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. Jerik02
    Oct 4, 2011
    3
    Having enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviewsHaving enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviews as the user reviews are resoundingly negative and disappointed. I agree with comments stating how the AI is poor, diplomacy is neutered and practically meaningless. The new civics program doesn't gel well with the historical policies of civilizations. It is also virtually impossible to maintain a large army due to special resources being required for certain units. Please tell me why I need aluminum to build modern armor or a missile cruiser, when neither use aluminum in the "real world". Overall the game is poorly designed and rushed to the market. It is a crappy product hidden in a nicely wrapped box. I want my money back.… Expand
  2. Jumper_351
    Oct 4, 2011
    4
    What a disappointment! This game is basically a dumbed down version of Civ 4, with slightly better graphics. The AI is a joke. The cutscenes are gone and the game gets very old quite fast. With the removal of religion, civics, espionage and meaningful diplomacy, Civ 5 represents what is wrong with the gaming industry. Namely, "dumb it down and add shiny graphics - but not cut scenes orWhat a disappointment! This game is basically a dumbed down version of Civ 4, with slightly better graphics. The AI is a joke. The cutscenes are gone and the game gets very old quite fast. With the removal of religion, civics, espionage and meaningful diplomacy, Civ 5 represents what is wrong with the gaming industry. Namely, "dumb it down and add shiny graphics - but not cut scenes or movies when you win, because that is hard." Lame.… Expand
  3. 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!
  4. DrIron
    Sep 8, 2011
    1
    Get Civilization 4 and BtS instead (you don't need Warlords, BTS has all of Warlords in it).
    5 has worse AI, only just barely matches the visual quality of modded Civilization 4, is much harder to mod and thus barely enjoys any modding community unlike 4, and the game is just too damn easy due to how unbalanced everything is. On top of that, there's hardly any multiplayer support.
    Just get    Get Civilization 4 and BtS instead (you don't need Warlords, BTS has all of Warlords in it).
    5 has worse AI, only just barely matches the visual quality of modded Civilization 4, is much harder to mod and thus barely enjoys any modding community unlike 4, and the game is just too damn easy due to how unbalanced everything is. On top of that, there's hardly any multiplayer support.
    Just get Civ4. Want more civilizations than 4 has to offer? They've been modded in. Want better graphics? They've been modded in. Hell, you can get mods that make each nation's units look unique, so that a Portugese and a Dutch unit will not be clones like they are in 5. Then to make things worse, Firaxis has actually started -selling- civilizations, putting less work into them than modders do, for $5 each.
    This sequel doesn't even deserve to exist if it can't compete with its predecessor on any field.    … Expand
  5. ThugLife
    Sep 8, 2011
    10
    I initially bought Civilization V on release, having played it for about an hour I wrongly believed it was inferior to its predecessors and didn't play it again until July. This time I embraced the new combat system which was my main problem with game when I first played . The new combat system allows for a more strategic approach and is ultimately more satisfying than the stacking ofI initially bought Civilization V on release, having played it for about an hour I wrongly believed it was inferior to its predecessors and didn't play it again until July. This time I embraced the new combat system which was my main problem with game when I first played . The new combat system allows for a more strategic approach and is ultimately more satisfying than the stacking of units in previous games. In other areas things have been simplified which makes the game feel faster, some people would consider this a negative but I feel it is a step forward for the series and will open the game up to more casual player new to the series. One issue with the game is that the A.I is not the best, that said I have only played on the normal difficulty level. The game's graphics are very nice indeed the downside to this means that a good computer is needed to run the game well. I have never had any technical problems with the game and always runs with zero lag and and seems very stable.… Expand
  6. moengo
    Sep 5, 2011
    10
    super jeu de stratégie alliant réflexion et plaisir de jouer. Seul petit bémol, même si le graphisme est amélioré par rapport à CIV 4 cela aurais pu être un peu mieux. je trouve dommage qu'un jeu d'une telle qualité n'est pas su profiter d'une meilleur conceptionsuper jeu de stratégie alliant réflexion et plaisir de jouer. Seul petit bémol, même si le graphisme est amélioré par rapport à CIV 4 cela aurais pu être un peu mieux. je trouve dommage qu'un jeu d'une telle qualité n'est pas su profiter d'une meilleur conception graphique.néanmoins; jeu absolument à recommander… Expand
  7. Doublecross
    Sep 3, 2011
    1
    Wow, what a load of disappointing crap. If this game would just have the exact same graphics and the same game mechanics CIV 4 had, this game would be already better lol. But they dummed it down that my dicks dick could be my advisor in the game. Very dissapointed and sad :(
  8. Quasi
    Sep 3, 2011
    9
    Heck - how can such a great game have such a low score? Yes, there are new aspects. If there were none, people would complain even more. Civ 5 is better than all other games in the series.
  9. Monte28
    Aug 31, 2011
    10
    Imagine Civ 3 but slower. ALOT slower. It seriously is just like civ 3 but a small, tiny, micro-scopic uniqueness to each civilization. Gameplay is the same, graphics are better, and overall its the sam civ game you know, just shinnier. OH OH OH! and its dumbed down. If you are also a fan of Empire earth....imagine empire earth 2 towards 3. Its basically like that
  10. grok70
    Aug 31, 2011
    9
    I love this version. I've been playing since civilization 3. All of my habits are actually developed around Civ 3 Civ 4 still bugs me because I keep expecting to get samurai as knights instead of horseman, and free granaries from the pyramids. Don't know what I'm talking about? This review probably isn't for you.

    But let's talk about Civ V and why I like it. One, the combat is fantastic.    I love this version. I've been playing since civilization 3. All of my habits are actually developed around Civ 3 Civ 4 still bugs me because I keep expecting to get samurai as knights instead of horseman, and free granaries from the pyramids. Don't know what I'm talking about? This review probably isn't for you.

    But let's talk about Civ V and why I like it. One, the combat is fantastic. The visual representation is very effective, and the sounds and details of it feel great. The fact that frigates and such can directly attack units is awesome. The hex system is the perfect system, and it gives the whole combat the feel of the board game Battletech. The fact that you can't stack units introduces meaningful 2 dimensional strategy. The combat now has a degree of depth to it that makes it much more fun, and when manipulating large armies, LESS OF A GRIND. It's the difference in space combat between Star Trek Online and Eve Online. In Eve it's a numbers game, maneuvering, except speed and distance is meaningless. In STO you have to rotate your shields, making 3 dimensional maneuvering vital, and group maneuvering meaningful. Same thing for CIV 4 vs. Civ 5. This is a VAST improvement. The whole combat system is a vast improvement.

    Diplomacy: All the features I look for in diplomacy were there. The diplomacy layout was great, even the new interaction screen gives me a good vibe. When I'm talking to Montezuma I am connected to the culture through his background and body language. Much better than the Victorian portrait.

    Expansion: I like that this is no longer a settler race early game. There is plenty of land. Don't bother expanding to an area that isn't rich in luxuries or strategic resources. I'm currently playing the Iroquois, I've 3x'd my way into being the largest empire, and I'm rich, but my people are unhappy (annexing causing problems) and the English, who only have 3 cities (vs. my 8) are an age further ahead in tech, have a better military, and are better connected diplomatically (I'm playing on prince difficulty). I squandered all my political and human capital on conquering the Aztec. To me this is depth, and I like it. I won the war but lost the greater competition because of my land greed. Tech Tree: There are now two tech trees. There is the traditional science tech tree, which makes a bit more sense and has actually been expanded, and then there is the new social tech tree. Civ5 takes the idea that there is an endgame for policy. I could do either sytem, but I think there is a lot of strategy and depth to pursuing the social tech tree (fed by culture, awesome.) I'm enjoying it, though it was fun before to become a fascist, nationalistic theocracy and go storming the world. Cities: The cities look great and feel great. The funeral dirge of the Fat square is an ode to joy. The end of neurotic micromanagement of workers and tiles is poetry. Managing the city, the purchase model vs the old rush/ slave model makes more sense. THANK GOD FOR EMBARCATION. Makes the whole game smoother and better. The People's revolt that occurs when your citizens are too unhappy is awesome. This is a sophisticated though simplified model for Civ. The city states are an effective way for us To temporarily expand in times of need, and contract as the need ends. They also provide mini-missions and many interesting dynamics to fill vast tracts of time. Everything that was added I like, I miss NOTHING about the old city system, though I can see the roots of the current system in it. The interaction between the city system and the new combat system is fantastic, and now sieges are so much more dynamic and interesting. Far more so than the previous civs. The overall feel of the game is very much improved. There are two big problems with the civilization series: it becomes tedious when you have a large empire, and late game there's a lack of flexibility, if you're not top dog, it's unlikely you will be by 2050. This game has helped a lot of with the tediousness of empire by limiting the size and by streamlining the micromanagement of cities. I have yet to see if late game is improved.

    The Civilization series has a lot of die hard fans who invested a lot of time and energy into the the minutiae of the previous systems. Their conservative view means this game is worse, because it's tactical and strategic depth is different, not immediately apparent, and perhaps simplified, definitely less technical, though intricate in what I think is a better way. The game is very system heavy. The graphics engine a little buggy. Even the opening movie doesn't like to let me escape out. Hopefully these issues will be solved soon. I'm very happy with it. I wake up early to play it before work, I stay up late playing it after school. I'm 27 years old, and if I'm lucky, I might just conquer St. Petersberg before the day is out.    … Expand
  11. Strategist_78
    Aug 27, 2011
    10
    I played every single one of this game since the first Civ came out, it was just 2D icons on a 2d map, I think was the time of Simcity etc. When I got the Civ5, by just looking at the cover, I saw major difference. First I could use the ships for ground support, ground troops could attack ships, and units could fire 2-4 squares away. Great. I was quite excited until about the middle of myI played every single one of this game since the first Civ came out, it was just 2D icons on a 2d map, I think was the time of Simcity etc. When I got the Civ5, by just looking at the cover, I saw major difference. First I could use the ships for ground support, ground troops could attack ships, and units could fire 2-4 squares away. Great. I was quite excited until about the middle of my first game on huge map. The game was extremely slow after some turns and the game was freezing, and shutting down. I improved my system from recommended configuration to quad CPU, 8GB ram, SSD drive, 1GB fast graphics, 64Bit W7 etc. just to feel playable, still very heavy on hardware in later parts of the game on larger maps. The reason is that the AI players are set to mass produce units to the point where the entire area within their borders and beyond is covered with them. I mean every single square. I saw better strategy from barbarians and city states, they would probably get to the same point eventually. About the game. Not talking about all the things and concepts that are left out, there is one major problem. The AI has no strategy. There is no difference in strategy if you play on Settler or Deity difficulty other than completely unfair advantage at the start of the game. Ai just gets more units, better production, you name it. If you can barricade yourself for long enough time and fend off onslaughts of more advanced units, then you'll make it on any level. you may end up fighting arrows against infantry but only until you catch up with your research. Retreat wounded units, promote them, you'll be amazed what ultra elites can do. If AI just would sent all those units at you you would have hard time to make it, but there is only certain amount of points of attack every turn. Terrain comes handy. There is no defense against nukes, other than to attack with a nuke first especially at the city that has one. Which destroys all units at that city. I am not gonna go into more details but basically the game is fun at the beginning where you are fighting for survival, trying to get to the resources, but at some point it becomes very boring and sort of routine cleanup of other players. The whole game was very simplified, has good concepts with air-force and navy but lacks in diplomacy, tech tree, gameplay. Also after you spend all that time hunting for an iron for example, you won't need it anymore. Anyhow I can't say anything dab about, I take it with all pros and cons, just a little bit disappointed. But I see a great potential in multiplayer, human against human. AI just knows how to make "2" types of units at the end, and as long as it puts them in the water, it is just a good target practice for the airforce. So don't be afraid to be the last guy in the games based on the score sheet, with thousands of points difference, city by city unit by unit...
    If you make your economy strong by combination of culture and city management, you can spent most of the time in golden age, and also you can literally buy the world with all city states. Nuclear missile is a good cleanup tool, and since it is nothing special to build, providing that you have uranium access, just keep buying them... It is a good game but no real challenge in it. If there ever is the Civ6 I hope they keep
    this one as a base and fill in all the good features from previous versions with possibility to switch it on and off. But the main focus I would put on AI adaptive tactics and overall strategy.    … Expand
  12. flipkin
    Aug 27, 2011
    0
    Big fan of the franchise, but this game sucks. Big pet peeve of mine is when the AI opponent is able to do moves the human player is not. Lot's of bugs. Very slow loading. Slow in general. Hangs. Obviously rushed out before it was done.
  13. Reo
    Aug 22, 2011
    1
    I have been a CIV 1 to 4 addict. I am trying to get into CIV5, but over the last 4 months every time I get a good game going I get to around turn 390 to 410 and then somthing always goes wrong. It wont load, or validate. The game crashes. I am sick of it. The only game I have completed is one I started in the industrial age and beat the game in under 200 turns. It seams you can only playI have been a CIV 1 to 4 addict. I am trying to get into CIV5, but over the last 4 months every time I get a good game going I get to around turn 390 to 410 and then somthing always goes wrong. It wont load, or validate. The game crashes. I am sick of it. The only game I have completed is one I started in the industrial age and beat the game in under 200 turns. It seams you can only play the game on standard or quick speed, on normal or small worlds. Have not been able to play past 400 turns on a large world. The game looks great and plays great only on standard settings with very few civs. The whole steam thing sucks! It takes for ever to load a game and then it crashes. Worse, it freezes and you dont know, becouse it normaly takes 5 minutes to load. Check integrety? This has never worked. It says it cant be verified and it has to be reloaded. You wait and wait and finaly its done and you go threw the 5 min wait to load another game and the it freezes. You try to post about the problem and they tell you a patch is coming, only I get the patch and it works fine on a new game, so you play it and boom the same thing at about the same point. I like the social policy thing and the game is balance tword world domination, thats ok. But I think the MODS may be the problem becouse all my crashes and freezes tend to happen during a mod game. But the vanilla civ 5 is not that fun. There are alot of aspects to this game I like, but what good are they if you cant play a game from ancient to futer with alot of turns. I am trying for a culter victory or a science, but I always end up freezing or crashing. Gonna try Historic speed as the only mod on a random map and see if that crashes or freezes, if it does I am putting this game away.… Expand
  14. Teraksus
    Aug 14, 2011
    9
    It's just brilliant, I've been playing it for 440 hours, and it just never get boring. But, there are still room for improvement:
    I) The AI have to grow, because after some time the problem is that you don't lose. Of course you can use more challenging levels, but still the main difference is that the computer got an upper hand on you at the start of the game, but the AI are still the    It's just brilliant, I've been playing it for 440 hours, and it just never get boring. But, there are still room for improvement:
    I) The AI have to grow, because after some time the problem is that you don't lose. Of course you can use more challenging levels, but still the main difference is that the computer got an upper hand on you at the start of the game, but the AI are still the same.
    II) The online game experience is weak. It is just about to do things faster than the other players, and every time I played it was same thing, everybody just leave the room before someone got the chance to win.
    Still is a nice piece of business.    … Expand
  15. 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
  16. nicktaste
    Aug 7, 2011
    0
    The fact this game was given such high reviews by so many critics and sits now at a "90" is a testament to the lack of credibility of many professional critics. I played civilization 4 as well as other previous civ titles and I can easily say this game is a huge disappointment. The game is simply boring, tedious, and not fun. You can not stack units and the AI is far inferior to the AI ofThe fact this game was given such high reviews by so many critics and sits now at a "90" is a testament to the lack of credibility of many professional critics. I played civilization 4 as well as other previous civ titles and I can easily say this game is a huge disappointment. The game is simply boring, tedious, and not fun. You can not stack units and the AI is far inferior to the AI of Civ4. This game simply does not live up to its predecessor.… Expand
  17. Greenlemonade
    Aug 1, 2011
    10
    Long time Civ player. The hate this game has received is fueled mostly by:
    1. Peoples' tenancy to expect the release of a squeal to fulfill all their wildest dreams.
    2. Peoples' fear of change. Some specific changes for the good: The graphics are smooth and beautiful. The gameplay is streamlined and requires less micromanaging. No more stacked units!!, MUCH easier for units to travel    Long time Civ player. The hate this game has received is fueled mostly by:
    1. Peoples' tenancy to expect the release of a squeal to fulfill all their wildest dreams.
    2. Peoples' fear of change.
    Some specific changes for the good: The graphics are smooth and beautiful. The gameplay is streamlined and requires less micromanaging. No more stacked units!!, MUCH easier for units to travel across water, far superior user-friendly interface. There are plenty of other little changes to come and more gameplay balances, tweaks and fixes to come (remember everyone, EVERY civ game had bugs).
    Steam makes installation, updates, friend management and communication easy as well as adding achievements.    … Expand
  18. xp51mustangx
    Jul 30, 2011
    10
    I love this game. It keeps me in the infinite "just 15 more minutes" cycle. Civ 5 can take the usually Boring TBS strategy and make it fun again. Decent AI, and the desire to play the loads of civilizations until the last empire is crushed keeps bringing me back.

    that being said, it can be frustrating. Playing on marathon will day MORE then a full day to complete. Hours of your gameplay    I love this game. It keeps me in the infinite "just 15 more minutes" cycle. Civ 5 can take the usually Boring TBS strategy and make it fun again. Decent AI, and the desire to play the loads of civilizations until the last empire is crushed keeps bringing me back.

    that being said, it can be frustrating. Playing on marathon will day MORE then a full day to complete. Hours of your gameplay will be just waiting for the game to end the turn. the lag is off the charts and can be tedious to wait minutes to end every turn. Then, you HAVE to give orders to every single unit you own. sure, you can put them into a standby thing, but once you need them, you forget about them into the flurry of constant unit orders. althought it can be a good thing, sometimes dragging out a game so long (days to complete a single one), can be a bit annoying.

    But overall, i give it a 7. its a good game regardless, and worth it.    … Expand
  19. 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
  20. skuby
    Jul 24, 2011
    2
    I would recommend either part IV and or part III over part V.
  21. 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
  22. maettsook
    Jul 19, 2011
    1
    Played Civ on the playstation, then moved to PC for II,III and IV. Loved IV and spent many many hours playing it. Installed Civ V, what a dissappointment. It's very slow, no fun, ultimately tedious. I'm back on Civ IV these days and Civ V sits on the bookshelf gathering dust, they won't catch me out again!
  23. 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
  24. viniciusfazio
    Jul 13, 2011
    10
    Great game, best Civ ever. The new combat system where only 1 unit per tile is awsome, makes the battle more tatical. The economics is more clear also, you know what is happening.
  25. mrvirtue
    Jul 12, 2011
    0
    I love this game. The game and its developers don't love me back. I won't buy another Fireaxis game again. My major issue with this game is the lack of effort on the developers part. On loading the direct x 11 option is not even selectable. I have to do some backdoor entry just to play the game properly. When I'm actually in the game I get the worst FPS in the history of a game whoisI love this game. The game and its developers don't love me back. I won't buy another Fireaxis game again. My major issue with this game is the lack of effort on the developers part. On loading the direct x 11 option is not even selectable. I have to do some backdoor entry just to play the game properly. When I'm actually in the game I get the worst FPS in the history of a game whois graphics look like crap. Just to be clear I'm not complaining about graphics. I like civ because it is turn base. The graphics could look like chess figures for all i care. I just don't like how I can play a game like Crysis on max settings and I get terrible fps in a game like Civ 5. I don't normally write reviews but this game compelled me to complain. Almost a full year into the game and still no major patches to correct this issue. I refuse to play on the lowest settings or direct x 9 when my computer can handle the best graphic intensive games out to date. This game and its developer have lost a fan of many years.… Expand
  26. DeadlyCornbread
    Jul 12, 2011
    9
    I am new to Civ. I never played the old ones, only seen them played, so I'm fresh to the series, since I only recently acquired a PC capable of playing decent games. Civilization V is one of my favorite games in recent memory. I've spent well over 30+ hours playing it, and I am not tired yet. Each race and location adds an exciting change and it's fun to attempt a victory in the manyI am new to Civ. I never played the old ones, only seen them played, so I'm fresh to the series, since I only recently acquired a PC capable of playing decent games. Civilization V is one of my favorite games in recent memory. I've spent well over 30+ hours playing it, and I am not tired yet. Each race and location adds an exciting change and it's fun to attempt a victory in the many different ways you can in this game. But as I mentioned, I feel the game is well worth the money you spend, but I am also new to the series and have nothing to base this game on other than the fun I get from it. And from my perspective, this game is an instant classic.… Expand
  27. rstencel
    Jul 11, 2011
    0
    Have to log into steam and have it running to install and play this game. Steam isnt an app I am willing to run on my machine cause of issues had in past with it, and even through bought from brick and morter store, have to run steam in order to use it. They do not take returns cause they say it says need steam in fine print on back of box, after looking for 10 minutes was able to findHave to log into steam and have it running to install and play this game. Steam isnt an app I am willing to run on my machine cause of issues had in past with it, and even through bought from brick and morter store, have to run steam in order to use it. They do not take returns cause they say it says need steam in fine print on back of box, after looking for 10 minutes was able to find the fine print about steam. Will never buy another 2k game and cant play this unreturnable game at all now. Am very displeased.… Expand
  28. 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
  29. CD001
    Jul 5, 2011
    9
    A late review based on the game as it is now - with patches. If, like me, you remember playing the original Civilization on the Amiga, you'll see how much the game has changed over the years - and this one is a big change in the series - if you can get past the "this isn't Civ 4" factor it IS a great game - hell, I've clocked up 576 hours on it according to Steam. The diplomacy systemA late review based on the game as it is now - with patches. If, like me, you remember playing the original Civilization on the Amiga, you'll see how much the game has changed over the years - and this one is a big change in the series - if you can get past the "this isn't Civ 4" factor it IS a great game - hell, I've clocked up 576 hours on it according to Steam. The diplomacy system isn't gone, it's just been streamlined - you don't need to send diplomats out - and the NPCs respond to you according to how you act (well, they'll all hate you if you're WAY out ahead)... it's actually better. Espionage IS gone though as is religion - which takes away a couple of layers of depth from the game unfortunately. The difficulty curve has been tweaked so that it doesn't jump from "too easy" to "impossible" in about a step and the cultural system has been overhauled, as has the combat (massively) it's no longer a matter of stack a thousand units on a square and romp in, you now need to utilise your ranged units, stand them behind "melee" units and fire over them - yup, no more stacking on the squares. Oh, and cities can defend themselves now. In short, so much has changed that this is a totally different game - I suspect the low scoring here is largely due to people carrying baggage over from previous Civ games. If you're prepared to approach it with fresh eyes you'll probably find it a rewarding, infinitely replayable, turn-based strategy game - much like any other Civ game (except Civ 3 which I never really liked for some reason) - Civ 5 is more about tactics, strategy and exploration and less about micro-management so an important thing to bear in mind is - THIS IS NOT CIV 4! - (it's more like a supercharged version of Civ 2 - with less railways)… Expand
  30. BlueBangkok
    Jun 29, 2011
    4
    I have played all the Civ games since the very first one. After playing Civ 5 for a few days and fiddling with mods, I've finally decided to give up. This game probably has the most inconsistent gameplay I have ever seen.
    THE GOOD
    The graphics look really nice, especially if you run it under DX11 and have a pretty beefy PC. The new combat system, ranged attacks, and one hex = one military    I have played all the Civ games since the very first one. After playing Civ 5 for a few days and fiddling with mods, I've finally decided to give up. This game probably has the most inconsistent gameplay I have ever seen.
    THE GOOD
    The graphics look really nice, especially if you run it under DX11 and have a pretty beefy PC. The new combat system, ranged attacks, and one hex = one military unit rule are just brilliant. Too bad AI is unable to utilize it effectively. Oh, and I like the new UI. That's about it.
    THE BAD
    Everything else is just plain broken. The AI is so stupid it's breathtaking. It is simply not an option to evade war and win a non-combat victory. AI just keeps insulting you and declaring war for no reason. I've tried playing as Gandhi and did everything the AI asked (even not settling near their borders which is, frankly, retarded request). Still, they kept denouncing me and declaring war. No matter what you do, no matter who you befriend, you always end up in a global conflict with AIs declaring war on you and each other. And when you actually get in combat with AI, it is laughable. They NEVER send more than 4-5 units at once, even on higher difficulties.
    It's fascinating someone is actually able to program an AI that is stupider than Civ 1's and slows down to a crawl even on high end quadcore systems (late turns during an epic game on huge map slowed down to 1-2 MINUTES on 4Ghz i7 processor). Moreover, there are annoyingly long load times. Add poor optimization and frequent crashes to the mix and realize you will be spending a LOT of time doing virtually NOTHING!
    Granted, Civ 5 was developed for multiplayer - but even multiplayer is somewhat disappointing due to the lack of any depth and features (no espionage, no religion, no government...). You could redistribute your national income any way you saw fit even in Civ 1. You cannot do so here. No research or culture boosting... In other words, Civ 5 has been bastardized in every possible way. Fewer playable civs (without DLCs) than in Civ 4? Check. Idiot-friendly micromanagement (no wealth redistribution, global happiness...)? Check. Stupid AI and super-easy gameplay? Check. No vanilla Earth map? Check.
    After playing a few games, I realized Civ 5 is not a game. It is more like a framework for future DLCs, patches, and most importantly, mods. The AI, balancing (you research really really fast while everything else takes ages), engine.... nearly everything is either broken or in stages of beta version (even AFTER many patches Firaxis has released!). Wait for a year or two before buying this game. Hopefully by that time it will be patched properly and some nice modpacks will allow you to play a balanced game with more features. Until then save your money for something else.    … Expand
  31. Grim13
    Jun 23, 2011
    3
    What has happened to Sid Meier? Has he lost all self-respect? First Revolutions and now this piece of crappola! Next he'll be putting out a Facebook version of Civ, for F's sake! Oh, wait... What's that!? HE IS!?! Sid, 2K, Firaxis... some or all of the former are to blame for the decimation of this storied franchise. I've played this series since Numero Uno, spent thousands of hours onWhat has happened to Sid Meier? Has he lost all self-respect? First Revolutions and now this piece of crappola! Next he'll be putting out a Facebook version of Civ, for F's sake! Oh, wait... What's that!? HE IS!?! Sid, 2K, Firaxis... some or all of the former are to blame for the decimation of this storied franchise. I've played this series since Numero Uno, spent thousands of hours on every subsequent iteration, but can not bring myself to complete a SINGLE game of Civ V! They dumbed down all of the strategy elements that make a Civ game a F'N CIV GAME!!! Gotta get that casual/console market interested. Apparently, Core Fans just aren't good enough any more... Who cares if I've helped pave the way for you! Just another in a long line of greed induced SELLOUTS! F**K YOU, YOU GREEDY BASTARDOS!!!… Expand
  32. northwestcore
    Jun 20, 2011
    10
    This was my first time playing a CIV game. I was in no way disappointed and it lived up to all the hype I had heard about it. Anyone looking for a game that has a slow but very fun pace this is the game for you, just make sure that you don't have anything to do because time will fly when you play this game.
  33. Psyche
    Jun 9, 2011
    10
    Love Civ V, absolutely no problems, beautiful graphics and wonderful game play. The introduction video looks so realistic and smooth, which is followed by its crystal clear pictures,
  34. 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
  35. CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    2
    CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    2 CivforBrains Jun 2, 2011 3 I've been playing Civ games since the Civ I and have thoroughly enjoyed them all. (Civ III was my least liked Civ though.) This latest Civ however, I have tried my hardest to like but I just can't do it. Besides an awful AI and terrible diplomacy, this game flat out isn't very fun at all. It's streamlined and frankly quite dumbed down.    CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    2
    CivforBrains Jun 2, 2011 3 I've been playing Civ games since the Civ I and have thoroughly enjoyed them all. (Civ III was my least liked Civ though.) This latest Civ however, I have tried my hardest to like but I just can't do it. Besides an awful AI and terrible diplomacy, this game flat out isn't very fun at all. It's streamlined and frankly quite dumbed down. Expect a console version within 1 1/2 years after they finish their true love Civ World.

    It is truly incredulous how the "professional" reviewers gave this piece of crap such high marks. Something definitely is rotten in the state of the gaming industry. Likely there are more than a few guerrilla posters on here as well. The developers also seem more intent on releasing DLC than properly fixing the game. In my opinion, 2K Games is largely responsible for ruining the Civ franchise. I don't blame Jon Shafer very much. This game was clearly released at least one year too early. Not much more to say. Perhaps they'll right the ship with Civ VI but I wouldn't count on it.    … Expand
  36. Lewg999
    Jun 2, 2011
    9
    As a strategy veteran but a newcomer to the civ franchise i thought i would give an honest opinion from an unbiased position.This is straight up the most addictive strategy game (maybe the most addictive game) i have ever played, to start with there are many factions to choose each with varying pros and cons that mean it is not a game that gets old quickly and the gameplay is absoluteleyAs a strategy veteran but a newcomer to the civ franchise i thought i would give an honest opinion from an unbiased position.This is straight up the most addictive strategy game (maybe the most addictive game) i have ever played, to start with there are many factions to choose each with varying pros and cons that mean it is not a game that gets old quickly and the gameplay is absoluteley superb for a strategy game with just the right balance between economics, diplomacy and warfare to keep the game interesting. My only complaint with civ 5 would be that without saves in multiplayer and given the length of most matches multiplayer is difficult to organise and play however this will hopefully be fixed later on. on hte subject of multiplayer it seems to be working pretty well currently and teamed with the massive amount of time you will spend in single player civ 5 has teh best value for money of a strategy game i have played in a long time. The graphics are another area in which the game excels with the game being clear and easy to understand from a zoomed out perspective and yet very detailed up close. Overall as someone who loves the strategy genre but has never before played a civ game this is a game that deserves to be in every strategy fans collection… Expand
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. Rumpelstiltskin
    May 24, 2011
    0
    Piece of crap. Espionage and Religion are gone in place of a garbage diplomacy system. Unless the deal you offer them is completely in their favor they will not agree to it, as well with the friendship system. You can agree to announce your friendship then they will turn around and **** on you. The enemy A.I. will endlessly harass you with you crap deals, declare war on you and call youPiece of crap. Espionage and Religion are gone in place of a garbage diplomacy system. Unless the deal you offer them is completely in their favor they will not agree to it, as well with the friendship system. You can agree to announce your friendship then they will turn around and **** on you. The enemy A.I. will endlessly harass you with you crap deals, declare war on you and call you the warmonger, denounce you out of nowhere when you've supplied them with resources and gold for many turns and not to mention the barbarians in this game are incredibly annoying; coming into your territory only a few turns into the game with multiple units and taking your workers then leaving. The happiness system is trash and the game punishes you for expanding and conquering. All options with conquered cities give large amounts of unhappiness and only decrease if you waste points on policies or have a large amount of luxuries that counter the unhappiness. Also, the tech tree has been severely trimmed... turning many technologies into one thing instead of taking multiple trees to complete it.

    Other than the unique traits and few unique units nothing really sets the civilizations apart from eachother. Multiplayer is extremely laggy and even a 100 or so turns into a quick game it takes several seconds sometimes minutes to go to the next turn... Marathon is a nightmare. What really disappoints me about this game is the fact that the computer will declare war on you or something of that nature and then try to make peace... asking for everything you have and if you decline they keep harassing you even though it's extremely easy to defend against them so it becomes just a hassle.

    Overall it's just a huge disappointment. Too many features cut and too many things dumbed down to appease the idiots and lazy people who don't want to take the time to learn and play the game correctly. If it's not spoon fed to them they complain and it totally shows in the way Firaxis designed this game. Total piece of crap to be honest.    … Expand
  40. aka
    May 23, 2011
    10
    well this game is one of the best strategy games ever made! however many people believe the game's not good but thatz completely out of the question becuz no other game is a match for this superb game, the addition of the city states was a brilliant idea which make diplomacy win much easier. well over all this game has a lot of exiting features which would completely dominate any fault inwell this game is one of the best strategy games ever made! however many people believe the game's not good but thatz completely out of the question becuz no other game is a match for this superb game, the addition of the city states was a brilliant idea which make diplomacy win much easier. well over all this game has a lot of exiting features which would completely dominate any fault in the game (if it had any), in other words a game that every strategy games players would love!… Expand
  41. PCmarcondes
    May 19, 2011
    3
    It is a reasonable game, but far worse than civ's previous incarnations, (including Civ 3...). The main focus moved to combat, to small tactics rather than long term strategy. Civ IV is, by far, a better, more complex game.
  42. Erathil
    May 17, 2011
    8
    Civ V is a good game. I've been a fan of the series for over a decade and I can confidently say it stands well among its peers. It is greatly simplified over Civ IV, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. While I do miss the sheer depth of the last title Civ V has the sort of simplification that, more often than not, works well for the game. It's certainly a moreCiv V is a good game. I've been a fan of the series for over a decade and I can confidently say it stands well among its peers. It is greatly simplified over Civ IV, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. While I do miss the sheer depth of the last title Civ V has the sort of simplification that, more often than not, works well for the game. It's certainly a more approachable title for newcomers to the franchise, and there's still plenty for experiences players to finesse. The process of waging war is undeniably superior in this version, with the new hex grid adding a tactical element none of the other games ever had. The hex grid itself makes the playable world look and handle much nicer too. There are some definite improvements here, but the game doesn't quite live up to Civ IV's grandeur. Civ IV, especially after its expansions, is the better game, but Civ IV is one of the best 4x games ever conceived. By its own merits, Civilization V is still one of the best releases of the last year and well worth anyone's attention.… Expand
  43. Ghostrider
    May 11, 2011
    3
    Huge disappointment.

    I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago. It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable. 1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to    Huge disappointment.

    I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago.

    It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable.

    1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to raze all enemy cities except capitals (that you can't raze) because I just couldn't afford the extra population (even as puppet cities). by the modern ages most of the map consisted of unworked, uninhabited land where barbarians roamed. Even if I didn't go for conquest and wouldn't burn the cities there still would be tons of unused land.

    2) the game is slow. There is little to do and whatever you do is snail slow. Computer turns take forever despite my rig having latest gen CPU, 8GB of RAM and SSD.

    3) AI is terrible. computer players don't take advantage of the new combat system (which is great by the way). You can have an unprotected archer slowly killing off a warrior from a distance with warrior making no attempts to attack your archer. Dumb!

    4) Diplomacy is a random mess

    5) all nice concepts from Civ 4 like religion, corporations, espionage are gone.

    The only improvements are hexagon tiles and one unit per tile limit. But it doesn't nearly outweigh all the disadvantages listed above.

    Mr. Sid Meyer, I'm very disappointed.    … Expand
  44. Bullfrog1983
    May 3, 2011
    4
    I played a few games of Civilization V and I have to say that it is clearly inferior to Civilization IV in tactics and strategy. The change from multiple units being allowed to occupy a single square to one unit per square severely limits a player's strategy, making combat cumbersome, and less interesting. The ability to defend cities without an army seems ridiculous, especially whenI played a few games of Civilization V and I have to say that it is clearly inferior to Civilization IV in tactics and strategy. The change from multiple units being allowed to occupy a single square to one unit per square severely limits a player's strategy, making combat cumbersome, and less interesting. The ability to defend cities without an army seems ridiculous, especially when combined with their ranged attack that is automatically upgraded as the game progresses; starting with a ranged attack even without the knowledge of archery. The scientific aspect of the game is much more simplified, and the amount of civilizations/leaders available to play is abysmal. The city building is more or less the same as in Civilization IV and Gandhi is still as treacherous as ever. In my opinion it is one of the more mediocre versions of Civilization, far inferior to the previous installment in the series.… Expand
  45. 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.
  46. obrien1984
    Apr 30, 2011
    0
    Extremely clunky game that does not warrant the franchise name nor the $50 I paid for it. Could not be more frustrated or disappointed. Am curious and wish I could determine how many of these ten scores were posted by company employees protecting their paychecks. Release of this game will likely hurt the company. Alas, the CEO probably got a $3 million bonus for keeping to schedule.Extremely clunky game that does not warrant the franchise name nor the $50 I paid for it. Could not be more frustrated or disappointed. Am curious and wish I could determine how many of these ten scores were posted by company employees protecting their paychecks. Release of this game will likely hurt the company. Alas, the CEO probably got a $3 million bonus for keeping to schedule. Just so you know, you won't be getting $50 from me again. Trust has been broken and is now irreparable.… Expand
  47. hmjhoss
    Apr 28, 2011
    8
    I've played all of the Civ's. Frankly I'd much rather have a remake of Alpha Centauri than a new civ, but thats beside the point.

    Civ V is just like all the other civs, a remake on the previous one. There's things missing, things done well and things done not so well. No more roads and railroads to no where. that in of itself is awesome. No more doom stacks of units. This is a trade    I've played all of the Civ's. Frankly I'd much rather have a remake of Alpha Centauri than a new civ, but thats beside the point.

    Civ V is just like all the other civs, a remake on the previous one. There's things missing, things done well and things done not so well.

    No more roads and railroads to no where. that in of itself is awesome.

    No more doom stacks of units. This is a trade off really, but a change for the better in my opinion. One unit per city is also more of a good change than a bad one. It does put more focus on open ground than before.

    Social policies are neat, but they need some form of revolution put into them. I can do without religion... but it is something a lot of people liked.

    I'm okay with the tech tree, but one thing that really bothers me is the "Giant Death Robot." Sorry, but that belongs in a scenario not the normal tech tree.

    Diplomacy is just, lacking. It at least needs the little tooltip that pops up when you scroll over another civ's name that tells you the + points and - points. like: -2: Our close borders spark tensions.

    My first attempts at this game were met with mediocrity. I had my issues with it and I put it down for a bit. I gave it a real attempt a few weeks ago and found myself warming up to it. It needs more in the way of leaders and diplomacy, but I've come to really enjoy it. I'm sure the DLC / Exp's will address some of this, while I'm not the most keen on the idea of DLC, whatever works...

    Over all I very happy they are trying such (relatively) radical ideas with the Civ series. That means the franchise is still going at it. There's stuff that will push away some Civ 4 fans, but there's also a lot of novel ideas put into form. Try it, make your own judgement... I've put in 30 hours playing on a huge map with 14 civs going for a military victory. So something was done right if I'm still playing.

    This is more of a 7.5/10 on my scale. Giant Death Robot made it drop that extra .5... However, the most fun I ever had in a Civ game was Civ 1. A save game I put on a 3.5 Disk and lost... Earth map where the aztec's had all of North and South America fortified with better tech. I spent days taking all of it. Good times.

    Just do an alpha centauri remake please... I've lost my copy ages ago and cant find a new one.    … Expand
  48. PseudoElite
    Apr 28, 2011
    3
    I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY.I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY. Okay here are two different reviews: 1) YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED A CIV GAME BEFORE Game is pretty cool, a lot to do and discover in the world of civilization. Graphics are somewhat up to date and it's a fun learning experience. Not the best strategy game you've ever played most likely, but a solid outing nonetheless. GRADE: B- 2) YOU HAVE PLAYED OTHER CIVS AND ARE POSSIBLY A CIV FANATIC LIKE MYSELF If you've played any other Civilization game to date, you will almost instantly notice that the game has been dumbed down SOOOO much it possibly brings tears to your eyes.
    - You can no longer manage your economy, taxes, luxuries, culture, religion, research, espionage, or just about anything else. The only things you can manage are your cities and units. - Diplomacy has been dumbed down as well. You can no longer trade techs or maps, and there is very little reason to conduct diplomacy besides trading luxury resources to keep your empire happiness. - MANIFEST DESTINY? THINK AGAIN. Oh how unhappy the happiness in this game will make you. Happiness is not city based anymore, rather it is now on a universal +/- scale for your ENTIRE EMPIRE. On any difficulty above Prince (I usually play on Emperor/Immortal) your happiness cap will SEVERELY LIMIT your ability to expand around the world. You will most likely be stuck to a handful of cities for a long time and you will have to carefully and painfully slowly expand so that your precious happiness doesn't drop. THE RESULT? Somewhere around 40-60% of the world map will be unsettled depending on your map type. ON IMMORTAL DIFFICULTY, EVEN THE AI WHO IS CHEATING THROUGH HIS NOSE STRUGGLES TO EXPAND ACROSS THE MAP. - WANT TO MAKE A BUSTLING DEMOCRACY THEN SWITCH TO FASCISM LATER IN THE INDUSTRIAL AGE? I THINK NOT BISMARCK. Once you pick your Civics you're stuck with them until the end of time... literally. And it's not like civics are easy to get, late game with large empires it takes 100s of turns to get enough culture. - Single Unit tiles is good and bad depending on your perspective. Ultimately though, it makes it very difficult to position your 8 units every single time you want to move across the map and makes invading other empires/cities more of a chore than fun. - A LOT OF FUN.... for until you're in the middle ages. Then the game drags and drags and dragssssssssssss like no tomorrow. WITH SO MUCH OF THE MICROMANAGEMENT STRIPPED FROM THE GAME, there is almost nothing to do besides choose what buildings to make in your cities. If you're not constantly declaring war on your neighbors then expect to spend most of your turns STARING AT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN HOPING SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENS. USUALLY DOESN'T UNLESS YOUR HOUSE CATCHES FIRE. - WANT A CULTURE VICTORY? TOO BAD GANDHI, THAT 4TH CITY IS GONNA COST YA... the game. Different victory types in Civilization have almost always been choose what you want to do early/mid way through the game and stick with it. But with this civilization, you damn better well have a strategy set if you want to win. This makes the game oh so much more boring that it was before. - Despite it being the year 2011 now, the AI of Civilization is still almost as woefully bad as it was in CIVILIZATION I ON DOS. The AI is AMAZINGLY STUPID, and all ramping up the difficulty does is MAKE THEM CHEAT LIKE NO TOMORROW. AIs will outresearch you, make far larger armies in less time, build wonders in half the time you do, and YOU WILL STILL ALMOST ALWAYS STOMP THEM. A travesty for modern gaming. Don't even get me started about diplomacy, the majority of the AI leaders are schizophrenic on their best days when taking their medication. GRADE: D- I'm sorry but this ISN'T CIVLIZATION. Empire Total War has far more depth than this current outing and that REALLY PAINS ME TO SAY THIS because I've always far preferred Civilization to the Total War series. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING WITH THIS GAME, it's more suited to be played with on an arcade stick much less on a PC. WILL EXPANSIONS SAVE THIS DISASTER OF A GAME? It could, but it's going to need something absolutely BRILLIANT, and judging by how bad this game is I have my doubts. Fingers crossed though.... BOTTOM LINE: I REALLY DON'T RECOMMEND THIS GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SINCERELY: AMAZINGLY DISAPPOINTED LONG TIME CIV FANATIC :(    … Expand
  49. 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!
  50. JimmerSD
    Apr 24, 2011
    4
    Like many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available inLike many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available in older versions that are just plain missing here. I have also run into a number of massive technical issues ranging from the game over stressing my GTX465 to random lockups and crashes. There is a whole series of complaints about these issues and hopefully they will be repaired without requiring that I reach deep for another purchase.

    Based on my experience so far; if Civilization VI were offered tomorrow, I wouldn't buy it .    … Expand
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. pazmacats
    Apr 14, 2011
    1
    Civ5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian bossCiv5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian boss tribes) don't know who they are what they are where they are and what they are supposed to do, so it is a single player. Mulitplayer is broken, but totally ROCKS according to the devs. I recommend thsi game to enyone who is short of hate and / or boredom.… Expand
  55. 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
  56. Levarneus
    Apr 2, 2011
    2
    Lets start with the good.
    I'm not necessarily a hardcore Civ fan. I only started playing at 4, and in comparison with 4, 5 is quite fun (imo). I never liked the stacks of doom that the ai packed tons of, and I feel what they did with the combat was a huge improvement. The flanking bonuses/ability to fend off dozens of units with 3-4 well placed ones is a really awesome concept.    Lets start with the good.
    I'm not necessarily a hardcore Civ fan. I only started playing at 4, and in comparison with 4, 5 is quite fun (imo). I never liked the stacks of doom that the ai packed tons of, and I feel what they did with the combat was a huge improvement. The flanking bonuses/ability to fend off dozens of units with 3-4 well placed ones is a really awesome concept.
    Unfortunately, the AI are duuumb as anything and instead of realizing they have no hope, they'll move to stupid places and get slaughtered. The worst of all is when you have a naval unit by the coast and they embark right next to it, free kills >.>
    I've clocked over 300 hours playing it, and its an alright game. I haven't tried multiplayer, because like yahtzee I believe a game should be judged by its single player. But I've heard it's crap.

    I *would* have given this game a 9/10 if there was hotseat, which would counter the necessity of stupid ai by allowing me to play for them =D
    But 6 months after this games release, and 6 months of promises have passed, and hotseat is not here. Hotseat isn't a big deal for some people, but paying 50 bucks to support a company that makes false promises isn't worth it in my books.    … Expand
  57. andreaskarlsson
    Mar 27, 2011
    0
    The game runs very poorly on my new macbook pro i5 with SSD. In addition to this the game crashes after playing only a few minutes. The graphics have to be set to the lowest quality for the game to run at all and thus are awful. A purely horrible experience and such a disappointment that I had to make an account here and express my opinion. I would gladly take my money back for this one!
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. Drakan
    Mar 21, 2011
    2
    In one word: boring.

    A complete letdown for a long-time Civ fan (since Civ II). Abundant technical problems mar gameplay causing huge lags between turns that allow you to peacefully read Tolstoy's War and Peace and even finish it in between turns. Huge lags just firing up the game FGS! Continuous CTD ( I must have suffered easily over 200 CTD) litter gameplay killing off immersion. And    In one word: boring.

    A complete letdown for a long-time Civ fan (since Civ II). Abundant technical problems mar gameplay causing huge lags between turns that allow you to peacefully read Tolstoy's War and Peace and even finish it in between turns. Huge lags just firing up the game FGS! Continuous CTD ( I must have suffered easily over 200 CTD) litter gameplay killing off immersion. And yes my rig is high-end so I shouldn't be having these problems but I do. In fact I even upgraded specifically it for its release. What a sucker. Now let's talk gameplay. The biggest change by far is the one-unit-per-tile rule, which although opens up a bevy of new strategy paths and may seem interesting on paper, in practice kills all the fun and addictiveness the game is renowned for. Lack of movies on winning, lack of statistics, INDIVIDUAL DLC's for each and every additional civilization (WTF!! you have to be kiddin's us) at 7 USD the pleasure...I must have "rich civ sucker" tatooed all over my forehead and the list goes on and on. On the positive side, undoubtedly the most beautiful graphics and sound a civilization game has ever been graced with. But then again, strategy games are NOT about pretty graphics (SMAC I'm looking at you). If I want them, I pick up Crysis 2 instead. Strategy games are about gameplay. Let me write that gain, "gameplay". You know, immersion, fun, addictiveness (one-more-turn), wife yelling at me, playing until the wee hours of the morning with a coffee. That sort of thing. Let me just add the civic tree is a great addition that spices up the game.

    I hope the Civilization franchise has not been killed off as a result of this disaster.

    Conclusion:

    It feels dumbed down from Civ IV and I wasn't even a great fan of the latter mind you. Hey, I LIKE MM my workers and fielding huge armies with hundreds of units you know...don't remove these things, make them optional at most.

    My advise, wait until they release the GOTY edition and see if it's been patched up or something. Although the biggest killer, the one-unit-per-tile rule, cannot be fixed with a patch. Pick up Shogun 2 Total War instead. It crashes from time, but compared to Civ V it is "stable" and runs smoothly; worth every penny.    … Expand
  61. gianfrc
    Mar 19, 2011
    4
    There is no comparison with Civilization IV, it has less features and and major flow in politics and in expanding your territory. War is no fun any more. Civ V just has cool graphics and, nah that is all. Since i bought Civ IV each time I played I spent 5 -7 playing. In CIV V i get bored at the first hour.
  62. Isisius
    Mar 17, 2011
    0
    This is an abomination!!!!
    Civ 4 with its expansions is perhaps the best game ive ever played.
    Intricate Diplomacy, Religion, Corporations, basically EXCITEMENT. And missions, they were awesome. The game tells us to build 20 coliseums and we get a bonus. Now we have a choice, do we crank out coliseums and wear the halt in progress, or do we forgo the permanent bonus it would give us.    This is an abomination!!!!
    Civ 4 with its expansions is perhaps the best game ive ever played.
    Intricate Diplomacy, Religion, Corporations, basically EXCITEMENT.
    And missions, they were awesome. The game tells us to build 20 coliseums and we get a bonus. Now we have a choice, do we crank out coliseums and wear the halt in progress, or do we forgo the permanent bonus it would give us.
    Random events, forest fire, oh bugger, exocitc furs in yay for money. These made it interesting.
    This game has potential, and it gave us a couple of GREAT things, i love the hex combat, and i love the new modding system, but why, WHY did it have to take out everything that was good, interesting and exciting from the game, just to add a few good features.
    You have really dissapointed me here, i took the day off to play this game when it came out, simply because i assumed that i have spent so many hours on Civ4 i would need at least 1 day to get through this. Imagine my horror when i play this POS for 3 hours and am already bored with its complete lack of depth.    … Expand
  63. scotius
    Mar 17, 2011
    0
    well, another game has been dumbed down in order to appeal to the WoW audience. CiV is a real crying shame of a game. Instead of building on the achievements olf Civ 4 they havespoiled it by making an entirely new game.

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

    A game that is shallow, too easy, dumb and has very little going for it once you get into the industrial age. Be very aware that Firaxis employees are spamming Metacritic with good reviews in order to bump its rating up.    … Expand
  64. Repper
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    If I were to sum up this game using just one word I'd use the word "Disappointment." They've conjured up a great deal of new ideas to revolutionize this game, but in combination with all the flaws this game isn't worth it at all. If you are a fan of previous Civ games that liked the created depth of the game, that liked having multiple ways to win the game, that liked better diplomacy,If I were to sum up this game using just one word I'd use the word "Disappointment." They've conjured up a great deal of new ideas to revolutionize this game, but in combination with all the flaws this game isn't worth it at all. If you are a fan of previous Civ games that liked the created depth of the game, that liked having multiple ways to win the game, that liked better diplomacy, espionage, religion, and cooperations, then stick with Civ 4.… Expand
  65. Ghengiz
    Mar 16, 2011
    8
    I was actually expecting a lot less than I got, so maybe my numbers are a little elevated over what they should be. Still, it felt like a great refinement of the franchise. I really missed Spock's voice, though.
  66. eagleFMJ
    Mar 16, 2011
    10
    Being new to the CIV series, I quite enjoy this game, and it looks great. Seems to me alot of die hard CIV fans are bashing the game, but for me I love it! So I would say if you are new to CIV series defiantly pick this one up!
  67. Goosebump
    Mar 15, 2011
    8
    Very nice game. Was looking forward to it and am happy with it overall. The only downside for me is the inability to skip the cinematic stuff at the start promptly and in a large game that's gone on for a while, your computer may start to feel like it's suffering from Arthritis! (8 GB Ram Win7 64bit). Worth buying though to any Civ fan - very enjoyable.
  68. wolverdick
    Mar 15, 2011
    3
    Take everything you ever loved about the CIV franchise and then delete half of it. Then dumb it up some more so a twelve year-old can play it on his X-box and that is CIV five. This game is a huge disappointment. The graphics upgrades are less than exemplary, almost cartoonish. The removal of all the sophisticated strategy elements leaves you wondering why. Recent patches have fixedTake everything you ever loved about the CIV franchise and then delete half of it. Then dumb it up some more so a twelve year-old can play it on his X-box and that is CIV five. This game is a huge disappointment. The graphics upgrades are less than exemplary, almost cartoonish. The removal of all the sophisticated strategy elements leaves you wondering why. Recent patches have fixed some of the game imbalances and absurd city-state mechanics, but on a whole this is the worst CIV game ever.… Expand
  69. Slackerman
    Mar 15, 2011
    3
    As a fan of the entire series (in particular, Civ II and Civ IV), Civ V was a near-total letdown. It's marched backwards in almost every way, and it's interesting that the system requirements are steeper than Civ IV's, because Civ IV had better graphics. Diplomacy is horrible, the City States are incredibly annoying and feel like speed bumps (BIG speed bumps) on one's way to worldAs a fan of the entire series (in particular, Civ II and Civ IV), Civ V was a near-total letdown. It's marched backwards in almost every way, and it's interesting that the system requirements are steeper than Civ IV's, because Civ IV had better graphics. Diplomacy is horrible, the City States are incredibly annoying and feel like speed bumps (BIG speed bumps) on one's way to world domination. In addition, their alliances are nonsensical - how in the hell they could maintain a trade route with a rival civilization by going through MY territory is farcical. They are far too difficult to conquer. A friend of mine plays the game with the city-states turned off, which I guess is available through options. It's rather telling that a portion of the game the developers obviously spent a great deal of time on is improved when it's removed from play. Combat was not improved with the removal of stacking, as the scale of the map doesn't lend itself to formations where you can protect missile units. Add to all this the incredibly laggy (in single-player!) and worthless Diplomacy screens, the removal of espionage and religion, the dumbed down UI, the memory leaks and crashes, the fewer number of civilizations unless you pony up more money for DLC. . . . . . summed up, a huge march backwards and a horrible game. This was the game that finally taught me to ignore most "professional" reviewers on Metacritic, as it's incomprehensible that they scored it a 90. This game isn't even worth it if they dropped the price to $10 USD. Avoid it, and just keep playing Civ II or IV.… Expand
  70. 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
  71. kruelgor
    Mar 12, 2011
    1
    The game was designed by a young novice, John Shaffer. The end result is an unfinished and unpolished mess. The game itself is okay. The mod tools that came included are extremely user unfriendly and are bug ridden. Very poor game.
  72. jarnold
    Mar 10, 2011
    0
    I am sorely disappointed. I love the old civilization games, and was looking forward to this game for quite some time. The graphics are hardly better than Civ 4, and there are loads of glitches. The lag is horrible, and there are fewer choices of people or options. They dumbed it down. This may be fine for an introduction to the Civilization series, but I wanted a step forward, notI am sorely disappointed. I love the old civilization games, and was looking forward to this game for quite some time. The graphics are hardly better than Civ 4, and there are loads of glitches. The lag is horrible, and there are fewer choices of people or options. They dumbed it down. This may be fine for an introduction to the Civilization series, but I wanted a step forward, not simplification.… Expand
  73. bohb
    Mar 9, 2011
    5
    CIV 2 was a better game in almost every single aspect !!
    they have taken the very soul of the franchise and turned it into something quite abhorent... something to look at. I was proud of being a fan of a game that was just that; a game.
    PLEASE stop trying to improve the graphics evry time! do chess or card games benefit from pretty pictures? NO!
    let us all pray that CIV-VI will one for the fans
  74. Duncan922
    Mar 9, 2011
    4
    I've played ALL the Civilization games, including Alpha Centaury, and this is the first time that I've been disappointed by Sid Meier! Let's get the obvious out of the way first.... The game is gorgeous! But Civ games have never been about the graphics anyways, so focusing on that is like reviewing a Ferrari for it's interiors. First and foremost... The loading times! JEeeezz... TheI've played ALL the Civilization games, including Alpha Centaury, and this is the first time that I've been disappointed by Sid Meier! Let's get the obvious out of the way first.... The game is gorgeous! But Civ games have never been about the graphics anyways, so focusing on that is like reviewing a Ferrari for it's interiors. First and foremost... The loading times! JEeeezz... The code-monkeys behind this atrocity should be whipped! Perhaps in supercomputers with a Core i7 with liquid-cooling and 16Gb of Ram the game plays smoothly, but in down-to-earth specs, the wasted time between loading and turns is just inexcusable. Then there's the new interface. Can someone please tell me how the heck do I figure out which of my cities is producing the most "production" so I can tell it to build a wonder? Or what type of luxury resources and how many do I hold so I can make proper trade agreements BEFORE I go into a trade agreement? A strategy game is all about information so you can... believe it or not... build up a strategy. But this incarnation of Civilization is dumbed down to cater to a new audience, which boggles my mind! The Civ franchise has always sold well... Why did they need to mess up the formula? If it ain't broke....… Expand
  75. rave_rd
    Mar 8, 2011
    5
    I have to say that this 5 is hard for me to give, mostly because I'm a big fan of the Civ series, but this game has so many bugs in it (still, even now after Firaxis patched the game a couple of weeks ago) that it's almost impossible to enjoy. And believe me I'm trying to--If you can get through all of the glitches and crashes (I've had to force quit several times or just end up on myI have to say that this 5 is hard for me to give, mostly because I'm a big fan of the Civ series, but this game has so many bugs in it (still, even now after Firaxis patched the game a couple of weeks ago) that it's almost impossible to enjoy. And believe me I'm trying to--If you can get through all of the glitches and crashes (I've had to force quit several times or just end up on my desktop when I'm trying to START a game) the gameplay itself is quite good...
    Yes there are a few things missing for fans of Civ IV (I particularly miss the religion aspect...as has been mentioned many times elsewhere) but the gameplay seems solid...the AI hasn't given me too many problems and I like the fact that only one unit is able to be in a square at a time (no more gigantic stacks of units slowing gameplay down).....but in the end...it's a fun game in principle (thus my 5), but with so many flaws that it's really hard to sit down and enjoy.

    I hope to change this review in the future if it gets fixed    … Expand
  76. giskard
    Mar 6, 2011
    5
    I got this game shortly after it was released and quickly realised this was not a Civilization game at all. The game play of this game consists mostly of next next next with the AI handling most things for you. All the challenges and fun of the series has been stripped away and replaced by want feels like a console version of Civilization. Also dipsite the patches, the slow down and lackI got this game shortly after it was released and quickly realised this was not a Civilization game at all. The game play of this game consists mostly of next next next with the AI handling most things for you. All the challenges and fun of the series has been stripped away and replaced by want feels like a console version of Civilization. Also dipsite the patches, the slow down and lack around the 15th century is still so bad, I doubt I will be able to finish it. So far I have lacked the will power to try. Civilization 1 and Civilization 4 remain my 2 favourites, just so you know where I am coming from and what I liked about the Civ series.

    Fans of the old Civ games seem to have a universal hate for Civilization 5, where as new fans that have never seen it have no idea whats missing and so like it.    … Expand
  77. trpkamel
    Mar 5, 2011
    8
    Good overall game design, balanced and well polished. There might be a lack of depth and authenticity to the game, one wouldn't want to meet Vienna in southern Africa. The new tile design is a major step forward, although it fails to generate realistic maps in smaller worlds. Polished but more of the same.
  78. Sir_Sneaky
    Mar 3, 2011
    7
    A while ago, I bought Civ 4 and fell in love. For several weeks, I could barely detach myself from the game. Even now go back from time to time and enjoy playing it greatly. When Civ 5 was announced, I was excited; But for a while I wasn't able to purchase it. Recently I found it had a demo, so I took a night to play through it. It is very fun, just as fun as Civ 4. Some of the new changesA while ago, I bought Civ 4 and fell in love. For several weeks, I could barely detach myself from the game. Even now go back from time to time and enjoy playing it greatly. When Civ 5 was announced, I was excited; But for a while I wasn't able to purchase it. Recently I found it had a demo, so I took a night to play through it. It is very fun, just as fun as Civ 4. Some of the new changes I enjoyed (particularly combat and culture). That being said, some of the changes I did not enjoy (namely city states and diplomacy with the new AI). I'd say it balances out pretty well and is probably just as fun as Civ 4, but that's exactly what turned me off. I figure, why should I pay 50 dollars to get a game that i'll have as much fun with as the previous title? For this reason, I will not be buying the full version. I'm already familiar and comfortable with the interface of Civ 4 and more importantly, I already own it.

    Overall, Civ 5 is a very good game like Civ 4, and for someone new to the Civilization series who wants an out an innovative and deep strategy game, i'd say definitely go with Civ 5. But if you already own Civ 4, well, i'd say save your money, or at least make sure you play through the demo before you buy it, because you may realize, like me, that Civ 4 is good enough and you can save those 50 dollars for something else.    … Expand
  79. ITCHOBOYROB
    Mar 1, 2011
    10
    Its astounding how much bad rep the user reviews give Civ V. The complaints are very typical. "I don't like it because it took away what I like from the previous titles." This is an understandable point of view but I feel like this thought process is preventing people from enjoying an excellent game. To these, Civ Vets, as Ill call them; I say give the game a chance! I haven't had too muchIts astounding how much bad rep the user reviews give Civ V. The complaints are very typical. "I don't like it because it took away what I like from the previous titles." This is an understandable point of view but I feel like this thought process is preventing people from enjoying an excellent game. To these, Civ Vets, as Ill call them; I say give the game a chance! I haven't had too much history with the past Civ titles. It was Civilization Revolution the reignited my interest in the series. I enjoyed its user friendliness and simplicity. This encouraged me to purchase the Civ 4 bundle. Civ 4 was fun but was a huge headache! Unit stacking was a great annoyance. A sea assault/invasion didn't feel like it should in a strategy game. The square grid setup def needed to be switched to hexs. City management screen needed some tidying up. The wonders going obsolete was a huge annoyance. While the religion thing was cool, it just seemed like it could use a change. Civ V answered all of these issues. In fact, Civ V has been so perfected that I really don't have a huge desire to play previous Civs at all. Civilization Revolution is the only previous title I still like, despite the lack of ability to mod or create maps. Civ V is an excellent game with an excellent interface. I just can't praise this game enough. I know that it will continue to take plenty of a good nights sleep and free time away from me. The layout and graphics are superb. My only complaint is that it is true that if you're running a large map, the wait time between turns is absurd. Perhaps the game is just a little ahead of its time and a stronger computer would answer this problem. This aside, the game is as fun as it is addictive and its gosh damn addictive.… Expand
  80. Gratson
    Feb 15, 2011
    10
    Great game and I'm an old Civ addict. Has kept me addicted longer than any civ game since civ 1. The new combat system is great. There are a few things I would like to see done better, such as more interesting diplomacy and more of an emphasis on religion. But overall a really addicting, fun addition to the Civ franchise. I'm giving it a 10 because I think it should be 9.5 but can't chooseGreat game and I'm an old Civ addict. Has kept me addicted longer than any civ game since civ 1. The new combat system is great. There are a few things I would like to see done better, such as more interesting diplomacy and more of an emphasis on religion. But overall a really addicting, fun addition to the Civ franchise. I'm giving it a 10 because I think it should be 9.5 but can't choose that here.… Expand
  81. Bootsy1
    Feb 15, 2011
    3
    Like many have mentioned, Civ5 is a big disappointment. The main reason I give the game a barely 4 rating is because the game is very unstable and buggy. It has dozens of glitches and a big memory leak. After an hour of playing the game runs at 1.8Gb memory which is insane and shows how bad optimized it is and how rushed the game has been released. I waited to buy the game (50Euro's)Like many have mentioned, Civ5 is a big disappointment. The main reason I give the game a barely 4 rating is because the game is very unstable and buggy. It has dozens of glitches and a big memory leak. After an hour of playing the game runs at 1.8Gb memory which is insane and shows how bad optimized it is and how rushed the game has been released. I waited to buy the game (50Euro's) till now, cos I expected it to be patched several times by now, but no. It seems that the game has not been patched at all and they just left it buggy and unstable like it is now. __ The interface in the game is huge, the map is litteraly filled with huge tags and obtrusive HUDs. There supposed to be an option to make the interface smaller, but it does not work. ___ Anywho, buy this game and you get a once every 30 minutes crash, long load times and random freezes after 100 turns of playing and even start up crashes. The game also seems to be made more noob friendly and reduced the amount of real diplomatic strategy and spionage etc. Civ5 is Civ for dummies. I recommend buying Civ 4 instead of this unfinished and unstable version. This page does not alow me to rate it a 4!… Expand
  82. dismuter
    Feb 15, 2011
    4
    I've played all the Civilization games since the first one came out. I like the gameplay changes in Civilization V like hex tiles and not being able to stack units. It makes sense, and it's probably something I'd be missing if I played earlier games. It's a shame to lose civilizations and gameplay features such as religion and espionage which were in Civ4 BtS, but the game can definitelyI've played all the Civilization games since the first one came out. I like the gameplay changes in Civilization V like hex tiles and not being able to stack units. It makes sense, and it's probably something I'd be missing if I played earlier games. It's a shame to lose civilizations and gameplay features such as religion and espionage which were in Civ4 BtS, but the game can definitely be fun without them and I can understand that they need reasons to release expansion packs or DLCs for Civ V too.
    What I find totally unacceptable is how rushed out the game seems to be. I only started playing it 5 months after its release and even with the patches released in those first five months, the multiplayer experience is still abysmal.
    First, there is no button in the interface to manually save the game, you have to either rely on auto saves, or know and use the shortcut : Ctrl+S. This is probably the single most stupid thing in the game. But it gets worse because if you decide to load the game later, you can only choose from the auto saves! You can circumvent that by manually moving your manual save in the auto save folder, but it's still very stupid.
    So that was the most stupid problem, now let's move on to the most annoying:
    After a good number of turns, when you get to the medieval times, it takes ages for anything you want to do to actually happen. If you give out any command (moving units, setting a construction in a city, requesting a deal with another civ, *anything*), you have to wait a significant number of seconds before the games acknowledges it, and in the meantime it looks like it didn't get your command and needs you to repeat it. For example, when you move a unit, the unit just stays where it was, as if it completely ignored what you just asked it to do. The game doesn't hang, you can continue doing other stuff (which will also be temporarily ignored), then after a few seconds the unit suddenly decides to obey your instructions and move.
    Another annoying thing that comes to mind is when a worker is automated at the beginning of the turn it asks for instructions, but then figures out that it's automated.
    It's not even a problem with computer performance or network bandwidth, as neither was maxed out on my system and those of the friends I tried to play the game with. It's simply bad programming.
    I don't have time enumerate everything which defines the game as hardly beta-quality, but I can assure you that if you plan on using the multiplayer part of the game, you'd better wait to see if the publisher releases a patch which makes it playable.
    And for those who already bought the game, you can boycott the DLCs and expansions until they get the basic game fixed.
    I give 7 points for the acceptable single-player experience (which apparently was also bug-ridden when the game came out) and subtract 3 for treating gamers like beta-testers. I do hope they fix the multi-player, but I'm not holding my breath.    … Expand
  83. kalimah
    Feb 5, 2011
    5
    Owned every Civ game since they started coming out. They ruined this one by making it PC and console. The game is watered down so the console can handle it. It's a shame when they ruin great games for the PC because the console can't handle what the PC can offer. Sorry Sid! Console games are the PCs little retarded brother that can't handle BIGBOY games!
  84. Serinde
    Feb 2, 2011
    1
    I was so looking forward to this game, but it was a waste of money! I have loved and played all the Civ games as well as Alpha Centauri, yet with this game I have yet to get past the 1700's due to repeated crashes. I hope it is patched soon as this is absolutely ruining the franchise for me.
  85. Pandalicious
    Feb 2, 2011
    2
    This is a game that seems great at first but loses its shine once you dive in. The deep strategy that's been the hallmark of the Civ series just isn't there. It feels like all the years of stored up wisdom and lessons learned that had culminated in Civ 4 were thrown out the window for this one. The game is just boring now. The AI utterly sucks at combat and is schizophrenic when it comesThis is a game that seems great at first but loses its shine once you dive in. The deep strategy that's been the hallmark of the Civ series just isn't there. It feels like all the years of stored up wisdom and lessons learned that had culminated in Civ 4 were thrown out the window for this one. The game is just boring now. The AI utterly sucks at combat and is schizophrenic when it comes to diplomacy (and there's not much you can do through diplomacy anyways), so there's just not much in the ways of interesting gameplay. Huge disappointment.… Expand
  86. dddd2
    Jan 28, 2011
    1
    Dumbed-down version of Civ 4, very dissapointed, the only reason i spent 2 weeks playing it was because the everytime I pressed end turn it took up to 5 minutes for the next turn to start.
  87. Ian277
    Jan 24, 2011
    9
    i started with civ 2 and loved it. then civ 4 came and disapointed me. so i needed a pick-me up and civ 5 was the answere. the first game was so exiting. i love the diplomacy it makes the game revived after civ 4's failure in diplomacy. the combat system is great and fun it is not just #'s vs #'s. if you have less units you can win a war if you use terrain and uprades to your advantage.i started with civ 2 and loved it. then civ 4 came and disapointed me. so i needed a pick-me up and civ 5 was the answere. the first game was so exiting. i love the diplomacy it makes the game revived after civ 4's failure in diplomacy. the combat system is great and fun it is not just #'s vs #'s. if you have less units you can win a war if you use terrain and uprades to your advantage. this is for REAL STRATEGY GAMERS that know how unlike the civ 4 freaks that have only played #4 and have no idea what strategy is. you need to use your noggin to win. fun and addicting. deserves alot more attention.… Expand
  88. Mantriur
    Jan 14, 2011
    3
    First of all let me say that it is a bit unfair to rate a game 0, just because you had specific expectations it did not match. :P

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

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

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

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

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

    If you are new to the franchise, have an obscenely overpower CPU (AI load is mostly on one core), and too much time, go for it. If you are a hardcore Civ fan, don't waste your money.    … Expand
  89. TheTim
    Jan 9, 2011
    0
    Highly overrated game. It can take dozens of turns for a single small event to happen and there's not a single interesting thing in the entire game. Anyone who plays actual games such as Starcraft II will fall asleep watching or playing Civ V because it's such a dumbed down simple game that a 5 year old could play it.

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

    If you build 1 thing every 15 turns there's no skill or thought needed.
    Attacks can take dozens of turns to do anything, again making people simply fall asleep.
    Play the demo if you'd like, skip buying it.    … Expand
  90. TheNoobifier
    Jan 8, 2011
    9
    A great CiV game, regardless of some minor bugs or issues, a must buy for any Strategy gamer.
  91. shinerboy
    Jan 6, 2011
    9
    One of the worst things about the gaming industry these years, specifically PC, requires you to have a much better system. Civilization V is one of those things that just requires a better computer. If your system is not up to date, well, Civ is going to be tough to play.
    Civilization is a wonderful game, etching out the grand scale of empire across millennia. It's your road, and your    One of the worst things about the gaming industry these years, specifically PC, requires you to have a much better system. Civilization V is one of those things that just requires a better computer. If your system is not up to date, well, Civ is going to be tough to play.
    Civilization is a wonderful game, etching out the grand scale of empire across millennia. It's your road, and your decision. Each civilization is complete in it's own, the worlds greatest superpowers (well, somewhat - never understood why the Songhai Empire was there when the Spain and Portugal were left out) are melded to your command. As time passes you will be attached to the empire you created. It is relieving. It wastes time. It is quite the game.
    Immersing game play is not short in Civilization V, you will go to war and you will live through peace, you will race to construct magnificent wonders that bolster your culture and other key importances. I will admit it was probably the poorest release game I've ever heard of, but the updates came (more may come) and the game is just golden for me. It's definitely a keeper.    … Expand
  92. SeverinHansen
    Jan 3, 2011
    3
    I really have been looking forward to this version of the Civilization series. It had taken my a while to get used to Civ IV from Civ III, but it had become the game that controlled my time. It's almost impossible to write in words the disappointment I fell when I first played the game. Just the lack of stacking units at all frustrated me unbearable. Even that was enough for me to lay downI really have been looking forward to this version of the Civilization series. It had taken my a while to get used to Civ IV from Civ III, but it had become the game that controlled my time. It's almost impossible to write in words the disappointment I fell when I first played the game. Just the lack of stacking units at all frustrated me unbearable. Even that was enough for me to lay down the game. Now everything they removed from the old games, and everything they changed. For me it seemed like Civilization wasn't the head master in strategy anymore. The game that could make you stay all up night just to conquer the world. The game that made you feel something, you never have or will feel in any other game. The feeling og control, uprising, nationality. The feeling that made Civilization the best game for me. Now they just changed everything into an arcade game. It doesn't even feel the slightest realistic anymore.

    So Sid, why?    … Expand
  93. hk-47
    Dec 30, 2010
    2
    I permanently hate turn based strategy games because of Sid Meier i had the game en in the first ten minutes i put it in the blender so there is one less copy of that lame game .
  94. Justin_A
    Dec 29, 2010
    3
    I was looking for more depth from Civ IV, so it's not surprising that I don't find Civ V very appealing as it is now. Defenders say Civ IV wasn't very good until the expansions, but it was a better game. Civ V is a boring war game. As other reviewers have noted, there is one efficient way to win: domination. The frustrating and illogical happiness system that punishes players for doingI was looking for more depth from Civ IV, so it's not surprising that I don't find Civ V very appealing as it is now. Defenders say Civ IV wasn't very good until the expansions, but it was a better game. Civ V is a boring war game. As other reviewers have noted, there is one efficient way to win: domination. The frustrating and illogical happiness system that punishes players for doing anything other than razing makes this not only a war game but a game of near genocide. (You can't raze other capital cities, but that's the only restriction.) Diplomacy is a joke. As other reviewers have said, the AI players feel like "angry speed bumps". The new patch tries to fix some of this, but the Social Policy system is linear, slow, and very boring. A cultural victory is about as fun as making a full-size house out of Elmer's glue and straws. Somehow having more cities means having less culture. The city states have no personality. It's not empire building. You're punished for expansion. The AI leaders endlessly harass you with bogus deals, bogus agreements, complaints, and taunts. Barbarians are numerous, designed to make the game seem less empty and pointless, but their distraction itself is empty and pointless. They can't be reformed/educated/assimilated. No... they don't even heal. I guess they're not really human, just speed bumps and gold caches. Boring war game. The barbarians are the hack/slash element for when players aren't hacking/slashing each others' cities. "Barbarian riflemen" that spring out of little huts that randomly appear and "barbarian destroyers" are really... Did I mention that multiplayer is barely functional? One can't even use custom maps, which makes the use of the SDK to create maps rather pointless. You can't even choose where certain human players and AI players specifically will start. I want an empire building game, not a bland repetitive war game resting on the laurels of its superior predecessors. The graphics are what sell this game, at first. They're pretty good, although the renderings of the leaders aren't all that great. Do the pro reviewers who give this game stellar marks actually play it more than an hour or two? Setting aside the many crash bugs, the "do nothing AI" bugs, and the brokenness of various game design elements -- there just isn't much to do during turns, at least not much that's interesting. Chasing the latest randomly spawned barbarian camp isn't interesting. Getting a request from one city state to destroy another (don't or you'll be denounced as a warmonger even when nearly all of the city states are simultaneously demanding that their peers be destroyed) gets old quickly. An interactive diplomacy system does not consist of being taunted and denounced. It's like the game's programming thinks "Gee, you haven't done much for X turns. You must be getting bored. Better get a war going." I'd like to see the next massive patch have absolutely nothing to do with war at all. The game is called Civilization. It is not called Conquest.… Expand
  95. Suyadon
    Dec 25, 2010
    2
    I give this game a FAIL. I would rate this game quite differently based upon its playability, but considering the fact that the game can become unplayable due to CTD's. No crashes BEFORE the December '10 patch release, but now always crashes one I reach the 1600's. I don't deal with games crashing on my PS3 or Xbox360 and don't feel I have to settle for less on my PC. OK, update driversI give this game a FAIL. I would rate this game quite differently based upon its playability, but considering the fact that the game can become unplayable due to CTD's. No crashes BEFORE the December '10 patch release, but now always crashes one I reach the 1600's. I don't deal with games crashing on my PS3 or Xbox360 and don't feel I have to settle for less on my PC. OK, update drivers and some tweeking, I'll take that and I make exceptions when this happens with mods, but c'mon, a clean install of civilization V? I would prefer to get slugged in the face then spend another minute getting half-way through an epic strategy game only to have the game end with CTD's.… Expand
  96. Arctarus
    Dec 24, 2010
    2
    2 points for graphic improvement over previous versions. The rest is garbage and the same old concept with this Civ traditional game. It looks like Civ 5 has seen an upgrade in graphics but got a downgrade in the process by it. Since it is turn-based, it plays like a risk game, but the turns are creating a new phenomenon called "creative boring royale" syndrome. You wait and wait and2 points for graphic improvement over previous versions. The rest is garbage and the same old concept with this Civ traditional game. It looks like Civ 5 has seen an upgrade in graphics but got a downgrade in the process by it. Since it is turn-based, it plays like a risk game, but the turns are creating a new phenomenon called "creative boring royale" syndrome. You wait and wait and wait and wait until kingdom come to the point it's ridiculous to even try. That tells you there is a problem with the game code programming in itself. Good games runs flawlessly and require less space to begin with. Looking at the game sheer size for a turn-based, you get a good idea how bad it will be on your pc. I dub Civ5 The "please wait" civ game instead, and I'm certainly not alone with that saying. Saying no to 2k games for a while and you may actually get better results. Why give them good grades when they don't deserve it? Peace.… Expand
  97. MTR
    Dec 19, 2010
    4
    Muy por debajo de los anteriores civ a nivel jugable, lleno de bugs, la IA tanto enemiga como propia (automatizar unidades) es bastante pobre. Sistema de evolución tecnológica OK, copia de los anteriores. Nuevas opciones como el mapa táctico que hacen recordar al alpha centauri. Conclusión: o esta saga se reconduce bien, o poco mas le queda.
  98. ashlambert
    Dec 19, 2010
    5
    One word to describe Civ 5 perfectly: simplification. Or maybe: disappointment.
    They should really have called this game Civ Revolutions 2, because that is how it plays like.
    As a long term Civfanatic I played every Civgame since Civ I, and I can't help but feel terribly disappointed by Firaxis newest game. Although, after the bad Colo game I saw it coming. The Major flaws imho: hexagon    One word to describe Civ 5 perfectly: simplification. Or maybe: disappointment.
    They should really have called this game Civ Revolutions 2, because that is how it plays like.
    As a long term Civfanatic I played every Civgame since Civ I, and I can't help but feel terribly disappointed by Firaxis newest game. Although, after the bad Colo game I saw it coming.
    The Major flaws imho: hexagon tiles that look weird, the one unit / one tile - rule - come on, as if that is realistic...it complicates a lot of things to the point where I feel bothered playing this game, it's a real bummer. The compulsory Steam - love it or hate it. Also there are too few Civs in vanilla but this can be fixed, as well as the missing wonder movies.
    The half baked civic system isn't worth mentioning.
    Imho one should wait 1-2 years til the modders fixed the game to a point where it is playable.    … Expand
  99. capitalship
    Dec 19, 2010
    10
    There is a lot to love about Civ V. I been playing this series since the original first came out. This is Sid's passion and it has been improved with every version and V is no exception. It has to be the most addicting and nice looking Civ game to date. The interface cleaned up, no more stacks of units (SOD) in a space, now the game has hexes instead of squares. Why did they not implementThere is a lot to love about Civ V. I been playing this series since the original first came out. This is Sid's passion and it has been improved with every version and V is no exception. It has to be the most addicting and nice looking Civ game to date. The interface cleaned up, no more stacks of units (SOD) in a space, now the game has hexes instead of squares. Why did they not implement hexes long before I don't know but I am happy they did now. Range attacks are a great new element. Finally archers can shoot arrows into the enemy. Another cool touch is when you attack a city the arrows turn to flaming arrows which is epic! Something else that was added is city states and this makes the game much more alive. With these you can attack them or ally them and you get strong bonuses and resources if you ally them. Happiness is a global thing now and its a winner of a change. Some of the annoying useless things were taken out. Civics have been changed to social policies and gives a good broad range of ways to shape your civ using branches almost like a tech tree. The graphics and animations this time around are simply spectacular. I can't believe how far they came with graphics. This has to be the only game that has both graphics and game play. At last, this is just about the best strategy game money can buy. This is the one game you want for Christmas! The latest patch really shapes up the game. A 10 out of 10!… Expand
  100. Ramus
    Dec 13, 2010
    3
    Having been there in the days of Civ 1 I look forward to each new game with bated breath. But the latest effort has left me wheezing and coughing. Hex grids? Why? 8 directions of movement with squares, 6 with hexes..... doesn't make sense. And the graphics do not seem to fit in the hexes either, trading posts apparently require wading a mile out to sea?? There are so many glitches theyHaving been there in the days of Civ 1 I look forward to each new game with bated breath. But the latest effort has left me wheezing and coughing. Hex grids? Why? 8 directions of movement with squares, 6 with hexes..... doesn't make sense. And the graphics do not seem to fit in the hexes either, trading posts apparently require wading a mile out to sea?? There are so many glitches they cannot be named here but here's just a few : missing textures, animations that don't play, graphics that do not disappear when they should, UI corruption, and so on. The decisions the AI makes seem to be just dice rolling (I rolled a double 5 that means I'm at war with you). Diplomacy is non existent . And whenever I get to about 1950 EVERYONE goes to war with you at the same time?! WHAT? WHY? Very disappointed in this. Needless to say I shan't be holding my breath for Civ 6. I'm going now to put Civ 4 on.… Expand
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 »