User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1624 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
    4
    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.
    Expand
  2. Sep 25, 2010
    3
    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.
    Expand
  3. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    A fantastic addition to the Civ franchise. My greatest complaint with previous Civ games, which I've been playing since 1991, was that large armies were extremely unwieldy and frustrating to manage. Sea transportation logistics were also a frustrating time sink. Both of these problems have been solved with Civ V. Everything about the game screams polish and it runs like an absolute dream, haven't had a hitch yet which is becoming so rare with new releases. Expand
  4. Sep 22, 2010
    6
    Let me start of by saying I am a long time fan of the Civilization series. I have owned all versions of civilizations from the day they were releases. Heck I am an old timer that was playing games like simearth back in the day.

    With that rant over, on the the game. I will give the highlight of it is pretty much the same old civilization we played for 20 years with better graphics
    with combat changes. There is nothing revolutionary and ground breaking in the game. If you played any of the other Civ's then you already played this one.

    Sure you have Hexes now and you can not stack units, but the heart of the game has been the same for 20 years and to be honest the developers are playing it too safe and are not giving us anything unique.

    I am not going to give it a zero as it is not a bad game... the problem is they already sold this game 4 times over the last 20 years. If you never played Civ before, check it out... but if you played the others, this the the same old game.

    Maybe but Civ VII or Civ X they will give us something new :)
    Expand
  5. Sep 26, 2010
    0
    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.

    As
    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.
    Expand
  6. Apr 28, 2011
    3
    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 :(
    Expand
  7. Sep 23, 2010
    7
    Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. First off, as of 2 days after the release of the game I have logged 16 hours of play time. About 12 of them on 2 to 4 player multiplayer games and the rest on single player.

    Civilization V is an amazing game, but it is not without its faults. The combat system is amazing. The use of hexes
    and the fact that only one unit of each type can be on a hex opens the game up to much more challenging combat as well as unique tactics. However, while the combat system is very nice, the computer never uses any tactics when attacking you. Making defeating the enemies in all situations a cakewalk.

    The new culture system is also very nice. The removal of religion and civics will definitely annoy some, but the new system of policies is a pretty good replacement. One is forced to plan ahead by timing the construction of wonders, settlers, and military units to coincide with the adoption of new policies. The new method of expanding ones border is also very interesting, a combination of culture and gold. Gold allows to choose what tiles you wish to buy, while culture automatically claims tiles for you. The AI is typically pretty good about picking the best places, but you can always buy up the places you really want if its going too slow. My biggest complaint for this game is the very very very spotty diplomacy system. For a game that was made with the intention of being more diplomatic and AIs are uncommonly aggressive. Diplomacy is now like taking a shot in the dark. You have a good idea of how to lower it, very little idea of how to raise it and absolutely no idea about how you stand with the other nations. In the previous Civ games my favorite way to win was diplomatic victory. Now, having tried for 5 to 6 games and having not succeeded even once, I'm starting to question if its even possible. If someone figures out the diplomacy system, without the use of a guide, please let me know. Another complaint I have with the game is the very bad multiplayer support. You can't save a multiplayer game, only autosave, and the autosave is not very reliable and is prone to self deletion. Having lost 4 to 5 current games with my friends, this is annoying to say the least. Furthermore I have yet to figure out how to play mods on multiplayer, someone let me know when they figure it out? For a game that comes from a long line of epic multiplayer friendly games, this is a huge disappointment. Many of my friends have already said they're not gonna waste anymore time on this game until the multiplayer aspect is fixed. Yet, if you don't mind single player games. Or if you don't mind multiplayer games that you'll almost never finish. I actually enjoyed the single player games and unfinished multiplayers to refine my strategy (But I am an addict). This is the pinnacle of turn based strategy games, and the design of the game itself outweighs most of the negatives that come from stupid AIs, horrible diplomacy, bad multiplayer support (all of which I hope will be fixed by patches). But until they do, this is not worthy of the legacy of Civilization. For now, a 7 out of 10.
    Expand
  8. Oct 5, 2010
    6
    I'm baffled that "professional" critics rated such a buggy mess of a game so high. Perhaps they only played a few hours or were limited to a demo or some other nonesense, because if you go read the 2K Support forums, you'll see that CIV V is filled with buggy AI, missing features, and straight up silly bugs. If you are considering purchasing this game for Multiplayer LAN games with your family, strongly reconsider until they have a chance to fix numerous issues plaguing this game. This game was definitely not ready for release. Expand
  9. Sep 27, 2010
    4
    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!
    Expand
  10. Sep 30, 2010
    2
    What an enormous disappointment. I am shocked that this game came from Sid Meierâ
  11. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    Continuing the tradition of sucking the soul from your body, Sid keeps up the legacy that is Civilization. After only one play through the thought of jumping into the next full work days worth of playing to feel the happiness in victory over the other Civilizations is still there. Slight tweaks are definitely noticeable in terms of cultural changes, military changes, and clearly defined tech tree development. The new policy choices are a great new take on the game, I can't wait for the game to have added depth with mods. Best purchase I've made all year. = ) Expand
  12. Sep 23, 2010
    5
    If you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order to understand your neighbors. You can see current deal but have no sense of why or if the other civilizations like you or not. Also you cant make your own saves during multiplayer and need to rely on autosaves, and you have no other option other than simultaneous turns when playing multiplayer. This option when using the combat model simply does not work and feels more like an RTS or console game than what many of us have grown to love about CIV. If you have not played a CIV game before start here, if you own CIV IV stick with that. Expand
  13. Sep 27, 2010
    6
    As a longtime fan of the series, I unfortunately have to say that Civ5 has been vastly overrated by professional reviewers. That's probably because the game looks great and the real flaws don't start to show up until after a few hours of play.

    There are certain things I really like about this game. City states were a great addition and make the game a lot more interesting. Being able
    to purchase land is awesome and realistic. Easier rushbuying is a lot of fun and doesn't unbalance the game.

    The new combat system is pretty goofy (for example, archers are a ranged unit but riflemen are not). It's a bit more fun than the old "stacks of doom," but I see reviewers praising the new combat system as "more streamlined" when it is definitely not. Moving an old stack of doom required 2 clicks (click on SOD, click on destination). Now you need to do the same thing 5-10 times as much to move an army.

    The new Civic talent tree offers more customization of specific traits, which is fun to plan around. However you can't swap civics to match a change in strategy in-game (eg. teching up at the beginning of the game and then turning to a warlike theocracy once you realize you're likely to lose the space race). This is disappointing. Overall, when Civ5's civics are compared to Civ4 its a wash. In-between-turn load times suck. On a normal size map in the modern age, I was sitting and watching the hourglass for an average of 15 seconds in between each turn--even when I wasn't watching animations of enemy moves. I'd blame my computer but it runs pretty much every other game at high settings without a hint of a problem.

    Music is bad, particularly the asian themed music. I can't believe they wasted time animating leaders and making them talk in their own languages. It doesn't add much to the game and some of their voices (Queen Elizabeth) actually detract from it by being annoying.

    The lack of science/gold/culture sliders takes away a lot of customization potential that was fun to tinker with in previous Civ games. This became painfully apparent when going for a cultural victory. A cultural victory doesn't require the last 25% of the tech tree, but you can't stop researching until you run out of money. And in the meantime, because you're still researching new tech, your puppet states are building more and more new buildings and costing you more money. And when you run out of money you can't do a LOT of things, like rush-build or more importantly buy luxury resources and establish good relations with city states that provide culture. Basically you lose the ability to do the things that make the game fun. This is especially frustrating when it have been so easily solved with the old-school sliders, which were never that difficult to manage in the first place. Overall, it's a good, but not great game. It reminds me of Civ3, in that it attempts to add interesting new game concepts and surprisingly flops at aspects in which its predecessor excelled. On the bright side, Civ4 did a great job of combining the best of Civ2 and Civ3, so hopefully history repeats itself and Civ6 will be awesome.
    Collapse
  14. May 11, 2011
    3
    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.
    Expand
  15. Feb 3, 2012
    2
    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
  16. Apr 24, 2011
    4
    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 .
    Expand
  17. Sep 28, 2010
    4
    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.
    Expand
  18. Sep 30, 2010
    3
    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..
    Expand
  19. Dec 29, 2010
    3
    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
  20. Jul 17, 2011
    6
    The days of plunking down $50 dollars for something in the Civilization series without thinking are over for me. As many of the other reviewers said, this game was just not ready to go. If it were a first release of Civ ever I'd give it much higher marks. But it's not. It's the 5th major version of the main game, and has had a ton of other manifestations, patches, add-ons, etc. Because of that, Civ 5 should be an embarrassment to the franchies. A new version of a game should build on the positive things in past versions. But there are features (particularly in the user interface) that are MISSING. They didn't bother to include a lot of the things (mostly little) that they included in *previous* versions. It's very difficult to get easily accessible information about profits and cities in a format that is intuitive and informative. It feels like one step forward and two steps back. It could be recoverable with some relatively minor fixes, but if they haven't done so yet, I doubt they are going to. As others have said, they lost their credibility with me on this game and the 'brand trust' has been eroded. -- I've raised my rating 2 since the last patch. Expand
  21. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Since i was 6 i've been playing Civilzation and Civilization V is the best and easiest for me to use (so far). It may be because i was younger and not able to fully understand the keyboard a few years ago but i find Civilization V easy to control and i really enjoy playing it.
  22. Oct 3, 2010
    6
    Simplified so a chimapnzee can play it, full of bugs and crashes, it is the worst of all Civ games. One leader for each nation? So if you want to play a specific nation, but do not like the leader traits, you are screwed. One unit per tile? Nice idea until the map is full of spawned units blocking each other's way. And how the is it possible for another empire units to come through my units as the are not there? How are we suppose to protect our city states at war with another major when not beiing at war witht the said major? Expand
  23. Sep 30, 2010
    4
    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.
    Expand
  24. Oct 20, 2010
    6
    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

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


    This game is mediocre and didn't live up with the hype. I hope they will do better on the next expansion.
    Expand
  25. Nov 5, 2010
    3
    The game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a 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
  26. Nov 30, 2011
    3
    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.
    Expand
  27. Sep 26, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The short of it is: if you have, and like Civ IV BTS, then don't bother. The only people who don't think that this is major dumbing down of the series obviously just don't 'get' strategy games. I've played through two full games now, one marathon and one normal. I like to play Huge, Marathon, Earth maps because of the 'epic' feel. this virtually can't be done on CIV V. Marathon is simply too slow (my rig exceeds recommended specs and hasn't crashed once). City-states make ridiculous demands eg "build a road to my town (on the other side of the planet) and they get really old really fast. On normal it was a bit better, except there's no way of telling if your neighbours are happy with you, so it's easy to descend into bloodshed if you're not disciplined. The end screens on Civ IV were short little movie, depending on which victory you attained. Civ V doesn't even have this - it's more like a "Conglaturation!, you have completed a great game" screen, and that's it. Combat is better, but the dumbing down of naval invasions means it's really easy to snatch the enemy's capital from sea. Capture all the enemy capitals and you win the game. That is of course if your units don't get lost on the way. Civ V has a really annoying habit of 'losing' units. it's a bit like the Total War series, where you have the remember where your units are. Not cool if you come back to a game after a long break. Likewise their "goto" commands break when they embark, often leading to a huge build up of units on the wrong coast. Aerial combat isn't much better, animations for the planes don't play properly. The ranges of combat missions aren't clear. etc etc. It just doesn't 'feel' epic anymore.
    I'll be looking forward to the first patch for this game and expansion, but at the moment my advice is to steer clear, definitely not worth the $$$
    Expand
  28. Oct 1, 2010
    4
    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.
  29. Oct 3, 2010
    3
    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.
    Expand
  30. Oct 3, 2010
    3
    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
  31. Oct 6, 2010
    0
    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.
  32. May 3, 2011
    4
    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
  33. Apr 30, 2011
    0
    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
  34. Sep 23, 2010
    10
    I have played every Civilization games since CIV 2. I only slept 5 hrs last night due to Civ 5, and it was worth it! The move to hexagons was a brilliant decision when combined with the removal of stacks. A slightly simplified tech tree and the new the social policies also reduce the micromanagement of the game. My first game still took me over six hours, but the turns went by so much faster. Pretty graphics are always nice :)

    Now, does the AI have problems? Yes. Does the AI always have problems? No. Does it usually have problems? Yes. The AI is not a lost cause, but it will probably take some time to get right. While I am ranting let me make one further remark. The longer you play, the better you get at the game. It should not be surprising then that the AI will lag behind the player. That is why there are different difficulty levels. I never got beyond Noble, however, because the micromanagement started to weigh the game down for me. I think that I will be going a lot longer now. Back to actual problems, I did have to rename the CIV 5 DX 10 App as the Civ V DX 9 app to have DX 10 graphics. Check the steam forums for tech support if you having issues - some very smart people are there.

    I know that some older players will miss some of the features and will also miss some of their strategies not working. They deserve to speak their minds. As do I. As I mentioned I think much of my enthusiasm comes from a streamlined experience. If that sounds like your kind of Civilization, you will be in luck. If you want the complexity that is Beyond the Sword, you might want to wait till the inevitable expansion.
    Expand
  35. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    Firstly and most importantly: I have never played a Civ game before. Secondly, the first time I sat down and played Civilization V, I played for almost 8 hours. Consecutively. The game is THAT addictive, and I haven't had that kind of hook on a game for years. There are many ways to play and ultimately be the best civilization. The game might look unappealing and boring to some, but the game is really easy to understand, yet extremely deep at the same time. I'm mostly an FPS person, but this game is some of the most fun I've had playing a game, ever. Expand
  36. May 24, 2011
    0
    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.
    Expand
  37. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    So many annoying things have been streamlined without dumbing the game down. No more counting out 2 tiles away from your city, your boundaries are more fluid. Wonder limits appear to be tossed out, which was an annoying strategy-lite factor to track in IV . (I noticed lots of well-placed streamlining... I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention some.)

    I cannot understate how much better combat
    is in V. Ranged combat, no stacks, hexes, all for the better. Frigates can kill stuff on land.

    Game balance seems better so far. Last night I tried a theologically-based "happy citizens" approach that seemed to pretty successful, though that was on Chieftain setting.

    The communication of why things happen isn't so esoteric "It's too crowded!!!!" comments are now clearly quantified. Civic options are a bit more fleshed out as "policies". They follow a more formal tree, but have relevance throughout the game. AI is cool too. During one war I was winning, my AI opponent offered a great peace deal. Unfortunately he whisked in a defensive pact. Silly me, I didn't think about it until he started killing one of my city state allies and quipped, "I'm beating up on your buddy. What you gonna do about it?" It's like any later edition of a game: Modern game design is simply more sophisticated nowadays. Some folks will dislike the differences, but in the case of Civ V, I like what they did to it.
    Expand
  38. Sep 28, 2010
    3
    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
  39. Oct 2, 2010
    0
    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
  40. Oct 4, 2010
    0
    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
  41. Oct 6, 2010
    5
    All these 90+ reviews have me wondering if the reviewer ever made it past the Industrial age and into the endgame.

    Out of the box Civilization 5 is a disappointment, the endgame is bloated beyond words. On the lowest settings possible I still watch the world drawing in tile by tile (with a 1GB Radeon HD 4890) but I don't mind, it's a strategy title. What I do mind is the average 3
    minute wait between turns because the ONLY time you can turn off combat animations is if you happen to click the much smaller 'advanced options' button while setting up your game then scrolling down to find the check box.

    Diplomacy is a farce, for the past 4 titles it was always right there in clear view and easy to interpret. In a half dozen play throughs I have yet to figure out a way to find out how the other cultures feel about each other aside from noting Pacts of Secrecy they have with me. Even finding the 'Global Politics' requires you to poke down through 3 screens and yet there's no information about the other cultures besides how they relate to yours. The lack of detail and attention to diplomacy renders the AI 'personalities' at best minimal and on average completely non-existent. The worse though, is the victory. What a let down / slap in the face. After having to sit through the first 20-30 seconds of that intro animation every time I tried loading the game I expected a little something at the end. instead - a splash scree with 4 tabs - that's IT. There's more animation involved in transporting your spaceship parts to your Capital(some) than there is when you actually launch it (none at all).

    The first one if your victory image WHEE!!! the next are the global demographics, best and worse only, no actual way to view demographics by culture. Then you get your score, and the final tab is a player hall of fame. There's no graph or replay - elements that have been STANDARD since the original Civilization - NINETEEN YEARS AGO. It completely removes the players ability to see what else was happening in the world while they were establishing themselves at the start. Even with all that negativity this game is super fun and that's what makes the gripes even more disappointing. If this was a brand new game from some unknown developer it wouldn't get the critical praise this NAME is getting. As the 5th entry in one of the longest standing and most popular series made, shipping with these issues / expecting the mod community to finish up their title is just not cool. Maybe if the game would have actually shipped with a manual I'd be able to figure out where or why my gripes stem from, especially while waiting for my next turn, but they stripped that out too.

    Thankfully I still have Civ4 installed.
    Expand
  42. Oct 13, 2010
    7
    Pros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it a better score. But there are times when I feel like I'm in a grind. Like trying to level up in a MMORPG. Can't put my finger on it specifically, but to "tidy up" the game so that strategic moves seem more compelling and the game doesn't tend to tread water in places.

    Nevertheless, if you're a RTS fan, you'll definitely want this one. No doubt there will be patches and other content made available and hopefully some of the concerns people have voiced here will be resolved.
    Expand
  43. Oct 18, 2010
    5
    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

    The good: Graphics are great, especially the diplomat renderings. The sound effects are mostly the same as old civ
    games, giving some nice nostalgic moments. The soundtrack list is huge. Combat is an enormous improvement over old games: the combination of hexagonal tiles, and no unit stacking makes it much more dynamic than previous Civ iterations. The bad: Simplification! Civs aren't action games. Civ players don't want action games. They want a cerebral experience that challenges them over and over again, each time they play. Firaxis has taken steps to streamline the experience that end up detracting from the game as a whole. Civ IV's religion and civic system is now a non-dynamic culture system, where you spend accumulated culture points for a once-off gameplay bonus. It is a step backwards. Diplomacy is terrible: the opaque system leaves you in the dark about what is going on. Want to enter a pact of secrecy? Uh, sure... I have no idea what that is!

    The ugly: The soundtrack! Civ4's soundtrack was a masterpiece. The choice to progress the time period of origin for music based on the age of your civilization lent a feeling of progression to the game, as you ushered your civilization from the ancient era, to the future era. In Civ5, the soundtrack is now based on the (real life) origin of your civilization, and further whether it is engaged in war or peace. While the song-list is enormous (possibly larger than Civ 4's), you'll find that if you play a mainly peaceful civilization, you listen to the same songs from 4000BC to 2050AD. The fact of the matter is this: after months of Civ4, I still loved the soundtrack. After a week of Civ5, the soundtrack had become repetetive to the point that I started muting it.

    The REALLY ugly: Remember how bad Civ4 used to tank your system when the AI was thinking during the later portions of the game? Remember how your computer would slow to a crawl for 20 seconds when you clicked 'next turn'? Civ5 is worse. By the 1800s, clicking 'next turn' becomes a dreaded thing: it means your computer will be out of commission for 30-60 seconds while the AI slogs through what it wants to do next. I find that post-1800AD, I typically spend more time reading stuff on my cell phone, or watching TV, than I do during my turns. It is bad enough that after playing through my first four or five full-length games, I had no desire at all to take another game into the later stages, as it was just tedious. Don't blame this on my system: it was built recently, and is more than capable.

    Add to this a large list of other bugs, such as(the camera wildly swinging around as the game auto-selects units available for action from across the map, even though it is already positioned directly over another such unit, and you have a game that wasn't ready for primetime. For the civilization series, 5 was a step forward, and multiple leaps backwards. If you have a hankering for a good game of civilization, fire up Civ4. You'll have a better time.

    On top of all of this is the single worst part of the game: the computer AI takes entirely too long to think on its turn. Civ4's early days had a similar problem, with the late-game turning into a slog-fest as clicking 'next turn' inevitably resulted in anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds of down-time during which your computer tanks to a crawl. By the end game, I typically find myself spending more time reading news on my cell phone than actually playing the game. As such, it got to the point where playing past 1800AD was more chore than fun. (Don't try to
    Expand
  44. Apr 7, 2012
    4
    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
  45. Apr 26, 2011
    5
    Too much bugs in this game!. In Big maps is impossible to finish due to recurrent crash. It's fun, but too frustrating when you couldn't load a game in turn 400. I hope that Sid Meier fix the game!
  46. May 17, 2011
    8
    Civ V is a good game. I've been a fan of the series for over a decade and I can confidently say it stands well among its peers. It is greatly simplified over Civ IV, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. While I do miss the sheer depth of the last title Civ V has the sort of simplification that, more often than not, works well for the game. It's certainly a more approachable title for newcomers to the franchise, and there's still plenty for experiences players to finesse. The process of waging war is undeniably superior in this version, with the new hex grid adding a tactical element none of the other games ever had. The hex grid itself makes the playable world look and handle much nicer too. There are some definite improvements here, but the game doesn't quite live up to Civ IV's grandeur. Civ IV, especially after its expansions, is the better game, but Civ IV is one of the best 4x games ever conceived. By its own merits, Civilization V is still one of the best releases of the last year and well worth anyone's attention. Expand
  47. May 19, 2011
    3
    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.
  48. Jul 21, 2013
    7
    This game in vanilla form is a middle finger to all Civ IV fans. After all the DLC are added it becomes a pretty nice game. You will need ton increase the difficulty level as they didn't do a good job with the AI.
  49. Dec 31, 2011
    6
    I am fan of civilization franchise but i think this game is not the best of them and didn't has the same quality and deep gameplay of the previous games.
  50. Sep 23, 2010
    9
    The newest Civilazation entry is yet an another awesome advance in the series. Everything is more streamlined, but the depth is not really sacrificed (other than the omission of religion and espionage...which in my opinion were among the weaker aspects of Civ IV). My only major complain is that the diplomacy options in this new Civ are poorly handled. Diplomacy with City States is very clear, and you know exactly where you stand with each of them. Diplomacy with other nations is a total mystery though...you have no idea how they feel about you, or others, and the interface is not as clear as other aspects of the game. Since this will no doubt be addressed in a future patch, and does not break the game in any way now, it is a negative but does not lower the games score too much. Out of the box this game is a 9, but some clever patches/expansions could push it to a 10. Definitely worth buying...a marathon civ session awaits! Expand
  51. e_k
    Sep 26, 2010
    6
    **If you've played, and enjoyed, the previous installments, you may be disappointed.** The changes that are neutral or positive are : ditching the religion (neutral) and corporation elements (good), a hex-based grid (good), full ranged warfare (good), end of roads-everywhere (good). The changes that are negative are: 'embarking' where almost any unit can cross water without the need for a ship, incomplete information regarding your diplomatic relations, a simplified tech-tree. These and other tweaks make the game 'smaller' in it's feel. (There are also some oddities - e.g., great person buildings are now built outside of the city, and are harvested like any other resource). Somehow, even on larger maps and longer duration games, it doesn't feel as absorbing as the previous versions did. Sure - the 'stack of doom' is now gone, but defending against such a force was a drama of its own, and doesn't result in the strange mechanic that only one unit can be stationed in a city (which makes it feel more like a board-game then an empire simulation). Overall, I am sure this is a good game, but it has to be compared to Civ IV, which was excellent. And in that comparison it fails. My guess is that future expansions may address some of these issues. Expand
  52. Sep 28, 2010
    5
    Unfortunately, this is yet another case of "let's release the game now, and patch it later." The AI is, frankly, incomplete, the game is unstable, and some selections in the options menu don't even work. This will undoubtedly become a great game once it's patched and the modders do their magic -- the same happened to Civ 4. However, even hardcore fans like me will be disappointed by the state the game is currently in. Expand
  53. Sep 29, 2010
    6
    Civ 5 starts off awesome. The graphics are great, the new combat mechanics are cool, and there's lots of neat things to explore...

    Then you start getting good at it. The empire building aspect is shallower then it was in Civ 4. There's less to build. There's incentive for building a lot of cities but not letting them grow. You can buy most of your food from city states if you want to, and
    come out ahead by just spamming trading posts. You notice that only a few Wonders are really worth their cost, let alone the difficulty in building them when the AI gets building speed boosts on higher difficulty.

    Combat is awesome, except that the AI is REALLY BAD at it. Once you know how to use rivers, hills, great generals, and ranged attacks strategically, you will dismantle armies significantly larger without difficulty.

    That's the problem here. The AI is bad and it makes the game really easy once you know how to play it. The shallower nature of the game means there's less fun without a challenging AI to push you.

    The game isn't bad, and if you're not a Civ fanatic you will probably find a lot to like. But for the people who are good at the TBS genre and Civ in particular, there won't be much to hold your attention over Civ 4.
    Expand
  54. Sep 30, 2010
    3
    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
    out.
    I am definitely going back to play my Civ IV
    Expand
  55. Sep 30, 2010
    3
    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.
    Expand
  56. Oct 3, 2010
    0
    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.
  57. Oct 11, 2010
    4
    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 ....talk 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 useless...eg. 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.
    Expand
  58. Oct 12, 2010
    3
    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.
    Expand
  59. Oct 13, 2010
    5
    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

    Civilization V fixes most of the problems that plagued
    Civilization IV. Gone are the 'Stacks of Doom', outlawed by the '1 unit per tile' rule. Economies are again driven by the land, not by cottages or great people. Happiness has been consolidated to an economy-wide focus, rather than a city-centric focus, which saves time. Geographic constraints on city expansion have been relaxed. The largely pointless and annoying disease/nutrition system is gone. The combat system has been beefed up, with ranged units and squares replaced by hexes (why wasn't that part of Civ 1?). The need to check diplomacy every turn to trade techs efficiently has been replaced by a system of collaborative research agreements. And some entertainment has been added through single city states. These are all substantial leaps forward.

    The game fails because despite all of these improvements, I can attest after 80 hours of gameplay, it just isn't fun. The four fun-killers are:

    First, the focus has clearly moved towards military conquest. The AI declares war on you because it can - the United States wants to conquer Canada in CivVWorld. But the AI sucks at war. If you can build an army of 6 units you can hold off an infinite attack from an enemy civ. Build an army of 12 units and you can advance on 2 fronts, which is enough to win constant war against everyone. To be fair, Civ AI has ALWAYS made for a poor man's wargame, but that has never really been the point before (well maybe in Civ 3, but ...), rather the fun has come from building up the civ and watching it thrive. Which brings me to ...

    Second, foolish humans, such as my good self, have always enjoyed the Civ franchise because of the micro payoffs, the "just one more turns" ... This game shows all the hallmarks of squished or hurried design. Tech advances are greeted by quotes both less sage and delivered less compellingly than Leonard Nimoy's efforts in Civ IV. The tech payoffs are sometimes nonsensible - the technology of 'Telegraph' lets you build battleships, miltary based and Rio de Janeiro's Christo Redento. Stop. Most of the Great Wonders confer largely irrelevant advantages, which is perhaps why Firaxis got rid of the beautiful wonder movies and replaced them with inane pictures, so no more do you curse and punch the wall when some other civ beats you by 1 turn. And the rewards for victory ... well, I wouldn't want to spoil the disappointment for you. Game designers everywhere need to understand that if you play for 20+ hours to achieve some condition that they set, you expect some quid pro quo.

    Third, there are design flaws - things that clearly just don't work the way any sane person would make a game work. Such as the maritime city states that provide a quantum of food to each of your cities, no matter how many cities there are in your civilization. Or the 'bonus' resources you wish you didn't have so you could just build a farm. Or the fact that in 1820 you should still build cavalry spearman so you can upgrade them to knights, then rifle-armed cavalry, because the upgrade system is so cheap. Fourth, there are bugs. Lots of bugss. Suffice to say that when you've played a game for 20 hours pushing for a domination victory and then find you can't kill your last opponent because the 10 turn peace treaty you signed 200 turns ago is still in effect, you'll probably consign this game to the dustbin, as I did. I've know doubt these will be fixed in time. So wait before you buy.

    In summary, I see in this product noble efforts to improve on civ 4 that, on balance, failed. The game is less likely to keep me up until 4am pressing the 'Next turn' button than did Civ IV because I care less about my little baby civs then I used to, and find it more inane beating up on my supid enemies than in the past. Nice try Firaxis, but no good. Thumbs down.
    Expand
  60. Nov 4, 2010
    2
    Oh dear. I've been a Civ addict for many years and I was really looking forward to this one. What a disappointment! I want to like it; I've tried to like it - but I've played for many hours and I still hate it. I play the dx10/11 version with maxed-out graphics and I still don't agree that it looks better than Civ4 - it simply looks like those trading/settling games that I find 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
  61. Aug 6, 2012
    3
    In the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the 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
  62. Jul 22, 2012
    8
    Having never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was pretty enjoyable and provides a lot of play time for your money. It must be said that the steamworks modding system is really good and some of the mods are useful and others change the game enough to keep it interesting. Expand
  63. Oct 3, 2010
    0
    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.
  64. Sep 30, 2010
    10
    Civ V is somewhat a dramatic and almost unexpected departure from the venerable series. Given how polished and excellent Civ IV and the Beyond the Sword expansion is, it would have been easy for Firaxis to slap a fresh coat of paint on that game and release it as Civ V. In fact, that's one of the reasons that some Civ IV fans aren't happy with Civ V. Go read reviews for a description of the game because the feature set sounds much like past Civs. Yet this one plays quite a bit differently. Gone is religion, squares, transports and the stack of doom. In their place is a very different Civ, with an emphasis on fewer units and cities, tactical combat and overall happiness. There's fewer units and cities so overall there's less micro-management. But yet there's more micro-management per unit and city because each one is so valuable. In many ways, Civ V is far more nuanced than prior versions, yet the options are there if you want to keep it on a high level. You'll spend more time in this game husbanding units and maneuvering for tactical combat and perhaps a bit less on the building of your empire. Also, unlike in some past games, Civ V will make you make a decision on the direction of your empire that you can't reverse. Scarcity in gold, hammers and civics makes a player think about these key decisions. This is a pretty radical departure in the series, but one that I welcome.

    There's no doubt there are some issues on release, notably with the tactical AI and opaque diplomacy. Gone too are things like wonder movies, which helped add personality to past games in the series, and religion, which drove diplomacy . Some fans like these decisions, others don't.

    All in all, Civ V deserves your hard-earned dollar. It's greatly entertaining, deep and fun. It's not without flaws and it's a pretty different direction for the Civ series, but the core of what made Civilization the premier TBS game in all of PC gaming is still here. It's a worthy successor to the crown.
    Expand
  65. Sep 26, 2010
    10
    Some minor things prevent me from giving Sid Meier's Civilzation V the 10/10. There are some minor glitches, but in the end I cannot agree with people saying "It's the same old game ..." - yes, it feels still like Civilzation but the new tactical aspects, i.e. hex cells and no more piles of death make the game much more enjoyable for me.

    You can easily spend 15-20 hours on a Standard
    sized map, not to talk about the bigger versions. The KI seems to be Ok, but again - here are some minor glitches. To give you an example, after freeing the capital city and handing it over to the old owner again, they should be pretty happy with you (and it's even mentioned they will be grateful forever ...), but they are not.

    It will eat your time, be warned. It is the same old game ... just one more move, and then I will eat something. Usually the next time you will have a look at the clock is hours later. ;)
    Expand
  66. Sep 27, 2010
    10
    Civ 5 lives up to all of my expectations and continues with the strong traditional "just one my turn" game play. They have made some good tweaks to the game mechanics that I was hoping for and the graphics overhaul is very nice.

    Definitely one of the most addictive games on this planet - beware!
  67. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    The king of strategy games is back. It comes packed with plenty of new features and tweaks, but the most impressive part is the presentation. The audio and visual quality is stunning as usual. Truly beautifully done. Sid Meier, don't stop making games please. But a step in a new direction next time would be nice.
  68. Sep 23, 2010
    10
    I always was a fan of the Civilization series and every-time they never disappoint me! A absolute genius game that will keep you playing forever! And that wasn't sarcasm :)
  69. Sep 24, 2010
    10
    In previous Civ's, the AI was either too random or too smart for itself and created predictability. This time, its closer to realism. I have logged several hours in the last three to four days and the challenge is finding enough time to learn the nuances of the game. Do not let yourself jump to conclusions about how the game has muddled the depth of control that existed in previous editions! With the expanded level of units per hexagon, the stacking mechanism is no longer relevant. Also, if we are trying for realism in a turn based game, how many soldiers can actually occupy a single space? The answer is 1 of course! It's the little things that set this game apart such as the advent of marine capabilities (a realism where a unit may construct a very small raft that allows them to shuttle across a peninsula without a resource cost but simply a turn cost), the unique AI, the extensive cultures available, and of course everything else I havent discovered yet.

    In versions of old, building natural wonders in the right place at the right time usually guaranteed victory. In this version, there are many possibilities including the discoveries of natural wonders, which can tilt your experience the right way. The best way to start this game, if you are a longtime fan, is to bite the bullet and just start with the training wheel. Read the instructive tutorials and use an open mind. Soon, you will find yourself immersed and it's no longer about about brute force and numbers, but an expressive mix of strategy, position, resource and military positioning that wins your games.

    The rest is up to you to explore- and you must be willing to accept the fact that every game will truly be different than the previous while playing Civ V. You cannot simply expect the AI to roll over with a set combination of negotiation tactics, sometimes it will- sometimes it wont- and sometimes when you think you have your enemy over the barrel, you will attack, and then an ally you were playing footsie with will declare war on you and crush you from the left.

    This game is a buy- and one of my favorites of 2010
    Expand
  70. Sep 24, 2010
    8
    First things first; All credit goes to Firaxis who still show faith in the pc by releasing civ V, even though they have given nods to the consoles with Civ Revolutions in the past.

    I think Civ V overall is a well designed game. It is a completely different game compared to IV, and that is also saying something in an era where a rehash is simply enough to guarantee equal sales. And the
    radical changes that make the game so different work very well, and give a new experience after 20 years of civilization.

    Some changes really add extra depth and flexibility to the game, but overall it does feel like Civ V compensates a bit too much when it tries to appease the market of new civ enthusiasts. If you are a fanatic of the previous games in the franchise, you will notice how the total weight changes suck the depth out of the franchise. Some changes are huge improvements, but Civ V seems to go overboard at times. I cannot blame them, because Firaxis needs to extend it's market appeal to the new crowd. As said, if you are a civ veteran, you may feel that the game is a bit more restrictive in it's radical changes.

    Also, I am not too fond of the long waits between turns later in the game, or the games high specs. it will need alot of love from the developer with patches and expansions, and a dedicated modding community to make it appealing for the hardcore civ fan. But the expansions and mods added a lot to Civ IV(that was haunted by similar problems), so I believe that this game will be great.
    Expand
  71. Sep 26, 2010
    9
    Civilization 5 is a great game and out does its previous installment in every way except for an iffy diplomacy system. The tech tree feels much more streamlined without dead end techs that feel worthless its less complicated but it's much better more often than not simpler is better. Lack of espionage, religion, and unhealthiness makes the game function better and I don't miss them. The combat system and map has improved the game fantastically and now warfare is actually fun which is a first for the series that alone is enough to overlook a few other flaws like a bland city state interaction system and rather wild and unpredictable AI (they play like a crazy human guy). Also the new culture use is genius and the new civics system is so much better than CIV 4. This isn't going to convert people who don't like the game but as it is its better than CIV 4 when it first came out and with expansions it will be the best in the series. Expand
  72. Sep 29, 2010
    10
    Sid strike again and this time he nails it out of the park. This is one of those games that come along oncin a blue moon. The amount of time I put into this game is unruly. It's a beautiful game crafted son well any artisan would admire it. Some people have said the game is dumbed down, that is just not true. When I first played it I did not like it. My eldest son told me to play it again and this time it shone like a diamond. This baby is great, I should know, I own almost 300 games.

    The combat in the game is superb and I love getting domination victories.

    If your system can handle it, give it a whirl. Trust me you wont be displeased.
    Expand
  73. Sep 30, 2010
    6
    Great game. Fun. Worth picking it up if you enjoy the genre.

    This game is a 6/10 because some things are currently not working right. Diplomacy is pretty useless at the moment, the tech tree is still just a "research all of it" thing, and the AI is anything but intelligent.
  74. Oct 1, 2010
    10
    Super addictive game, despite that I am new to the series, the game doesn't require me too much time to pick up the pace as much as I expected from this deep strategy game. The game is extremely accessible while retaining its micro-management. Each of the civilization have its own uniqueness equally and balanced to me. Some says that the game doesn't innovate anything new, I say: would you rather see a risky experimental game on your (well-known) favorite title? Some also says that there are too few civs, I say: 18, few? you mad? How much do you want? hundred?. Only minor let down of this game is languages, while enjoying listening to another civ leaders speaks their own language to use, if you speak one of those language you can notice that: their speech doesn't exactly match the translation it's only something related to it, and I heard that some of civ leaders speaks wrong language, on top of that It is creative idea, wishing for more though Expand
  75. Oct 2, 2010
    10
    Easily the best Civilization game to date. Trims most of the unnecessary bloat from previous versions (espionage, troop transport over water, unwieldy armies, religion) and streamlines the game to make it the most accessible Civ without removing any of the strategy. The game runs beautifully even with the superb graphics set to max. My only complaint is with the presentation, I miss the wonder videos and would love to see the palace or treasure room back, but these have no effect on the fantastic game play. Throw in steamworks and never having to dig up your game disc again and this is a complete package not to be missed by fans of the series or first timers looking to find out what all the fuss is about. Expand
  76. Oct 7, 2010
    7
    Good game but the AI sucks in water and the time between turns takes too long. Even with a great graphics card, expect slowdown, this game is not polished.
  77. HLB
    Oct 10, 2010
    3
    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.
  78. Oct 24, 2010
    0
    It got the mainstream treatment. Easy to spot when Meier's there saying it's been "streamlined" ahead of release. One of a few words to fear. This is a good game but nothing more. Certainly not worthy of the Civ franchise name and a huge shame the series has come to an abrupt and unwelcome end. I'm sticking to Civ 4.
  79. Oct 28, 2010
    0
    I would love to give this game a higher score. The game has the heart to become top notch. I do not share in the negative opinions about the mechanics, I kinda see these reviews as being absolutely absurd, or people wanting CIV IV... ITS A NEW GAME!
    The reason I have to give this a 0... and I give it a 0 as being a completely worthless game, is because even AFTER the latest patch, the
    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
  80. mpr
    May 29, 2011
    7
    Sure, the game may be too dumbed-down for the experienced Civ. fans, but for newcomers like me, this game is good. I've already played more than 50 hours and I'm still enjoying it.
  81. Dec 24, 2010
    2
    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
  82. Dec 25, 2010
    2
    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
  83. Dec 30, 2010
    2
    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 .
  84. Mar 15, 2011
    3
    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
  85. Jan 24, 2011
    9
    i started with civ 2 and loved it. then civ 4 came and disapointed me. so i needed a pick-me up and civ 5 was the answere. the first game was so exiting. i love the diplomacy it makes the game revived after civ 4's failure in diplomacy. the combat system is great and fun it is not just #'s vs #'s. if you have less units you can win a war if you use terrain and uprades to your advantage. this is for REAL STRATEGY GAMERS that know how unlike the civ 4 freaks that have only played #4 and have no idea what strategy is. you need to use your noggin to win. fun and addicting. deserves alot more attention. Expand
  86. Mar 17, 2011
    0
    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.
    Expand
  87. May 30, 2011
    5
    Meh - definitely not what I was hoping for - It's still fun to play for few hours but when i finished 2nd one like 20 times (my favorite game for a loooong time -strong 10) and was little disappointed with 3 (would give it around 7), but hooked again with 4 (9 in my scale) this one definitely didn't went in good direction for me. It has few nice new elements (like hex fields, nation specialization or barbarian activity) but a lot more were disappointing or just plain bad - happiness was definitely this thing for me - it is just unlogic why it had so global scale - i mean i could understand that if i have 1 revolting city I would get some negative bonus for every other city in empire - but we do not have this kind of mechanics here - here every new citizen gives negative impact doesn't matter if he was born in reachest city at plannet or poorest one with blazing borders- and when i build coloseum in 1 city it makes my every citizen little happier - the hell why??? It's like I should be happy when I live in New York that stadium was built in Denver - and like I would even care. Because of this global impact of happiness this killed my main tactics - to be an expansionist asap- you can't -every new city gives bigger negative impact than it can produce hapiness in next 30 turns. Another thing coming from hapiness is conquering cities - when you do that the only intelligent step is to burn it to the ground and place right away new city in the same spot - because you pretty fast will have population boom there anyway (especially if you have few free states providing food as allies-then new citizen every turn) and won't get such a big negative happiness bonus for different culture. What a hell? the only right way in conquer is total extermination? I don't like that - and it's not teaching kids nowadays to think properly and we don't want to raise new hitlers are we? I won't be pointing every other change that I wasn't found of - others did that already, so will only focus at happiness as main reason why this CiV has butchered gameplay - and in long term is just not fun to play. - So meh. No expansions or DLC that i'll buy for this one - going back to 4 or will wait for 6. Expand
  88. Jul 24, 2011
    2
    I would recommend either part IV and or part III over part V.
  89. Reo
    Aug 22, 2011
    1
    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
  90. Sep 8, 2011
    1
    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.
    Expand
  91. Sep 11, 2011
    5
    Civilization - Lite Edition is what I call this. If you want the complexity of the last games look elsewhere. If you want a turn based strategy game with average to poor AI and the depth of the shallow end of the paddling pool then this will be just for you!
  92. Nov 19, 2011
    0
    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.
  93. Nov 23, 2012
    5
    I can't recommend this Civ game. In the franchise, great steps were made to separate this from previous games with new concepts from hex, unit stacking, graphics, social policies, and city states. These succeed in creating new challenges for the player and add to the military strategy game. However, what the game does not deliver is an adaquate AI that fails at even the simplest of tasks. For example, an automated worker in an unhappy, fledgling empire at game start will not attempt build immediately on resource one tile from the capitol to connect it. Increasing difficulty beyond King (L6) doesn't incorporate new AI routines, it simply handicaps the player by huge bonuses for production, happiness, science, and gold output for all AI players. I have over 200 hours into this Civ with another 500+ for Civ4 and another 500+ hours for every Civ incarnation before it. Even if purchased on a Steam sale, it doesn't overcome the disappointment at the lack of re-playability compared to previous Civs. The game can be fun at times, but those moments of enjoyment are too rare. Like a tribal hut, you get the immediate sense of reward and that is about as good as it gets as the game goes back to tedium of micro-management to overcome a weak AI. Expand
  94. Oct 7, 2010
    0
    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.
    Expand
  95. Oct 30, 2012
    0
    I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems, it was just a game after all. But one of those games you would forgive anything, simply because it has something magical around it. Civ 4 is, as many have pointed out here as well, the pinnacle of the series. Again, of course it had aspects which could have been improved, and btw the Civ series was NEVER the hardest, toughest or most complicated strategy game out there. Try playing the Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron series, or many others, and you'll see what I mean. Civ has always been a coulourful, entertaining gem, a perfect mix of micro and macro managing, even though the AI was never any good, and some mechanics were certainly improvable. Now we have this..I don't even know how to define it. So, Dear Sid, all of a sudden, after 20 years of pure genius, you decided that people saying "oh no, I have to actually research a tech that will allow me to build transport ships and THEN I must load my units on them?? BOORING" were the ones to listen, while those that made it possible for you to be in business today, those that bought and supported your products in a time when even owning a PC was something (I don't live in the US by the way), were to be insulted in this way. For the respect I still have towards your past wonders, I'll just stop it here, because you know what I'm talking about, the negative comments are really not necessary. You, above everyone else in this world, know perfectly well what has happened to the Civ franchise.

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

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

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

    Quoque tu, Sid
    Expand
  96. Nov 5, 2010
    0
    It appears, from the many threads that have been started in the 2K Games forums, that Civilization V has many issues related to the latter part of the game, when one's empire stretches through many tens of cities as well as the opponents'. Time between turns starts to increase to over a minute after a few hundred turns, and later still, the game starts freezing or otherwise crashing. 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
  97. Nov 20, 2010
    3
    I've had Civ 5 for a couple of months now and played several games to completion. And now I'm getting bored with it. I expected better from a sequel to a game I played regularly for several years. But the fact is Civ 5 isn't very interesting or challenging.

    It's not like I'm a super-skilled player or anything. I make plenty of mistakes. But even at the highest difficulty levels I win
    easily. Where's the fun in that? The issue is that the computer opponents are very weak. They will fight wars with you, but are bad at it so that's not too hard to deal with. As for beating you through peaceful strategies like culture, science, or diplomacy, I don't think they can. At least, I've never seen them do it, even though in some cases had I switched places with one of them I could have achieved victory in just a few turns by taking fairly simple steps.

    So the game poses very little challenge after the first session or three. There are also plenty of annoying little glitches, the sort of stuff one might overlook in a really good game but that really get your attention if you're already a little bored or frustrated. Graphical overlays that don't disappear when they should. Bad pathfinding that forces you to micromanage unit movement, that sort of thing.

    In sum, it's not nearly as fun as Civilization IV. I'd recommend that game over this one any day.
    Expand
  98. Dec 13, 2010
    3
    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
  99. Jan 3, 2011
    3
    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?
    Expand
  100. Jun 9, 2011
    5
    The game is aesthetically good looking and the combat system is interesting. But the game sucks, mostly because of really poor AI, that fails all warfare and is boring. The AI takes the worst parts from human players and regular Civ Ai and mashes them into a poorly executed abomination. The AI is unpredictable, in a bad way, stupid and can't grasp the basic concepts of warfare. It also takes serious amounts of computing power to just move its million worker units from place to place, doing nothing. The game also lacks any feeling of wonder. If you want a supereasy strategy game, this is a game for you. Expand
  101. Sep 27, 2010
    0
    As a longtime fan of the series, I unfortunately have to say that Civ5 has been vastly overrated by professional reviewers. That's probably because the game looks great and the real flaws don't start to show up until after a few hours of play.

    There are certain things I really like about this game. City states were a great addition and make the game a lot more interesting. Being able
    to purchase land is awesome and realistic. Easier rushbuying is a lot of fun and doesn't unbalance the game.

    The new combat system is pretty goofy (for example, archers are a ranged unit but riflemen are not). It's a bit more fun than the old "stacks of doom," but I see reviewers praising the new combat system as "more streamlined" when it is definitely not. Moving an old stack of doom required 2 clicks (click on SOD, click on destination). Now you need to do the same thing 5-10 times as much to move an army.

    The new Civic talent tree offers more customization of specific traits, which is fun to plan around. However you can't swap civics to match a change in strategy in-game (eg. teching up at the beginning of the game and then turning to a warlike theocracy once you realize you're likely to lose the space race). This is disappointing. Overall, when Civ5's civics are compared to Civ4 its a wash. In-between-turn load times suck. On a normal size map in the modern age, I was sitting and watching the hourglass for an average of 15 seconds in between each turn--even when I wasn't watching animations of enemy moves. I'd blame my computer but it runs pretty much every other game at high settings without a hint of a problem.

    Music is bad, particularly the asian themed music. I can't believe they wasted time animating leaders and making them talk in their own languages. It doesn't add much to the game and some of their voices (Queen Elizabeth) actually detract from it by being annoying.

    The lack of science/gold/culture sliders takes away a lot of customization potential that was fun to tinker with in previous Civ games. This became painfully apparent when going for a cultural victory. A cultural victory doesn't require the last 25% of the tech tree, but you can't stop researching until you run out of money. And in the meantime, because you're still researching new tech, your puppet states are building more and more new buildings and costing you more money. And when you run out of money you can't do a LOT of things, like rush-build or more importantly buy luxury resources and establish good relations with city states that provide culture. Basically you lose the ability to do the things that make the game fun. This is especially frustrating when it have been so easily solved with the old-school sliders, which were never that difficult to manage in the first place. Overall, it's a good, but not great game. It reminds me of Civ3, in that it attempts to add interesting new game concepts and surprisingly flops at aspects in which its predecessor excelled. On the bright side, Civ4 did a great job of combining the best of Civ2 and Civ3, so hopefully history repeats itself and Civ6 will be awesome.
    Collapse
Metascore
90

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
    90
    Despite my gripe with the animations in multiplayer, Civilization V is the perfect entry for the series' debut in the current generation of gaming.
  2. Jan 20, 2011
    80
    We're just a little bit disappointed that this Civ evolution isn't as polished as we'd expected. [Issue#102, p.108]
  3. Jan 15, 2011
    80
    An old franchise that knows who to evolve to adapt to modern times. Its latest new ideas might not be perfect, but serve the purpose of making the game even more interesting.