game, rather then just role playing a country. Some AI civs will go for a cultural, or diplomatic victory, completley ignoring their military, and being invaded by a neighbouring civ. Even offers to join the war on their side, or ask for open borders, to help defend them, has them ignoring you and not accepting, until they are eventually conquered.

    It also requires steam to install and patch, whether or not you purchase a physical copy of the game. A major let down.

    But like I said, it is still the best game of it's type.    … Expand
  32. DeusXCom
    Jul 31, 2014
    7
    My first Civilization experience and I must admit that all the stories of it's addictive nature (just one more turn) were absolutely spot-on. Even though it was my first run ever and I was still learning as I went along, just during my first game I poured about 30 hours of non-stop gameplay into it and that speak for itself more than anything. In the role of Alexander the Great I conqueredMy first Civilization experience and I must admit that all the stories of it's addictive nature (just one more turn) were absolutely spot-on. Even though it was my first run ever and I was still learning as I went along, just during my first game I poured about 30 hours of non-stop gameplay into it and that speak for itself more than anything. In the role of Alexander the Great I conquered the world with my Greek army, destroyed Napoleon, Washington, and once I invented proper technology to cross the seas I massacred the Germans and China hiding behind The Great Wall (praise the siege cannons). Enjoyed it thoroughly, but one the other hand I must admit that one time was probably enough, especially since Civ V lacks any sort of continual campaign with story mode that would engage you and take you on the adventure through time and evolution perhaps, in the Age of Empires style. In this format, it's basically just a randomly created sessions, so there's not much motivation to go on playing for me, but for what it is, it's really good. 7/10… Expand
  33. usproblogger
    Jul 26, 2014
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I like the game. Was not a first time played. Got addicted. But if you take it a little at a time it is all fun. here is a lot of cool features and other good stuff… Expand
  34. Ecresis
    Jun 24, 2014
    6
    I play Civilization since the Civ II, and this is another great game. It is even more awesome with other human players, where diplomatics are involved.

    I would love to give it more points, but unfortunately, I'm sick of the DLC system. If we look at it without knowing there are DLC's (Gods and Kings, Brave New World) and out of context, we could say it's a 9/10. So if you're new to Civ,    I play Civilization since the Civ II, and this is another great game. It is even more awesome with other human players, where diplomatics are involved.

    I would love to give it more points, but unfortunately, I'm sick of the DLC system. If we look at it without knowing there are DLC's (Gods and Kings, Brave New World) and out of context, we could say it's a 9/10. So if you're new to Civ, it's worth your money. Now I highly recommend buying the full pack on Steam with the DLC's, which is now very cheap, because it adds so much to the game, that you can't go back to the normal one after that.

    There goes my negative point. Why the hell didn't they put those add-ons in the first place ? I know the answer is "money" but for Civ-addicts like me, this is an insult. I managed to get the extension for a minimum amount of money but Gods and Kings was over 30€ when it came out, this is ridiculous for a bunch of options that could have been put in the early game.

    The Civilization franchise has always been good, we enjoy the new combat system, not allowing you to stack 1 billion units like it was in Civ IV, we enjoy the new culture system (replaced in Brave New World). I miss the cultural expansion of your cities, sometimes swallowing other players cities if your culture was massive, but let's say they needed to make it different, it's not a bad thing.

    Conclusion : With the DLC's it's much better, if you buy it, buy it all, but try to get in on sale, because the full price is exaggerated.    … Expand
  35. whitepawn
    Jun 19, 2014
    5
    A classic example of trying to make up for lack of depth with high level graphics. So, it's pretty. Then what?

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

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

    No religion, corporations, fine tuning, etc.

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

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

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

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

    PROS:

    Ranged combat. Done right.

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

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

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

    REPLAYABILITY: Honestly, couldn't play a game through until the expansions. I got bored, even with an audiobook running. With III and IV losing half a day wasn't uncommon, this was a drag.    … Expand
  36. Sivus
    Jun 5, 2014
    7
    This game feels like it's about half the quality of the previous and famous Civilization 4. It looks better than 4 but it should, it's a newer game. I feel like many of the streamlined changes from "revolution" found their way into 5, as in many of your actions lack depth. Still, hundreds of hours of play has to count for something and it's certainly enjoyable despite being shallow.
  37. Fonzy
    May 28, 2014
    7
    The latest installment in franchise games can often be the victim of their own previous success and it appears that Civ V is no exception.

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

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

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

    Bottom line is, if you're a Civ freak, you might be disappointed with Civ 5 if you compare it to the previous installments. If you're a casual Civ fan, or have little-to-no familiarity with the series, you'll find Civ 5 to fun and engaging and offer you many hours of enjoyment.    … Expand
  38. asfj
    Apr 18, 2014
    6
    Not replayable. Why? because, except for their leader appearances and city overviews, all civs are almost the same, same improvement, same policy, same research, same army... After knowing this fact, you will know how hollow this game is and no any desire to play the game again using other civs.
    In addition, the battle part is indeed the game's weakness, you have to control every army one    Not replayable. Why? because, except for their leader appearances and city overviews, all civs are almost the same, same improvement, same policy, same research, same army... After knowing this fact, you will know how hollow this game is and no any desire to play the game again using other civs.
    In addition, the battle part is indeed the game's weakness, you have to control every army one by one and see their laggy animations. When in later game, this is more disturbing so that I just gift most of them to city states.
    IMO, This game is about parameters balancing (you play with numbers), mainly food, culture, science, gold and fairy. you control them by actions, mainly building, diplomacy, research and policy. And you enjoy how wonderful values you can achieve.
    So, if you prefer more direct stimulation like graphics diversity in many RTS games, Civ is not for you. In graphics, Civ looks very repetitive. The difference between civs are distinct parameter enhancing.    … Expand
  39. Cemossunal
    Mar 10, 2014
    5
    I quite mixed up, when I first play this game. That's because I saw good quality of the pixels, soundtracks and interface is wonderful. However, there's a huge failure of Sid meiers' and it is called the absence of religion! When I saw this I was shocked. There're a lot of social policies (which are good) and there's a religion related policy too! It is good that they improved the cityI quite mixed up, when I first play this game. That's because I saw good quality of the pixels, soundtracks and interface is wonderful. However, there's a huge failure of Sid meiers' and it is called the absence of religion! When I saw this I was shocked. There're a lot of social policies (which are good) and there's a religion related policy too! It is good that they improved the city management, but they removed the health level that was In civ 4. For example, I missed the natural disasters, vermin etc and especially vassal states. My another disappointment was the espionage system. Additionally, civ leaders and negotiations are improved. To sum up, i still recommend this game to you, but with dlc's. You can purchase this game with brave new world expansion p, it suffisticates me with additional benefits, such as trade routes. Have a nice game :) I lstill ove all the series… Expand
  40. Zahrada
    Feb 24, 2014
    6
    The original game is fun to play and it delivers what the modern iteration of Civ franchise should deliver. The biggest flaw are bugs and technical issues, which were resolved later. They were significant however. As time went, many things were fixed and added in the expansions, but the start wasn't smooth. If you want to play this game, I would therefore recommend getting it with theThe original game is fun to play and it delivers what the modern iteration of Civ franchise should deliver. The biggest flaw are bugs and technical issues, which were resolved later. They were significant however. As time went, many things were fixed and added in the expansions, but the start wasn't smooth. If you want to play this game, I would therefore recommend getting it with the expansion packs. As the original "vanilla" version, the game has many problems and my impressions were mixed in the beginning.… Expand
  41. Novelist
    Dec 11, 2013
    5
    It's an undeveloped game. It misses all the fun parts of the "Civilization" games such as technology trading and religion. Including city-states to the game is interesting, but the fact that you can't see the relations between different civs is depressing and frustrating.
  42. Xelluse
    Nov 18, 2013
    7
    If forget about that nothing good left from Civ III and Civ IV and that this game is quite lagy and bagy, and none playing it online so quite hard to find ppl to play (must be in groups and need at last 4-5 hours to find someone), game is quite normal, think for economical-political strategy it's very PC depended (heavy) and very expencive that's problem to find ppl for play, but if youIf forget about that nothing good left from Civ III and Civ IV and that this game is quite lagy and bagy, and none playing it online so quite hard to find ppl to play (must be in groups and need at last 4-5 hours to find someone), game is quite normal, think for economical-political strategy it's very PC depended (heavy) and very expencive that's problem to find ppl for play, but if you find 3-4 people it's quite interesting and not bad game...… Expand
  43. kkanoee
    Oct 21, 2013
    7
    Très bon jeu, un bon nombre de civilisation différentes (ce qui rend difficile l'équilibrage du coup malheureusement, une poignet sont avantagés avec leur bonus de départ), de nombreux types de cartes et de nombreux choix disponibles au niveau stratégique en fonction de la victoire que l'on vise.

    Le seul point vraiment négatif est la stabilité surtout côté multi. Aléatoirement le jeu    Très bon jeu, un bon nombre de civilisation différentes (ce qui rend difficile l'équilibrage du coup malheureusement, une poignet sont avantagés avec leur bonus de départ), de nombreux types de cartes et de nombreux choix disponibles au niveau stratégique en fonction de la victoire que l'on vise.

    Le seul point vraiment négatif est la stabilité surtout côté multi. Aléatoirement le jeu peut renvoyer sur l'écran de chargement (qui peut parfois durée plusieurs minute au point de croire qu'il a freeze, voir crasher un moment.) Le fait que les games soit host côté joueurs rend les parties très difficiles jouer (quasiment injouable dés que l'on dépasse les 150-180 pings). Malheureusement une bonne machine ne suffit donc pas pour jouer correctement et ceci cause d'une mauvaise optimisation du jeu la base.    … Expand
  44. Triggerhappy
    Oct 15, 2013
    6
    An decent strategic game, grossly overpriced at the release. It looks quite fine and has some great art, but not even that justifies the terrible performance issues, meaning you won't be able to play huge maps, as the waiting time between turns grows unbearably long.

    It felt not complex enough at release, having no religions, a silly culture mechanic, no spying at all and absolutely    An decent strategic game, grossly overpriced at the release. It looks quite fine and has some great art, but not even that justifies the terrible performance issues, meaning you won't be able to play huge maps, as the waiting time between turns grows unbearably long.

    It felt not complex enough at release, having no religions, a silly culture mechanic, no spying at all and absolutely horrible, worthless diplomacy. It was still decent. If you really want to give it a shot, I'd say you have to purchase the GoTY edition, which only gives this games enough complex features to justify playing it. Or even calling it Civilization.

    That said, this review concerns only the original release priced now at 30EUR. I would say there are better options of spending your money right now.Only with all the DLCs, it feels somehow complete and fully enjoyable. You would have also had spent 100EUR on it, if you were buying it one DLC after another, so. Alpha Centauri cost me some 20 when it was new. Just sayin'.    … Expand
  45. Demonac
    Sep 21, 2013
    5
    Good: The game is a fun game. Right off the bat. It's fun, and addicting like all of the other Civ games. Graphics are great (they don't make or break a game, but it's still nice that the game at least looks good). Also, hexagon tiles are far superior to squares in terms of tactical game play.

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

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

    The Bad: And that's another horrifying aspect of this game, the ai. Unless you are a new guy to the series, or are playing like in Deity, if you lose, you probably screwed something up horribly. Also, the game seems WAY too over simplified, and there aren't as many features to shape the way you want your empire to be run as there were in Civ 4! Now, this is fixed in 2 expansions (plus the AI is way better), but the fact that you have to buy two expansion packs to make a below average game turn into an amazing strategy game is highway robbery.    … Expand
  46. mcmanusaur
    Sep 7, 2013
    7
    ---Rating---
    Design: 3 /5 (recycles the same formula, most but not all changes constitute "streamlining")
    Polish: 4 /5 (graphics are acceptable given the game's nature, but nothing too impressive) Value: 4 /5 (decent replay value as always and nice mod support, but limited choice of factions) ---Review--- Civilization V is certainly playable and enjoyable at that, but- perhaps    ---Rating---
    Design: 3 /5 (recycles the same formula, most but not all changes constitute "streamlining")
    Polish: 4 /5 (graphics are acceptable given the game's nature, but nothing too impressive)
    Value: 4 /5 (decent replay value as always and nice mod support, but limited choice of factions)

    ---Review---
    Civilization V is certainly playable and enjoyable at that, but- perhaps unsurprisingly- this iteration of the ever popular series amounts to little more than a re-skinning of previous entries. The hex-based map and in-game mod database are welcome additions, but otherwise most changes could be lumped under the banner of "streamlining" (for better or worse). It's a decent choice for those who somehow still haven't ever tried a Civilization game, but Civ V doesn't make too many significant improvements over previous installments.    … Expand
  47. PCgamesreviewer
    Sep 4, 2013
    7
    Pros:
    -Keeps you entertained for many hours
    -Lots of buildings, units, wonders and nations in a huge world.
    -Lots of strategy

    Cons:
    -Nations are similar
    -Diplomacy does not work.
    -Late game becomes boring
    -Needs the expansions before its a true masterpiece.

    Conclusion: Without the expansions it has many flaws but is still entertaining for many hours.
  48. gyrate
    Jul 21, 2013
    7
    This game in vanilla form is a middle finger to all Civ IV fans. After all the DLC are added it becomes a pretty nice game. You will need ton increase the difficulty level as they didn't do a good job with the AI.
  49. AWG
    Jul 21, 2013
    6
    I've never been a big fan of strategy games, and in fact I'm not a big fan of this fifth installment of the Sid Meier's Civilization saga, even if it looks and sounds cool.
  50. MrXLiebezeit
    Jun 18, 2013
    7
    What can I say about Civ V that hasn't already been said a million times.
    It's not like the others, it's not as big, it's not as intricate, etc.
    This is all true, but I've never played any other Civ games, and for me, this one was pretty fun to me. That said, it is a very flawed game. The AI is very wonky, and the barbarians can be a bit weird sometimes, but on the whole. It's a fun    What can I say about Civ V that hasn't already been said a million times.
    It's not like the others, it's not as big, it's not as intricate, etc.
    This is all true, but I've never played any other Civ games, and for me, this one was pretty fun to me.
    That said, it is a very flawed game. The AI is very wonky, and the barbarians can be a bit weird sometimes, but on the whole. It's a fun game. If you've played other civs, you may not like it, but as a first time player, I really like it.    … Expand
  51. Orctownorc
    Jun 8, 2013
    7
    When published this game was still born, the WORST Civ game by far. It had bugs, LAG and constant crash to desktop. THE AI was stupid and the whole thing was just a mess of data that did not add up to a good game. Nearly three years later, and basically three years of WORK on improving the game and we can finally say this is indeed a GOOD game. Gods and Kings is NECESSARY, and all the DLCWhen published this game was still born, the WORST Civ game by far. It had bugs, LAG and constant crash to desktop. THE AI was stupid and the whole thing was just a mess of data that did not add up to a good game. Nearly three years later, and basically three years of WORK on improving the game and we can finally say this is indeed a GOOD game. Gods and Kings is NECESSARY, and all the DLC helps, but bundled together and on sale Civ 5 is finally the game it should have been at launch. Well done Firaxis! Cudos for a rare show of professional pride and persistence! A good game now, worthy of the Civilisation name. Not as good as Civ 4, but close.… Expand
  52. greywolf00
    Jun 3, 2013
    6
    I hated the death stacks from the Civs of old and loved the actual ranged attacks from ranged units from Civ 4 mods so was really stoked for Civ 5. However, they vanilla game, not sure how patches have addressed it, game was never properly balanced around the changes. Late game it was common to see every single square on the map occupied by a unit. Unlike Civ 4 where you had toI hated the death stacks from the Civs of old and loved the actual ranged attacks from ranged units from Civ 4 mods so was really stoked for Civ 5. However, they vanilla game, not sure how patches have addressed it, game was never properly balanced around the changes. Late game it was common to see every single square on the map occupied by a unit. Unlike Civ 4 where you had to strategically select city sites, Civ 5 brings back ICS (Infinite City Sprawl) as the best strat. Essentially, it doesn't matter where you build a city, it's a net gain. That 1 square tundra island surround by useless water? Yes,build on everyone you find. Overall, Civ 5 is a mixed bag. Glad to see the hex system, ranged units, and death of death stacks but the overall tuning and balancing didn't keep pace with the changes.… Expand
  53. laggypancakes
    May 1, 2013
    7
    I never played the earlier versions of Civ but I got a good amount of enjoyment out of this one. The vanilla version became stale after a while (before Gods and Kings); I do have to admit that.

    Even with that addition however there were still some very annoying/lacking aspects of gameplay. Luckily there is a decent modding community behind the game that ended up fixing a good amount of    I never played the earlier versions of Civ but I got a good amount of enjoyment out of this one. The vanilla version became stale after a while (before Gods and Kings); I do have to admit that.

    Even with that addition however there were still some very annoying/lacking aspects of gameplay. Luckily there is a decent modding community behind the game that ended up fixing a good amount of those issues for me.

    The multiplayer is incredibly lacking- I could only stomach one game before giving up on it entirely.

    Overall the vanilla version of the game seemed incomplete and lacking to me. I'm still not sure if I'll be getting the new DLC as my backlog is a bit deep but if you can get this game DLC on a steam sale I'd definitely give it a shot.    … Expand
  54. Schlafanzug
    Apr 6, 2013
    7
    Overall a great game, but after playing Civ II, III, and IV it seems lacking something. I do not like how there are random city states, and how it is centered on combat. Yes in Civ IV the micro-managing could get annoying, but I enjoyed it all the same.
  55. MayhemMike83
    Mar 23, 2013
    6
    I'm a big fan of the Civ series but this one is the first civ game that bored me after only a couple of hours. Tons of dlc but no innovation, odd new combat mechanics (1 unit per hex but the maps are too small), a lot of missing features from the old games, less management,....

    Feels like a "Civ Light" for newcomers to the genre
  56. Muan142
    Mar 14, 2013
    5
    It's good enough to almost make me forgets how much better Civ IV was.The AI still sucks. Diplomacy is impossible. The hex system, you can basically forget it's there. Its only purpose is to make the 1 unit-per-tile thing playable. The game-speeds basically boil down to unplayably fast (epic or faster) or mind-numbingly slow (marathon). Luckily though, they dumbed the game down so muchIt's good enough to almost make me forgets how much better Civ IV was.The AI still sucks. Diplomacy is impossible. The hex system, you can basically forget it's there. Its only purpose is to make the 1 unit-per-tile thing playable. The game-speeds basically boil down to unplayably fast (epic or faster) or mind-numbingly slow (marathon). Luckily though, they dumbed the game down so much that it can basically play itself while you're not at war so I just turn it to marathon and read a book while I play.. One thing they still haven't fixed with mods is the sound-track. it repeats a couple of stereotypical game tracks ad nauseum, but that's what ipods are for. Also its glitchy and the loading times are horrible. Without a bunch of mods it's not worth playing. I got it for 75% off though so I can't complain too much.… Expand
  57. Keplar
    Mar 1, 2013
    7
    I have trouble reviewing this game, because I know it is a good game, but I don't like it. Civ V doesn't feel like Civilization, and Civilization is what I wanted.

    If you're a fan of old-school tabletop wargames, definitely get in on this action. If you didn't like previous Civilization games, give this one a try it's completely different. If you liked the previous 4 Civilizations,    I have trouble reviewing this game, because I know it is a good game, but I don't like it. Civ V doesn't feel like Civilization, and Civilization is what I wanted.

    If you're a fan of old-school tabletop wargames, definitely get in on this action. If you didn't like previous Civilization games, give this one a try it's completely different. If you liked the previous 4 Civilizations, which allowed you to build giant empires of carefully managed cities, spreading like locust across the land as you blazed through the tech tree and slammed out wonders to the beat of the bass, this is sadly not that at all.

    Snail's pace expansion that's severely hampered mechanics even on the easiest levels keeps you from expanding like previous games. Barbarians constantly spawn encampments right on your borders, spewing endless units in to the mists anywhere you don't have it constantly under surveillance. City-States seize vital resources and moan to you about their neighbors constantly, while claiming protection from foreign powers you've barely even encountered yet. Restrictions on support numbers from given resources add realism, but again hamper the expansion and fun of the previous titles in the series. Everything seems focused on creating a series of tiny countries where the cities serve merely as focal points for the fighting, rather than being the actual focus of the game like before. The focus is on the combat, and the combat just isn't very engaging. Even on large worlds, space seems constrained, and you can't bring power to bear the way you can in earlier Civs.

    I don't want this to sound like Civ V is a bad game it isn't. This is a good game for people who like the wargame/simulation genre. Heck, I'd probably even like it myself... if I wasn't looking for a Civilization title! Civilization was one of the first PC titles I ever really got in to, and its successors Civ 2, Alpha Centauri, Civ 3, and Civ 4 all held my attention for hundreds of hours. Civ V is not Civilization, and despite more than 50 hours and several attempts, I just can't enjoy it.    … Expand
  58. JaguarXJ6
    Nov 23, 2012
    5
    I can't recommend this Civ game. In the franchise, great steps were made to separate this from previous games with new concepts from hex, unit stacking, graphics, social policies, and city states. These succeed in creating new challenges for the player and add to the military strategy game. However, what the game does not deliver is an adaquate AI that fails at even the simplest of tasks.I can't recommend this Civ game. In the franchise, great steps were made to separate this from previous games with new concepts from hex, unit stacking, graphics, social policies, and city states. These succeed in creating new challenges for the player and add to the military strategy game. However, what the game does not deliver is an adaquate AI that fails at even the simplest of tasks. For example, an automated worker in an unhappy, fledgling empire at game start will not attempt build immediately on resource one tile from the capitol to connect it. Increasing difficulty beyond King (L6) doesn't incorporate new AI routines, it simply handicaps the player by huge bonuses for production, happiness, science, and gold output for all AI players. I have over 200 hours into this Civ with another 500+ for Civ4 and another 500+ hours for every Civ incarnation before it. Even if purchased on a Steam sale, it doesn't overcome the disappointment at the lack of re-playability compared to previous Civs. The game can be fun at times, but those moments of enjoyment are too rare. Like a tribal hut, you get the immediate sense of reward and that is about as good as it gets as the game goes back to tedium of micro-management to overcome a weak AI.… Expand
  59. OneVoice
    Nov 20, 2012
    6
    It's a good game, but just not nearly what Civ IV was (or Civ III for that matter). I've been playing Civ since the original was released many years ago, and have never been disappointed by anything the series has ever done. But once I played Civ V I became worried about the future of this series. Civ V has been dumbed down significantly from it's predecessors. It's a sad change.
  60. mikhail_lem
    Nov 17, 2012
    6
    Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing,Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing, since it encourages tactical thinking instead of just sending the infamous "Stacks of Doom" and watching things burn. The graphics look awesome, yeah, but I would have sacrificed the eye candy for some gameplay depth. In a nutshell: If you liked Civ4, odds are you won't like this.… Expand
  61. bernlin2000
    Nov 14, 2012
    5
    Pretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was anPretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was an interesting idea...too bad the AI couldn't figure it out. I miss the old city management of Civ 4...it feels more bland and I feel like I have less control. Also, cities feel far more static than they use to: border expansion feels slower and is much less noticeable. Let's hope they can do a better job for the next iteration...I'll stick to Civ 4 until then.… Expand
  62. grazr
    Sep 14, 2012
    7
    The hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is theThe hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is the atrocious AI and the pseudo difficulty setting which is more accurately defined as a "handicap" system.… Expand
  63. theGoodVibes
    Aug 3, 2012
    5
    This is my first time playing a civilization game since I played Civ 3 as a kid, although I play RTS games often. At first glance, Civ V is great - it has spectacular graphics, and a great soundtrack. The social policies system and the Science system are interesting and seem well thought out. But underneath the surface, Civ V doesn't quite live up to the hype. The game is a buggy mess -This is my first time playing a civilization game since I played Civ 3 as a kid, although I play RTS games often. At first glance, Civ V is great - it has spectacular graphics, and a great soundtrack. The social policies system and the Science system are interesting and seem well thought out. But underneath the surface, Civ V doesn't quite live up to the hype. The game is a buggy mess - often times, I won't be able to click the Next Turn button, for example, because it says "A Unit Needs Orders" when I have given all of my units orders. This is after installing all available patches, two years after the game's initial release! The combat in Civ V involves very little strategy - as long as your units aren't hard-countered by the enemy's (this is VERY easy to figure out) all that matters is who has the largest military. Civ V's strategy lies entirely in what order the player researches technologies, adapts policies, chooses to produce, etc. and has little to nothing to do with combat - reading Sun Tzu's The Art of War won't help you here. Capturing a city takes at least three turns, even if your opponent has no military and you have several strong units attacking the city. Multiplayer support is horrible, with people constantly disconnecting and crashing while I'm either in the lobby trying to get a game together, or already playing one. There is no way to change game settings once you click the "Host Game" button and open your lobby. To do so you have to kick everyone out and start a new game. This is ridiculous, strategy games from a decade ago have the ability to change settings while in the lobby. Diplomacy with AIs is impossible - even a long-time ally, who I've had multiple trade deals and research agreements with, who is far weaker than me, will declare war on me for no reason... twice! The only indication I had (which was quite obvious) was that the AI stationed its military units close to my territory for several turns before attacking. Nothing on the diplomacy screens hinted that the AI disliked me. However, the AIs have supposedly been improved in the Gods & Kings expansion... I'll see if there's any truth to that.

    I have to give Civilization V a 5/10 because it's fun to play, and it seems like some effort was put into its creation. From what I've been told by longtime fans of the series going back to Civ 3 or 4, Civ V is prettier, but a step backwards where gameplay is concerned. The exclusion of key gameplay features from earlier Civ games, such as espionage and religion, was clearly a cash grab for Firaxis, now that they are charging $30 for an expansion to add these feature to Civ V. I'm sick of developers churning out pretty games that have worse gameplay than their predecesors. Civ V is a prime example of this, therefore I really can't kiss Firaxis' ass and give them a positive review.    … Expand
  64. Nandoalbando
    Aug 3, 2012
    6
    pro: the exagon strategy system
    cons: no religion, no espionage, empire limitation system, the cost of the road system, console-enterface of city management
  65. Bodkins
    Jun 26, 2012
    5
    I would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes the game tedious towards the end - so many units not enough space. Not having stacking is a real issue when attacking a city that is only accessible by one tile - really irritating if you have the larger army - most of which u then waste waiting forI would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes the game tedious towards the end - so many units not enough space. Not having stacking is a real issue when attacking a city that is only accessible by one tile - really irritating if you have the larger army - most of which u then waste waiting for their turn to attack

    If you don't get attacked a X amount of time in the game then its probably an even duller game, at least when your neighbor decides they've had enough of you it gently prods you in to some action (or some unit micro-management if you will).

    I think the city states were an interesting idea but on the whole there annoying and tend to start wars - so more micro-management of your units.

    I think CIV is a let down - I think CIV4 was the more superior game (186 hours of steam game time) - and a game I bought twice and would buy again if i so lost it, lets hope 6 has fixed some issues. On one side note there are available mods appearing so maybe some of those could turn the game around - but seriously i don't expect a full release game to rely on mods.    … Expand
  66. dryerlaw
    Jun 22, 2012
    7
    Not too many new features from the previous games. The additional features are minor and mostly unnecessary (the hexagonal tiles end up unmeaningful). Most of the old features are simplified; maybe oversimplified. And the game takes so much memory; around 1GB-1.5GB; textures never load completely after a load.
  67. Zenren
    Jun 14, 2012
    5
    I started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun toI started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun to play, and instead creates an monotonous experience, best avoided. I know I'm not alone when I say, I'm sticking with Civ IV and praying for more from Civ VI.… Expand
  68. Necrotaur
    Jun 13, 2012
    7
    I just wanted to update my review a bit now that the game has been out for a couple years and there's an expansion right around the corner. I previously rated it a 5, but looking back that was a little unfair. Civ 5 has improved quite a bit since launch, though there are still serious issues inherent to its basic design. The biggest issue is 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT). At its heart, 1UPT is aI just wanted to update my review a bit now that the game has been out for a couple years and there's an expansion right around the corner. I previously rated it a 5, but looking back that was a little unfair. Civ 5 has improved quite a bit since launch, though there are still serious issues inherent to its basic design. The biggest issue is 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT). At its heart, 1UPT is a poor mechanic that the AI simply cannot handle, making most wars completely one sided, and the management of a large army annoying. Other mechanics, such as happiness, limits on expansion, and diplomacy (as always) are poorly developed. Policies and the various Civilizations themselves feel neutered compared to previous games. Communism and fascism, for example, have NO penalties, whereas previously they were powerful, but had issues you needed to manage to make them work. Despite all this, Civ 5 manages to preserve its 'just one more turn' charm and you can still spend the majority of a day playing without realizing it. Hopefully the expansion will add (well, reintroduce) some much needed strategic depth in the form of religion and espionage.… Expand
  69. 1010101
    Jun 11, 2012
    6
    My first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover thatMy first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover that the game designers hate the expansionist strategy. As for new features, the no unit stacking rule is kind of cool, and city-states are OK but clutter up the map. Some things never change, though: the AI is still a joke.… Expand
  70. jim109109
    May 31, 2012
    7
    Great, unique game that actually didn't copy its predecessors AND is good. It's very enjoyable, there are tons of ways to build your empire, making every game unique. The turn by turn aspect makes the game stress-free and strategic, unlike RTS games. The game isn't overly complicated, and well organized, while having a decent amount of content. The actual "fun" factor of the game isn'tGreat, unique game that actually didn't copy its predecessors AND is good. It's very enjoyable, there are tons of ways to build your empire, making every game unique. The turn by turn aspect makes the game stress-free and strategic, unlike RTS games. The game isn't overly complicated, and well organized, while having a decent amount of content. The actual "fun" factor of the game isn't perfect though, because games are very long, and moving units from one part of the map to the other can take like 15 minutes, going turn by turn, it's long and horrible. I find this sad because the game had potential, if it wasn't so long and boring to get anything done. I have played 50 hours, and still have enjoyed it, but I can't say it's a flawless game… Expand
  71. vicente
    May 25, 2012
    5
    I had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. HowI had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. How could they not retain religion? I mean, it has shaped history significantly whether good or bad. Other than that, I quite missed stacking units. Although, with those new hexes, you can work out strategies better, like flanking and 'outmaneuvering' your enemy, getting around seems harder, so my reaction to that is quite mixed. AI is dumbed out as ever, and the game is plagued with bugs.. Diplomacy and trades felt really dull, too. I also wished that the live-action advisors from old buddy civ 2 would make a come back (*remember Elvis?). Well, not live action, but animated like the leaders of the civs you encounter. That would be quite sick. Other than that, the music was great, although it gets a little exaggerated at some occasions, like some war themes. Overall, I felt quite sad by this game, being a fan of the previous civ games. This would've rocked had they not remove major pieces of content in the game.… Expand
  72. dprkforum
    May 22, 2012
    5
    Civilization V attempted something grand, and lost its way. While the game has wonderful graphics, hex grid, and intense battles, there is much to be desired. Depth was simply stripped away for a more action-based experience. This game never felt like a grand strategy game to me. Hopefully, the new expansion pack will address some of the shortcomings, but in my opinion, it is too little, too late.
  73. Chaosmaker
    May 10, 2012
    5
    I have played all Civilization titles from day one. With each new one, we were offered a steady (yes) upgrade of quality and experience - I was brilliant at its time, but II introduced new things, III even more, and IV was clearly the pinnacle. Yes, you can see where it comes to...

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

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

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

    Gameplay is even interesting, but seriously lacking the full depth of previous titles. In itself, it is not a completely bad game, hence score of 5. But after playing it once, I can hardly come back to it. I can safely recommend it to people who didn't play previous titles or thought they were too complex - they will have quite a fun with this title. But old veterans like me will feel disappointed, and frankly - rightly so.    … Expand
  74. Krepost
    May 7, 2012
    7
    This seems to be a "love it or hate it" game. You have to like turn based strategy games, first of all, which is already pretty rare. Veterans to the series seem to not like this game because it's been "dumbed down." I still liked it, had over 200 hours of fun with it. Taking a day off school to turn a settler and a warrior into an expansive 20 city empire that leads the world inThis seems to be a "love it or hate it" game. You have to like turn based strategy games, first of all, which is already pretty rare. Veterans to the series seem to not like this game because it's been "dumbed down." I still liked it, had over 200 hours of fun with it. Taking a day off school to turn a settler and a warrior into an expansive 20 city empire that leads the world in everything is a rewarding experience. I played Civ 4 and Civ 5, and I have to say I like Civ 5 better simply because of the better UI, the one unit per hex, and the combat system in general. The AI is pretty dumb, though. If you're buying this game for the multiplayer, all I can say is just don't, nobody plays it and the nature of the game just isn't conducive to it. In short, think of it as a more refined Civ 4.… Expand
  75. bosnian
    Apr 9, 2012
    6
    There are few changes from previous iterations that work great, namely 1 unit per tile. But bad AI and incredible resource hog on larger maps, as well as the unecessary simplification of the game take away from the experience brought on by the previous versions.
  76. ifnotmoreso
    Mar 26, 2012
    6
    Fun game. Once. But surprisingly little replay value. If you're looking for depth, the buildings/tech/armies/culture aren't elaborate enough to make you want to slog through it more than once or twice.
  77. dionissos
    Dec 31, 2011
    6
    I am fan of civilization franchise but i think this game is not the best of them and didn't has the same quality and deep gameplay of the previous games.
  78. loloynage
    Nov 29, 2011
    7
    Disappointing, but not bad or unplayable. Due to the weird AI, you can always go all military and have some fun for a while. The multiplayer? Doesn't work. It would be actually a really good game if you could have offline player vs player games.
  79. czajmen
    Nov 7, 2011
    5
    I like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build aI like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build a atomic bomb. Playing with more people is better, but sill a average.… Expand
  80. YeshuaAgapao
    Nov 2, 2011
    7
    Great game for eycandy. Cities max-out radius 3 - much larger (Civ Test of time allowed much larger cities). Took out much of the features of civ 4 but kept most of the war-unfriendly features (I'm not a war person myself, but a lot of other players are). Civ5 forces you to use steam. Mods are centralized like StarCraft II. Civ5 is intellectual tyranny with a 'please don't sue me'Great game for eycandy. Cities max-out radius 3 - much larger (Civ Test of time allowed much larger cities). Took out much of the features of civ 4 but kept most of the war-unfriendly features (I'm not a war person myself, but a lot of other players are). Civ5 forces you to use steam. Mods are centralized like StarCraft II. Civ5 is intellectual tyranny with a 'please don't sue me' atmosphere on the mods. Civ5 and StarCraft 2 are a taste of the coming police state in america. Still addicting game though.… Expand
  81. Janov
    Oct 23, 2011
    5
    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money. ok, graphics and sounds are nice. but everything else is realy bad. this game simply has NO working KI. it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background. "attack the player at time x" "ask him for contract"    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money.
    ok, graphics and sounds are nice.
    but everything else is realy bad.
    this game simply has NO working KI.
    it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background.
    "attack the player at time x"
    "ask him for contract" (even if the have never seen you)
    "battle with player y" (but no results are seen)

    my resume: :(    … Expand
  82. julian_zizzle
    Oct 8, 2011
    6
    I have been playing strategy games (rts and turn based) ever since Age of Empires 2. I prayed god like a thousand times to finally see a game which is as good as my old and beloved Age of Mythology. And civilization 5 was no exception on this. This game grabs you with a weird kind of addiction if you start playing. You may sit to play this for 30 minutes and find out that 2 hours areI have been playing strategy games (rts and turn based) ever since Age of Empires 2. I prayed god like a thousand times to finally see a game which is as good as my old and beloved Age of Mythology. And civilization 5 was no exception on this. This game grabs you with a weird kind of addiction if you start playing. You may sit to play this for 30 minutes and find out that 2 hours are already passed. But the important part is the Civilizations actually have no difference than the other in particular. This makes the game really basic in variety. For godsake the only difference Between Aztecs and French are 1 different unit for each and 1 more unit/building if you are in luck. And uh there is also 1 more bonus between any 2 countries(For example Aztecs get some culture bonus for each enemy units they killed). I don't study history but even i can tell you at least 10 difference between the Aztecs and French People. This game really needs some more variation.… Expand
  83. Viper
    Oct 7, 2011
    5
    This game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the olderThis game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the older games, it takes few inventions in the later years to develop flight and eventually win through a space race. I have reinstalled Civilization IV with its expansion sets to really immerse in a realistic tech tree (and accept the fact of huge stacked armies).… Expand
  84. haileris2
    Sep 11, 2011
    5
    Civilization - Lite Edition is what I call this. If you want the complexity of the last games look elsewhere. If you want a turn based strategy game with average to poor AI and the depth of the shallow end of the paddling pool then this will be just for you!
  85. Mr_HatNClogs
    Aug 9, 2011
    7
    It was good......when I got it to work - which took forever!

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

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

    All in all - you can buy this game, but don't go in expecting much revolution from the older Civ games - and certainly don't go in expecting it to be as good as those Civ games - it's good, but not THAT good    … Expand
  86. kram789
    Jul 27, 2011
    6
    Some good stuff in this game, but also a lot of idiocies. The good stuff, is that the multiple paths to winning really work. Previous versions were all about expanding, but in this version a compact civilization can do very well. The bad is that the game is unecessarily hard to manage. A lot of techniques that existed in prior versions are missing. Such as being able to set your citySome good stuff in this game, but also a lot of idiocies. The good stuff, is that the multiple paths to winning really work. Previous versions were all about expanding, but in this version a compact civilization can do very well. The bad is that the game is unecessarily hard to manage. A lot of techniques that existed in prior versions are missing. Such as being able to set your city preferences across the empire from one city. Or, being able to go to a city screen from the F2 city summary view, or being able to change production in the same F2 view. It also is cheap that you the game does not take into account production to date when purchasing a building. All of these were probably left out to help sell the sequel in typical Sid Meir fashion.… Expand
  87. Nmesk22
    Jul 23, 2011
    6
    Civilization V is a deep, refreshing take on the Civilization franchise. In past iterations the player needed to be diplomatic in order to rule the world. Oh, did I say deep and refreshing? Forgive me, I meant to say that Civilization V, in comparison to its predecessors, is shallow in game mechanics which ultimately left me regretful for not reading more reviews before the big purchase.Civilization V is a deep, refreshing take on the Civilization franchise. In past iterations the player needed to be diplomatic in order to rule the world. Oh, did I say deep and refreshing? Forgive me, I meant to say that Civilization V, in comparison to its predecessors, is shallow in game mechanics which ultimately left me regretful for not reading more reviews before the big purchase. Luckily I found Civ V on sale for about $20 dollars and that's just about what this game seems to be worth. Why Sid Meier and his teams left critical gameplay features on the cutting room floor escapes me. Religion, a major staple of the Civilization franchise, has been completely removed. Diplomacy consists of few clickable options such as trading, war, and "discussions," which truly only serves as a shortcut to the trading screen. However, Civilization V is not a hole-filled game.

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

    Civilization V would have worked at a higher plane had it choose to adopt the micro mechanics of Civilization IV while keeping the new military system. Diplomacy definitely needs more depth; the detail of the different world leaders and their backdrops are fun and animated, but it's only the icing on a cake made from rocks.    … Expand
  88. emeraldstorm
    Jul 17, 2011
    6
    The days of plunking down $50 dollars for something in the Civilization series without thinking are over for me. As many of the other reviewers said, this game was just not ready to go. If it were a first release of Civ ever I'd give it much higher marks. But it's not. It's the 5th major version of the main game, and has had a ton of other manifestations, patches, add-ons, etc. Because ofThe days of plunking down $50 dollars for something in the Civilization series without thinking are over for me. As many of the other reviewers said, this game was just not ready to go. If it were a first release of Civ ever I'd give it much higher marks. But it's not. It's the 5th major version of the main game, and has had a ton of other manifestations, patches, add-ons, etc. Because of that, Civ 5 should be an embarrassment to the franchies. A new version of a game should build on the positive things in past versions. But there are features (particularly in the user interface) that are MISSING. They didn't bother to include a lot of the things (mostly little) that they included in *previous* versions. It's very difficult to get easily accessible information about profits and cities in a format that is intuitive and informative. It feels like one step forward and two steps back. It could be recoverable with some relatively minor fixes, but if they haven't done so yet, I doubt they are going to. As others have said, they lost their credibility with me on this game and the 'brand trust' has been eroded. -- I've raised my rating 2 since the last patch.… Expand
  89. spasmoid
    Jul 5, 2011
    7
    Will moving civ towards a social game gain more loyal fans than it loses? Only time will tell. Civ 5 tries to innovate a bit more than being just an incremental civilization UI refresh, but the features get boring ratgher quickly. This is the first Civ game that I did not play 6+ hours the day I got it. Ia few hours then I lost interest. I try it again now and then but, I won't be buyingWill moving civ towards a social game gain more loyal fans than it loses? Only time will tell. Civ 5 tries to innovate a bit more than being just an incremental civilization UI refresh, but the features get boring ratgher quickly. This is the first Civ game that I did not play 6+ hours the day I got it. Ia few hours then I lost interest. I try it again now and then but, I won't be buying anymore civ stuff until the inevitable civ 6. The game mechanics have more of a casual game feel. Heck, I almost epected the city screens to have me play Gems with resources. City states are interesting, but otherwise Diplomacy is marginal. War is launching marching wave after wave onto a city. Archery and artillery was kind of neat at first, but couldn't carry the game. Worth a try if you can pick it up on sale or if you're new to the series. Not for me.… Expand
  90. McKampela
    Jun 9, 2011
    5
    The game is aesthetically good looking and the combat system is interesting. But the game sucks, mostly because of really poor AI, that fails all warfare and is boring. The AI takes the worst parts from human players and regular Civ Ai and mashes them into a poorly executed abomination. The AI is unpredictable, in a bad way, stupid and can't grasp the basic concepts of warfare. It alsoThe game is aesthetically good looking and the combat system is interesting. But the game sucks, mostly because of really poor AI, that fails all warfare and is boring. The AI takes the worst parts from human players and regular Civ Ai and mashes them into a poorly executed abomination. The AI is unpredictable, in a bad way, stupid and can't grasp the basic concepts of warfare. It also takes serious amounts of computing power to just move its million worker units from place to place, doing nothing. The game also lacks any feeling of wonder. If you want a supereasy strategy game, this is a game for you.… Expand
  91. tobas1
    May 30, 2011
    5
    Meh - definitely not what I was hoping for - It's still fun to play for few hours but when i finished 2nd one like 20 times (my favorite game for a loooong time -strong 10) and was little disappointed with 3 (would give it around 7), but hooked again with 4 (9 in my scale) this one definitely didn't went in good direction for me. It has few nice new elements (like hex fields, nationMeh - definitely not what I was hoping for - It's still fun to play for few hours but when i finished 2nd one like 20 times (my favorite game for a loooong time -strong 10) and was little disappointed with 3 (would give it around 7), but hooked again with 4 (9 in my scale) this one definitely didn't went in good direction for me. It has few nice new elements (like hex fields, nation specialization or barbarian activity) but a lot more were disappointing or just plain bad - happiness was definitely this thing for me - it is just unlogic why it had so global scale - i mean i could understand that if i have 1 revolting city I would get some negative bonus for every other city in empire - but we do not have this kind of mechanics here - here every new citizen gives negative impact doesn't matter if he was born in reachest city at plannet or poorest one with blazing borders- and when i build coloseum in 1 city it makes my every citizen little happier - the hell why??? It's like I should be happy when I live in New York that stadium was built in Denver - and like I would even care. Because of this global impact of happiness this killed my main tactics - to be an expansionist asap- you can't -every new city gives bigger negative impact than it can produce hapiness in next 30 turns. Another thing coming from hapiness is conquering cities - when you do that the only intelligent step is to burn it to the ground and place right away new city in the same spot - because you pretty fast will have population boom there anyway (especially if you have few free states providing food as allies-then new citizen every turn) and won't get such a big negative happiness bonus for different culture. What a hell? the only right way in conquer is total extermination? I don't like that - and it's not teaching kids nowadays to think properly and we don't want to raise new hitlers are we? I won't be pointing every other change that I wasn't found of - others did that already, so will only focus at happiness as main reason why this CiV has butchered gameplay - and in long term is just not fun to play. - So meh. No expansions or DLC that i'll buy for this one - going back to 4 or will wait for 6.… Expand
  92. mpr
    May 29, 2011
    7
    Sure, the game may be too dumbed-down for the experienced Civ. fans, but for newcomers like me, this game is good. I've already played more than 50 hours and I'm still enjoying it.
  93. LD9000
    May 1, 2011
    7
    I played Civilization since version 2, and this game is ok. It's easier on Prince than civ 4, at least I've never seen over 9000 stacks suddenly appear at my borders. Well, there are no stacks anyway. The game plays differently than previous versions.
  94. Lavres
    Apr 26, 2011
    5
    Too much bugs in this game!. In Big maps is impossible to finish due to recurrent crash. It's fun, but too frustrating when you couldn't load a game in turn 400. I hope that Sid Meier fix the game!
  95. Scanton
    Apr 20, 2011
    6
    This is a fantastic game to play when it works a buggy, laggy frustrating mess of a game when it doesnâ
  96. ozumaro
    Apr 16, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I may surprise some of you, but waiting more than15 minutes to download an install a game when I actually bought a CD rom is just disgusting. I would not even comment on the game. How come I cannot score it as less than 4?… Expand
  97. joen00b
    Apr 15, 2011
    7
    I got this game the day it was released. Previous releases have warranted this type of action, and, though enamored at first, I kept waiting for the challenge to appear in the game. I've run rampant through the game, getting achievements and it all seems so easy compared to the other incarnations of Civ. I gave up playing it after a month or two of decimating the game on all levels.I got this game the day it was released. Previous releases have warranted this type of action, and, though enamored at first, I kept waiting for the challenge to appear in the game. I've run rampant through the game, getting achievements and it all seems so easy compared to the other incarnations of Civ. I gave up playing it after a month or two of decimating the game on all levels.

    Steam just had a sale on all the expansions, so I grabbed them all and will be playing again. They've done a lot of patches to the AI, so we'll see what changes. The other reviews of the combat system are spot on, only 1 unit per hex is bothersome, and I'll carpet the world with units. This can be interesting for logistics of attacking, but makes it far too easy to defend.    … Expand
  98. AlekKolchak
    Apr 12, 2011
    6
    With the fifth series the developers made some radical changes for the civilization series, including some bold new choices. I spent a long time playing the game before commenting as it is difficult to review a classic franchise. The best improvement is the combat system. Combat is now on a hex system. One army per hex. Ranged units can fire from hexes away but are generally weaker fromWith the fifth series the developers made some radical changes for the civilization series, including some bold new choices. I spent a long time playing the game before commenting as it is difficult to review a classic franchise. The best improvement is the combat system. Combat is now on a hex system. One army per hex. Ranged units can fire from hexes away but are generally weaker from attack, making the organization of your army critical. Non fast units move as fast like scouts in prior game (2 hexes over open ground, 1 hex over rough terrain), which makes terrain important. One bad change, and a baffling design choice, is the UI. In Civ 4 the UI told you everything you needed to know. You could tell how you were doing in points, and could hold your pointer over a resource to instantly know how many you have. No longer, for some reason. Advisors are back, but they only give general advice that most experienced civ players should already know. They are not an adequate replacement for Civ 4's excellent information screens. Cities take much more time to produce both buildings and units. Which means you must be selective about what you build. I can see why this was done, but the effect is that the game feels much slower than its predecessors. Happiness is now an empire wide trait. Instead of having happy and unhappy cities, every city has an equal amount of happiness which rises and falls together. Unfortunately, this means that a game of conquest and annexing conquered cities (which is now much harder, as cities take several turns to fall and can defend themselves with ranged attacks) can cripple your entire kingdom. This also slows down the game. I'd give this game a hesitant recommendation. I would also strongly advise having a very fast hard drive if you wish to play on any map beyond the smallest.… Expand
  99. M_Alex
    Mar 26, 2011
    7
    This game is problematic for me. I played the demo, liked it quite a lot, bought the game, and I almost don't play it at all. This probably is tied to the fact that I'm a BIG fan of the fourth installment, which I definetly prefer. But Civ V has a number of elements that I cannot but regard as flaws: not that I'm not used to them, but that i regard them worse than in the previous part. OnThis game is problematic for me. I played the demo, liked it quite a lot, bought the game, and I almost don't play it at all. This probably is tied to the fact that I'm a BIG fan of the fourth installment, which I definetly prefer. But Civ V has a number of elements that I cannot but regard as flaws: not that I'm not used to them, but that i regard them worse than in the previous part. On the other hand, there are some very nice introductions, such as the battle system. recommendable, but if you're a hardcore fan of the previous part, you may be disappointed because the amount of changes.… Expand
  100. Rebun
    Mar 25, 2011
    7
    At first i didnt really seem to enjoy this game, it took me a little while to get into it. When i did it was pretty fun, combat is improved from previous iterations, social policies are pretty awesome. diplomacy is a huge let down, it was obviously programmed to make them seem like players rather than nation leaders. moreover theres not much encouragement to make strong allies in the gameAt first i didnt really seem to enjoy this game, it took me a little while to get into it. When i did it was pretty fun, combat is improved from previous iterations, social policies are pretty awesome. diplomacy is a huge let down, it was obviously programmed to make them seem like players rather than nation leaders. moreover theres not much encouragement to make strong allies in the game because you know that eventually they'll just backstab you anyway because there not national leaders they are players trying to win (often very poorly too). My biggest gripe in this game is that you don't feel like you are running a civilization, you feel like your playing just another game. So if your a fan of the civ franchise for the builder aspect of the game, i'd recommend sticking with civ 4.… 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 »