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. 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.
  2. R1911
    Dec 7, 2010
    10
    Civilization V was probably my most anticipated game of 2010, and I have to say, after playing it since release, that it is a magnificent game. Graphically speaking, Civ5 is absolutely beautiful particularly if you can get to the higher end of its flexible graphical capabilities. The leader screen was a little bit lower than what I was expecting but they are still wonderful to look at andCivilization V was probably my most anticipated game of 2010, and I have to say, after playing it since release, that it is a magnificent game. Graphically speaking, Civ5 is absolutely beautiful particularly if you can get to the higher end of its flexible graphical capabilities. The leader screen was a little bit lower than what I was expecting but they are still wonderful to look at and I sometimes find myself taking just a little time to appreciate the environment. It should be noted, though, that this games Direct X 10 and Direct X 11 features have a few issues. You might have to update your OS and update the DX from the games files in the SteamApps, and after that launch it from the Steam Store to work, but I did manage to get it to work (though it was a little more annoying than it should have been). The game also can have an issue of loading the landscape after you are already in the game which is a little annoying when you first jump in, but it isn't a great issue. With regards to the sound, the sound effects are about as good as a game of this nature can have. Sure, it isn't absolutely fantastic by other genre standards, but for a strategy game it is top-notch. The voice acting is also well done and you can definitely hear at least traces of emotion unless you are talking to maybe Hiawatha who tends to be a little more calm and emotionless. The soundtrack on this game is also terrific, though, I would say Civ4 had a better one. Now, when you get into the actual gameplay, you will notice a few (or, maybe better to say a lot) of changes have been made to Civ4. There no longer are religions in this game nor are the civics (both of which are disappointing to lose). Civics are replaced with Social Policies, though, which do affect the game like civics, but the way the system works just isn't as enjoyable. There are city-states which can slightly affect the game (and plays a huge role in the diplomatic victory) and (when playing against the AI) can affect relations with other civs, but not to the magnitude religion sometimes would in Civ4. The diplomacy screen has also had some minor changes (ex. you can enter research agreements but can't trade technologies) and has taken a more psychological turn rather than the useful turn (ex. Pact of Cooperation and Pact of Secrecy don't do much to the overall game except maybe affect the way you look at a civ and the way they look at you). However, this game isn't a complete downgrade to Civ4. The accessibility of in-game options is made much easier with the new interface and that makes the game a little more enjoyable when working the smaller details of running your civ and the game options. The game also runs a little slower than Civ4 which, while this may annoy some players, it actually seems to help you immerse yourself more in and enjoy the experience of working your civ. The combat, also, has been seriously upgraded. While the developers might have gone a little extreme in removing stacks (a few discussions among the community would have preferred it if they allowed three to five stack caps), it still is enjoyable and tactical not to mention that now ranged units are actually, well, ranged units. They can fire over numerous tiles (generally two). The game also encourages taking tactical advantages on the terrain and organizing attacks (particularly against cities) much more than the previous Civ games. Now, I will say that the AI of this game is really poor right now (currently Firaxis is working on improving it). They don't really settle new continents (sometimes they do, but generally not) and they also aren't very good at stopping you from securing a diplomatic victory on any difficulty level. This is probably the greatest problem with the game's actual gameplay. Now, one thing I must mention before I close is that the modding right now in this game is having a lot of bugs with a lot (if not most) mods not working at all. Not many people know if this is a problem with the mod itself or with the game, but most have confirmed it is not a problem with the person downloading it. Just a warning in case you are getting this strictly for modding (though it will probably be fixed). In the end, I would probably give Civ5 anywhere between a 9.5-9.7. It isn't perfect, but it definitely isn't worth a bad review in my opinion. If you are a long-time Civ fan, then I would definitely advise this. If you are new, then I'd try out the demo (though you might want the full game to know more specifics of how to play). If you have any doubts (and considering some might be disappointed with this game after Civ3 and Civ4) then I would definitely download the demo on Steam and at least give it a try.… Expand
  3. Psyco_
    Dec 3, 2010
    8
    This game is an amazing new addition to the Civ series. The 'feel' of the game is nothing new to experienced Civ player. But do not let this discourage you if you are not familiar with the series though! The game has a variety of difficulty settings, customizable rules and terms of victory to the game which makes it a fun game for the casual and more experienced player. You can choose manyThis game is an amazing new addition to the Civ series. The 'feel' of the game is nothing new to experienced Civ player. But do not let this discourage you if you are not familiar with the series though! The game has a variety of difficulty settings, customizable rules and terms of victory to the game which makes it a fun game for the casual and more experienced player. You can choose many different civilizations with their own specializations and unique units, which can be very enjoyable to explore.The culture trees are a fun way to make long term (but not absolutely decisive) strategic decisions for your empire. The tech tree is realistic and seems to be very accurate to real world dating of similar inventions. You can have hours of game play just experimenting with all these possibilities.
    A huge upside is that the developers listen to the players carefully and consider each proposition. The patches are huge and so far added quite a few extra options to enhance game play. One major flaw however, is that, in my opinion, they made a poor choice by (already) releasing several DLC packs this soon after release of the game which could already be added to the game in the first place. (for example the map packs called 'Cradle of Civilization' released early December 2010). However, it is to be expected these days. Be reassured: the packs do not enhance or alter the game play. So, if you do not want them you won't miss them. All in all it is, and will be, one of the better turn based strategy games with a wide variate of choices and options to win the game.    … Expand
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Xyz
    Nov 19, 2010
    7
    What to say about this one? The first thing that comes to mind is that it still is Civilization. BUT it's Civilization dumbed down for masses. If you want features that made this series great, go back to Civ4. Don't get me wrong, this is a good game, the thing is, its worse than its predecessors. It has got better graphics, and some improved features (I for one enjoyed the new combatWhat to say about this one? The first thing that comes to mind is that it still is Civilization. BUT it's Civilization dumbed down for masses. If you want features that made this series great, go back to Civ4. Don't get me wrong, this is a good game, the thing is, its worse than its predecessors. It has got better graphics, and some improved features (I for one enjoyed the new combat system), but if you're a Civ fan like me, this one looks like a step back... To conclude: if you've never played a Civ game, this one is the perfect entry point, but when you master it and want more complexity go back to previous games, you wont be disappointed… Expand
  7. 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
  8. Incogntiodies
    Nov 6, 2010
    6
    A good but simply incomplete release. This is an overhauled version of civ, there isn't much remaining of the previous game's finely tuned mechaics. So as you might expect there are some aspects that work well, and some that make you scatch your head. Overall the game makes a refreshing change from its predecessor, and still retains that addictive civ feeling. Why 6/10 then? Simply put,A good but simply incomplete release. This is an overhauled version of civ, there isn't much remaining of the previous game's finely tuned mechaics. So as you might expect there are some aspects that work well, and some that make you scatch your head. Overall the game makes a refreshing change from its predecessor, and still retains that addictive civ feeling. Why 6/10 then? Simply put, the AI is atrocious. It has absolutely no idea how to fight a war, and engaging in diplomacy is both confusing and frustrating. The only way to play a decent game against the AI is to give it ridiculously large handicaps on the highest difficulty settings, which just feels stupid (and it's still not that hard). Multiplayer is OK. Barebones, but it works. Frankly if you haven't bought civ 5 yet and are thinking about it, I would wait 6 or 12 months for the game to be fully patched up before considering it again.… Expand
  9. mscience
    Nov 5, 2010
    0
    It appears, from the many threads that have been started in the 2K Games forums, that Civilization V has many issues related to the latter part of the game, when one's empire stretches through many tens of cities as well as the opponents'. Time between turns starts to increase to over a minute after a few hundred turns, and later still, the game starts freezing or otherwise crashing. ThisIt appears, from the many threads that have been started in the 2K Games forums, that Civilization V has many issues related to the latter part of the game, when one's empire stretches through many tens of cities as well as the opponents'. Time between turns starts to increase to over a minute after a few hundred turns, and later still, the game starts freezing or otherwise crashing. This seems to happen irrespective of the computer's hardware specifications, as even very capable gaming setups have problems with Civilization V after a certain number of turns. This is indeed a very tricky situation, as I have discovered myself: I tried the demo version of the game and liked it, but later discovered that the game is prone to crashes. The demo version is restricted to only 100 turns, during which most users would not experience crashes (though a few still do). I am pretty sure that most critics who reviewed Civilization V, did so only based on playing the demo version, otherwise their scores wouldn't be as high as they are, and would not be such a wide gap between their score and that of the playing community.… Expand
  10. 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
  11. Industrial
    Nov 4, 2010
    8
    An excellent game. I haven't played civilization since CIV2, and it really is quite fun. It was easy to get into the game and start playing, etc. I haven't had any performance issues, crashes, etc. It got a little boring around 1300 AD for me, but quickly got interesting again.
  12. arkangel
    Nov 4, 2010
    2
    Oh dear. I've been a Civ addict for many years and I was really looking forward to this one. What a disappointment! I want to like it; I've tried to like it - but I've played for many hours and I still hate it. I play the dx10/11 version with maxed-out graphics and I still don't agree that it looks better than Civ4 - it simply looks like those trading/settling games that I find ratherOh dear. I've been a Civ addict for many years and I was really looking forward to this one. What a disappointment! I want to like it; I've tried to like it - but I've played for many hours and I still hate it. I play the dx10/11 version with maxed-out graphics and I still don't agree that it looks better than Civ4 - it simply looks like those trading/settling games that I find rather tedious. In my (very humble) opinion, strategy games should be about strategy - tactics, planning, logic, and common sense. (You don't improve chess by painting the board pretty colours!) Why can't more workers be used to build a road more quickly? How can I use a ship before I've built one? And (unless I'm missing something here), why can't I know what workers are doing or how long they'll take without having to click on them all? And why did I only get a DVD in the box? (Okay, that one's easy - they've saved money on the manual and chart.) Oh well, it's back to BTS...… Expand
  13. Seraphael
    Nov 1, 2010
    6
    Civilization V has promise, but is ultimately a very flawed game riddled with bugs and poor or even unfinished implementations. Coupled with sluggish performance on decent computers, my advice would be to stay clear of the game until it can be patched to a decent level. Check back in in 6 months or more.

    5.0 out of 10.0.
  14. GreenJelly
    Oct 28, 2010
    0
    I would love to give this game a higher score. The game has the heart to become top notch. I do not share in the negative opinions about the mechanics, I kinda see these reviews as being absolutely absurd, or people wanting CIV IV... ITS A NEW GAME!
    The reason I have to give this a 0... and I give it a 0 as being a completely worthless game, is because even AFTER the latest patch, the    I would love to give this game a higher score. The game has the heart to become top notch. I do not share in the negative opinions about the mechanics, I kinda see these reviews as being absolutely absurd, or people wanting CIV IV... ITS A NEW GAME!
    The reason I have to give this a 0... and I give it a 0 as being a completely worthless game, is because even AFTER the latest patch, the game crashes ever other turn in late stages. If I cant FINISH the game because of BUGS, I cant give it any credit. I hope to see more patches to come out, and would love to see the game become steady. At that time, I will change my vote, and probably highly recommend it. Now, it is a spot on my hard drive that I haven't bothered to delete.    … Expand
  15. CarinWinters
    Oct 26, 2010
    9
    As a gamer whose played a few Civ games off and on, this iteration of Civ had me hooked from day one. Yes, there are some bugs, and some graphic issues but if you can look beyond that, you have a great game. Combat has been revised to be more strategic, no more stacks of death, you'll form lines, use range attacks and consider how you move your army. City-States add a new layer to theAs a gamer whose played a few Civ games off and on, this iteration of Civ had me hooked from day one. Yes, there are some bugs, and some graphic issues but if you can look beyond that, you have a great game. Combat has been revised to be more strategic, no more stacks of death, you'll form lines, use range attacks and consider how you move your army. City-States add a new layer to the game, city management is made much easier through a better clearer interface and strategic resources become a catalyst towards waging war, rapid expansion, or trade. This is probably the most accessible Civ game to date but still retains the core of what makes Civ fun. Enjoy!… Expand
  16. stuntaneous
    Oct 24, 2010
    0
    It got the mainstream treatment. Easy to spot when Meier's there saying it's been "streamlined" ahead of release. One of a few words to fear. This is a good game but nothing more. Certainly not worthy of the Civ franchise name and a huge shame the series has come to an abrupt and unwelcome end. I'm sticking to Civ 4.
  17. Denta-80
    Oct 23, 2010
    9
    I already played on the Amiga Civ1 and can regard thus as a veteran. CIV became from everyone part appeared in my opinion worse. The play remained always equivalent only ever more unimportant things implentiert which I does not need and which obscure the play to have made (politics with different parties are not sowas of unnecessarily straight in the today's time where 90% of the people inI already played on the Amiga Civ1 and can regard thus as a veteran. CIV became from everyone part appeared in my opinion worse. The play remained always equivalent only ever more unimportant things implentiert which I does not need and which obscure the play to have made (politics with different parties are not sowas of unnecessarily straight in the today's time where 90% of the people in politics to interestâ… Expand
  18. Caobei
    Oct 20, 2010
    1
    Beautiful graphics and some nice changes, but this game took a turn for the worse and seemed to feed off the PS3 version more than the PC games. I highly anticipated this game and feel quite let down having been a player of Civ I on up, the lack of depth in diplomacy,no espionage, homogenized leaders and countries. I do not recommend this game if you're a big fan of the PC games. If youBeautiful graphics and some nice changes, but this game took a turn for the worse and seemed to feed off the PS3 version more than the PC games. I highly anticipated this game and feel quite let down having been a player of Civ I on up, the lack of depth in diplomacy,no espionage, homogenized leaders and countries. I do not recommend this game if you're a big fan of the PC games. If you enjoyed the style of PS3 version this is an upgrade and quite enjoyable at that level.… Expand
  19. moonkies
    Oct 20, 2010
    6
    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

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

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

    This game is mediocre and didn't live up with the hype. I hope they will do better on the next expansion.    … Expand
  20. gizm0steve
    Oct 20, 2010
    8
    The biggest problem with this game is that it's too true to a near-perfect form. It is a sequel like Sims 3 is to Sims 2. If I had not already burnt out on Alpha Centauri and Civilization IV, I would be just as hooked to the incredible gameplay. Updated graphics, better AI, and tweaked gameplay (arguably for the better). It's more robust while being more accessible. There are some majorThe biggest problem with this game is that it's too true to a near-perfect form. It is a sequel like Sims 3 is to Sims 2. If I had not already burnt out on Alpha Centauri and Civilization IV, I would be just as hooked to the incredible gameplay. Updated graphics, better AI, and tweaked gameplay (arguably for the better). It's more robust while being more accessible. There are some major flaws however with the diplomacy system. Maybe it's just not intuitive - or simply useless. For example, what does a Pact of Cooperation and Secrecy mean? No explanation in-game as far as I can see. A diplomatic win condition really has more to do with protecting city-states while dumping exorbitant loads of cash on them rather than maintaining peaceful relations with other players. Too many leader-characters have war-mongering bonuses. Overall the balance of the game could be more polished in these regards. However, it's still very recommendable to strategy or simulation gamers of all persuasions, especially if they have not yet been touched by Meier's greatness.… Expand
  21. profusious
    Oct 20, 2010
    6
    I'm a huge fan of the series, but this was just a let down. They took some interesting mechanics and tried to push the genre forward, but ended up introducing a lot of buggy gameplay -- barely working multiplayer, poor matchmaking and lobby efforts, bugs all over the place, and an unbalanced game. This one should have been left in the oven another 6 months to bake. Too early, and leavesI'm a huge fan of the series, but this was just a let down. They took some interesting mechanics and tried to push the genre forward, but ended up introducing a lot of buggy gameplay -- barely working multiplayer, poor matchmaking and lobby efforts, bugs all over the place, and an unbalanced game. This one should have been left in the oven another 6 months to bake. Too early, and leaves me with a doughy taste in my mouth.… Expand
  22. 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
  23. Ashton2571
    Oct 19, 2010
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Civilization V was unfortunately dumbed down to the point which all the advanced features were gone, features such as espionage. Another disappointing feature was the victory screen, where was the video? where was the spaceship flying to alpha centuri? the victory screens were unfortunatly simple and boring. Not to mention the numerous bugs (such as the infinate iron and horse bug); Besides that, Civilization 5 had much more interesting game combat and the introduction of social policies was also exciting. 6/10… Expand
  24. 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
  25. Damon
    Oct 17, 2010
    9
    I played Civ 1 through 3 but unfortunately missed 4 due to World of Warcraft. I'm glad I waited for Civ 5, what an upgrade on every level. Amazing graphics, combat is vastly superior, the interface is much improved and easier to use. I also haven't experienced a SINGLE glitch, crash or problem - its been SOLID. If you could name your multiplayer saves and if they had included end gameI played Civ 1 through 3 but unfortunately missed 4 due to World of Warcraft. I'm glad I waited for Civ 5, what an upgrade on every level. Amazing graphics, combat is vastly superior, the interface is much improved and easier to use. I also haven't experienced a SINGLE glitch, crash or problem - its been SOLID. If you could name your multiplayer saves and if they had included end game videos, I'd give it a 10 for sure. Great job Sid, glad you're still at the top of your game.… Expand
  26. goodsnpr
    Oct 14, 2010
    8
    Very solid game that did alot of what it promised, yet compared to some aspects of CIV 3 & 4, its lacking some content. I've not played multiplayer, but singleplayer is a wonderful game that when played on the right difficulty, gives you enough of a challange without having to worry about stacks of doom rolling over your cities. Example: Held a single tile bridge chokepoint with nothingVery solid game that did alot of what it promised, yet compared to some aspects of CIV 3 & 4, its lacking some content. I've not played multiplayer, but singleplayer is a wonderful game that when played on the right difficulty, gives you enough of a challange without having to worry about stacks of doom rolling over your cities. Example: Held a single tile bridge chokepoint with nothing but a spearman and archer against a horde of enemies. Some of the downfalls is inbalance between civilization attributes and civil policies seem a bit bulky. Also noticed that you can fall into debt fast, and not have any way out short of war, and thats without building up a large army or alot of buildings.… Expand
  27. MrPozor
    Oct 14, 2010
    8
    Civ5 is great. The developers started from scratch, trying new things and throwing old ballast over board. Some people might not like the game because it is very different from Civ4. But the additions really make for a much better gaming experience (Hexagonal tiles, only 1 unit per tile etc.). The game is also very stable on my computer and looks stunning.
    On the downside, there are still    Civ5 is great. The developers started from scratch, trying new things and throwing old ballast over board. Some people might not like the game because it is very different from Civ4. But the additions really make for a much better gaming experience (Hexagonal tiles, only 1 unit per tile etc.). The game is also very stable on my computer and looks stunning.
    On the downside, there are still some bugs, the AI is dumb as ever and the game could benefit from more layers of complexity. The former will probably be fixed by patches, the latter by expansions as has been the case with previous installments.    … Expand
  28. Breat
    Oct 13, 2010
    8
    à première vue très simplifier comparé aux anciens opus, mais il n'en est rien. le point négatif principal étant le manque de civilisations, ce qui je pense sera corriger via divers DLC
  29. 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
  30. TomSEA
    Oct 13, 2010
    7
    Pros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it aPros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it a better score. But there are times when I feel like I'm in a grind. Like trying to level up in a MMORPG. Can't put my finger on it specifically, but to "tidy up" the game so that strategic moves seem more compelling and the game doesn't tend to tread water in places.

    Nevertheless, if you're a RTS fan, you'll definitely want this one. No doubt there will be patches and other content made available and hopefully some of the concerns people have voiced here will be resolved.    … Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

4
#4 Best PC Game of 2010
5
#5 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
3
#3 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
90

Universal acclaim - based on 70 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 70
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 70
  3. Negative: 0 out of 70
  1. Thunderbolt
    Apr 3, 2011
    90
    Despite my gripe with the animations in multiplayer, Civilization V is the perfect entry for the series' debut in the current generation of gaming.
    Read full review
  2. games(TM)
    Jan 20, 2011
    80
    We're just a little bit disappointed that this Civ evolution isn't as polished as we'd expected. [Issue#102, p.108]
  3. Eurogamer Spain
    Jan 15, 2011
    80
    An old franchise that knows who to evolve to adapt to modern times. Its latest new ideas might not be perfect, but serve the purpose of making the game even more interesting.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »