User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1788 Ratings

User score distribution:

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
  1. Sep 26, 2010
    I had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. Once in-game, excitement at the new graphics and combat system are tempered by all the things that are missing. As others have posted, the missing details in the diplomacy screens are a huge problem that renders diplomacy almost useless. City States are even thinner in detail, and that is a feature that GalCiv 2 did way better. City management is a lot easier and the whole turn cycling interface improved is nicer, but the tech tree is also a dissapointment. And the whole anti-expansion philosophy is just un-fun.

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

    Finally, while I presume that the game will be patched quickly, it is crash-prone and has poor performance. The protracted time between turns is just unacceptable by even the middle of a Marathon game.
  2. Sep 25, 2010
    Being a long time fan of the Civilization franchise and having played Civ4 so much that I wore out 2 copies of the game, I have to say that Civ5 was a true disappointment. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, not even with the hex tile switch, but I did expect to get what I had gotten out of the others. I bought Civ5 because I liked how the series didn't change much, just got prettier. Overall, my biggest pet peeve is that the over-simplicity of this newest version has made the game less of a challenge and more of a tedious waste of time. I liked Civ4 because micromanagement seemed to really have an effect in the grand scheme. However, doing so in Civ5 feels like playing a pretty spread-sheet. First the bad:
    -The adjustment of the game length makes it feel like Civ3, which I like, but combining that with the extended length of turns makes for an over drawn out experience.
    -Difficulty is not adjusted by leader craftiness, but by the number of units that they bring to the fight.
    -The introduction of city-states was nice, but their nagging gets old really quick.
    -Not allowing unit stacking promotes strategy, but makes for increasingly frustrating front-lines.-
    In the 30 hours that I've played, I have found that there doesn't seem to be any kind of situation other than war to win. The readjustment of victory conditions makes domination more accessible, but the others become easily forgotten when trying to keep enough units around for defense (I've always been a cultural/space race victory kind of guy).
    -Boring, tedious, and exasperating war. I'm not kidding, even if a rival has basically no military, it will still take 10 turns to conquer a city.

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

    Maybe it's just my play style, but Civ5 doesn't pull me in like previous iterations. More often then not, I find myself wishing that I hadn't bothered with the game that enjoying it. If you are looking for the fun challenge found in previous versions of Civ, I suggest that you go back and play those as this one just doesn't cut it.
  3. Sep 26, 2010
    I'm a long time Civ fan, I've been playing back since the days of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, but this game just sucks. In a nutshell, the UI is non-functional, the AI is broken, the diplomatic system doesn't work, and the game is buggy as hell. It feels rushed, looks rushed, and will play like its rushed when it either crashes or grinds to a halt an hour or so in due to a memory leak.

    to the new combat system that everyone seemed to go so crazy about- its just Civ 4s combat system with one unit per tile. I will say that its actually a nice improvement, because wars are much more about strategic position and tactical maneuvers. However, its also applied to non-combat units and has a tendency to break workers that you have set to any level of automation. And, as nice as it is it just can't fix the fact that everything else in the game is so bad.

    On a final note, I know that a lot of hardcore Civ fans don't exactly have the best computers. Well, you might want to rethink this game. If you don't meet the rather high recommended requirements you will not be able to play on a map larger than standard- and even then the game will run like crap. I'm just below the recommended reqs, and with all my settings on minimum the game starts to chug on mid-late game standard maps. I have to say, for the performance the game doesn't even look that good so be warned.
  4. Apr 28, 2011
    I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY. Okay here are two different reviews: 1) YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED A CIV GAME BEFORE Game is pretty cool, a lot to do and discover in the world of civilization. Graphics are somewhat up to date and it's a fun learning experience. Not the best strategy game you've ever played most likely, but a solid outing nonetheless. GRADE: B- 2) YOU HAVE PLAYED OTHER CIVS AND ARE POSSIBLY A CIV FANATIC LIKE MYSELF If you've played any other Civilization game to date, you will almost instantly notice that the game has been dumbed down SOOOO much it possibly brings tears to your eyes.
    - You can no longer manage your economy, taxes, luxuries, culture, religion, research, espionage, or just about anything else. The only things you can manage are your cities and units. - Diplomacy has been dumbed down as well. You can no longer trade techs or maps, and there is very little reason to conduct diplomacy besides trading luxury resources to keep your empire happiness. - MANIFEST DESTINY? THINK AGAIN. Oh how unhappy the happiness in this game will make you. Happiness is not city based anymore, rather it is now on a universal +/- scale for your ENTIRE EMPIRE. On any difficulty above Prince (I usually play on Emperor/Immortal) your happiness cap will SEVERELY LIMIT your ability to expand around the world. You will most likely be stuck to a handful of cities for a long time and you will have to carefully and painfully slowly expand so that your precious happiness doesn't drop. THE RESULT? Somewhere around 40-60% of the world map will be unsettled depending on your map type. ON IMMORTAL DIFFICULTY, EVEN THE AI WHO IS CHEATING THROUGH HIS NOSE STRUGGLES TO EXPAND ACROSS THE MAP. - WANT TO MAKE A BUSTLING DEMOCRACY THEN SWITCH TO FASCISM LATER IN THE INDUSTRIAL AGE? I THINK NOT BISMARCK. Once you pick your Civics you're stuck with them until the end of time... literally. And it's not like civics are easy to get, late game with large empires it takes 100s of turns to get enough culture. - Single Unit tiles is good and bad depending on your perspective. Ultimately though, it makes it very difficult to position your 8 units every single time you want to move across the map and makes invading other empires/cities more of a chore than fun. - A LOT OF FUN.... for until you're in the middle ages. Then the game drags and drags and dragssssssssssss like no tomorrow. WITH SO MUCH OF THE MICROMANAGEMENT STRIPPED FROM THE GAME, there is almost nothing to do besides choose what buildings to make in your cities. If you're not constantly declaring war on your neighbors then expect to spend most of your turns STARING AT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN HOPING SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENS. USUALLY DOESN'T UNLESS YOUR HOUSE CATCHES FIRE. - WANT A CULTURE VICTORY? TOO BAD GANDHI, THAT 4TH CITY IS GONNA COST YA... the game. Different victory types in Civilization have almost always been choose what you want to do early/mid way through the game and stick with it. But with this civilization, you damn better well have a strategy set if you want to win. This makes the game oh so much more boring that it was before. - Despite it being the year 2011 now, the AI of Civilization is still almost as woefully bad as it was in CIVILIZATION I ON DOS. The AI is AMAZINGLY STUPID, and all ramping up the difficulty does is MAKE THEM CHEAT LIKE NO TOMORROW. AIs will outresearch you, make far larger armies in less time, build wonders in half the time you do, and YOU WILL STILL ALMOST ALWAYS STOMP THEM. A travesty for modern gaming. Don't even get me started about diplomacy, the majority of the AI leaders are schizophrenic on their best days when taking their medication. GRADE: D- I'm sorry but this ISN'T CIVLIZATION. Empire Total War has far more depth than this current outing and that REALLY PAINS ME TO SAY THIS because I've always far preferred Civilization to the Total War series. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING WITH THIS GAME, it's more suited to be played with on an arcade stick much less on a PC. WILL EXPANSIONS SAVE THIS DISASTER OF A GAME? It could, but it's going to need something absolutely BRILLIANT, and judging by how bad this game is I have my doubts. Fingers crossed though.... BOTTOM LINE: I REALLY DON'T RECOMMEND THIS GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SINCERELY: AMAZINGLY DISAPPOINTED LONG TIME CIV FANATIC :(
  5. Sep 27, 2010
    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you! New features include: Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire! They removed all the bothering elements like religion, spies and diplomacy, so all you have to worry about is letting the game play for you! Another fantastic feature added is the settler bomb! Against all odds, are you somehow losing a war to an opponent? Well just drop a settler and all your troubles are over, you now have a unit with some of the best defense in the game, another city!

    Expect new dlc coming soon featuring an updated graphic pack; now this game will actually look like it uses its monstrous system requirements!
  6. Sep 30, 2010
    What an enormous disappointment. I am shocked that this game came from Sid Meierâ
  7. May 11, 2011
    Huge disappointment. I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago. It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable. 1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to raze all enemy cities except capitals (that you can't raze) because I just couldn't afford the extra population (even as puppet cities). by the modern ages most of the map consisted of unworked, uninhabited land where barbarians roamed. Even if I didn't go for conquest and wouldn't burn the cities there still would be tons of unused land.

    2) the game is slow. There is little to do and whatever you do is snail slow. Computer turns take forever despite my rig having latest gen CPU, 8GB of RAM and SSD.

    3) AI is terrible. computer players don't take advantage of the new combat system (which is great by the way). You can have an unprotected archer slowly killing off a warrior from a distance with warrior making no attempts to attack your archer. Dumb!

    4) Diplomacy is a random mess

    5) all nice concepts from Civ 4 like religion, corporations, espionage are gone.

    The only improvements are hexagon tiles and one unit per tile limit. But it doesn't nearly outweigh all the disadvantages listed above.

    Mr. Sid Meyer, I'm very disappointed.
  8. Apr 24, 2011
    Like many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available in older versions that are just plain missing here. I have also run into a number of massive technical issues ranging from the game over stressing my GTX465 to random lockups and crashes. There is a whole series of complaints about these issues and hopefully they will be repaired without requiring that I reach deep for another purchase.

    Based on my experience so far; if Civilization VI were offered tomorrow, I wouldn't buy it .
  9. Feb 3, 2012
    The lead designer of Civ5, Jon Shafer, made a lot of changes to the game mechanics of previous versions, in order to make the game more simple, stylish, and streamlined. Hex tiles, less roads (due to maintenance costs), one unit per tile (1UPT), global happiness, no religions, no change of policies, less tech/no tech trading. Unfortunately the many changes are badly integrated, and make the game feel rushed and boring. Expand
  10. Sep 28, 2010
    The 1up review has it right.

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

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

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

    Many game developers now have a nasty habit of just rushing out unfinished games filled with problems.
  11. Sep 30, 2010
    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

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

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

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

    Do yourself a favour and wait at least a month or two until the first big patches are release... that's if the developers have the courage to support the game..
  12. Sep 30, 2010
    This game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refine problematic but life-like features, not yank them out altogether.

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

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

    And lastly, what is _up_ with this game's graphics? Ruinously high requirements; it chugs on my new laptop (which is Windows 7, but with Aero disabled); and it doesn't even look as good as Civ 3 (let alone 4)! I think it's a matter of bad artistic design... although even bad artistic design doesn't explain why the game has late-1990s-level lag in loading ground textures.
  13. Dec 29, 2010
    I was looking for more depth from Civ IV, so it's not surprising that I don't find Civ V very appealing as it is now. Defenders say Civ IV wasn't very good until the expansions, but it was a better game. Civ V is a boring war game. As other reviewers have noted, there is one efficient way to win: domination. The frustrating and illogical happiness system that punishes players for doing anything other than razing makes this not only a war game but a game of near genocide. (You can't raze other capital cities, but that's the only restriction.) Diplomacy is a joke. As other reviewers have said, the AI players feel like "angry speed bumps". The new patch tries to fix some of this, but the Social Policy system is linear, slow, and very boring. A cultural victory is about as fun as making a full-size house out of Elmer's glue and straws. Somehow having more cities means having less culture. The city states have no personality. It's not empire building. You're punished for expansion. The AI leaders endlessly harass you with bogus deals, bogus agreements, complaints, and taunts. Barbarians are numerous, designed to make the game seem less empty and pointless, but their distraction itself is empty and pointless. They can't be reformed/educated/assimilated. No... they don't even heal. I guess they're not really human, just speed bumps and gold caches. Boring war game. The barbarians are the hack/slash element for when players aren't hacking/slashing each others' cities. "Barbarian riflemen" that spring out of little huts that randomly appear and "barbarian destroyers" are really... Did I mention that multiplayer is barely functional? One can't even use custom maps, which makes the use of the SDK to create maps rather pointless. You can't even choose where certain human players and AI players specifically will start. I want an empire building game, not a bland repetitive war game resting on the laurels of its superior predecessors. The graphics are what sell this game, at first. They're pretty good, although the renderings of the leaders aren't all that great. Do the pro reviewers who give this game stellar marks actually play it more than an hour or two? Setting aside the many crash bugs, the "do nothing AI" bugs, and the brokenness of various game design elements -- there just isn't much to do during turns, at least not much that's interesting. Chasing the latest randomly spawned barbarian camp isn't interesting. Getting a request from one city state to destroy another (don't or you'll be denounced as a warmonger even when nearly all of the city states are simultaneously demanding that their peers be destroyed) gets old quickly. An interactive diplomacy system does not consist of being taunted and denounced. It's like the game's programming thinks "Gee, you haven't done much for X turns. You must be getting bored. Better get a war going." I'd like to see the next massive patch have absolutely nothing to do with war at all. The game is called Civilization. It is not called Conquest. Expand
  14. Nov 5, 2010
    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 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
  15. Nov 30, 2011
    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I
    played for months after release and often came back after a break for a game or two. With Civilization V I only played two full games to the end and one unfinished then it was time to shelf the game.
    It's obvious that simple patches or DLC's can't fix the game. It needs serious overhaul in so many aspects. Civilization V could have been so much better if all the new features had been implemented properly.
  16. Oct 1, 2010
    Disappointing and flawed. Another rush job for these modern times.

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

    They are counting on you to beta test their product for them. Deny them that privilege.
  17. Oct 3, 2010
    This is a franchise that has lost it's way. Civ2 is perhaps my all time fav game, I am no hater. Civ5 is a piece of bloatware that has lost it's focus.

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

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

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

    I don't need 3d animated flocking swarms of fish on the map, I will take a fun game and an easily readable fish icon.
  18. Oct 3, 2010
    man you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should have quit this franchise when it was still good enough. im deinstalling it and i play civ 4 again. Expand
  19. Oct 6, 2010
    Bugs, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator... this game is half finished and it will need a miracle patch or some modders to actually finish this game. ALOT of features of the previous games have just been dropped; the best we can hope is to be spoon fed the rest.
  20. May 3, 2011
    I played a few games of Civilization V and I have to say that it is clearly inferior to Civilization IV in tactics and strategy. The change from multiple units being allowed to occupy a single square to one unit per square severely limits a player's strategy, making combat cumbersome, and less interesting. The ability to defend cities without an army seems ridiculous, especially when combined with their ranged attack that is automatically upgraded as the game progresses; starting with a ranged attack even without the knowledge of archery. The scientific aspect of the game is much more simplified, and the amount of civilizations/leaders available to play is abysmal. The city building is more or less the same as in Civilization IV and Gandhi is still as treacherous as ever. In my opinion it is one of the more mediocre versions of Civilization, far inferior to the previous installment in the series. Expand
  21. Apr 30, 2011
    Extremely clunky game that does not warrant the franchise name nor the $50 I paid for it. Could not be more frustrated or disappointed. Am curious and wish I could determine how many of these ten scores were posted by company employees protecting their paychecks. Release of this game will likely hurt the company. Alas, the CEO probably got a $3 million bonus for keeping to schedule. Just so you know, you won't be getting $50 from me again. Trust has been broken and is now irreparable. Expand
  22. May 24, 2011
    Piece of crap. Espionage and Religion are gone in place of a garbage diplomacy system. Unless the deal you offer them is completely in their favor they will not agree to it, as well with the friendship system. You can agree to announce your friendship then they will turn around and **** on you. The enemy A.I. will endlessly harass you with you crap deals, declare war on you and call you the warmonger, denounce you out of nowhere when you've supplied them with resources and gold for many turns and not to mention the barbarians in this game are incredibly annoying; coming into your territory only a few turns into the game with multiple units and taking your workers then leaving. The happiness system is trash and the game punishes you for expanding and conquering. All options with conquered cities give large amounts of unhappiness and only decrease if you waste points on policies or have a large amount of luxuries that counter the unhappiness. Also, the tech tree has been severely trimmed... turning many technologies into one thing instead of taking multiple trees to complete it.

    Other than the unique traits and few unique units nothing really sets the civilizations apart from eachother. Multiplayer is extremely laggy and even a 100 or so turns into a quick game it takes several seconds sometimes minutes to go to the next turn... Marathon is a nightmare. What really disappoints me about this game is the fact that the computer will declare war on you or something of that nature and then try to make peace... asking for everything you have and if you decline they keep harassing you even though it's extremely easy to defend against them so it becomes just a hassle.

    Overall it's just a huge disappointment. Too many features cut and too many things dumbed down to appease the idiots and lazy people who don't want to take the time to learn and play the game correctly. If it's not spoon fed to them they complain and it totally shows in the way Firaxis designed this game. Total piece of crap to be honest.
  23. Sep 28, 2010
    The lack of any replacement for city corruption/maintenance concept is a huge disappointment for me. You can find a city at the very end of the world with no cost. Very unrealistic. In a few games i played (i must say i tried to play through crashes), AI civs borders were all mixed up because of this issue. Distance from capital must be a real problem in any next-gen civ game. Period. Yes road maintenance is a drawback but definitely not enough. And also no religion, no espionage, no focusing on science or culture via sliders... I did go back to civ 4 happily. Guess what! i was really impressed with its depth after couple of hours:) Maybe i can look back if good mods come up in the future. Expand
  24. Oct 4, 2010
    The game is great but the AI needs to be cleaned up you cant play a game on a map larger than the "small" size without it taking over 30 seconds between turnss at about turn 300. This makes the game unplayable at this point. If you continue it just takes longer. Its not my computer either. I have a core I7 920 overclocked with 6 gigs of DDR 3 ram. with two GTX 260s in SLI. The game looks great but if you cant play it whats the point. Im sad I wasted my 50 bucks on it. Expand
  25. Apr 7, 2012
    I tried this game again after about 14 months, waste of my time. I am extremely disappointed the flawed gameplay mechanics are still around, I am even more disappointed about the technical bugs. There is no reason that my cursor should disappear in a section of city management after 18 months of release, It should support dual monitors, my cities shouldn't disappear occasionally, I shouldn't have red sprites appear, etc etc. I think these things are the biggest proof of what a failure this game is. People argue that the gameplay is well done and thought out, if they thought so they would have completed the rest of their game. If an Indie game had this many issues a couple months after release it would be unacceptable, for a series with this much renown to suffer from these types of bugs 18 months after release is completely unacceptable. I am in the camp of never buying another firaxis/2k game on day one, I'm going to wait for extensive reviews before I purchase one. I think this is an extremely good example of how ridiculous critic reviews are, for this to be one of the highest rated games of all time is shameful. Expand
  26. May 19, 2011
    It is a reasonable game, but far worse than civ's previous incarnations, (including Civ 3...). The main focus moved to combat, to small tactics rather than long term strategy. Civ IV is, by far, a better, more complex game.
  27. Aug 6, 2012
    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 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
  28. Sep 30, 2010
    For a huge fan of the previous versions, Civ V is a HUGE disappointment.
    The game interface response is very slow. So slow that after playing for a couple of hours, I feel that I am not accomplish anything other than waiting for the turns to get over. To allocate the population of a city to work on a specific tile, it took me a few hours of menu reading to click-and-explore to figure it
    I am definitely going back to play my Civ IV
  29. Sep 30, 2010
    Overall it feels unfinished. Necessary information is difficult to come by if not missing in total. Production queues are so ridiculously slow that tech progression will usually cause one to obsolete units before building (m)any. And you'll be building units mostly as buildings are unimpressive, have ridiculously maintenance costs, and one CANNOT destroy them at a later date. Wonders are extremely disappointing. Expansion leads to significant penalties to culture, making only a diplomacy or conquest win feasible if one has more than 5 or so cities.

    The one unit per hex limit and the hex game in general is an improvement. But simply put, Firaxis made a game it's AI cannot play. The AI is woefully inadequate at forming any sensible type of battle line and simply throws units at the player. Who with any hint of a strategy can destroy them in detail. It's a $60 nice looking game of Whack-a-mole.
  30. Oct 2, 2010
    As others have said, I get that they wanted to make a less complicated game for the masses, but they really outdid themselves on that count. This silly game practically plays itself. I'm really not a gamer and Civilization is by and large the only series of games that I have ever played with any regularity. So when a new version comes out, I want more complicated, not less, more challenging, not less. I really wanted to like it, but after playing for a while and getting a feel for the new setup it just dawned on me "Holy cow, this is actually lame". I am obviously not the target audience for Civilization V. Expand
  31. Oct 3, 2010
    Until the A.I. can fuction in a 1upt environment this game is basically an RPG. As an RPG I'd give it 8.5. As a strategy game Civ V is basically a slap in the face. While it desearves a 4 as a strategy game I'm giving it a 1 as a protest for 2k releasing this BETA into the market.
  32. Oct 11, 2010
    I've been a fairly long-term fan of the series; I played Civ2 when I was a kid and then a couple of years ago got into Civ4, and it really immersed me in a beautiful and epic world of unparalleled strategy and thoughtfulness. After spending over $50 on Civ5 and playing for just over 20 hours, I can tell you that Civ5 is the death of all that was good about the Civilization series. Time and time again we are seeing the profit motive take precedence over well-developed and ground-breaking games and this is the saddest instance I've ever experienced of that. Below is just a short list I've compiled of the problems experienced after 20 hours of play:

    - No micromanagement of happiness in individual cities
    - Many culture policies are absolutely useless, and you 'buy' them with culture 'points' just like technology... why have two tech trees?
    - Most culture policies are repeated verbatim in a wonder that does exactly the same thing
    - Most wonders cost way too much production to build and it's actually better to not bother building 3/4 of them at all
    - No civics, no religion, no health, no forest regrowth, less technologies, no espionage, and no tech/culture slider... - City states offer so little in terms of strategic advantages (you have to pay to maintain the relationship with gold) that you are better just invading them
    - Many buildings are simply copies of earlier buildings that you have to build first (eg. market and bank both just give 25% wealth increase; coliseum and theatre are the same, university and observatory are practically the same as well...) -Only a handful of buildings are worth building at all once you factor in their huge production cost
    - The diplomacy system is next to useless, there is no useful information on other civs as in Civ4, and vassalage is not even an option in the game
    - There is no indicator telling you how another civ feels about you, so you can't tell whether they are 'friendly', 'pleased' etc. outside of the fact that they either threaten you or declare war on you out of nowhere
    - The AI is terrible - in the Noble-difficultly game I was playing, Suleiman, despite being able to expand across islands, only built two cities by the industrial period and was still using spearmen against my riflemen...
    - When I invaded him and took his two cities the rest of the civs went nuts and 4 of them (out of 9) invaded me even though previously they traded with me and signed defensive pacts about aggressive AI. None of them were allied with each other as far as I could tell, some hadn't even met one another (so it wasn't a brilliant strategy like the religious alliances in Civ4, it was basically just terrible AI)
    - Although the war wasn't really a problem as such because the Japanese leader just 'embarked' all of his knights etc. into the ocean (a new feature that allows you to send units into the sea, but they have 0 strength so get owned by anything hostile). So in the space of 8 turns I destroyed 8 of his units trying to cross the sea with ONE solitary caravel - he hadn't even bothered to build one ship...
    - Aside from these problems, the game is really poorly balanced - depending on the map you get the 'special abilities' each Civ gets (a poor substitute for the two traits from Civ4) are completely playing as Bismarck on an island map (he gets a 50% chance to convert a barbarian unit when he captures a barbarian camp, I didn't get one out of about the 6 that I encountered). Similarly with Suleiman - he gets the same thing but with barbarian naval units... why would you even bother? I would only expect this poor degree of balance in a beta release... Overall I have to say, definitely save your money and if you haven't got Civ4:BtS buy that instead. I will be uninstalling civ5 from my computer and going back to 4, at least until they release the proper modification code and the people over at Civfanatics put together a Civ5 to Civ4 total conversion mod that brings back what made the predecessor a brilliant game. Come to think of it, aside from the shiny graphics , single units and hex squares I can't think of anything new that Civ5 introduces that is actually worthwhile. Where Civ4 was nuanced and rewarded deep strategy, this deeply flawed thing was put together just to make money. The best analogy I can think of to sum up Civ5 is that where Civ4 was a piece of art, Civ5 is a used condom.
  33. Oct 12, 2010
    What's good? the new hex-based terrain and the combat are both vast improvements over previous versions of the game.

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

    I love the CIV franchise and I've owned literally every single version (including the board game). This could have been the best ever but the dumbing-down of the game mechanics has ruined it. Spend your money on CIV 4; you'll be much more satisfied.
  34. Nov 4, 2010
    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 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
  35. Oct 3, 2010
    Unplayable due to lock-ups. Game freezes after an hour or so and the only way to shut it down is with the Windows Task Manager (ctrl+alt+delete). The problem is well documented on the Steam and 2K forums. Needs to bake for a few more patches. Might be worth picking up on sale in a few months.
  36. Oct 24, 2010
    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.
  37. Oct 28, 2010
    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
  38. Dec 24, 2010
    2 points for graphic improvement over previous versions. The rest is garbage and the same old concept with this Civ traditional game. It looks like Civ 5 has seen an upgrade in graphics but got a downgrade in the process by it. Since it is turn-based, it plays like a risk game, but the turns are creating a new phenomenon called "creative boring royale" syndrome. You wait and wait and wait and wait until kingdom come to the point it's ridiculous to even try. That tells you there is a problem with the game code programming in itself. Good games runs flawlessly and require less space to begin with. Looking at the game sheer size for a turn-based, you get a good idea how bad it will be on your pc. I dub Civ5 The "please wait" civ game instead, and I'm certainly not alone with that saying. Saying no to 2k games for a while and you may actually get better results. Why give them good grades when they don't deserve it? Peace. Expand
  39. Dec 25, 2010
    I give this game a FAIL. I would rate this game quite differently based upon its playability, but considering the fact that the game can become unplayable due to CTD's. No crashes BEFORE the December '10 patch release, but now always crashes one I reach the 1600's. I don't deal with games crashing on my PS3 or Xbox360 and don't feel I have to settle for less on my PC. OK, update drivers and some tweeking, I'll take that and I make exceptions when this happens with mods, but c'mon, a clean install of civilization V? I would prefer to get slugged in the face then spend another minute getting half-way through an epic strategy game only to have the game end with CTD's. Expand
  40. Dec 30, 2010
    I permanently hate turn based strategy games because of Sid Meier i had the game en in the first ten minutes i put it in the blender so there is one less copy of that lame game .
  41. Mar 15, 2011
    Take everything you ever loved about the CIV franchise and then delete half of it. Then dumb it up some more so a twelve year-old can play it on his X-box and that is CIV five. This game is a huge disappointment. The graphics upgrades are less than exemplary, almost cartoonish. The removal of all the sophisticated strategy elements leaves you wondering why. Recent patches have fixed some of the game imbalances and absurd city-state mechanics, but on a whole this is the worst CIV game ever. Expand
  42. Mar 17, 2011
    This is an abomination!!!!
    Civ 4 with its expansions is perhaps the best game ive ever played.
    Intricate Diplomacy, Religion, Corporations, basically EXCITEMENT.
    And missions, they were awesome. The game tells us to build 20 coliseums and we get a bonus. Now we have a choice, do we crank out coliseums and wear the halt in progress, or do we forgo the permanent bonus it would give us.

    Random events, forest fire, oh bugger, exocitc furs in yay for money. These made it interesting.
    This game has potential, and it gave us a couple of GREAT things, i love the hex combat, and i love the new modding system, but why, WHY did it have to take out everything that was good, interesting and exciting from the game, just to add a few good features.
    You have really dissapointed me here, i took the day off to play this game when it came out, simply because i assumed that i have spent so many hours on Civ4 i would need at least 1 day to get through this. Imagine my horror when i play this POS for 3 hours and am already bored with its complete lack of depth.
  43. Jul 24, 2011
    I would recommend either part IV and or part III over part V.
  44. Reo
    Aug 22, 2011
    I have been a CIV 1 to 4 addict. I am trying to get into CIV5, but over the last 4 months every time I get a good game going I get to around turn 390 to 410 and then somthing always goes wrong. It wont load, or validate. The game crashes. I am sick of it. The only game I have completed is one I started in the industrial age and beat the game in under 200 turns. It seams you can only play the game on standard or quick speed, on normal or small worlds. Have not been able to play past 400 turns on a large world. The game looks great and plays great only on standard settings with very few civs. The whole steam thing sucks! It takes for ever to load a game and then it crashes. Worse, it freezes and you dont know, becouse it normaly takes 5 minutes to load. Check integrety? This has never worked. It says it cant be verified and it has to be reloaded. You wait and wait and finaly its done and you go threw the 5 min wait to load another game and the it freezes. You try to post about the problem and they tell you a patch is coming, only I get the patch and it works fine on a new game, so you play it and boom the same thing at about the same point. I like the social policy thing and the game is balance tword world domination, thats ok. But I think the MODS may be the problem becouse all my crashes and freezes tend to happen during a mod game. But the vanilla civ 5 is not that fun. There are alot of aspects to this game I like, but what good are they if you cant play a game from ancient to futer with alot of turns. I am trying for a culter victory or a science, but I always end up freezing or crashing. Gonna try Historic speed as the only mod on a random map and see if that crashes or freezes, if it does I am putting this game away. Expand
  45. Sep 8, 2011
    Get Civilization 4 and BtS instead (you don't need Warlords, BTS has all of Warlords in it).
    5 has worse AI, only just barely matches the visual quality of modded Civilization 4, is much harder to mod and thus barely enjoys any modding community unlike 4, and the game is just too damn easy due to how unbalanced everything is. On top of that, there's hardly any multiplayer support.
    Just get
    Civ4. Want more civilizations than 4 has to offer? They've been modded in. Want better graphics? They've been modded in. Hell, you can get mods that make each nation's units look unique, so that a Portugese and a Dutch unit will not be clones like they are in 5. Then to make things worse, Firaxis has actually started -selling- civilizations, putting less work into them than modders do, for $5 each.
    This sequel doesn't even deserve to exist if it can't compete with its predecessor on any field.
  46. Nov 19, 2011
    I am a fan of civilization since CIV1 and I loved all the CIV until and including CIV4. And I am really disapointed by CIV5 concepts. The game is totally unrealistic and boring. It is not pleasant to play. I will not play any longer to CIV5.
  47. Dec 23, 2012
    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 steam sale, otherwise I'd be furious.... Expand
  48. Oct 7, 2010
    Great graphics, very beautiful to play, a lot of potential here. But it is like a great car ... that keeps stalling on you. This game has such a huge crashing problem that it is virtually unplayable, unless you stick with small maps and only 3 or 4 civilizations ... and you turn everything down to low, etc ... so what is the point then of all the eye candy then? Play Civ 4 instead. This game has to be seriously patched. Oh, the problem won't show up right away (usually), but just try playing a large map with lots of stuff happening ... and then see if you can actually win the game ... be prepared for big pauses, sloowwww map scrolling .... and then a total freeze up. Did the company release a beta or something?
    ... Until it is patched, make sure you turn everything to low or medium, make sure you have a powerful system (quad core, high end video card, etc.). Doesn't seem to make any difference whether you are running XP or Vista or Windows 7, the game game still crashes. Especially when you play a large map with many civilizations. After a while, it's like your PC just can't cope - indicates a big memory leak problem in the game. Type into Google "Civ 5 crashes" and you'll get the picture. I have a Core 2 Duo 2.16 with 9800GT and 4 gigs Ram, XP sp3. I have the latest nVidia drivers (256) .. and none of my other PC games crash like this baby. Hopefully firaxis can fix what should be an incredible Civ experience.
  49. Oct 30, 2012
    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.

    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
  50. HLB
    Oct 10, 2010
    Simplistic game. Nothing special graphical or in gameplay. Use of DX11 is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I uninstalled the game already because I don't intend to spend even more time with work-arounds for the bugs. They obviously spend more money on marketing then on game development.
  51. Nov 5, 2010
    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. 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
  52. Nov 20, 2010
    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.
  53. Dec 13, 2010
    Having been there in the days of Civ 1 I look forward to each new game with bated breath. But the latest effort has left me wheezing and coughing. Hex grids? Why? 8 directions of movement with squares, 6 with hexes..... doesn't make sense. And the graphics do not seem to fit in the hexes either, trading posts apparently require wading a mile out to sea?? There are so many glitches they cannot be named here but here's just a few : missing textures, animations that don't play, graphics that do not disappear when they should, UI corruption, and so on. The decisions the AI makes seem to be just dice rolling (I rolled a double 5 that means I'm at war with you). Diplomacy is non existent . And whenever I get to about 1950 EVERYONE goes to war with you at the same time?! WHAT? WHY? Very disappointed in this. Needless to say I shan't be holding my breath for Civ 6. I'm going now to put Civ 4 on. Expand
  54. Jan 3, 2011
    I really have been looking forward to this version of the Civilization series. It had taken my a while to get used to Civ IV from Civ III, but it had become the game that controlled my time. It's almost impossible to write in words the disappointment I fell when I first played the game. Just the lack of stacking units at all frustrated me unbearable. Even that was enough for me to lay down the game. Now everything they removed from the old games, and everything they changed. For me it seemed like Civilization wasn't the head master in strategy anymore. The game that could make you stay all up night just to conquer the world. The game that made you feel something, you never have or will feel in any other game. The feeling og control, uprising, nationality. The feeling that made Civilization the best game for me. Now they just changed everything into an arcade game. It doesn't even feel the slightest realistic anymore.

    So Sid, why?
  55. Jan 25, 2012
    Part II of II .
    Part B. The issues. The fact that in 2010 you get just a DVD in a box could already raise an eyebrow or two, with the exponential development of solid state memory, graphics, computer power etc, I would have expected more data, even a solid state item, and here is a marketing thoughtâ
  56. Dec 1, 2012
    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
  57. Feb 13, 2013
    I have to say, when i first saw this game, I was very impressed with it. The atmosphere, the choices, the models, all of it. However, as I played more than just a few games, Civ 5 's many shortcomings became apparent to me. The absolutely horrendous AI, for example, renders diplomacy useless. It is impossible to trade with any AI, because they will not accept any reasonable offer. Instead, they will demand everything you own for a scraps of iron or horse. Plus, the unpredictable way in which AIs act makes it impossible to make plans that relies on AIs. Random civs denounce me for no reason, or acts aggressive despite have an army a tenth of mine. The gameplay is also very shallow. The tile improvements look good at first, but eventually one realises that the only way to win is to spam build trade posts and farms. Every time. The combat is the same. There is no hint of infrastructure or anything, and the combat animations are repetitive and breaks one's immersion by being very cartoonish. Overall, I disliked this game mostly because of the absolutely horrendous AI. After all, it is no fun building an empire if everyone around you is acting like a dumbass. Expand
  58. MTR
    Dec 19, 2010
    Muy por debajo de los anteriores civ a nivel jugable, lleno de bugs, la IA tanto enemiga como propia (automatizar unidades) es bastante pobre. Sistema de evolución tecnológica OK, copia de los anteriores. Nuevas opciones como el mapa táctico que hacen recordar al alpha centauri. Conclusión: o esta saga se reconduce bien, o poco mas le queda.
  59. Sep 3, 2011
    Wow, what a load of disappointing crap. If this game would just have the exact same graphics and the same game mechanics CIV 4 had, this game would be already better lol. But they dummed it down that my dicks dick could be my advisor in the game. Very dissapointed and sad :(
  60. Feb 13, 2014
    In the fine new tradition of dumbing classic franchises down to appeal to the blind, the mentally impaired and people who hate gaming, Civilization takes a nosedive in the horrible fifth installment. Tons of stuff that made Civ IV timeless has been removed, including map trading, vassals, religions, flexible civics, unit stacks and attrition to name a few things. Meanwhile dubious things have been added like global happiness ratings which makes it pointless to make big empires (In a Civ game. It`s true) and city states that reposition your camera on them every time they have some pointless task for you to perform.
    The worst part is that some of it had been tried out in Civ 3, which was the least impressive installment until this release, and removed for Civ 4 because it made the game dull and uncool.
    So compared to Civ 4 there is less complexity, less freedom, much hand holding and worthless fluff, poor diplomacy and many many questionable design features. It is slow, boring and unexciting. The economy doesn`t work properly, there are no active trade routes like in Civ 4 but just automatic ones when you build roads and harbors. And to top it all off there is basically no AI anywhere.
    I just played a game as Persia and had 10 workers on auto. By the year 1100 AD all these workers had built 0 roads. None, zip, nada. Presumably they were waiting until all the forests had been cleared and every possible resource tile and farm had been finished before starting the roads. In other words the automation is pointless and you have to manually build roads if you want any.
    The less said about the enemy AI the better. It is unpredictable, stupid and never improves at higher levels. It just cheats. Give this turkey a wide berth and go get the real Civilization (Civ 4. hell even Civ 2 or the original DOS game is better than this.) immediately.
    Casual gaming at its worst.
  61. Jun 23, 2011
    What has happened to Sid Meier? Has he lost all self-respect? First Revolutions and now this piece of crappola! Next he'll be putting out a Facebook version of Civ, for F's sake! Oh, wait... What's that!? HE IS!?! Sid, 2K, Firaxis... some or all of the former are to blame for the decimation of this storied franchise. I've played this series since Numero Uno, spent thousands of hours on every subsequent iteration, but can not bring myself to complete a SINGLE game of Civ V! They dumbed down all of the strategy elements that make a Civ game a F'N CIV GAME!!! Gotta get that casual/console market interested. Apparently, Core Fans just aren't good enough any more... Who cares if I've helped pave the way for you! Just another in a long line of greed induced SELLOUTS! F**K YOU, YOU GREEDY BASTARDOS!!! Expand
  62. Oct 4, 2011
    What a disappointment! This game is basically a dumbed down version of Civ 4, with slightly better graphics. The AI is a joke. The cutscenes are gone and the game gets very old quite fast. With the removal of religion, civics, espionage and meaningful diplomacy, Civ 5 represents what is wrong with the gaming industry. Namely, "dumb it down and add shiny graphics - but not cut scenes or movies when you win, because that is hard." Lame. Expand
  63. Jun 4, 2011
    Jun 4, 2011
    CivforBrains Jun 2, 2011 3 I've been playing Civ games since the Civ I and have thoroughly enjoyed them all. (Civ III was my least liked Civ though.) This latest Civ however, I have tried my hardest to like but I just can't do it. Besides an awful AI and terrible diplomacy, this game flat out isn't very fun at all. It's streamlined and frankly quite dumbed down.
    Expect a console version within 1 1/2 years after they finish their true love Civ World.

    It is truly incredulous how the "professional" reviewers gave this piece of crap such high marks. Something definitely is rotten in the state of the gaming industry. Likely there are more than a few guerrilla posters on here as well. The developers also seem more intent on releasing DLC than properly fixing the game. In my opinion, 2K Games is largely responsible for ruining the Civ franchise. I don't blame Jon Shafer very much. This game was clearly released at least one year too early. Not much more to say. Perhaps they'll right the ship with Civ VI but I wouldn't count on it.
  64. Jul 11, 2011
    Have to log into steam and have it running to install and play this game. Steam isnt an app I am willing to run on my machine cause of issues had in past with it, and even through bought from brick and morter store, have to run steam in order to use it. They do not take returns cause they say it says need steam in fine print on back of box, after looking for 10 minutes was able to find the fine print about steam. Will never buy another 2k game and cant play this unreturnable game at all now. Am very displeased. Expand
  65. Jul 12, 2011
    I love this game. The game and its developers don't love me back. I won't buy another Fireaxis game again. My major issue with this game is the lack of effort on the developers part. On loading the direct x 11 option is not even selectable. I have to do some backdoor entry just to play the game properly. When I'm actually in the game I get the worst FPS in the history of a game whois graphics look like crap. Just to be clear I'm not complaining about graphics. I like civ because it is turn base. The graphics could look like chess figures for all i care. I just don't like how I can play a game like Crysis on max settings and I get terrible fps in a game like Civ 5. I don't normally write reviews but this game compelled me to complain. Almost a full year into the game and still no major patches to correct this issue. I refuse to play on the lowest settings or direct x 9 when my computer can handle the best graphic intensive games out to date. This game and its developer have lost a fan of many years. Expand
  66. Aug 7, 2011
    The fact this game was given such high reviews by so many critics and sits now at a "90" is a testament to the lack of credibility of many professional critics. I played civilization 4 as well as other previous civ titles and I can easily say this game is a huge disappointment. The game is simply boring, tedious, and not fun. You can not stack units and the AI is far inferior to the AI of Civ4. This game simply does not live up to its predecessor. Expand
  67. Aug 27, 2011
    Big fan of the franchise, but this game sucks. Big pet peeve of mine is when the AI opponent is able to do moves the human player is not. Lot's of bugs. Very slow loading. Slow in general. Hangs. Obviously rushed out before it was done.
  68. Nov 2, 2011
    Terrible, played it for 4 hours, won, put it back in the box. Where is the 'civvyness' in it? My enemies never scheme against me, never see through me mechanations against them, Hard here feels like beginner in civ IV. If you're new to the series, don't like thinking too hard, love mediocre graphics and gameplay, then this is for you. And if all the Civ games had been like that I would not be nearly as disappointed, or for that matter, have bought it. But as a sequel it is an Elementary school play released after a Blockbuster movie, and it even costs more than the movie! Disappointing. Expand
  69. Nov 6, 2011
    The game has come along way but took a wrong turn at Civ 4 and from there things have gotten worse. I started playing these games at Civ3 brilliant strategy game where you build an empire and gather culture or conquer the enemys. The best ever game was Civ3 Conquest which was able to maintain science-production-growth-gold really well and city building. However when civ4 was introduced it focused more on not needing citys and how can u have an empire with 5 citys the bonus to civ4 was the fighting mechanics that was a great improvement. However now civ5 has changed once again the same problems as civ 4 but adding more content to make it even worse.

    Pros- Beautiful graphics - graphics dont make a good game but they do make for a fake review by critics
  70. Mar 8, 2013
    If you haven't played another civilization game before and are looking to start I suggest you go out and buy Civ 4. Its significantly better than this one. I was amazed when I first saw the graphics of this game. They are beautiful and seamless. I also liked the idea of resource scarcity where an iron supply can allow you to build up to 5units. (For example) In Civ 4 once you have the critical resource there is no incentive for you to get another one of it. You'd have to be stupid to trade it and so except for the shield bonus it goes to waste. I was unsettled by the move to hexagonal tiles and the no unit stacking. Also cities acting as their own (Flawed it turns out) defense. However I found all 3 changes tolerable and even enjoyable for a time. I like the move to range units however what unit is "ranged" seems kind of arbitrary. The fact that two units can attack each other for a few turns without utter destruction of one in a way compensates for the lack of "stack".

    The main thing however that I cannot abide is the dumbed down gameplay. I only played 1 game on medium difficulty. Won with the top score. And uninstalled the game knowing I never want to do that again. There was no challenge to it. Worse it felt like the game was steering. To do modestly well I needed only to click whatever was flashing and do the suggested thing. Same with suggested buildings/units. It was the difference between strategizing and being the guy who says "I approve this message".

    Due to the lack of stack it is quite easy to gang up on individual units making military conquest quite easy. Even when you are the supposed underdog. While I initially enjoyed the city states they quickly turned into an annoyance always demanding gold or new things to stay payed off and under my influence. I started wiping them out to build my empire and was glad I did. Even though it did mean they ganged up on me and all declared war. Nothing came of it. Just more cities for me. I found it was more efficient just to have the city then to be trying to bribe my way into their good graces.

    When it came to technology I understand the move away from tech trading. Much kinder on isolated starts. But doing so removed 90% of diplomacy for me. The "research deals" which replaced them were a sad surrogate. As well sometimes a civic would make a research deal with you and then break it prematurely. Costing you both gold to no ones benefit. That is either spite or poor game design. All and all this game is beautiful. But being a strategy game stripped of any real strategy it is quite pointless. I wish they would re-release civ 4 with this level of graphics.
  71. Nov 7, 2013
    Overrated game because the combat absolutely sucks. Basically have more units than your enemy, you will win. Except on harder levels where instead of raising the level of AI they raise the level of units you need to survive ANY encounter. It is a stupid system and because of this alone I give this game a crap score.
  72. Nov 10, 2013
    This game is an insult to the Civilization series, compared to Civilization 4 it lacks the depth of gameplay and has some serious balancing issues as well as containing AI that don't know how to play. As a stand alone game it isn't too brilliant either, with the game revolving around playing as the best civilizations and getting wonders which are overpowered the fastest. The rest of the features one would expect from a Civilization game were released in the form of DLC meaning the vanilla Civ 5 is an incomplete game. I do frequently play this online as my friends moved to it from other Civilization titles however we can agree this game is flawed. A terrible disappointment. Expand
  73. Sep 28, 2014
    Civilization V was pure crap when it was released in 2010. And despite all it's expansions and pointless DLC's it is still utter crap.

    Civ 5 is a dumbed down arcade game. As the game progresses you find that nothing interesting really ever happens. Turn after turn of pointlessly pressing the end turn button.

    Every design decision seems to come from the developers wish to do stuff
    differently and cater to the casual masses. The results is the mentioned dumbed downed piece of turd, which is no doubt loved by casual gamers around the globe. Expand
  74. Oct 20, 2010
    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 you enjoyed the style of PS3 version this is an upgrade and quite enjoyable at that level. Expand
  75. Oct 4, 2011
    Having enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviews as the user reviews are resoundingly negative and disappointed. I agree with comments stating how the AI is poor, diplomacy is neutered and practically meaningless. The new civics program doesn't gel well with the historical policies of civilizations. It is also virtually impossible to maintain a large army due to special resources being required for certain units. Please tell me why I need aluminum to build modern armor or a missile cruiser, when neither use aluminum in the "real world". Overall the game is poorly designed and rushed to the market. It is a crappy product hidden in a nicely wrapped box. I want my money back. Expand
  76. Nov 9, 2010
    another incomplete rip off video game that got rave reviews from moron review sites. out of the box this game has bugs, crashes and apparently the ai is either very poorly made or just was not finished. the diplomacy/ai part of civ games is the most important part for single player. if you dont yet own i would 1) wait for it to get cheaper than 50$ and 2) check the forums to make sure 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
  77. c87
    Dec 8, 2010
    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.
  78. Jan 9, 2011
    Highly overrated game. It can take dozens of turns for a single small event to happen and there's not a single interesting thing in the entire game. Anyone who plays actual games such as Starcraft II will fall asleep watching or playing Civ V because it's such a dumbed down simple game that a 5 year old could play it.

    If you build 1 thing every 15 turns there's no skill or thought
    Attacks can take dozens of turns to do anything, again making people simply fall asleep.
    Play the demo if you'd like, skip buying it.
  79. Jan 14, 2011
    First of all let me say that it is a bit unfair to rate a game 0, just because you had specific expectations it did not match. :P

    That being said, Civilization V is most obviously not a sequel to what we have come to know as the Civilization series. Yes, there are similarities on a very shallow level, but comparing Civ IV with Civ V is like comparing a Ferrari with a compact car. Yes,
    they are both cars. The latter isn't useless and does get the job done, but it's no Ferrari.

    Civ V does introduce very few interesting concepts, which could have improved the series overall. But it fails to deliver any depth whatsoever. It is a decent strategy game, but also suffers from quite a few bugs and performance issues, which spoil the little good it has going for it.

    Waiting between 20 seconds and two minutes for one AI turn, when you don't have anything to do during your turns anyway, is pretty much the last straw. It just leaves one wondering how Civ IV manages to deliver a much better AI in a much more complex environment much faster. Design is a matter of taste, but code quality is a hard factor, and the coders for Civ V were exceptionally bad.

    All in all, this isn't more than a 4. It does have the potential to be a 6 or 7, if all issues can be ironed out, but that is rarely the case with any game.

    If you are new to the franchise, have an obscenely overpower CPU (AI load is mostly on one core), and too much time, go for it. If you are a hardcore Civ fan, don't waste your money.
  80. Jan 28, 2011
    Dumbed-down version of Civ 4, very dissapointed, the only reason i spent 2 weeks playing it was because the everytime I pressed end turn it took up to 5 minutes for the next turn to start.
  81. Feb 2, 2011
    This is a game that seems great at first but loses its shine once you dive in. The deep strategy that's been the hallmark of the Civ series just isn't there. It feels like all the years of stored up wisdom and lessons learned that had culminated in Civ 4 were thrown out the window for this one. The game is just boring now. The AI utterly sucks at combat and is schizophrenic when it comes to diplomacy (and there's not much you can do through diplomacy anyways), so there's just not much in the ways of interesting gameplay. Huge disappointment. Expand
  82. Feb 2, 2011
    I was so looking forward to this game, but it was a waste of money! I have loved and played all the Civ games as well as Alpha Centauri, yet with this game I have yet to get past the 1700's due to repeated crashes. I hope it is patched soon as this is absolutely ruining the franchise for me.
  83. Feb 15, 2011
    I've played all the Civilization games since the first one came out. I like the gameplay changes in Civilization V like hex tiles and not being able to stack units. It makes sense, and it's probably something I'd be missing if I played earlier games. It's a shame to lose civilizations and gameplay features such as religion and espionage which were in Civ4 BtS, but the game can definitely be fun without them and I can understand that they need reasons to release expansion packs or DLCs for Civ V too.
    What I find totally unacceptable is how rushed out the game seems to be. I only started playing it 5 months after its release and even with the patches released in those first five months, the multiplayer experience is still abysmal.
    First, there is no button in the interface to manually save the game, you have to either rely on auto saves, or know and use the shortcut : Ctrl+S. This is probably the single most stupid thing in the game. But it gets worse because if you decide to load the game later, you can only choose from the auto saves! You can circumvent that by manually moving your manual save in the auto save folder, but it's still very stupid.
    So that was the most stupid problem, now let's move on to the most annoying:
    After a good number of turns, when you get to the medieval times, it takes ages for anything you want to do to actually happen. If you give out any command (moving units, setting a construction in a city, requesting a deal with another civ, *anything*), you have to wait a significant number of seconds before the games acknowledges it, and in the meantime it looks like it didn't get your command and needs you to repeat it. For example, when you move a unit, the unit just stays where it was, as if it completely ignored what you just asked it to do. The game doesn't hang, you can continue doing other stuff (which will also be temporarily ignored), then after a few seconds the unit suddenly decides to obey your instructions and move.
    Another annoying thing that comes to mind is when a worker is automated at the beginning of the turn it asks for instructions, but then figures out that it's automated.
    It's not even a problem with computer performance or network bandwidth, as neither was maxed out on my system and those of the friends I tried to play the game with. It's simply bad programming.
    I don't have time enumerate everything which defines the game as hardly beta-quality, but I can assure you that if you plan on using the multiplayer part of the game, you'd better wait to see if the publisher releases a patch which makes it playable.
    And for those who already bought the game, you can boycott the DLCs and expansions until they get the basic game fixed.
    I give 7 points for the acceptable single-player experience (which apparently was also bug-ridden when the game came out) and subtract 3 for treating gamers like beta-testers. I do hope they fix the multi-player, but I'm not holding my breath.
  84. Feb 15, 2011
    Like many have mentioned, Civ5 is a big disappointment. The main reason I give the game a barely 4 rating is because the game is very unstable and buggy. It has dozens of glitches and a big memory leak. After an hour of playing the game runs at 1.8Gb memory which is insane and shows how bad optimized it is and how rushed the game has been released. I waited to buy the game (50Euro's) till now, cos I expected it to be patched several times by now, but no. It seems that the game has not been patched at all and they just left it buggy and unstable like it is now. __ The interface in the game is huge, the map is litteraly filled with huge tags and obtrusive HUDs. There supposed to be an option to make the interface smaller, but it does not work. ___ Anywho, buy this game and you get a once every 30 minutes crash, long load times and random freezes after 100 turns of playing and even start up crashes. The game also seems to be made more noob friendly and reduced the amount of real diplomatic strategy and spionage etc. Civ5 is Civ for dummies. I recommend buying Civ 4 instead of this unfinished and unstable version. This page does not alow me to rate it a 4! Expand
  85. Oct 27, 2012
    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'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
  86. Mar 9, 2011
    I've played ALL the Civilization games, including Alpha Centaury, and this is the first time that I've been disappointed by Sid Meier! Let's get the obvious out of the way first.... The game is gorgeous! But Civ games have never been about the graphics anyways, so focusing on that is like reviewing a Ferrari for it's interiors. First and foremost... The loading times! JEeeezz... The code-monkeys behind this atrocity should be whipped! Perhaps in supercomputers with a Core i7 with liquid-cooling and 16Gb of Ram the game plays smoothly, but in down-to-earth specs, the wasted time between loading and turns is just inexcusable. Then there's the new interface. Can someone please tell me how the heck do I figure out which of my cities is producing the most "production" so I can tell it to build a wonder? Or what type of luxury resources and how many do I hold so I can make proper trade agreements BEFORE I go into a trade agreement? A strategy game is all about information so you can... believe it or not... build up a strategy. But this incarnation of Civilization is dumbed down to cater to a new audience, which boggles my mind! The Civ franchise has always sold well... Why did they need to mess up the formula? If it ain't broke.... Expand
  87. Apr 14, 2011
    Civ5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian boss tribes) don't know who they are what they are where they are and what they are supposed to do, so it is a single player. Mulitplayer is broken, but totally ROCKS according to the devs. I recommend thsi game to enyone who is short of hate and / or boredom. Expand
  88. Mar 10, 2011
    I am sorely disappointed. I love the old civilization games, and was looking forward to this game for quite some time. The graphics are hardly better than Civ 4, and there are loads of glitches. The lag is horrible, and there are fewer choices of people or options. They dumbed it down. This may be fine for an introduction to the Civilization series, but I wanted a step forward, not simplification. Expand
  89. Mar 15, 2011
    As a fan of the entire series (in particular, Civ II and Civ IV), Civ V was a near-total letdown. It's marched backwards in almost every way, and it's interesting that the system requirements are steeper than Civ IV's, because Civ IV had better graphics. Diplomacy is horrible, the City States are incredibly annoying and feel like speed bumps (BIG speed bumps) on one's way to world domination. In addition, their alliances are nonsensical - how in the hell they could maintain a trade route with a rival civilization by going through MY territory is farcical. They are far too difficult to conquer. A friend of mine plays the game with the city-states turned off, which I guess is available through options. It's rather telling that a portion of the game the developers obviously spent a great deal of time on is improved when it's removed from play. Combat was not improved with the removal of stacking, as the scale of the map doesn't lend itself to formations where you can protect missile units. Add to all this the incredibly laggy (in single-player!) and worthless Diplomacy screens, the removal of espionage and religion, the dumbed down UI, the memory leaks and crashes, the fewer number of civilizations unless you pony up more money for DLC. . . . . . summed up, a huge march backwards and a horrible game. This was the game that finally taught me to ignore most "professional" reviewers on Metacritic, as it's incomprehensible that they scored it a 90. This game isn't even worth it if they dropped the price to $10 USD. Avoid it, and just keep playing Civ II or IV. Expand
  90. Mar 12, 2011
    The game was designed by a young novice, John Shaffer. The end result is an unfinished and unpolished mess. The game itself is okay. The mod tools that came included are extremely user unfriendly and are bug ridden. Very poor game.
  91. Mar 21, 2011
    In one word: boring.

    A complete letdown for a long-time Civ fan (since Civ II). Abundant technical problems mar gameplay causing huge lags between turns that allow you to peacefully read Tolstoy's War and Peace and even finish it in between turns. Huge lags just firing up the game FGS! Continuous CTD ( I must have suffered easily over 200 CTD) litter gameplay killing off immersion. And
    yes my rig is high-end so I shouldn't be having these problems but I do. In fact I even upgraded specifically it for its release. What a sucker. Now let's talk gameplay. The biggest change by far is the one-unit-per-tile rule, which although opens up a bevy of new strategy paths and may seem interesting on paper, in practice kills all the fun and addictiveness the game is renowned for. Lack of movies on winning, lack of statistics, INDIVIDUAL DLC's for each and every additional civilization (WTF!! you have to be kiddin's us) at 7 USD the pleasure...I must have "rich civ sucker" tatooed all over my forehead and the list goes on and on. On the positive side, undoubtedly the most beautiful graphics and sound a civilization game has ever been graced with. But then again, strategy games are NOT about pretty graphics (SMAC I'm looking at you). If I want them, I pick up Crysis 2 instead. Strategy games are about gameplay. Let me write that gain, "gameplay". You know, immersion, fun, addictiveness (one-more-turn), wife yelling at me, playing until the wee hours of the morning with a coffee. That sort of thing. Let me just add the civic tree is a great addition that spices up the game.

    I hope the Civilization franchise has not been killed off as a result of this disaster.


    It feels dumbed down from Civ IV and I wasn't even a great fan of the latter mind you. Hey, I LIKE MM my workers and fielding huge armies with hundreds of units you know...don't remove these things, make them optional at most.

    My advise, wait until they release the GOTY edition and see if it's been patched up or something. Although the biggest killer, the one-unit-per-tile rule, cannot be fixed with a patch. Pick up Shogun 2 Total War instead. It crashes from time, but compared to Civ V it is "stable" and runs smoothly; worth every penny.
  92. Mar 17, 2011
    If I were to sum up this game using just one word I'd use the word "Disappointment." They've conjured up a great deal of new ideas to revolutionize this game, but in combination with all the flaws this game isn't worth it at all. If you are a fan of previous Civ games that liked the created depth of the game, that liked having multiple ways to win the game, that liked better diplomacy, espionage, religion, and cooperations, then stick with Civ 4. Expand
  93. Mar 17, 2011
    well, another game has been dumbed down in order to appeal to the WoW audience. CiV is a real crying shame of a game. Instead of building on the achievements olf Civ 4 they havespoiled it by making an entirely new game.

    A game that is shallow, too easy, dumb and has very little going for it once you get into the industrial age. Be very aware that Firaxis employees are spamming
    Metacritic with good reviews in order to bump its rating up. Expand
  94. Mar 19, 2011
    There is no comparison with Civilization IV, it has less features and and major flow in politics and in expanding your territory. War is no fun any more. Civ V just has cool graphics and, nah that is all. Since i bought Civ IV each time I played I spent 5 -7 playing. In CIV V i get bored at the first hour.
  95. Mar 27, 2011
    The game runs very poorly on my new macbook pro i5 with SSD. In addition to this the game crashes after playing only a few minutes. The graphics have to be set to the lowest quality for the game to run at all and thus are awful. A purely horrible experience and such a disappointment that I had to make an account here and express my opinion. I would gladly take my money back for this one!
  96. Apr 2, 2011
    Lets start with the good.
    I'm not necessarily a hardcore Civ fan. I only started playing at 4, and in comparison with 4, 5 is quite fun (imo). I never liked the stacks of doom that the ai packed tons of, and I feel what they did with the combat was a huge improvement. The flanking bonuses/ability to fend off dozens of units with 3-4 well placed ones is a really awesome concept.

    Unfortunately, the AI are duuumb as anything and instead of realizing they have no hope, they'll move to stupid places and get slaughtered. The worst of all is when you have a naval unit by the coast and they embark right next to it, free kills >.>
    I've clocked over 300 hours playing it, and its an alright game. I haven't tried multiplayer, because like yahtzee I believe a game should be judged by its single player. But I've heard it's crap.

    I *would* have given this game a 9/10 if there was hotseat, which would counter the necessity of stupid ai by allowing me to play for them =D
    But 6 months after this games release, and 6 months of promises have passed, and hotseat is not here. Hotseat isn't a big deal for some people, but paying 50 bucks to support a company that makes false promises isn't worth it in my books.
  97. Oct 16, 2012
    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 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
  98. Oct 15, 2011
    This is the most disappointing sequel I have ever played. I played Civ4 for well over 1000 hours of my life. I played Civ5 for 36 hours according to Steam, and I haven`t had the slightest urge to pick it up again. Civ 5 is like Civ4 with slightly better graphics, a hexagonal playing field and a whole lot of things removed including everything I considered fun, and it was clearly made by people who don`t know why gamers played the previous Civ games. Where do I begin... Let`s start with the AI. It has obviously not received any QA time whatsoever. You will repeatedly encounter the other civs behaving in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. The other civs will declare war at random, and ask you for help and then brand you a warmonger and hold a grudge against you for thousands of years because you did what they asked for and helped them. The other civs have a way of ganging up on the human-controlled civ and making demands of it that they don`t make of each other. Wonders feel useless, and instead of animations you just get a cheesy image.There is no technology trading. The technology race feels irrelevant. Making research pacts is idiotic. Renewing research pacts is idiotic. Neutral nation states that give you `missions` -- idiotic. Punishing civs for expanding by making cities exceedingly expensive while half the world map remains empty well into the industrial age -- idiotic. On occasion, other civs won`t bother to build a second city or any units for that matter. Cities are weapons -- idiotic. Archers can fire over hundreds of kilometres. Only one unit can fit per tile, meaning that vulnerable units often have no protection. This game feels like the war is actually happening between 10 soldiers versus a tank rather than a unit that symbolizes a whole infantry or armored division. The war is a cartoon of Civ4`s war. Hexagonal tiles are a very lazy improvement, and the game gains little through them. There are no ending animations and no summary of history, probably because it would expose how broken the AI is.

    If I were to make a real sequel to Civ4 here`s what I would include: 1) theatres of war: when you fight inside a tile the camera zooms in to a strategic view where your divisions are split up into smaller units that you can move around on the zoomed-in map. These units support each other with indirect fire, flanking and fighting at short range. This would be far better than having one unit per tile or having stacks of doom like in civ4. It would also be a lot more work to implement, but that is exactly what I expect from a whole new game -- which civ5 is not

    2) Better population dynamics. Assuming I have the same amount of food, it shouldn`t make any difference whether I train settler and split into two cities or not. My total population should be the same. In civ5 the population dynamics make no sense.

    3) Intead of building an army, I should build equipment and employ a segment of my population to use it. You can`t build soldiers, only give birth to them.

    4) Smart and logical AI that doesn`t attack at random.

    5) More techs and more units, including many more in the modern era.

    6) Allowing backward civs to get third-rate versions of modern weapons (the equivalent of African AK47s) without a lot of research.

    That is the kind of civ game I would like to play, but of course it would take some thought to appreciate and lots of time and effort to construct. Civ5 on the other hand was rushed and designed to look good for 5 hours, just long enough for the reviewer to give it its high mark and then give up on it.
  99. Jun 29, 2011
    I have played all the Civ games since the very first one. After playing Civ 5 for a few days and fiddling with mods, I've finally decided to give up. This game probably has the most inconsistent gameplay I have ever seen.
    The graphics look really nice, especially if you run it under DX11 and have a pretty beefy PC. The new combat system, ranged attacks, and one hex = one military
    unit rule are just brilliant. Too bad AI is unable to utilize it effectively. Oh, and I like the new UI. That's about it.
    Everything else is just plain broken. The AI is so stupid it's breathtaking. It is simply not an option to evade war and win a non-combat victory. AI just keeps insulting you and declaring war for no reason. I've tried playing as Gandhi and did everything the AI asked (even not settling near their borders which is, frankly, retarded request). Still, they kept denouncing me and declaring war. No matter what you do, no matter who you befriend, you always end up in a global conflict with AIs declaring war on you and each other. And when you actually get in combat with AI, it is laughable. They NEVER send more than 4-5 units at once, even on higher difficulties.
    It's fascinating someone is actually able to program an AI that is stupider than Civ 1's and slows down to a crawl even on high end quadcore systems (late turns during an epic game on huge map slowed down to 1-2 MINUTES on 4Ghz i7 processor). Moreover, there are annoyingly long load times. Add poor optimization and frequent crashes to the mix and realize you will be spending a LOT of time doing virtually NOTHING!
    Granted, Civ 5 was developed for multiplayer - but even multiplayer is somewhat disappointing due to the lack of any depth and features (no espionage, no religion, no government...). You could redistribute your national income any way you saw fit even in Civ 1. You cannot do so here. No research or culture boosting... In other words, Civ 5 has been bastardized in every possible way. Fewer playable civs (without DLCs) than in Civ 4? Check. Idiot-friendly micromanagement (no wealth redistribution, global happiness...)? Check. Stupid AI and super-easy gameplay? Check. No vanilla Earth map? Check.
    After playing a few games, I realized Civ 5 is not a game. It is more like a framework for future DLCs, patches, and most importantly, mods. The AI, balancing (you research really really fast while everything else takes ages), engine.... nearly everything is either broken or in stages of beta version (even AFTER many patches Firaxis has released!). Wait for a year or two before buying this game. Hopefully by that time it will be patched properly and some nice modpacks will allow you to play a balanced game with more features. Until then save your money for something else.
  100. Jul 19, 2011
    Played Civ on the playstation, then moved to PC for II,III and IV. Loved IV and spent many many hours playing it. Installed Civ V, what a dissappointment. It's very slow, no fun, ultimately tedious. I'm back on Civ IV these days and Civ V sits on the bookshelf gathering dust, they won't catch me out again!

Universal acclaim - based on 70 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 70
  2. Negative: 0 out of 70
  1. Apr 3, 2011
    Despite my gripe with the animations in multiplayer, Civilization V is the perfect entry for the series' debut in the current generation of gaming.
  2. Jan 20, 2011
    We're just a little bit disappointed that this Civ evolution isn't as polished as we'd expected. [Issue#102, p.108]
  3. Jan 15, 2011
    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.