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. Aldunis
    Sep 23, 2010
    7
    Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. First off, as of 2 days after the release of the game I have logged 16 hours of play time. About 12 of them on 2 to 4 player multiplayer games and the rest on single player.

    Civilization V is an amazing game, but it is not without its faults. The combat system is amazing. The use of hexes    Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. First off, as of 2 days after the release of the game I have logged 16 hours of play time. About 12 of them on 2 to 4 player multiplayer games and the rest on single player.

    Civilization V is an amazing game, but it is not without its faults. The combat system is amazing. The use of hexes and the fact that only one unit of each type can be on a hex opens the game up to much more challenging combat as well as unique tactics. However, while the combat system is very nice, the computer never uses any tactics when attacking you. Making defeating the enemies in all situations a cakewalk.

    The new culture system is also very nice. The removal of religion and civics will definitely annoy some, but the new system of policies is a pretty good replacement. One is forced to plan ahead by timing the construction of wonders, settlers, and military units to coincide with the adoption of new policies. The new method of expanding ones border is also very interesting, a combination of culture and gold. Gold allows to choose what tiles you wish to buy, while culture automatically claims tiles for you. The AI is typically pretty good about picking the best places, but you can always buy up the places you really want if its going too slow. My biggest complaint for this game is the very very very spotty diplomacy system. For a game that was made with the intention of being more diplomatic and AIs are uncommonly aggressive. Diplomacy is now like taking a shot in the dark. You have a good idea of how to lower it, very little idea of how to raise it and absolutely no idea about how you stand with the other nations. In the previous Civ games my favorite way to win was diplomatic victory. Now, having tried for 5 to 6 games and having not succeeded even once, I'm starting to question if its even possible. If someone figures out the diplomacy system, without the use of a guide, please let me know. Another complaint I have with the game is the very bad multiplayer support. You can't save a multiplayer game, only autosave, and the autosave is not very reliable and is prone to self deletion. Having lost 4 to 5 current games with my friends, this is annoying to say the least. Furthermore I have yet to figure out how to play mods on multiplayer, someone let me know when they figure it out? For a game that comes from a long line of epic multiplayer friendly games, this is a huge disappointment. Many of my friends have already said they're not gonna waste anymore time on this game until the multiplayer aspect is fixed. Yet, if you don't mind single player games. Or if you don't mind multiplayer games that you'll almost never finish. I actually enjoyed the single player games and unfinished multiplayers to refine my strategy (But I am an addict). This is the pinnacle of turn based strategy games, and the design of the game itself outweighs most of the negatives that come from stupid AIs, horrible diplomacy, bad multiplayer support (all of which I hope will be fixed by patches). But until they do, this is not worthy of the legacy of Civilization. For now, a 7 out of 10.    … Expand
  2. thehiredgun
    Oct 5, 2010
    6
    I'm baffled that "professional" critics rated such a buggy mess of a game so high. Perhaps they only played a few hours or were limited to a demo or some other nonesense, because if you go read the 2K Support forums, you'll see that CIV V is filled with buggy AI, missing features, and straight up silly bugs. If you are considering purchasing this game for Multiplayer LAN games with yourI'm baffled that "professional" critics rated such a buggy mess of a game so high. Perhaps they only played a few hours or were limited to a demo or some other nonesense, because if you go read the 2K Support forums, you'll see that CIV V is filled with buggy AI, missing features, and straight up silly bugs. If you are considering purchasing this game for Multiplayer LAN games with your family, strongly reconsider until they have a chance to fix numerous issues plaguing this game. This game was definitely not ready for release.… Expand
  3. Shaddock
    Sep 23, 2010
    5
    If you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order toIf you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order to understand your neighbors. You can see current deal but have no sense of why or if the other civilizations like you or not. Also you cant make your own saves during multiplayer and need to rely on autosaves, and you have no other option other than simultaneous turns when playing multiplayer. This option when using the combat model simply does not work and feels more like an RTS or console game than what many of us have grown to love about CIV. If you have not played a CIV game before start here, if you own CIV IV stick with that.… Expand
  4. napalm
    Sep 22, 2010
    6
    Let me start of by saying I am a long time fan of the Civilization series. I have owned all versions of civilizations from the day they were releases. Heck I am an old timer that was playing games like simearth back in the day.

    With that rant over, on the the game. I will give the highlight of it is pretty much the same old civilization we played for 20 years with better graphics    Let me start of by saying I am a long time fan of the Civilization series. I have owned all versions of civilizations from the day they were releases. Heck I am an old timer that was playing games like simearth back in the day.

    With that rant over, on the the game. I will give the highlight of it is pretty much the same old civilization we played for 20 years with better graphics with combat changes. There is nothing revolutionary and ground breaking in the game. If you played any of the other Civ's then you already played this one.

    Sure you have Hexes now and you can not stack units, but the heart of the game has been the same for 20 years and to be honest the developers are playing it too safe and are not giving us anything unique.

    I am not going to give it a zero as it is not a bad game... the problem is they already sold this game 4 times over the last 20 years. If you never played Civ before, check it out... but if you played the others, this the the same old game.

    Maybe but Civ VII or Civ X they will give us something new :)    … Expand
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Everyone
    Oct 18, 2010
    5
    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

    The good: Graphics are great, especially the diplomat renderings. The sound effects are mostly the same as old civ    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

    The good: Graphics are great, especially the diplomat renderings. The sound effects are mostly the same as old civ games, giving some nice nostalgic moments. The soundtrack list is huge. Combat is an enormous improvement over old games: the combination of hexagonal tiles, and no unit stacking makes it much more dynamic than previous Civ iterations. The bad: Simplification! Civs aren't action games. Civ players don't want action games. They want a cerebral experience that challenges them over and over again, each time they play. Firaxis has taken steps to streamline the experience that end up detracting from the game as a whole. Civ IV's religion and civic system is now a non-dynamic culture system, where you spend accumulated culture points for a once-off gameplay bonus. It is a step backwards. Diplomacy is terrible: the opaque system leaves you in the dark about what is going on. Want to enter a pact of secrecy? Uh, sure... I have no idea what that is!

    The ugly: The soundtrack! Civ4's soundtrack was a masterpiece. The choice to progress the time period of origin for music based on the age of your civilization lent a feeling of progression to the game, as you ushered your civilization from the ancient era, to the future era. In Civ5, the soundtrack is now based on the (real life) origin of your civilization, and further whether it is engaged in war or peace. While the song-list is enormous (possibly larger than Civ 4's), you'll find that if you play a mainly peaceful civilization, you listen to the same songs from 4000BC to 2050AD. The fact of the matter is this: after months of Civ4, I still loved the soundtrack. After a week of Civ5, the soundtrack had become repetetive to the point that I started muting it.

    The REALLY ugly: Remember how bad Civ4 used to tank your system when the AI was thinking during the later portions of the game? Remember how your computer would slow to a crawl for 20 seconds when you clicked 'next turn'? Civ5 is worse. By the 1800s, clicking 'next turn' becomes a dreaded thing: it means your computer will be out of commission for 30-60 seconds while the AI slogs through what it wants to do next. I find that post-1800AD, I typically spend more time reading stuff on my cell phone, or watching TV, than I do during my turns. It is bad enough that after playing through my first four or five full-length games, I had no desire at all to take another game into the later stages, as it was just tedious. Don't blame this on my system: it was built recently, and is more than capable.

    Add to this a large list of other bugs, such as(the camera wildly swinging around as the game auto-selects units available for action from across the map, even though it is already positioned directly over another such unit, and you have a game that wasn't ready for primetime. For the civilization series, 5 was a step forward, and multiple leaps backwards. If you have a hankering for a good game of civilization, fire up Civ4. You'll have a better time.

    On top of all of this is the single worst part of the game: the computer AI takes entirely too long to think on its turn. Civ4's early days had a similar problem, with the late-game turning into a slog-fest as clicking 'next turn' inevitably resulted in anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds of down-time during which your computer tanks to a crawl. By the end game, I typically find myself spending more time reading news on my cell phone than actually playing the game. As such, it got to the point where playing past 1800AD was more chore than fun. (Don't try to    … Expand
  12. 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
  13. Torger
    Sep 27, 2010
    6
    As a longtime fan of the series, I unfortunately have to say that Civ5 has been vastly overrated by professional reviewers. That's probably because the game looks great and the real flaws don't start to show up until after a few hours of play.

    There are certain things I really like about this game. City states were a great addition and make the game a lot more interesting. Being able    As a longtime fan of the series, I unfortunately have to say that Civ5 has been vastly overrated by professional reviewers. That's probably because the game looks great and the real flaws don't start to show up until after a few hours of play.

    There are certain things I really like about this game. City states were a great addition and make the game a lot more interesting. Being able to purchase land is awesome and realistic. Easier rushbuying is a lot of fun and doesn't unbalance the game.

    The new combat system is pretty goofy (for example, archers are a ranged unit but riflemen are not). It's a bit more fun than the old "stacks of doom," but I see reviewers praising the new combat system as "more streamlined" when it is definitely not. Moving an old stack of doom required 2 clicks (click on SOD, click on destination). Now you need to do the same thing 5-10 times as much to move an army.

    The new Civic talent tree offers more customization of specific traits, which is fun to plan around. However you can't swap civics to match a change in strategy in-game (eg. teching up at the beginning of the game and then turning to a warlike theocracy once you realize you're likely to lose the space race). This is disappointing. Overall, when Civ5's civics are compared to Civ4 its a wash. In-between-turn load times suck. On a normal size map in the modern age, I was sitting and watching the hourglass for an average of 15 seconds in between each turn--even when I wasn't watching animations of enemy moves. I'd blame my computer but it runs pretty much every other game at high settings without a hint of a problem.

    Music is bad, particularly the asian themed music. I can't believe they wasted time animating leaders and making them talk in their own languages. It doesn't add much to the game and some of their voices (Queen Elizabeth) actually detract from it by being annoying.

    The lack of science/gold/culture sliders takes away a lot of customization potential that was fun to tinker with in previous Civ games. This became painfully apparent when going for a cultural victory. A cultural victory doesn't require the last 25% of the tech tree, but you can't stop researching until you run out of money. And in the meantime, because you're still researching new tech, your puppet states are building more and more new buildings and costing you more money. And when you run out of money you can't do a LOT of things, like rush-build or more importantly buy luxury resources and establish good relations with city states that provide culture. Basically you lose the ability to do the things that make the game fun. This is especially frustrating when it have been so easily solved with the old-school sliders, which were never that difficult to manage in the first place. Overall, it's a good, but not great game. It reminds me of Civ3, in that it attempts to add interesting new game concepts and surprisingly flops at aspects in which its predecessor excelled. On the bright side, Civ4 did a great job of combining the best of Civ2 and Civ3, so hopefully history repeats itself and Civ6 will be awesome.    … Expand
  14. moonkies
    Oct 20, 2010
    6
    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

    I also appreciated the hex-grid and new battle system, but can please make the AI more LOGICAL and SMARTER in battle? I literal kill 15 units without damage 1 of my unit by defensing . I beat deity level within 60 hours.(I wasn't able to beat deity in civ4)    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

    I also appreciated the hex-grid and new battle system, but can please make the AI more LOGICAL and SMARTER in battle? I literal kill 15 units without damage 1 of my unit by defensing . I beat deity level within 60 hours.(I wasn't able to beat deity in civ4)

    This game is mediocre and didn't live up with the hype. I hope they will do better on the next expansion.    … Expand
  15. Ultimata
    Oct 13, 2010
    5
    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

    Civilization V fixes most of the problems that plagued    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

    Civilization V fixes most of the problems that plagued Civilization IV. Gone are the 'Stacks of Doom', outlawed by the '1 unit per tile' rule. Economies are again driven by the land, not by cottages or great people. Happiness has been consolidated to an economy-wide focus, rather than a city-centric focus, which saves time. Geographic constraints on city expansion have been relaxed. The largely pointless and annoying disease/nutrition system is gone. The combat system has been beefed up, with ranged units and squares replaced by hexes (why wasn't that part of Civ 1?). The need to check diplomacy every turn to trade techs efficiently has been replaced by a system of collaborative research agreements. And some entertainment has been added through single city states. These are all substantial leaps forward.

    The game fails because despite all of these improvements, I can attest after 80 hours of gameplay, it just isn't fun. The four fun-killers are:

    First, the focus has clearly moved towards military conquest. The AI declares war on you because it can - the United States wants to conquer Canada in CivVWorld. But the AI sucks at war. If you can build an army of 6 units you can hold off an infinite attack from an enemy civ. Build an army of 12 units and you can advance on 2 fronts, which is enough to win constant war against everyone. To be fair, Civ AI has ALWAYS made for a poor man's wargame, but that has never really been the point before (well maybe in Civ 3, but ...), rather the fun has come from building up the civ and watching it thrive. Which brings me to ...

    Second, foolish humans, such as my good self, have always enjoyed the Civ franchise because of the micro payoffs, the "just one more turns" ... This game shows all the hallmarks of squished or hurried design. Tech advances are greeted by quotes both less sage and delivered less compellingly than Leonard Nimoy's efforts in Civ IV. The tech payoffs are sometimes nonsensible - the technology of 'Telegraph' lets you build battleships, miltary based and Rio de Janeiro's Christo Redento. Stop. Most of the Great Wonders confer largely irrelevant advantages, which is perhaps why Firaxis got rid of the beautiful wonder movies and replaced them with inane pictures, so no more do you curse and punch the wall when some other civ beats you by 1 turn. And the rewards for victory ... well, I wouldn't want to spoil the disappointment for you. Game designers everywhere need to understand that if you play for 20+ hours to achieve some condition that they set, you expect some quid pro quo.

    Third, there are design flaws - things that clearly just don't work the way any sane person would make a game work. Such as the maritime city states that provide a quantum of food to each of your cities, no matter how many cities there are in your civilization. Or the 'bonus' resources you wish you didn't have so you could just build a farm. Or the fact that in 1820 you should still build cavalry spearman so you can upgrade them to knights, then rifle-armed cavalry, because the upgrade system is so cheap. Fourth, there are bugs. Lots of bugss. Suffice to say that when you've played a game for 20 hours pushing for a domination victory and then find you can't kill your last opponent because the 10 turn peace treaty you signed 200 turns ago is still in effect, you'll probably consign this game to the dustbin, as I did. I've know doubt these will be fixed in time. So wait before you buy.

    In summary, I see in this product noble efforts to improve on civ 4 that, on balance, failed. The game is less likely to keep me up until 4am pressing the 'Next turn' button than did Civ IV because I care less about my little baby civs then I used to, and find it more inane beating up on my supid enemies than in the past. Nice try Firaxis, but no good. Thumbs down.    … Expand
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Adzmc
    Sep 26, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The short of it is: if you have, and like Civ IV BTS, then don't bother. The only people who don't think that this is major dumbing down of the series obviously just don't 'get' strategy games. I've played through two full games now, one marathon and one normal. I like to play Huge, Marathon, Earth maps because of the 'epic' feel. this virtually can't be done on CIV V. Marathon is simply too slow (my rig exceeds recommended specs and hasn't crashed once). City-states make ridiculous demands eg "build a road to my town (on the other side of the planet) and they get really old really fast. On normal it was a bit better, except there's no way of telling if your neighbours are happy with you, so it's easy to descend into bloodshed if you're not disciplined. The end screens on Civ IV were short little movie, depending on which victory you attained. Civ V doesn't even have this - it's more like a "Conglaturation!, you have completed a great game" screen, and that's it. Combat is better, but the dumbing down of naval invasions means it's really easy to snatch the enemy's capital from sea. Capture all the enemy capitals and you win the game. That is of course if your units don't get lost on the way. Civ V has a really annoying habit of 'losing' units. it's a bit like the Total War series, where you have the remember where your units are. Not cool if you come back to a game after a long break. Likewise their "goto" commands break when they embark, often leading to a huge build up of units on the wrong coast. Aerial combat isn't much better, animations for the planes don't play properly. The ranges of combat missions aren't clear. etc etc. It just doesn't 'feel' epic anymore.
    I'll be looking forward to the first patch for this game and expansion, but at the moment my advice is to steer clear, definitely not worth the $$$    … Expand
  23. 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.
  24. K1ller
    Oct 3, 2010
    6
    Simplified so a chimapnzee can play it, full of bugs and crashes, it is the worst of all Civ games. One leader for each nation? So if you want to play a specific nation, but do not like the leader traits, you are screwed. One unit per tile? Nice idea until the map is full of spawned units blocking each other's way. And how the is it possible for another empire units to come through mySimplified so a chimapnzee can play it, full of bugs and crashes, it is the worst of all Civ games. One leader for each nation? So if you want to play a specific nation, but do not like the leader traits, you are screwed. One unit per tile? Nice idea until the map is full of spawned units blocking each other's way. And how the is it possible for another empire units to come through my units as the are not there? How are we suppose to protect our city states at war with another major when not beiing at war witht the said major?… Expand
  25. Tridus
    Sep 29, 2010
    6
    Civ 5 starts off awesome. The graphics are great, the new combat mechanics are cool, and there's lots of neat things to explore...

    Then you start getting good at it. The empire building aspect is shallower then it was in Civ 4. There's less to build. There's incentive for building a lot of cities but not letting them grow. You can buy most of your food from city states if you want to, and    Civ 5 starts off awesome. The graphics are great, the new combat mechanics are cool, and there's lots of neat things to explore...

    Then you start getting good at it. The empire building aspect is shallower then it was in Civ 4. There's less to build. There's incentive for building a lot of cities but not letting them grow. You can buy most of your food from city states if you want to, and come out ahead by just spamming trading posts. You notice that only a few Wonders are really worth their cost, let alone the difficulty in building them when the AI gets building speed boosts on higher difficulty.

    Combat is awesome, except that the AI is REALLY BAD at it. Once you know how to use rivers, hills, great generals, and ranged attacks strategically, you will dismantle armies significantly larger without difficulty.

    That's the problem here. The AI is bad and it makes the game really easy once you know how to play it. The shallower nature of the game means there's less fun without a challenging AI to push you.

    The game isn't bad, and if you're not a Civ fanatic you will probably find a lot to like. But for the people who are good at the TBS genre and Civ in particular, there won't be much to hold your attention over Civ 4.    … Expand
  26. 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
  27. Seraphael
    Nov 1, 2010
    6
    Civilization V has promise, but is ultimately a very flawed game riddled with bugs and poor or even unfinished implementations. Coupled with sluggish performance on decent computers, my advice would be to stay clear of the game until it can be patched to a decent level. Check back in in 6 months or more.

    5.0 out of 10.0.
  28. JesusHKriest
    Mar 14, 2011
    6
    I think Civilization 5 is an okay game by itself, but if you compare it to Civilization 4 it... yeah. To sum it up as best as I can, I think Civilization 5 is just "dumbed down" a bit. You don't have to focus on as many things, religions were completely removed from the game, and hexagon upgrades were way more obvious. Speaking of hexagons, I absolutely hate the hex system. It means youI think Civilization 5 is an okay game by itself, but if you compare it to Civilization 4 it... yeah. To sum it up as best as I can, I think Civilization 5 is just "dumbed down" a bit. You don't have to focus on as many things, religions were completely removed from the game, and hexagon upgrades were way more obvious. Speaking of hexagons, I absolutely hate the hex system. It means you have way less plots of land available per city, which took away a lot of the fun. The city-state system was a little lame too; I didn't want to have to bother dealing with greedy and disobedient city-state allies when I could just conquer them and use them and their land for myself. The AI has some of the same, if not worse, problems that Civ 4 had. Why in the world my best ally spontaneously decides to declare war on everyone, including myself, is beyond me. The expansions for Civ 4 were definitely worth it on Steam when you could get Civ 4 + all expansions for like, 20 USD/Euros, but Civ 5's DLC that adds just one civilization choice makes me want to vomit. Honestly, most games of this current era tend to "dumb down" their gameplay, but the Civilization series is all about strategy.… Expand
  29. 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
  30. 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
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 »