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. stripes
    Dec 24, 2012
    10
    Love this game! Played it quite a bit when it was first released but was only ever average at it. Have revisited this game over the last few months, and read up a bit on tips & tricks and with the new patch this game is pretty much perfect. LOVE the music score. Really cant fault the game at all. Bring on Civ VI is all I can say.
  2. evvo
    Dec 23, 2012
    3
    Signed up to metacritic purely to not recommend this game. Buy Civ4 which is superior in almost all aspects. They've taken all of the depth out of city building, empire maintenance, diplomacy, subterfuge, trade... the list goes on. The only improvement is the new combat system, but they didn't match that with an AI that could utilise it. Such a disappointment - glad I got it on the steamSigned up to metacritic purely to not recommend this game. Buy Civ4 which is superior in almost all aspects. They've taken all of the depth out of city building, empire maintenance, diplomacy, subterfuge, trade... the list goes on. The only improvement is the new combat system, but they didn't match that with an AI that could utilise it. Such a disappointment - glad I got it on the steam sale, otherwise I'd be furious....… Expand
  3. EduardoLuiz
    Dec 19, 2012
    9
    Civilization itself is a work of improved its grand chapter. Here is the incursion of new technologies, counselors, and draw some possibilities of Chapter IV, which are mostly of military strategies (where one can no longer join several troops in the same area), and that the areas do not expand automatically only, here you have to buy 'lots' to expand the boundaries. Among all recentCivilization itself is a work of improved its grand chapter. Here is the incursion of new technologies, counselors, and draw some possibilities of Chapter IV, which are mostly of military strategies (where one can no longer join several troops in the same area), and that the areas do not expand automatically only, here you have to buy 'lots' to expand the boundaries. Among all recent strategy games, Civilization V is by far the best.… Expand
  4. Purplepeanut1
    Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Since i was 6 i've been playing Civilzation and Civilization V is the best and easiest for me to use (so far). It may be because i was younger and not able to fully understand the keyboard a few years ago but i find Civilization V easy to control and i really enjoy playing it.
  5. mintlo
    Dec 16, 2012
    9
    My first time playing the civilization series and I got hooked on it. It is much fun and challenging - right when you think you just might have peace with your neighbor civs they attack you from all sides. A really fun game to play.
  6. blackraven1
    Dec 6, 2012
    10
    i have to say the best one yet, have played it for over 300h since release. AI plays great, the hex grid and no troop stacking......... = all great moves to make it more strategic and challenging.
  7. Fench21
    Dec 1, 2012
    1
    Want to know how boring this game is. Type the word boring over and over again for ten hours straight. Do that, and you'll be starting to get a notion of how boring this game is.

    The game is very pretty, and there are some nice tweaks. But,I don't play a game to just look at pretty pictures. I play it, and I bet most other folks do as well, for the challenge. Where CIV IV had one of    Want to know how boring this game is. Type the word boring over and over again for ten hours straight. Do that, and you'll be starting to get a notion of how boring this game is.

    The game is very pretty, and there are some nice tweaks. But,I don't play a game to just look at pretty pictures. I play it, and I bet most other folks do as well, for the challenge. Where CIV IV had one of the best AI 's I've ever seen CIV V has a zombified AI. The computer run civ's are in desperate need of BRAINS! They aren't out to conquer the world, or even knock off your particular civilization. Instead they're largely content to let you slowly fossilize or conqure the world yourself. Conquering the world is actually the easiest way to win this game...yeah, go figure. Partly though, that because you can get started early and get the pain over with sooner. IF you have the patience, you could go for the space race victory. But, if you have that kind of patience, you should be able to hold off on buying this waste of computer memory of a game and spend your time finding something worth your time and money.    … Expand
  8. Bacahrie
    Nov 29, 2012
    10
    TOP Game! Absolut super! Jedes Civ hatte seine Vor- und Nachteile, aber Civ V ist das, ich sag mal, abgerundeste! Es macht super Spaß, schicke Grafik und es macht immer wieder mal Spaß seine Zivilisation aufzubauen! :-) Bin nach wie vor begeistert!
  9. 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
  10. OneVoice
    Nov 20, 2012
    6
    It's a good game, but just not nearly what Civ IV was (or Civ III for that matter). I've been playing Civ since the original was released many years ago, and have never been disappointed by anything the series has ever done. But once I played Civ V I became worried about the future of this series. Civ V has been dumbed down significantly from it's predecessors. It's a sad change.
  11. mikhail_lem
    Nov 17, 2012
    6
    Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing,Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing, since it encourages tactical thinking instead of just sending the infamous "Stacks of Doom" and watching things burn. The graphics look awesome, yeah, but I would have sacrificed the eye candy for some gameplay depth. In a nutshell: If you liked Civ4, odds are you won't like this.… Expand
  12. 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
  13. Critical_Fun
    Nov 12, 2012
    10
    This review was a long time coming. I basically have 3 different reviews based on performance. When I first bought the game, I had technical issues with game performance. I couldn't get DX11 to work and the game played like a 15 year old game on my fairly new desktop. The game was simply unplayable. When the game does work, it's one of the most complex and entertaining games I haveThis review was a long time coming. I basically have 3 different reviews based on performance. When I first bought the game, I had technical issues with game performance. I couldn't get DX11 to work and the game played like a 15 year old game on my fairly new desktop. The game was simply unplayable. When the game does work, it's one of the most complex and entertaining games I have ever played. Absolutely outstanding. Very deep and has almost endless replay value. The DLC is abundant and still likely to see some new releases in the future. The game on Steam also has a great modding community. Makes it easy to try out other people's creations. All of the extras are just gravy as the base game is the best strategy game of its kind in the world. Civ V will probably hold this title until Civ 6 comes out in half a decade or so.… Expand
  14. Megatanis
    Oct 30, 2012
    0
    I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems,I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems, it was just a game after all. But one of those games you would forgive anything, simply because it has something magical around it. Civ 4 is, as many have pointed out here as well, the pinnacle of the series. Again, of course it had aspects which could have been improved, and btw the Civ series was NEVER the hardest, toughest or most complicated strategy game out there. Try playing the Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron series, or many others, and you'll see what I mean. Civ has always been a coulourful, entertaining gem, a perfect mix of micro and macro managing, even though the AI was never any good, and some mechanics were certainly improvable. Now we have this..I don't even know how to define it. So, Dear Sid, all of a sudden, after 20 years of pure genius, you decided that people saying "oh no, I have to actually research a tech that will allow me to build transport ships and THEN I must load my units on them?? BOORING" were the ones to listen, while those that made it possible for you to be in business today, those that bought and supported your products in a time when even owning a PC was something (I don't live in the US by the way), were to be insulted in this way. For the respect I still have towards your past wonders, I'll just stop it here, because you know what I'm talking about, the negative comments are really not necessary. You, above everyone else in this world, know perfectly well what has happened to the Civ franchise.

    I firmly believe a compromise between complexity/Traditional civ (for the old fans) and simplicity/moar money (from sales/ influx of newcomers) would have been perfectly doable, and it would have been accepted by everyone.
    To screw up a game like civ in this way is totally unbelievable.

    So bottom line, sure there is nostalgia involved, but I tried to give a balanced judgement. Civ 5 is a shallow, unintersting, boring game. Graphics are only marginally better than civ4, and who cares about "amazing" graphics anyway (in a turn based strategy game). It seems to be riddled with bugs. Gameplay choices are reduced to a minimum, illogical and outright broken mecahisms are everywhere. And, of course, it's a game for 12 years old kids. On top of this, since it's a successor to a great series (and because it's called CIV FIVE), old fans will inevitably compare it to the previous titles. And this is not good. You know it, I know it, everyone that should knows it. The ones that don't, probably have no idea who Sun Tzu was or where the hell is Costantinople, and are wondering why they can't headshot Montezuma, so why bother. You just want their money.
    Right?

    ps I just hope you are spending more money to buy these "The best Civ ever!!!" reviews (LOL) than what you made by selling the game. Maybe when you'll realise that alienating what were probably among the most loyal videogamers in history (civ fans) was a bad marketing decision, you'll see your error. But it will be too late

    Quoque tu, Sid    … Expand
  15. 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
  16. rant
    Oct 16, 2012
    3
    I've been a Civ addict since the first version, and I was excited when I heard this was coming out. Unfortunately, it's probably the worst game to ever bear the name. I don't know what was going on in the studio when it was being developed, but the result looks as if nobody involved had ever designed a strategy game before. They had some interesting ideas but they failed to implementI've been a Civ addict since the first version, and I was excited when I heard this was coming out. Unfortunately, it's probably the worst game to ever bear the name. I don't know what was going on in the studio when it was being developed, but the result looks as if nobody involved had ever designed a strategy game before. They had some interesting ideas but they failed to implement them. I don't like to post bad reviews, but I think they earned this one. It's pretty much the "strategy game for people who don't like strategy games". Superficial, clumsy design, bad AI (even worse than usual), it might be an interesting failure from a new studio, but it loses a couple of points due to the pedigree.… Expand
  17. grazr
    Sep 14, 2012
    7
    The hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is theThe hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is the atrocious AI and the pseudo difficulty setting which is more accurately defined as a "handicap" system.… Expand
  18. ZEMTEK
    Aug 18, 2012
    1
    I have been playing civ since the first one came out. I bought civ5 from a store and you cant even play the game if ya dont have internet to activate. Which is stupid. To cap it off you had to sit there and download yet another aplication to activate it. Why did the game designers not have this other ap on the disc? poor design ? Then after i fianlly got the game activated I was so veryI have been playing civ since the first one came out. I bought civ5 from a store and you cant even play the game if ya dont have internet to activate. Which is stupid. To cap it off you had to sit there and download yet another aplication to activate it. Why did the game designers not have this other ap on the disc? poor design ? Then after i fianlly got the game activated I was so very disapointed in the game. Less options than other versions. time between turns is stupid long. Load times take for ever and i have 4gigs of ram dual core. I would feel sorry for anyone trying to play this game on some older model computer. The only thing i actually liked about civ5 is razing cities. Unless they were former capitols or those city states which could not be razed. They also got rid of the stupid public works which was a nice change.liked the new culture thing. Things i hated were not able to raze capitols and city states. Not able to pass or do anything with mountains,
    No mags to move troops faster. Could not terriform. Stupid other nations would not even trade resources i had to go over an just take the resources from them.
    Could not activate till i went to a place with internet.
    Had to down load another stupid program to activate. the scenario editor dont work. When Civ VI comes out i hope it will actually be an improvement all the options of the old civs.    … Expand
  19. Gabcd
    Aug 6, 2012
    9
    4+/5 (Very Good)

    If you enjoy playing games like RISK, where a game can take DAYS to finish, CIV5 is for you.

    The best part? I don't actually care about winning in CIV5, it's how you get to the end that is fun and somehow hugely satisfying. (even if you lose)

    I don't even finish all of my games and still feel good about them!
  20. dam1730
    Aug 6, 2012
    3
    In the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usualIn the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usual square ones. I think it makes the map look much better. The graphics are better in Civilization V, which you would expect. I like how accessible mods are in this game. It is much easier to use mods than past installments in the series. Now, the bad. The one unit per tile was a nice try, but it simply doesn't work. What should have been done is a Victoria II style supply limit system, where each tile could support a certain number of units. You could put as many units as you want on the tile, but there would be significant combat penalties for going over the limit. One unit per tile makes wars something you dread, as opposed to something you enjoyed in Civ IV. The diplomatic system is still messed up even two years after release. The AI leaders are inconsistent and change their minds quickly. The game got rid of religion which makes it less interesting. Finally, I'll explain my review score. Automatically, the game receives a four point deduction for not improving on its predecessor, the receives a 3 point deduction for OK gameplay.… Expand
  21. 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
  22. Nandoalbando
    Aug 3, 2012
    6
    pro: the exagon strategy system
    cons: no religion, no espionage, empire limitation system, the cost of the road system, console-enterface of city management
  23. KvltKitty
    Aug 1, 2012
    9
    Civilization V, the ultimate time waster. A very solid game, especially since the patches and expansion for a night kickin back with friends and having a few beers. A long night at that. For both long time and newcoming players of the Civilization series, you'll feel right at home here. A lot of reviews on here complain about the "lack of depth" in the game, but they act as though itCivilization V, the ultimate time waster. A very solid game, especially since the patches and expansion for a night kickin back with friends and having a few beers. A long night at that. For both long time and newcoming players of the Civilization series, you'll feel right at home here. A lot of reviews on here complain about the "lack of depth" in the game, but they act as though it is no longer difficult or deep because of the removal of a few features (many of which are now available in DLC's), but I personally think that they improvements they made over the previous games allow for more tactical depth than ever. Gone are the days of stacking so many units that you could ceaselessly barrage a city until it falls to its knees. Now, you really have to plan carefully and prepare for a siege, as you should. I had tremendous fun figuring out and mastering the combat system. Everything from where to place the catapults so as to be useful, but not too vulnerable as well as who are the front line marines sent in essentially to do little damage on a suicide mission before you bring in the big guns. The gameplay is fluid, and in multiplayer the combat is intense once air units are introduced as you scramble to intercept air units headed for your beloved cities. Early game, building wonders and researching technology can take FOREVER. But what a lot of people here seem to overlook is the realism that goes along with that. Fact is, it did take forever to build The Great Wall, Hanging Gardens, etc. And once nations began becoming industrialized, things really sped up. This holds true in the Civilization series. By the time I hit the industrial era, I was completing wonders in 3-4 turns, builds in 1-2, and every unit in 1. BUT, if you play your cards wrong, you could end up developing no research a turn, or with your production at or near a standstill. Every decision you make seems to have greater implications in Civ V than the previous, as there are less to make which ends up making you really have to weigh your options much more. I'd argue that the game has more depth in that each decision you make is absolutely crucial, whereas in Civ IV I found myself able to let a lot more go with much less staring at that screen while others wait for you to hit that next turn button.

    There's a lot of very negative reviews out there with scores of 0-5, and to you I say... Really? The programming, design and execution of the game is excellent. A lot of people here discuss Civ like it's some sort of sacred thing. It's a board game in virtual form people, they have to make changes if they want to progress. Stop acting as though the series holds any sort of loyalty towards you. I personally see video games as art, and like good art, the artist does what they think is best. If you have a better idea, get involved in the process yourself. If not, at LEAST give constructive criticism, not this "this game is a waste of money, total piece of **** It's not like the old one." Just makes you look like a douche, as this game was obviously meticulously crafted from the ground up by the developers. If you think Civ IV is the perfect game, then keep playing that. As for myself, I honestly cannot think of a better turn based strategy game out there. Total War: Shogun 2 was fun, but the limitation of 2 players per campaign has really limited myself from playing it as on my weekend off I like to LAN with 3-4 friends, bbq, and play some strategy games. I have always seen games like this as a highly social thing, like board games. This crushes any turn based strategy or board game in terms of replayability.

    I just don't understand why people refer to it being more of a casual game. Aren't all games casual? Cause I feel the term is being used very loosely. Cookin Mama and CoD is casual, and no CoD kiddie would even make it halfway through a game of Civ without throwing a bored tantrum from lack of headshots. Just because Civ allows more of a social experience is not a bad thing, as it IS just a board game video game essentially. We already have RPG's for that antisocial desire in us. I think between Fallout, Dragon Age, Dark Souls, Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Disciples, etc. I have had my fill of sitting in a room by myself. Being an IT guy, that is my job pretty much, so on weekends I like to get together with fellow nerds and game hard for those few days off. And this game is perfect for that when you don't feel like dealing with the clenched shoulder intensity of a SCII or LoL game.    … Expand
  24. toad_svk
    Jul 29, 2012
    3
    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city - stupid, dumb,    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city
    - stupid, dumb, irrational AI ever: I am at war with some Civ, we make peace, another Civ crushes them, I liberate them, they're on guard towards me (despite the liberation..) then 20 rounds later, when they spawn one pikeman, they decide its a good thing to declare war on me (with my numerous tanks and foreign legion, good going AI!)
    - advisors interface completely designed by indian staff (yes offense): like 10 pages saying the same thing about which city is best to develop military units (instead of putting it on one page...)
    - talking about the advisors: they're high, and I mean real high: I am at war with a more powerful CIV (at least I guess in term of number of units) and Im kicking their asses (like 13 victories on 15 battles -> resulting in destruction of enemy units) and still the military advisor tells me the war is going bad.
    - nasty scrolling bug when you click on next turn: if you go on some side of the screen, it will scroll forever until the end of opponent actions
    - automatic selection of unit horrible: like you manually select an unit at some critical place in the game (like a big fight), it will then go somewhere else completely (despite the fact you actually shown interest for THIS specific place), ok maybe there was a setting for that, I didnt look for it.
    - there is no automatic focus on enemy / ally movement sometimes so you might miss what is happening (not when it involves you - thanks god)

    If you want the rolls of management game, try Anno series, if you want the rolls of Turn based strategy / fighting game (well the fighting is more deep so it might not be the best choice for you), try Total War series...    … Expand
  25. TotalNyan
    Jul 22, 2012
    8
    Having never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was prettyHaving never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was pretty enjoyable and provides a lot of play time for your money. It must be said that the steamworks modding system is really good and some of the mods are useful and others change the game enough to keep it interesting.… Expand
  26. 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
  27. AbeSolum
    Jun 26, 2012
    10
    I've been an RTS fan since the 90's with C&C:red alert so of course for the last few years i've know about civilization. I've always known i should have played it but never did. On a whim i tried out a demo and i bought the game that night. This is the most dauntly complex game i may have ever played. Its the thrill and variation of Risk with all the complexities of raising a nation fromI've been an RTS fan since the 90's with C&C:red alert so of course for the last few years i've know about civilization. I've always known i should have played it but never did. On a whim i tried out a demo and i bought the game that night. This is the most dauntly complex game i may have ever played. Its the thrill and variation of Risk with all the complexities of raising a nation from scratch. This game is so fun and addicting on it's own that they didnt even need to do anything but give you one game type, "play game" haha. I havent been this hooked to a game since WOW like 5 years ago.… Expand
  28. 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
  29. Atr0s
    Jun 23, 2012
    3
    It's actually insulting to think of this game as the sequel of the much-more-awesome Civilization 4. Besides the combat system, which saw some neat improvement, everything else was dumbed down to the point your only management consist of choosing what's next on your cities' production queue. Extremely accessible for newcomers, an insult for old gamers. The User Interface looks good if youIt's actually insulting to think of this game as the sequel of the much-more-awesome Civilization 4. Besides the combat system, which saw some neat improvement, everything else was dumbed down to the point your only management consist of choosing what's next on your cities' production queue. Extremely accessible for newcomers, an insult for old gamers. The User Interface looks good if you say you're playing it on facebook though.… Expand
  30. dryerlaw
    Jun 22, 2012
    7
    Not too many new features from the previous games. The additional features are minor and mostly unnecessary (the hexagonal tiles end up unmeaningful). Most of the old features are simplified; maybe oversimplified. And the game takes so much memory; around 1GB-1.5GB; textures never load completely after a load.
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 »