• Publisher: 2K Games
  • Release Date: Oct 25, 2005
User Score
8.0 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 549 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 71 out of 549

Review this game

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MorganC.
    Mar 30, 2006
    10
    This is, quite literally, the best game I've ever played. Will keep you hooked for hours on end.
  2. JimBo
    Jan 12, 2010
    4
    Yup, great graphics and cool new stuff. But I can't care about all this anymore after some hours of gameplay of Civ4, while I could spend days playing 3. Can't get hooked by all these new features because the game loses its power to immerse the player. Why? Diplomacy useless through centuries. No future: Once the map is covered into borders, change stops happening. You need long and boring wars to conquer territories that low culture won't allow to use before eons... So when taking a first "row" of cities, you need to destroy the next row in order to make your first ones' grow. The system seeks to prevent you from doing daring conquests. Then the only best option is tech race, while you resist a few defensive wars, and while your workers just stand for centuries on a territory all covered by roads and improvements (which also happened in Civ3, but late), waiting for a new tech that'll let them improve a tile or two. To sum up: fine innovations worth the try, not addictive at all once the learning curve has been climbed. Still, I'll be the first to buy Civ5... Expand
  3. Oct 2, 2010
    10
    If you do not want to lose hours of your day without noticing... DO NOT get this game, but if you don't mind playing marathon sessions and being totally obsessed with conquering the world then this is the right game for you!
  4. LeszekL.
    Oct 31, 2007
    6
    For the style of gameplay I enjoyed experiencing in previous civ games, I found this game made it difficult to impossible. I respect there efforts to project the series in a new direction, however, I'd rather spend my time with games that expand on the experience I enjoy, rather then engage in something new.
  5. GreatGamer
    Nov 26, 2009
    10
    Best Civ game ever made. Great technology tree, culture, military, superb graphic, music and the best gameplay in strategic games. There are "only" 18 nations (civilizations) but additional are added in the next addons ;P My score is 10-/10, but there are no "-" scores availabele, so i score maxumim ;)
  6. Jun 4, 2011
    9
    Great game. Other than some issues with the ATI card I had at the time, I've thoroughly enjoyed this game. Definitely the high water mark of the series.
  7. BalazsC.
    Jul 7, 2008
    10
    Civ 1 was a revolutionary game. Civ 2 was a worthy successor. Civ 3 was well.. a step into a new direction. This game however. This game gives you the greatness of civ 1, the streamlined feeling you had in civ 2 and if that wouldn't be enough, civ 4 manages to do the impossible and takes the game even further. The only real negative i could mention in regards of this game is the fact, that it will completely take over your life. Other than that, its 10/10 +. One of the titles that truly deserve the maximum score. Expand
  8. HarmLokesz
    Nov 7, 2005
    10
    This is a perfect game. Didn't play Civ 2+3 because I started with Call to Power and that wasn't the best version of Civ. Realy love Civ 4 though. It is easy to get started and you can learn more strategic depths while playing. The choice of music is also very good. I like the music before 1700. I also played it on my P4 1700 laptop with an ATI firegl graphics card. did not have any performance issues. Thats very nice. Found a few technical issues with the graphics but I must admit I didn't install the latest drivers. Don't expect too much from the graphics. It is just there to present the gameplay. And the gameplay is superb. Expand
  9. Willie
    Dec 1, 2005
    4
    Looks great, but the same tired strategy still works from Civ 1-3. Pick an enemy. Beat up on him until he cries uncle. Let him surrender. Send the huge army against someone else to beat up on. Repeat as needed. Religion adds nothing. Resource concept needs to be fixed. All those resources and still, if your not LUCKY enough to have Iron or Horses or (20 game hours later) no Uranium, you get to sit and watch you opponent beat up on you, with no hope of matching him. It would be nice if mining Gold was worth more then something like Clams. Great People? Great disappointment. Bottom line - Great game if you don't know Civs 1-3. But if you know them, then to me this is a flop. Expand
  10. JasonL.
    Jan 7, 2006
    9
    This game is so much better than Civ III. They have left out all the tedious micro-management and enhanced the areas which make it more fun. Obviously they have listened to players gripes and recommendations and produced a work of art. Fantastic.
  11. BillC.
    Feb 19, 2006
    10
    This isn't Quake or Half-Life or Far Cry. It is a strategy game. If you can't handle strategy then don't buy this game. However, if you enjoy thinking and planning then you can't go wrong with Civ 4. Like others here Civ 3 was a let down in my eyes. However, Civ 4 storms back and is just awesome. Have completed the game three times now - each with a different strategry. There is tons of flexibility for just about any type of player. Trust me - you'll get your $50 back in gameplay. Hours and hours of fun! Expand
  12. Warmonger
    Feb 23, 2006
    3
    Boy is this game overrated!! I don't understand why it got such a high rating, it's really not that good!! don't get me wrong, I liked the older versions and had fun playing them but the reason I bought the special edition is because I thought it would be, well.... "special" there is nothing really special about this game!! other than the fact that it is the same old rehash of the older versions. I was really expecting a big change but was sadly disappointed to see that, apart from the graphics, there was really none. It's the same old dull routine over and over again!! Oh wel,l guess as long as it makes money why bother to change it right? wrong!! these people seriously need to change the formula a little... because this game is really getting stale and tiresome..... I think it's time to do something different! Expand
  13. RobertN.
    Mar 29, 2006
    10
    The ultimate in strategy. If you
  14. AJL
    Oct 16, 2009
    3
    Civ IV is extremely disappointing!! The huge size of the military units, as well as the pointless upgrades make them unwieldy and extremely difficult to use. They don't have defense/attack values which totally destroys the fun and strategy involved in military campaigns. There is too much going on in this game, nothing is simple, everything is a chore and its simply a waste of time.
  15. TobyM
    Dec 30, 2009
    9
    Whatever people say about the game being bad is likely because in all honesty it's not just insanely tough, it's also hard to get into. But i give this game a 9 because once you do get into it, it is one of the best strategy games i play to date, the indepth of the culture aspect of the game leads to a whole new way of getting victory, why kill your annoyingly AI oppents when they can kill your tank with archers (which i've tested and isn't true) when you can expand your cultrual borders into theirs and then before they know it! The city is yours! Expand
  16. JohnN
    May 31, 2009
    3
    Deeply disappointing. Above all, the geography stinks. What I mean by this is that in far, far too many cases one's civilization is bereft of any natural frontiers - obviously designed deliberately that way so that you HAVE to build massive armies. Unrealistic and tedious. A massive step backwards from Civ 3.
  17. JulioR.
    Nov 1, 2005
    4
    What a sad, sad day. I sat awake at night until the game arived here last FRI. J.J. said it, a mess is right. The addictive quality of the game is gone, not endearing or fun. I seriously doubt I'll still be playing this one next week. Note to Sid... you're getting old man.
  18. Zac
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    A great improvement on the other Civ games, and that's saying a lot. The changes from Civ3 make the gameplay smoother and more emersive.
  19. PaulT.
    Nov 4, 2005
    10
    Very addictive game. If you like Civ you will like this. Note to Julio: 'You're a blank'.
  20. MakaH.
    Nov 9, 2005
    10
    Civ 4 da best!!!!
  21. Nic
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    I never liked Civilization games before, but this one pulled me in. The graphics are superb and it's easier than ever for newbies. It's deeper and overall more satisfying.
  22. MartyS.
    Feb 11, 2006
    1
    I give it a one, only because it might be a game small percentage of people could like. I find dull dull dull. pathetic. The grafics and the turn base stinks the zoom is worse and the movies are a waste of time. Warriors, fighting with spears, taller than sky scappers, come on! This game puts me to sleep. Just can't for the life of me see why it is rated so High. And as for any game scorring a 10 that should be impossible. For a game to score 10 every person sould want to play it and forgo every thing else. Wake you game reviewers and get a ratting system that means something. Expand
  23. Phil
    Mar 25, 2006
    0
    Ruined by technical problems. Customer support useless and slow. I'm never buying anything by these people again.
  24. AlexW.
    Sep 3, 2006
    6
    Its hard to justify the pricetag for a game like Civ IV. In total it adds a few minor feature changes from Civ III, some worse and some bette. The engine is beautiful but excessive for the style of gameplay and problems running it are commmon even on game meeting the specs. Finally the game has serious holes related to balance, as well as strategic options. Any strategy hound would be better served by Civ III or Alpha Centari both of which while recieving less unanimous critical praise were far more solid games. Expand
  25. MuffinBear
    Oct 4, 2007
    3
    Civilization 3 complete was better....Civilization 4 is horrible, the graphics are 3d but the game is more confusing, frustrating, glitchy.....I can't even uninstall the fuking thing from my computer because of some glitch...i hate this game with a passion, I smash the CDs into tiny little pieces and then set them on fire then sweet the ashes into a...container and weigh the container down and make it sink to the deepest darkest part of the ocean. Expand
  26. FrankH.
    Aug 18, 2007
    0
    This is much over rated game. It looks fun, it have "everything in it" but...it cheats so badly and it is adjusted so hard (AI is not so intelligent, but barbarians are overpowered and there is WAY too many of them and if you take them off, game becomes boring). Very very very unbalanced game.
  27. RichardS.
    Sep 22, 2007
    0
    I have played CIV in most of its itterations for 16 years, and CIV IV is the worst game I've ever played. At the next to the easiest level, you have to contend with a never-ending supply of barbarians who can't be beat. If you build more than 6 or 7cities, the game crashes your economy. After playing for weeks, I still can't score higher than next to last. Now, I can't even delete it from my computer because it has some kind of error. The beauty -- I spent $100 to upgrade my computer so I could play this worthless piece of crap. Expand
  28. BilgeG.
    Jan 14, 2008
    3
    First time I have tried an 'epic strategy game' in some years, and what can I say? its just not a sufficiently interesting strategic challenge for the time invested. My old complaints from (probably) Civ2 remain: the AI is not at all interesting, surprising, or even rational, and must cheat to be 'challenging'. The game soon bogs down in micromanagement, unless maybe you want to use the in-game helpers, which are as bad as the opposing AI... and then the graphics... they are worthless and distracting in such a strategy game. I had to turn on this extra layer of silly balloons to 'clarify' what is supposed to be displayed in the graphics, and still, something as significant as a huge hostile army at the border is not at all clear... so you are left to make your strategic decisions with incomplete information. and although it proports to be not solely a wargame, wars seem unavoidable, and are the worst and most tedious micromanagement of all. there are a lot of interesting aspects to this... but it certainly cannot be seen as any kind of meaningful 'historical simulation', so all this 'stuff' is mainly clutter, and not really that interesting strategically. maybe the makers should just play 'go' for a few years, and get back to the basics. Expand
  29. JacobT.
    Jan 7, 2008
    2
    The gameplay is fully identical with rise of nations and sizes are wery weird
  30. Dave
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    I have played CIV I, II and III, this one sucks. 3D graphics detract from the game and are certainly not relevant to a CIV game. User Interface is clumsy. Too many sacrifices made in attempt to improve performance - probably a result of wasting too much computer time on silly graphics. It's a shame but this one is BAD.
Metascore

Universal acclaim - based on 50 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 50 out of 50
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 50
  3. Negative: 0 out of 50
  1. 94
    While the game hasn't lost any depth or detail, every aspect of the design has been streamlined to make it easier for new players to jump in and less monotonous for veterans. Die-hard fans will definitely find that the game offers up so much more variety this time around.
  2. Firaxis shows an impressively consistent grasp of what to abstract and what to detail, and a remarkable talent for presenting large-scale strategic challenges in a format that's easy to digest.
  3. 90
    From the mellow sounds of Leonard Nimoy's narration to the polished world view that allows you to smoothly scroll from satellite view to up-close and personal, this is the consummate update of a classic.