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. asfj
    Apr 18, 2014
    6
    Not replayable. Why? because, except for their leader appearances and city overviews, all civs are almost the same, same improvement, same policy, same research, same army... After knowing this fact, you will know how hollow this game is and no any desire to play the game again using other civs.
    In addition, the battle part is indeed the game's weakness, you have to control every army one    Not replayable. Why? because, except for their leader appearances and city overviews, all civs are almost the same, same improvement, same policy, same research, same army... After knowing this fact, you will know how hollow this game is and no any desire to play the game again using other civs.
    In addition, the battle part is indeed the game's weakness, you have to control every army one by one and see their laggy animations. When in later game, this is more disturbing so that I just gift most of them to city states.
    IMO, This game is about parameters balancing (you play with numbers), mainly food, culture, science, gold and fairy. you control them by actions, mainly building, diplomacy, research and policy. And you enjoy how wonderful values you can achieve.
    So, if you prefer more direct stimulation like graphics diversity in many RTS games, Civ is not for you. In graphics, Civ looks very repetitive. The difference between civs are distinct parameter enhancing.    … Expand
  2. Zahrada
    Feb 24, 2014
    6
    The original game is fun to play and it delivers what the modern iteration of Civ franchise should deliver. The biggest flaw are bugs and technical issues, which were resolved later. They were significant however. As time went, many things were fixed and added in the expansions, but the start wasn't smooth. If you want to play this game, I would therefore recommend getting it with theThe original game is fun to play and it delivers what the modern iteration of Civ franchise should deliver. The biggest flaw are bugs and technical issues, which were resolved later. They were significant however. As time went, many things were fixed and added in the expansions, but the start wasn't smooth. If you want to play this game, I would therefore recommend getting it with the expansion packs. As the original "vanilla" version, the game has many problems and my impressions were mixed in the beginning.… Expand
  3. Ecresis
    Jun 24, 2014
    6
    I play Civilization since the Civ II, and this is another great game. It is even more awesome with other human players, where diplomatics are involved.

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion : With the DLC's it's much better, if you buy it, buy it all, but try to get in on sale, because the full price is exaggerated.    … Expand
  4. ully
    Oct 25, 2014
    6
    This game is alright. It lacks the complexity of the full Civ V with all DLC. This means it will improve with DLC which will be really expensive so thanks 2K
  5. Jumbles69
    Apr 14, 2015
    6
    CIV1 was the best game ever made! Until CIV2, then CIV3 and CIV4 (however I miss my throne room and palace from the earlier iterations.
    CIV5 looks great, however lacks the single biggest facet of realism, that all the previous iterations provided. Distance. There are so many different civilizations on our planet and they are brilliantly diverse. By allowing every nation to travel across    CIV1 was the best game ever made! Until CIV2, then CIV3 and CIV4 (however I miss my throne room and palace from the earlier iterations.
    CIV5 looks great, however lacks the single biggest facet of realism, that all the previous iterations provided. Distance. There are so many different civilizations on our planet and they are brilliantly diverse. By allowing every nation to travel across water in Civ5, so early and so easily in the game, there is no diversity. Everyone grows and learns at the same rate.
    The early Mayans were one of the most advanced cultures on the planet and then the Greeks and romans, further down the tracks the English where it was said the sun never set on the empire.
    All of these were achievable in all earlier versions of the game. Now, you cannot, in any way provide the single greatest part of being human, diversity. In CIV5 its everyone, at the same technological level (or ridiculously close to it), for eternity. No religious path, no progressive path and no dark ages.
    While the game is pretty, has nice no stacking dynamics and makes even the fastest system chug under its behemoth of calculation, there is no way to be any different to any one else.
    I've clocked hundreds of hours playing each version of Civilization, though after 40 playing this, I wish I'd never bought it. I've tried so hard to enjoy it, but once you've played it once, nothing ever changes    … Expand
  6. Wrathzo
    Mar 21, 2022
    6
    Sid Meier's Civilization V is a 4X video game in the Civilization series developed by Firaxis Games. In Civilization V, the player leads a civilization from prehistoric times into the future on a procedurally generated map, attempting to achieve one of a number of different victory conditions through research, exploration, diplomacy, expansion, economic development, government and militarySid Meier's Civilization V is a 4X video game in the Civilization series developed by Firaxis Games. In Civilization V, the player leads a civilization from prehistoric times into the future on a procedurally generated map, attempting to achieve one of a number of different victory conditions through research, exploration, diplomacy, expansion, economic development, government and military conquest. The game is based on an entirely new game engine with hexagonal tiles instead of the square tiles of earlier games in the series. Many elements from Civilization IV and its expansion packs have been removed or changed, such as religion and espionage (although these were reintroduced in its subsequent expansions). The combat system has been overhauled, by removing stacking of military units and enabling cities to defend themselves by firing directly on nearby enemies. In addition, the maps contain computer-controlled city-states and non-player characters that are available for trade, diplomacy and conquest. A civilization's borders also expand one tile at a time, favoring more productive tiles, and roads now have a maintenance cost, making them much less common. The game features community, modding, and multiplayer elements.… Expand
  7. Jollyolfun
    Nov 18, 2022
    6
    i played this for roughly 4 hours in one sitting and then quit but it was pretty dope
  8. Crimson9
    Jul 28, 2023
    6
    The decision to remove unit stacking is absolutely genius and makes the civ franchise 100 times better.

    With Vox Populi this game becomes a 7 or an 8. Without it the AI is bad and the game is unbalanced and simple so 6.
  9. bernlin2000
    Nov 14, 2012
    5
    Pretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was anPretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was an interesting idea...too bad the AI couldn't figure it out. I miss the old city management of Civ 4...it feels more bland and I feel like I have less control. Also, cities feel far more static than they use to: border expansion feels slower and is much less noticeable. Let's hope they can do a better job for the next iteration...I'll stick to Civ 4 until then.… Expand
  10. goshnya
    Sep 28, 2010
    5
    Unfortunately, this is yet another case of "let's release the game now, and patch it later." The AI is, frankly, incomplete, the game is unstable, and some selections in the options menu don't even work. This will undoubtedly become a great game once it's patched and the modders do their magic -- the same happened to Civ 4. However, even hardcore fans like me will be disappointed by theUnfortunately, this is yet another case of "let's release the game now, and patch it later." The AI is, frankly, incomplete, the game is unstable, and some selections in the options menu don't even work. This will undoubtedly become a great game once it's patched and the modders do their magic -- the same happened to Civ 4. However, even hardcore fans like me will be disappointed by the state the game is currently in.… Expand
  11. Shaddock
    Sep 23, 2010
    5
    If you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order toIf you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order to understand your neighbors. You can see current deal but have no sense of why or if the other civilizations like you or not. Also you cant make your own saves during multiplayer and need to rely on autosaves, and you have no other option other than simultaneous turns when playing multiplayer. This option when using the combat model simply does not work and feels more like an RTS or console game than what many of us have grown to love about CIV. If you have not played a CIV game before start here, if you own CIV IV stick with that.… Expand
  12. morpj
    Oct 6, 2010
    5
    After 32 hours of playing I have to put this game aside until the bugs are fixed. I am playing on a large map and I'm experiencing crashes when loading saved games, plus the game occasionally hangs while AI are taking their turns. I can't believe all the "professional" reviewers overlooked the bugs! It is all definitely worse in the modern age, when there is lots going on. The AI is alsoAfter 32 hours of playing I have to put this game aside until the bugs are fixed. I am playing on a large map and I'm experiencing crashes when loading saved games, plus the game occasionally hangs while AI are taking their turns. I can't believe all the "professional" reviewers overlooked the bugs! It is all definitely worse in the modern age, when there is lots going on. The AI is also very, very poor - diplomacy is broken, and the Persians just gifted me half their civilization (something like 20 cities) after I attacked with only 6 mediocre units. Very annoying.… Expand
  13. panbient
    Oct 6, 2010
    5
    All these 90+ reviews have me wondering if the reviewer ever made it past the Industrial age and into the endgame.

    Out of the box Civilization 5 is a disappointment, the endgame is bloated beyond words. On the lowest settings possible I still watch the world drawing in tile by tile (with a 1GB Radeon HD 4890) but I don't mind, it's a strategy title. What I do mind is the average 3    All these 90+ reviews have me wondering if the reviewer ever made it past the Industrial age and into the endgame.

    Out of the box Civilization 5 is a disappointment, the endgame is bloated beyond words. On the lowest settings possible I still watch the world drawing in tile by tile (with a 1GB Radeon HD 4890) but I don't mind, it's a strategy title. What I do mind is the average 3 minute wait between turns because the ONLY time you can turn off combat animations is if you happen to click the much smaller 'advanced options' button while setting up your game then scrolling down to find the check box.

    Diplomacy is a farce, for the past 4 titles it was always right there in clear view and easy to interpret. In a half dozen play throughs I have yet to figure out a way to find out how the other cultures feel about each other aside from noting Pacts of Secrecy they have with me. Even finding the 'Global Politics' requires you to poke down through 3 screens and yet there's no information about the other cultures besides how they relate to yours. The lack of detail and attention to diplomacy renders the AI 'personalities' at best minimal and on average completely non-existent. The worse though, is the victory. What a let down / slap in the face. After having to sit through the first 20-30 seconds of that intro animation every time I tried loading the game I expected a little something at the end. instead - a splash scree with 4 tabs - that's IT. There's more animation involved in transporting your spaceship parts to your Capital(some) than there is when you actually launch it (none at all).

    The first one if your victory image WHEE!!! the next are the global demographics, best and worse only, no actual way to view demographics by culture. Then you get your score, and the final tab is a player hall of fame. There's no graph or replay - elements that have been STANDARD since the original Civilization - NINETEEN YEARS AGO. It completely removes the players ability to see what else was happening in the world while they were establishing themselves at the start. Even with all that negativity this game is super fun and that's what makes the gripes even more disappointing. If this was a brand new game from some unknown developer it wouldn't get the critical praise this NAME is getting. As the 5th entry in one of the longest standing and most popular series made, shipping with these issues / expecting the mod community to finish up their title is just not cool. Maybe if the game would have actually shipped with a manual I'd be able to figure out where or why my gripes stem from, especially while waiting for my next turn, but they stripped that out too.

    Thankfully I still have Civ4 installed.    … Expand
  14. Ultimata
    Oct 13, 2010
    5
    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In summary, I see in this product noble efforts to improve on civ 4 that, on balance, failed. The game is less likely to keep me up until 4am pressing the 'Next turn' button than did Civ IV because I care less about my little baby civs then I used to, and find it more inane beating up on my supid enemies than in the past. Nice try Firaxis, but no good. Thumbs down.    … Expand
  15. Everyone
    Oct 18, 2010
    5
    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

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

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

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

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

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

    On top of all of this is the single worst part of the game: the computer AI takes entirely too long to think on its turn. Civ4's early days had a similar problem, with the late-game turning into a slog-fest as clicking 'next turn' inevitably resulted in anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds of down-time during which your computer tanks to a crawl. By the end game, I typically find myself spending more time reading news on my cell phone than actually playing the game. As such, it got to the point where playing past 1800AD was more chore than fun. (Don't try to    … Expand
  16. DGDSN
    Oct 19, 2010
    5
    I have never played Civilization I, II, III, or IV.
    I decided to try the demo and I was hooked.
    However, after a few long games I think it is pretty apparent that the AI is severely lacking. AI players don't appear to be motivated by anything but expanding their territory and conquest. They don't appear to ever attempt a victory through, diplomacy, culture, or technology. The    I have never played Civilization I, II, III, or IV.
    I decided to try the demo and I was hooked.
    However, after a few long games I think it is pretty apparent that the AI is severely lacking.
    AI players don't appear to be motivated by anything but expanding their territory and conquest. They don't appear to ever attempt a victory through, diplomacy, culture, or technology. The leader/diplomacy screens look great and are fully voiced, but the AI doesn't seem to respond to diplomacy in any meaningful way.
    Basically, in single-player, any type of victory besides conquest, and any action besides building up your military is a waste of time.    … Expand
  17. 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
  18. 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!
  19. ravenblade
    Dec 3, 2010
    5
    The good things first, wars are more fun now and less of a dice game. It does look really good in DX11 mode. Alot things have been streamlined and even so playing it still gives you the typical Civilization feeling. However there is alot of things which clearly were not mentioned in official reviews at all. Despite best intentions the game is still littered with exploits, game-stoppingThe good things first, wars are more fun now and less of a dice game. It does look really good in DX11 mode. Alot things have been streamlined and even so playing it still gives you the typical Civilization feeling. However there is alot of things which clearly were not mentioned in official reviews at all. Despite best intentions the game is still littered with exploits, game-stopping bugs and ghastly performance issues being the result of poor optimization with the latter two coming to bear in games featuring large and huge maps. The UI is tends to be a cause for frequent lock-ups and confusions and also feels rather clunky. The AI behaves rather erratic and illogical, refuses to cooperate and to be offensive altogether even when it would be far better for it to do so. On the sound side there seems to be a step back altogether, whereas Civ4 would offer era-typical scores for your cultures it is now just back to using licensed scores of somewhat awkward choice and mediocre quality.… Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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!
  23. Viper
    Oct 7, 2011
    5
    This game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the olderThis game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the older games, it takes few inventions in the later years to develop flight and eventually win through a space race. I have reinstalled Civilization IV with its expansion sets to really immerse in a realistic tech tree (and accept the fact of huge stacked armies).… Expand
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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!
  29. Janov
    Oct 23, 2011
    5
    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money. ok, graphics and sounds are nice. but everything else is realy bad. this game simply has NO working KI. it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background. "attack the player at time x" "ask him for contract"    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money.
    ok, graphics and sounds are nice.
    but everything else is realy bad.
    this game simply has NO working KI.
    it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background.
    "attack the player at time x"
    "ask him for contract" (even if the have never seen you)
    "battle with player y" (but no results are seen)

    my resume: :(    … Expand
  30. czajmen
    Nov 7, 2011
    5
    I like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build aI like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build a atomic bomb. Playing with more people is better, but sill a average.… Expand
  31. dprkforum
    May 22, 2012
    5
    Civilization V attempted something grand, and lost its way. While the game has wonderful graphics, hex grid, and intense battles, there is much to be desired. Depth was simply stripped away for a more action-based experience. This game never felt like a grand strategy game to me. Hopefully, the new expansion pack will address some of the shortcomings, but in my opinion, it is too little, too late.
  32. Chaosmaker
    May 10, 2012
    5
    I have played all Civilization titles from day one. With each new one, we were offered a steady (yes) upgrade of quality and experience - I was brilliant at its time, but II introduced new things, III even more, and IV was clearly the pinnacle. Yes, you can see where it comes to...

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

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

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

    Gameplay is even interesting, but seriously lacking the full depth of previous titles. In itself, it is not a completely bad game, hence score of 5. But after playing it once, I can hardly come back to it. I can safely recommend it to people who didn't play previous titles or thought they were too complex - they will have quite a fun with this title. But old veterans like me will feel disappointed, and frankly - rightly so.    … Expand
  33. vicente
    May 25, 2012
    5
    I had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. HowI had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. How could they not retain religion? I mean, it has shaped history significantly whether good or bad. Other than that, I quite missed stacking units. Although, with those new hexes, you can work out strategies better, like flanking and 'outmaneuvering' your enemy, getting around seems harder, so my reaction to that is quite mixed. AI is dumbed out as ever, and the game is plagued with bugs.. Diplomacy and trades felt really dull, too. I also wished that the live-action advisors from old buddy civ 2 would make a come back (*remember Elvis?). Well, not live action, but animated like the leaders of the civs you encounter. That would be quite sick. Other than that, the music was great, although it gets a little exaggerated at some occasions, like some war themes. Overall, I felt quite sad by this game, being a fan of the previous civ games. This would've rocked had they not remove major pieces of content in the game.… Expand
  34. Zenren
    Jun 14, 2012
    5
    I started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun toI started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun to play, and instead creates an monotonous experience, best avoided. I know I'm not alone when I say, I'm sticking with Civ IV and praying for more from Civ VI.… Expand
  35. Bodkins
    Jun 26, 2012
    5
    I would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes the game tedious towards the end - so many units not enough space. Not having stacking is a real issue when attacking a city that is only accessible by one tile - really irritating if you have the larger army - most of which u then waste waiting forI would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes the game tedious towards the end - so many units not enough space. Not having stacking is a real issue when attacking a city that is only accessible by one tile - really irritating if you have the larger army - most of which u then waste waiting for their turn to attack

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

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

    I think CIV is a let down - I think CIV4 was the more superior game (186 hours of steam game time) - and a game I bought twice and would buy again if i so lost it, lets hope 6 has fixed some issues. On one side note there are available mods appearing so maybe some of those could turn the game around - but seriously i don't expect a full release game to rely on mods.    … Expand
  36. Muan142
    Mar 14, 2013
    5
    It's good enough to almost make me forgets how much better Civ IV was.The AI still sucks. Diplomacy is impossible. The hex system, you can basically forget it's there. Its only purpose is to make the 1 unit-per-tile thing playable. The game-speeds basically boil down to unplayably fast (epic or faster) or mind-numbingly slow (marathon). Luckily though, they dumbed the game down so muchIt's good enough to almost make me forgets how much better Civ IV was.The AI still sucks. Diplomacy is impossible. The hex system, you can basically forget it's there. Its only purpose is to make the 1 unit-per-tile thing playable. The game-speeds basically boil down to unplayably fast (epic or faster) or mind-numbingly slow (marathon). Luckily though, they dumbed the game down so much that it can basically play itself while you're not at war so I just turn it to marathon and read a book while I play.. One thing they still haven't fixed with mods is the sound-track. it repeats a couple of stereotypical game tracks ad nauseum, but that's what ipods are for. Also its glitchy and the loading times are horrible. Without a bunch of mods it's not worth playing. I got it for 75% off though so I can't complain too much.… Expand
  37. theGoodVibes
    Aug 3, 2012
    5
    This is my first time playing a civilization game since I played Civ 3 as a kid, although I play RTS games often. At first glance, Civ V is great - it has spectacular graphics, and a great soundtrack. The social policies system and the Science system are interesting and seem well thought out. But underneath the surface, Civ V doesn't quite live up to the hype. The game is a buggy mess -This is my first time playing a civilization game since I played Civ 3 as a kid, although I play RTS games often. At first glance, Civ V is great - it has spectacular graphics, and a great soundtrack. The social policies system and the Science system are interesting and seem well thought out. But underneath the surface, Civ V doesn't quite live up to the hype. The game is a buggy mess - often times, I won't be able to click the Next Turn button, for example, because it says "A Unit Needs Orders" when I have given all of my units orders. This is after installing all available patches, two years after the game's initial release! The combat in Civ V involves very little strategy - as long as your units aren't hard-countered by the enemy's (this is VERY easy to figure out) all that matters is who has the largest military. Civ V's strategy lies entirely in what order the player researches technologies, adapts policies, chooses to produce, etc. and has little to nothing to do with combat - reading Sun Tzu's The Art of War won't help you here. Capturing a city takes at least three turns, even if your opponent has no military and you have several strong units attacking the city. Multiplayer support is horrible, with people constantly disconnecting and crashing while I'm either in the lobby trying to get a game together, or already playing one. There is no way to change game settings once you click the "Host Game" button and open your lobby. To do so you have to kick everyone out and start a new game. This is ridiculous, strategy games from a decade ago have the ability to change settings while in the lobby. Diplomacy with AIs is impossible - even a long-time ally, who I've had multiple trade deals and research agreements with, who is far weaker than me, will declare war on me for no reason... twice! The only indication I had (which was quite obvious) was that the AI stationed its military units close to my territory for several turns before attacking. Nothing on the diplomacy screens hinted that the AI disliked me. However, the AIs have supposedly been improved in the Gods & Kings expansion... I'll see if there's any truth to that.

    I have to give Civilization V a 5/10 because it's fun to play, and it seems like some effort was put into its creation. From what I've been told by longtime fans of the series going back to Civ 3 or 4, Civ V is prettier, but a step backwards where gameplay is concerned. The exclusion of key gameplay features from earlier Civ games, such as espionage and religion, was clearly a cash grab for Firaxis, now that they are charging $30 for an expansion to add these feature to Civ V. I'm sick of developers churning out pretty games that have worse gameplay than their predecesors. Civ V is a prime example of this, therefore I really can't kiss Firaxis' ass and give them a positive review.    … Expand
  38. JaguarXJ6
    Nov 23, 2012
    5
    I can't recommend this Civ game. In the franchise, great steps were made to separate this from previous games with new concepts from hex, unit stacking, graphics, social policies, and city states. These succeed in creating new challenges for the player and add to the military strategy game. However, what the game does not deliver is an adaquate AI that fails at even the simplest of tasks.I can't recommend this Civ game. In the franchise, great steps were made to separate this from previous games with new concepts from hex, unit stacking, graphics, social policies, and city states. These succeed in creating new challenges for the player and add to the military strategy game. However, what the game does not deliver is an adaquate AI that fails at even the simplest of tasks. For example, an automated worker in an unhappy, fledgling empire at game start will not attempt build immediately on resource one tile from the capitol to connect it. Increasing difficulty beyond King (L6) doesn't incorporate new AI routines, it simply handicaps the player by huge bonuses for production, happiness, science, and gold output for all AI players. I have over 200 hours into this Civ with another 500+ for Civ4 and another 500+ hours for every Civ incarnation before it. Even if purchased on a Steam sale, it doesn't overcome the disappointment at the lack of re-playability compared to previous Civs. The game can be fun at times, but those moments of enjoyment are too rare. Like a tribal hut, you get the immediate sense of reward and that is about as good as it gets as the game goes back to tedium of micro-management to overcome a weak AI.… Expand
  39. Demonac
    Sep 21, 2013
    5
    Good: The game is a fun game. Right off the bat. It's fun, and addicting like all of the other Civ games. Graphics are great (they don't make or break a game, but it's still nice that the game at least looks good). Also, hexagon tiles are far superior to squares in terms of tactical game play.

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

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

    The Bad: And that's another horrifying aspect of this game, the ai. Unless you are a new guy to the series, or are playing like in Deity, if you lose, you probably screwed something up horribly. Also, the game seems WAY too over simplified, and there aren't as many features to shape the way you want your empire to be run as there were in Civ 4! Now, this is fixed in 2 expansions (plus the AI is way better), but the fact that you have to buy two expansion packs to make a below average game turn into an amazing strategy game is highway robbery.    … Expand
  40. Novelist
    Dec 11, 2013
    5
    It's an undeveloped game. It misses all the fun parts of the "Civilization" games such as technology trading and religion. Including city-states to the game is interesting, but the fact that you can't see the relations between different civs is depressing and frustrating.
  41. BrightShadowA
    Nov 19, 2014
    5
    Let's be clear, I've been a fan of this franchise for a very long time now. I am a great fan of strategy games and relish playing against others. This game, despite being fascinating at first (It's a big change from civilization 4, whether that's a good thing or not will be discussed later in the comment) but very quickly, the only thrill you'll recieve from civilization 5 is from mods andLet's be clear, I've been a fan of this franchise for a very long time now. I am a great fan of strategy games and relish playing against others. This game, despite being fascinating at first (It's a big change from civilization 4, whether that's a good thing or not will be discussed later in the comment) but very quickly, the only thrill you'll recieve from civilization 5 is from mods and multiplayer.

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

    The DLC mongering is terrible, there are so many DLCs (some even demanding you pay 5$ for one civilization) Regrettebly, if you want to play with religion, tourism, spies, and so on you need pay over 60$! Don't even get me started by the "map packs" which are for some reason client side when it comes to multiplayer(Yes, if the host has a generation configuration that the players don't have, you can't play the game... It's not like the maps offer any new content that would make those who don't have the DLC incompatible)
    Diplomacy is shortsided, it's not much better then civilization 4, but there should be more innovation on civilization 5's part. City states can be useful in singleplayer, but sometimes actually get in the way of expansion. Speaking of which, I love the new city bombardment and health, but the health is way too overpowered. In late games units can't even touch a city, even when the city is completely surrounded.
    Now on to multiplayer; the multiplayer is basically what you should play for, the AI is blunt and uninteresting but even the multiplayer experience has it's own flaws. For one thing, when playing against others does the inbalances in the game show, some civilizations are overpowered, you can win early game wars by spamming ranged units (Yeah, warrior versus archer. Archer wins!) which completely defies strategic logic. Some resort to what we players call "turtling" and "wonder hoarding (the less vulgar version of the term) to address those who sit on their corner of the map with 1-2 cities and take all the wonders (Buildings that can only be built once in the world that give large bonuses) and beeline technologies. In the end, the people who just turtle and hit next turn win over those who actually try to play the game. Granted, turtling can be done legitimately (With none of the exploits or anything) but most don't really care about everyone else's game. There are many glitches, one that hasn't been fixed launch until AFTER their "Sid Meier's Beyond Earth" is released. The particular glitch I'm talking about was the "trade glitch" were people can basically demand and accept anything from another player (Pretty much everything they had) without the other player even having a say in the whole matter. That's just one of many glitches that Fireaxis appearently doesn't care about, as they fix that ONE glitch after the next game has been released (Thanks Fireaxis). The community on multiplayer, though some are legit, are mostly trolls, kids who are drawn by the increased simplicity, exploiters and those who will quit on a minutes notice. City states are abused, exploits are used... and I almost forgot... no MULTIPLAYER MOD SUPPORT. This angers me because independent modders have been able to do this unofficially, Firaxis has done this in the past and since mods fix and enhance the game it seems insane that they don't allow us multiplayer users to play with mods without a third party program. Even with DLCs (You pay more then double the price for original game for these) multiplayer and singleplayer is below average. Now, let me remind you, I love this game and I have played multiplayer vigorously but I am tired of the DLC mongering, the catering to simplicity, the lack of innovation, none of these problems EVER being addressed. I rarely ever finish a multiplayer game because people crash left and right late game (and sometimes early game), sometimes games freeze up randomly and other times the game crashes when one person experiences difficulty. To sum up, this game is not worth buying without mods or the overpriced and numerous DLCs. If you are new to the franchise I recommend you buy previous titles first.    … Expand
  42. Cemossunal
    Mar 10, 2014
    5
    I quite mixed up, when I first play this game. That's because I saw good quality of the pixels, soundtracks and interface is wonderful. However, there's a huge failure of Sid meiers' and it is called the absence of religion! When I saw this I was shocked. There're a lot of social policies (which are good) and there's a religion related policy too! It is good that they improved the cityI quite mixed up, when I first play this game. That's because I saw good quality of the pixels, soundtracks and interface is wonderful. However, there's a huge failure of Sid meiers' and it is called the absence of religion! When I saw this I was shocked. There're a lot of social policies (which are good) and there's a religion related policy too! It is good that they improved the city management, but they removed the health level that was In civ 4. For example, I missed the natural disasters, vermin etc and especially vassal states. My another disappointment was the espionage system. Additionally, civ leaders and negotiations are improved. To sum up, i still recommend this game to you, but with dlc's. You can purchase this game with brave new world expansion p, it suffisticates me with additional benefits, such as trade routes. Have a nice game :) I lstill ove all the series… Expand
  43. whitepawn
    Jun 19, 2014
    5
    A classic example of trying to make up for lack of depth with high level graphics. So, it's pretty. Then what?

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

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

    No religion, corporations, fine tuning, etc.

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

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

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

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

    PROS:

    Ranged combat. Done right.

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

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

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

    REPLAYABILITY: Honestly, couldn't play a game through until the expansions. I got bored, even with an audiobook running. With III and IV losing half a day wasn't uncommon, this was a drag.    … Expand
  44. DaveAus
    Sep 3, 2014
    5
    While Civ V is a great game, and probably the best turn based 4x game out, that is mostly because it has no competition. It has a lack of unit and civilization diversity, with poor patching and performance issues.

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

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

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

    But like I said, it is still the best game of it's type.    … Expand
  45. Wiebe
    Feb 27, 2020
    5
    Too much like the old games, but then without the previous DLCs, bad AI, easy to game, showing its age
  46. hassall
    May 14, 2017
    5
    This game is fun when you play it with friends but if you play it on your own it can get boring . Happiness is hard to understand, the units look all the same, and the game is slow.
  47. Broyax
    Aug 9, 2019
    5
    J'ai passé pas mal d'heures sur ce Civ 5 avec les deux principales extensions et tous les **** à-côtés qui rajoutent un paquet de concurrents dans cette course à l'échalote mondiale (j'avais pris la Complete Edition à la faveur d'une solderie chez le gros).

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

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

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

    Le jeu principal reste pourtant bien fait et s'avère plutôt plaisant mais en définitive un brin usant et répétitif sur le long terme.    … Expand
  48. Kbek
    May 15, 2018
    5
    I have been playing Civ since the first one, logged my share of hours on the second and third title also.

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

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

    Good game taken out of context but if you are going to push a franchise to it's 5th, 6th, etc.. game, you will get tired along the way. Anyway, for fans that were here since the beggining. Maybe they don't care about us and are aiming at the new players.    … Expand
  49. 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.
  50. Soyaki
    Sep 26, 2010
    4
    I had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. OnceI had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. Once in-game, excitement at the new graphics and combat system are tempered by all the things that are missing. As others have posted, the missing details in the diplomacy screens are a huge problem that renders diplomacy almost useless. City States are even thinner in detail, and that is a feature that GalCiv 2 did way better. City management is a lot easier and the whole turn cycling interface improved is nicer, but the tech tree is also a dissapointment. And the whole anti-expansion philosophy is just un-fun.

    I can see why the game developer might have wanted to take the game in this direction. It's probably more accessible to more people--thus it has a larger potential market. But making the game easier to play didn't have to mean taking a lot of features away. It's easy to imagine ways that religion and detailed technology--even espionage!--could have been left in, yet hidden from novice players or those players uninterested in detail. Instead, lots of fun stuff is just gone.

    Finally, while I presume that the game will be patched quickly, it is crash-prone and has poor performance. The protracted time between turns is just unacceptable by even the middle of a Marathon game.    … Expand
  51. not_good
    Sep 27, 2010
    4
    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you!

    New features include: Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire! They    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you!

    New features include:

    Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire!

    They removed all the bothering elements like religion, spies and diplomacy, so all you have to worry about is letting the game play for you! Another fantastic feature added is the settler bomb! Against all odds, are you somehow losing a war to an opponent? Well just drop a settler and all your troubles are over, you now have a unit with some of the best defense in the game, another city!

    Expect new dlc coming soon featuring an updated graphic pack; now this game will actually look like it uses its monstrous system requirements!    … Expand
  52. samssf
    Sep 28, 2010
    4
    The 1up review has it right.

    This game is highly over-rated. I played it for 30 hours and really got into it, but the game has a tremendous amount of bugs and what I personally consider severe problems. I strategy game should have the proper UI to be able to see at a glance your resources, diplomacy, maintenance costs, etc. Instead, TONS of info is left out of both the UI and the manual,    The 1up review has it right.

    This game is highly over-rated. I played it for 30 hours and really got into it, but the game has a tremendous amount of bugs and what I personally consider severe problems.

    I strategy game should have the proper UI to be able to see at a glance your resources, diplomacy, maintenance costs, etc. Instead, TONS of info is left out of both the UI and the manual, making it difficult to know what's going on.

    On top of that, the UI is non-existent. To the developers, an AI is just handicapping the user and making the AI attack you and then call you the warmonger. Sorry, but 9.0+ games should be reserved for Blizzard games which might take forever to release but are polished and not released until QAed and finished.

    Many game developers now have a nasty habit of just rushing out unfinished games filled with problems.    … Expand
  53. CrestedCrane
    Sep 30, 2010
    4
    This game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refineThis game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refine problematic but life-like features, not yank them out altogether.

    In particular, I was looking forward to a game that handled religion more realistically than the baby-steps of Civ IV -- one in which Islam, Confucianism, and Hinduism were not equally congenial to aspiring world empires, and in which a Christian-Jewish-Muslim city was not a model of ecumenical harmony -- but what the developers gave us was a backing off from the subject again.

    The "one unit per tile" rule is not bad -- it makes war feel less like Civ 3 and more like, well, war -- but I didn't know that archers had a range of several hundred miles; I also didn't know that classical armies raised entire armies (division-strength? Larger?) equipped with nothing but bows. The right solution for this kind of thing is to train brigades and use a theater model, like that of _Hearts of Iron III_; will game development ever get over _Panzer General_ and its cartoonish style of combined arms?

    And lastly, what is _up_ with this game's graphics? Ruinously high requirements; it chugs on my new laptop (which is Windows 7, but with Aero disabled); and it doesn't even look as good as Civ 3 (let alone 4)! I think it's a matter of bad artistic design... although even bad artistic design doesn't explain why the game has late-1990s-level lag in loading ground textures.    … Expand
  54. antaresrising
    Oct 1, 2010
    4
    Disappointing and flawed. Another rush job for these modern times.

    Diplomacy and Customized progression have been sacrificed in favor of "BETTER COMBAT", of which only a marginal improvement can be discerned from its predecessors.

    They are counting on you to beta test their product for them. Deny them that privilege.
  55. Helios
    Oct 11, 2010
    4
    I've been a fairly long-term fan of the series; I played Civ2 when I was a kid and then a couple of years ago got into Civ4, and it really immersed me in a beautiful and epic world of unparalleled strategy and thoughtfulness. After spending over $50 on Civ5 and playing for just over 20 hours, I can tell you that Civ5 is the death of all that was good about the Civilization series. TimeI've been a fairly long-term fan of the series; I played Civ2 when I was a kid and then a couple of years ago got into Civ4, and it really immersed me in a beautiful and epic world of unparalleled strategy and thoughtfulness. After spending over $50 on Civ5 and playing for just over 20 hours, I can tell you that Civ5 is the death of all that was good about the Civilization series. Time and time again we are seeing the profit motive take precedence over well-developed and ground-breaking games and this is the saddest instance I've ever experienced of that. Below is just a short list I've compiled of the problems experienced after 20 hours of play:

    - No micromanagement of happiness in individual cities
    - Many culture policies are absolutely useless, and you 'buy' them with culture 'points' just like technology... why have two tech trees?
    - Most culture policies are repeated verbatim in a wonder that does exactly the same thing
    - Most wonders cost way too much production to build and it's actually better to not bother building 3/4 of them at all
    - No civics, no religion, no health, no forest regrowth, less technologies, no espionage, and no tech/culture slider... - City states offer so little in terms of strategic advantages (you have to pay to maintain the relationship with gold) that you are better just invading them
    - Many buildings are simply copies of earlier buildings that you have to build first (eg. market and bank both just give 25% wealth increase; coliseum and theatre are the same, university and observatory are practically the same as well...) -Only a handful of buildings are worth building at all once you factor in their huge production cost
    - The diplomacy system is next to useless, there is no useful information on other civs as in Civ4, and vassalage is not even an option in the game
    - There is no indicator telling you how another civ feels about you, so you can't tell whether they are 'friendly', 'pleased' etc. outside of the fact that they either threaten you or declare war on you out of nowhere
    - The AI is terrible - in the Noble-difficultly game I was playing, Suleiman, despite being able to expand across islands, only built two cities by the industrial period and was still using spearmen against my riflemen...
    - When I invaded him and took his two cities the rest of the civs went nuts and 4 of them (out of 9) invaded me even though previously they traded with me and signed defensive pacts ....talk about aggressive AI. None of them were allied with each other as far as I could tell, some hadn't even met one another (so it wasn't a brilliant strategy like the religious alliances in Civ4, it was basically just terrible AI)
    - Although the war wasn't really a problem as such because the Japanese leader just 'embarked' all of his knights etc. into the ocean (a new feature that allows you to send units into the sea, but they have 0 strength so get owned by anything hostile). So in the space of 8 turns I destroyed 8 of his units trying to cross the sea with ONE solitary caravel - he hadn't even bothered to build one ship...
    - Aside from these problems, the game is really poorly balanced - depending on the map you get the 'special abilities' each Civ gets (a poor substitute for the two traits from Civ4) are completely useless...eg. playing as Bismarck on an island map (he gets a 50% chance to convert a barbarian unit when he captures a barbarian camp, I didn't get one out of about the 6 that I encountered). Similarly with Suleiman - he gets the same thing but with barbarian naval units... why would you even bother? I would only expect this poor degree of balance in a beta release... Overall I have to say, definitely save your money and if you haven't got Civ4:BtS buy that instead. I will be uninstalling civ5 from my computer and going back to 4, at least until they release the proper modification code and the people over at Civfanatics put together a Civ5 to Civ4 total conversion mod that brings back what made the predecessor a brilliant game. Come to think of it, aside from the shiny graphics , single units and hex squares I can't think of anything new that Civ5 introduces that is actually worthwhile. Where Civ4 was nuanced and rewarded deep strategy, this deeply flawed thing was put together just to make money. The best analogy I can think of to sum up Civ5 is that where Civ4 was a piece of art, Civ5 is a used condom.    … Expand
  56. Shaitan87
    Apr 7, 2012
    4
    I tried this game again after about 14 months, waste of my time. I am extremely disappointed the flawed gameplay mechanics are still around, I am even more disappointed about the technical bugs. There is no reason that my cursor should disappear in a section of city management after 18 months of release, It should support dual monitors, my cities shouldn't disappear occasionally, II tried this game again after about 14 months, waste of my time. I am extremely disappointed the flawed gameplay mechanics are still around, I am even more disappointed about the technical bugs. There is no reason that my cursor should disappear in a section of city management after 18 months of release, It should support dual monitors, my cities shouldn't disappear occasionally, I shouldn't have red sprites appear, etc etc. I think these things are the biggest proof of what a failure this game is. People argue that the gameplay is well done and thought out, if they thought so they would have completed the rest of their game. If an Indie game had this many issues a couple months after release it would be unacceptable, for a series with this much renown to suffer from these types of bugs 18 months after release is completely unacceptable. I am in the camp of never buying another firaxis/2k game on day one, I'm going to wait for extensive reviews before I purchase one. I think this is an extremely good example of how ridiculous critic reviews are, for this to be one of the highest rated games of all time is shameful.… Expand
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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.
  60. 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
  61. Skulb
    Feb 13, 2014
    4
    In the fine new tradition of dumbing classic franchises down to appeal to the blind, the mentally impaired and people who hate gaming, Civilization takes a nosedive in the horrible fifth installment. Tons of stuff that made Civ IV timeless has been removed, including map trading, vassals, religions, flexible civics, unit stacks and attrition to name a few things. Meanwhile dubious thingsIn the fine new tradition of dumbing classic franchises down to appeal to the blind, the mentally impaired and people who hate gaming, Civilization takes a nosedive in the horrible fifth installment. Tons of stuff that made Civ IV timeless has been removed, including map trading, vassals, religions, flexible civics, unit stacks and attrition to name a few things. Meanwhile dubious things have been added like global happiness ratings which makes it pointless to make big empires (In a Civ game. It`s true) and city states that reposition your camera on them every time they have some pointless task for you to perform.
    The worst part is that some of it had been tried out in Civ 3, which was the least impressive installment until this release, and removed for Civ 4 because it made the game dull and uncool.
    So compared to Civ 4 there is less complexity, less freedom, much hand holding and worthless fluff, poor diplomacy and many many questionable design features. It is slow, boring and unexciting. The economy doesn`t work properly, there are no active trade routes like in Civ 4 but just automatic ones when you build roads and harbors. And to top it all off there is basically no AI anywhere.
    I just played a game as Persia and had 10 workers on auto. By the year 1100 AD all these workers had built 0 roads. None, zip, nada. Presumably they were waiting until all the forests had been cleared and every possible resource tile and farm had been finished before starting the roads. In other words the automation is pointless and you have to manually build roads if you want any.
    The less said about the enemy AI the better. It is unpredictable, stupid and never improves at higher levels. It just cheats. Give this turkey a wide berth and go get the real Civilization (Civ 4. hell even Civ 2 or the original DOS game is better than this.) immediately.
    Casual gaming at its worst.    … Expand
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. f0lly
    Mar 5, 2012
    4
    I played Civ 1 right at the beginning, and then Civ 2. Missed the other iterations. Coming back to Civ V is a big disppointment. Very dumbed down version of what I remember Civ to be. No complexity, no challenge, no fun. Boo. UPDATE: I've now bought Civ IV, and played it for a few hours. Immediately obvious that its much better than Civ V. Its what a Civ game should be; not dumbed downI played Civ 1 right at the beginning, and then Civ 2. Missed the other iterations. Coming back to Civ V is a big disppointment. Very dumbed down version of what I remember Civ to be. No complexity, no challenge, no fun. Boo. UPDATE: I've now bought Civ IV, and played it for a few hours. Immediately obvious that its much better than Civ V. Its what a Civ game should be; not dumbed down for the button masher crowd.… Expand
  66. mgstewart
    Nov 6, 2011
    4
    The game has come along way but took a wrong turn at Civ 4 and from there things have gotten worse. I started playing these games at Civ3 brilliant strategy game where you build an empire and gather culture or conquer the enemys. The best ever game was Civ3 Conquest which was able to maintain science-production-growth-gold really well and city building. However when civ4 was introduced itThe game has come along way but took a wrong turn at Civ 4 and from there things have gotten worse. I started playing these games at Civ3 brilliant strategy game where you build an empire and gather culture or conquer the enemys. The best ever game was Civ3 Conquest which was able to maintain science-production-growth-gold really well and city building. However when civ4 was introduced it focused more on not needing citys and how can u have an empire with 5 citys the bonus to civ4 was the fighting mechanics that was a great improvement. However now civ5 has changed once again the same problems as civ 4 but adding more content to make it even worse.

    Pros- Beautiful graphics - graphics dont make a good game but they do make for a fake review by critics    … Expand
  67. Redoer
    May 27, 2012
    4
    I've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplifiedI've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplified to attract a larger market. No unit stacking is more of a pain than anything, micromanaging doesn't seem worth it, time between turns is agonizingly long. The long wait between turns is not helped by the boring background music that doesn't seem to ever change. All in all, I'd probably recommend Civ 4 over this if you haven't bought it already.… Expand
  68. ghostknight
    Mar 12, 2012
    4
    A big disappointment. I'm a big fan since Civ 1. A year ago i was still playing Civ 2 on my laptop from time to time. The only thing i liked was the combat system. Game is pretty shallow for a civ game and lacks lots of things previous games had. Policy system is a joke, probably taken from tabletop it's not suitable for a computer game. I can only recommend this game to people who areA big disappointment. I'm a big fan since Civ 1. A year ago i was still playing Civ 2 on my laptop from time to time. The only thing i liked was the combat system. Game is pretty shallow for a civ game and lacks lots of things previous games had. Policy system is a joke, probably taken from tabletop it's not suitable for a computer game. I can only recommend this game to people who are novice to turn based games or casual players who don't want to spend too much time for a single game.

    The fact that this game had a high score from the critics is another joke in my opinion.    … Expand
  69. Krown90
    Apr 15, 2012
    4
    Total Disappointed... CIV 5 is a FAIL game.. with a fail AI and a fail strategic concept. The only thing I liked is the introduction of city-states and the particular attention to the graphics. The rest is all garbage. Poor diplomacy. Ridiculous combat system. Accelerated timing too much. Do yourself a favor: play CIV III, is the best of the series.
  70. Thagun
    May 10, 2012
    4
    I have an 2nd Gen I5 2500K Cpu. A GTX 460 1 GB card, 8GB of ram and new Z68 chip motherboard.

    All my gear was new.mine is the best machine out of all my friends. It runs battlefield 3 on 1920 - 1080p at high/ultra with filters x16. I CAN'T RUN THIS. Early game the jerking is bad, but late game its torturous. The wait from clicking end turn until getting to go is    I have an 2nd Gen I5 2500K Cpu. A GTX 460 1 GB card, 8GB of ram and new Z68 chip motherboard.

    All my gear was new.mine is the best machine out of all my friends.

    It runs battlefield 3 on 1920 - 1080p at high/ultra with filters x16. I CAN'T RUN THIS. Early game the jerking is bad, but late game its torturous. The wait from clicking end turn until getting to go is seemingly endless and if you where expecting to manage a war or something it would send you mental. I have clocked Civ 4 maybe 6 - 8 times. You dust it down ever so often and spend a day of taxing enjoyment, once completed back it goes till the next time. I will not be playing 5 again until probably 2 computers from now, then it might just work well enough for me to enjoy. Yours Thagun.

    Ps There is a demo, so if you want to get it, try that first. Save some heartache later maybe. :)    … Expand
  71. EvilxFish
    Nov 10, 2013
    4
    This game is an insult to the Civilization series, compared to Civilization 4 it lacks the depth of gameplay and has some serious balancing issues as well as containing AI that don't know how to play. As a stand alone game it isn't too brilliant either, with the game revolving around playing as the best civilizations and getting wonders which are overpowered the fastest. The rest of theThis game is an insult to the Civilization series, compared to Civilization 4 it lacks the depth of gameplay and has some serious balancing issues as well as containing AI that don't know how to play. As a stand alone game it isn't too brilliant either, with the game revolving around playing as the best civilizations and getting wonders which are overpowered the fastest. The rest of the features one would expect from a Civilization game were released in the form of DLC meaning the vanilla Civ 5 is an incomplete game. I do frequently play this online as my friends moved to it from other Civilization titles however we can agree this game is flawed. A terrible disappointment.… Expand
  72. Blogomattic
    Sep 25, 2010
    3
    Being a long time fan of the Civilization franchise and having played Civ4 so much that I wore out 2 copies of the game, I have to say that Civ5 was a true disappointment. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, not even with the hex tile switch, but I did expect to get what I had gotten out of the others. I bought Civ5 because I liked how the series didn't change much, just got prettier.Being a long time fan of the Civilization franchise and having played Civ4 so much that I wore out 2 copies of the game, I have to say that Civ5 was a true disappointment. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, not even with the hex tile switch, but I did expect to get what I had gotten out of the others. I bought Civ5 because I liked how the series didn't change much, just got prettier. Overall, my biggest pet peeve is that the over-simplicity of this newest version has made the game less of a challenge and more of a tedious waste of time. I liked Civ4 because micromanagement seemed to really have an effect in the grand scheme. However, doing so in Civ5 feels like playing a pretty spread-sheet. First the bad:
    -The adjustment of the game length makes it feel like Civ3, which I like, but combining that with the extended length of turns makes for an over drawn out experience.
    -Difficulty is not adjusted by leader craftiness, but by the number of units that they bring to the fight.
    -The introduction of city-states was nice, but their nagging gets old really quick.
    -Not allowing unit stacking promotes strategy, but makes for increasingly frustrating front-lines.-
    In the 30 hours that I've played, I have found that there doesn't seem to be any kind of situation other than war to win. The readjustment of victory conditions makes domination more accessible, but the others become easily forgotten when trying to keep enough units around for defense (I've always been a cultural/space race victory kind of guy).
    -Boring, tedious, and exasperating war. I'm not kidding, even if a rival has basically no military, it will still take 10 turns to conquer a city.

    Now the good:
    -The introduction of straight purchasing of city improvements and units is a huge boon to the game. Assuming you can afford it, popping out much needed military support doesn't waste time in production.
    -Barbarian activity is better balanced. In Civ4 at the 5th difficulty level, barbarians would wipe you out way to quickly.
    -Ranged attack. Finally, logical ranged attack. Why did this take so long?

    Maybe it's just my play style, but Civ5 doesn't pull me in like previous iterations. More often then not, I find myself wishing that I hadn't bothered with the game that enjoying it. If you are looking for the fun challenge found in previous versions of Civ, I suggest that you go back and play those as this one just doesn't cut it.    … Expand
  73. jalad
    Sep 28, 2010
    3
    The lack of any replacement for city corruption/maintenance concept is a huge disappointment for me. You can find a city at the very end of the world with no cost. Very unrealistic. In a few games i played (i must say i tried to play through crashes), AI civs borders were all mixed up because of this issue. Distance from capital must be a real problem in any next-gen civ game. Period. YesThe lack of any replacement for city corruption/maintenance concept is a huge disappointment for me. You can find a city at the very end of the world with no cost. Very unrealistic. In a few games i played (i must say i tried to play through crashes), AI civs borders were all mixed up because of this issue. Distance from capital must be a real problem in any next-gen civ game. Period. Yes road maintenance is a drawback but definitely not enough. And also no religion, no espionage, no focusing on science or culture via sliders... I did go back to civ 4 happily. Guess what! i was really impressed with its depth after couple of hours:) Maybe i can look back if good mods come up in the future.… Expand
  74. eliang98
    Sep 30, 2010
    3
    For a huge fan of the previous versions, Civ V is a HUGE disappointment.
    The game interface response is very slow. So slow that after playing for a couple of hours, I feel that I am not accomplish anything other than waiting for the turns to get over. To allocate the population of a city to work on a specific tile, it took me a few hours of menu reading to click-and-explore to figure it    For a huge fan of the previous versions, Civ V is a HUGE disappointment.
    The game interface response is very slow. So slow that after playing for a couple of hours, I feel that I am not accomplish anything other than waiting for the turns to get over. To allocate the population of a city to work on a specific tile, it took me a few hours of menu reading to click-and-explore to figure it out.
    I am definitely going back to play my Civ IV    … Expand
  75. Nafod
    Sep 30, 2010
    3
    Overall it feels unfinished. Necessary information is difficult to come by if not missing in total. Production queues are so ridiculously slow that tech progression will usually cause one to obsolete units before building (m)any. And you'll be building units mostly as buildings are unimpressive, have ridiculously maintenance costs, and one CANNOT destroy them at a later date. WondersOverall it feels unfinished. Necessary information is difficult to come by if not missing in total. Production queues are so ridiculously slow that tech progression will usually cause one to obsolete units before building (m)any. And you'll be building units mostly as buildings are unimpressive, have ridiculously maintenance costs, and one CANNOT destroy them at a later date. Wonders are extremely disappointing. Expansion leads to significant penalties to culture, making only a diplomacy or conquest win feasible if one has more than 5 or so cities.

    The one unit per hex limit and the hex game in general is an improvement. But simply put, Firaxis made a game it's AI cannot play. The AI is woefully inadequate at forming any sensible type of battle line and simply throws units at the player. Who with any hint of a strategy can destroy them in detail. It's a $60 nice looking game of Whack-a-mole.    … Expand
  76. krunsH
    Sep 30, 2010
    3
    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

    That's until you play your first two complete games. This game is full with bugs! You might wonder if they even played through the    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

    That's until you play your first two complete games. This game is full with bugs! You might wonder if they even played through the whole game once before its release because it seems to be in beta status. Major performance issues followed by a wide range of ingame bugs, glitches and crashes.
    But if you think that singleplayer is broken you clearly haven't played multiplayer games.
    The word "broken" doesn't even come close to its unplayability. It simply doesnt work to play a complete game without someone dropping out, glitching through the game or having other issues that make it impossible to play.

    But there you sit having it bound to your steam account and there is no way to get your money back.

    I recommend you to better think twice before you might waste your 50 bucks on a game that seems to be hyped by the majority of review sites and sources but in reality is an accumulation of bugs.

    Do yourself a favour and wait at least a month or two until the first big patches are release... that's if the developers have the courage to support the game..    … Expand
  77. chris_evans
    Oct 3, 2010
    3
    This is a franchise that has lost it's way. Civ2 is perhaps my all time fav game, I am no hater. Civ5 is a piece of bloatware that has lost it's focus.

    Perhaps the developers felt that it was not commercially viable to release a 2D game, but the 3D characters do not serve the core vision of what the game is, they detract from it and limit the potential audience. I have an 8 core PC, why    This is a franchise that has lost it's way. Civ2 is perhaps my all time fav game, I am no hater. Civ5 is a piece of bloatware that has lost it's focus.

    Perhaps the developers felt that it was not commercially viable to release a 2D game, but the 3D characters do not serve the core vision of what the game is, they detract from it and limit the potential audience. I have an 8 core PC, why does it take up to 25 seconds to go to complete a turn?

    I will not nit pick individual decisions I feel were poor; which there were plenty of. But central core things, like the interface, are extremely lacking. The interface is a complete unreadable mess as you progress. Civ is a game about dealing with data, so why is it getting harder and harder to view and manage the data in these games?

    The user experience at the time the game should be the most fun (lots of cities, lots going on) is a complete, barely usable mess, and the game grinds to a halt.

    I don't need 3d animated flocking swarms of fish on the map, I will take a fun game and an easily readable fish icon.    … Expand
  78. scrutch
    Oct 3, 2010
    3
    man you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should haveman you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should have quit this franchise when it was still good enough. im deinstalling it and i play civ 4 again.… Expand
  79. HLB
    Oct 10, 2010
    3
    Simplistic game. Nothing special graphical or in gameplay. Use of DX11 is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I uninstalled the game already because I don't intend to spend even more time with work-arounds for the bugs. They obviously spend more money on marketing then on game development.
  80. almaniac
    Oct 12, 2010
    3
    What's good? the new hex-based terrain and the combat are both vast improvements over previous versions of the game.

    What's bad? Everything else. The game mechanics are seriously dumbed-down. A lot of the interesting trade-offs are gone. Elimination of health and religion really hurt the game mechanics. The tech-tree is over simplified. Allowing any unit to self-embark into water    What's good? the new hex-based terrain and the combat are both vast improvements over previous versions of the game.

    What's bad? Everything else. The game mechanics are seriously dumbed-down. A lot of the interesting trade-offs are gone. Elimination of health and religion really hurt the game mechanics. The tech-tree is over simplified. Allowing any unit to self-embark into water is a mixed blessing. The AI very predictable, especially in diplomacy. AI army use is very bad; you can always destroy them in detail.

    I love the CIV franchise and I've owned literally every single version (including the board game). This could have been the best ever but the dumbing-down of the game mechanics has ruined it. Spend your money on CIV 4; you'll be much more satisfied.    … Expand
  81. 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
  82. Hobbamock
    Nov 5, 2010
    3
    The game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a poorThe game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a poor marketing decision. A unique game name should've been applied, for example "Civilization: Reborn" or something like that. That would've indicated to us experienced Civilization gamers that the game is totally different and to expect big changes.… Expand
  83. CmdrSoCal
    Nov 9, 2010
    3
    another incomplete rip off video game that got rave reviews from moron review sites. out of the box this game has bugs, crashes and apparently the ai is either very poorly made or just was not finished. the diplomacy/ai part of civ games is the most important part for single player. if you dont yet own i would 1) wait for it to get cheaper than 50$ and 2) check the forums to make sure theanother incomplete rip off video game that got rave reviews from moron review sites. out of the box this game has bugs, crashes and apparently the ai is either very poorly made or just was not finished. the diplomacy/ai part of civ games is the most important part for single player. if you dont yet own i would 1) wait for it to get cheaper than 50$ and 2) check the forums to make sure the ai fail and the bugs have been fixed before bying. otherwise try proven strategy games over this junk. oh and its only playable through steam as well.… Expand
  84. mccoyjf
    Nov 20, 2010
    3
    I've had Civ 5 for a couple of months now and played several games to completion. And now I'm getting bored with it. I expected better from a sequel to a game I played regularly for several years. But the fact is Civ 5 isn't very interesting or challenging.

    It's not like I'm a super-skilled player or anything. I make plenty of mistakes. But even at the highest difficulty levels I win    I've had Civ 5 for a couple of months now and played several games to completion. And now I'm getting bored with it. I expected better from a sequel to a game I played regularly for several years. But the fact is Civ 5 isn't very interesting or challenging.

    It's not like I'm a super-skilled player or anything. I make plenty of mistakes. But even at the highest difficulty levels I win easily. Where's the fun in that? The issue is that the computer opponents are very weak. They will fight wars with you, but are bad at it so that's not too hard to deal with. As for beating you through peaceful strategies like culture, science, or diplomacy, I don't think they can. At least, I've never seen them do it, even though in some cases had I switched places with one of them I could have achieved victory in just a few turns by taking fairly simple steps.

    So the game poses very little challenge after the first session or three. There are also plenty of annoying little glitches, the sort of stuff one might overlook in a really good game but that really get your attention if you're already a little bored or frustrated. Graphical overlays that don't disappear when they should. Bad pathfinding that forces you to micromanage unit movement, that sort of thing.

    In sum, it's not nearly as fun as Civilization IV. I'd recommend that game over this one any day.    … Expand
  85. VidsRule
    Jul 7, 2012
    3
    I hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part onI hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part on the map becomes a convoluted mess, and every action is a complete chore. And then other civs start complaining constantly. I know some people are very good at the game and they can handle all that, but I would like to have some fun added to the games I play.… Expand
  86. Wanguard
    Nov 30, 2011
    3
    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I played for months after release and often came back after a break for a game or two. With Civilization V I only played two full games to the end and one unfinished then it was time to shelf the game.
    It's obvious that simple patches or DLC's can't fix the game. It needs serious overhaul in so many aspects. Civilization V could have been so much better if all the new features had been implemented properly.    … Expand
  87. c87
    Dec 8, 2010
    3
    It seems like a good game, but it just keeps on crashing in the middle of a game. Get the problem fixed and it would be a decent game. I wouldn't recommend anyone buys the game until this problem is fixed, as it's just a waste of money at the moment.
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. 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
  94. los_majklos
    Oct 27, 2012
    3
    Well this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it'sWell this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it's possible today to make it faster and save you from all the tedious activities, deciding what to build on every single hex in every single turn. You should be able to set your typical path through the tech and build trees and reuse those. The final spoiler is, that anything you do, you will end up in war. Even if you try to be polite and nice, there is no peace alternative in real game, it is only theoretical. I managed to win peacefully once from like 30 attempts and it was by mere luck anyway. So this game does copy typical american colonial consumeristic philosophy - expand, fight, kill and consume. More means always better. What a disappointment.… Expand
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. 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
  100. 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.
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 »