- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
84There are plenty of changes that make the game different enough that it's a must have for any Civ fan(atic).
-
79Yes, to the casual user it feels little different – and not that much faster – to the original game; but frankly, no one can criticise Firaxis for giving Civ junkies the multiplayer hit they’ve been demanding for the last year.
-
75Great in theory, and with each patch will become better, stronger, and faster. It’s a bargain at twenty bucks, if you ask me. The programmers just need a little longer to iron out those online kinks.
-
70This expansion adds a lot more clutter, but at least it's interesting clutter. Sadly it doesn't fix some of the aspects of the game still arguably broken.
-
68This game was just meant to be single-player. [Feb 2003, p.75]
-
Delivers just about everything except what it's supposed to: a satisfying multiplayer experience. [Feb 2003, p.64]
-
54A borderline disaster. I say "borderline" because there are a few things which save the expansion from being a total flop, but they are few and far between.
-
50Unfortunately, the multiplayer is also an unmitigated disaster.
-
45Not only vastly overpriced, it is unnecessary as a boxed title at all. A patch download from the official site would be more than sufficient to offer the majority of improvements Play the World offers.
-
40A broken expansion pack for now, but even if everything worked it would still be a meager addition to such a large game.
-
The worst implementation of multiplayer gaming in recent memory... An utter debacle. [Feb 2003, p.91]
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 5 out of 10
-
Mixed: 0 out of 10
-
Negative: 5 out of 10
-
ChrisD.7Interesting.
-
Ckdhahdfadsfads10
-
Lumpy9If you like turn base games... this is the best one... You have to plain a use your brain, if you want to rule the world!!!!