User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1946 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 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
    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
  2. 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 yourI'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
  3. 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 toIf 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
  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
    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. May 10, 2012
    5
    I have played all Civilization titles from day one. With each new one, we were offered a steady (yes) upgrade of quality and experience - I was brilliant at its time, but II introduced new things, III even more, and IV was clearly the pinnacle. Yes, you can see where it comes to...

    I mean - V feels as an inferior one to IV in almost all things. Religions are gone. Science is now just
    I have played all Civilization titles from day one. With each new one, we were offered a steady (yes) upgrade of quality and experience - I was brilliant at its time, but II introduced new things, III even more, and IV was clearly the pinnacle. Yes, you can see where it comes to...

    I mean - V feels as an inferior one to IV in almost all things. Religions are gone. Science is now just linked to population, no game of balancing the budget. Diplomacy is worse. Diplomacy with city states is just laughable in its stupid simplicity (you just pay cash to buy points, straightforward as that). Gone is the choosing of governments - you get to keep all civics earned to the end of time, eliminating deep play and any resemblance to real governments. Combat is actually worse than in IV - one unit per tile! Gone are the Stacks of Doom, say hello to the Carpet of Doom! Land units become weak transports at sea - but no convoys - one unit per tile! And cities just defend themselves like some damn forts. Ridiculous! And - one leader per civ. Not even multiple DLCs change that.

    There are however a few things done good. Hex tiles are nice. Border spread is better, one tile not entire range, and you can buy land. Ranged bombardment is back - though I don't get it how riflemen can't have it while archers do. Graphics are noticeably better. Great people can build special improvements on tiles, and this is quite neat.

    Gameplay is even interesting, but seriously lacking the full depth of previous titles. In itself, it is not a completely bad game, hence score of 5. But after playing it once, I can hardly come back to it. I can safely recommend it to people who didn't play previous titles or thought they were too complex - they will have quite a fun with this title. But old veterans like me will feel disappointed, and frankly - rightly so.
    Expand
  6. May 22, 2012
    5
    Civilization V attempted something grand, and lost its way. While the game has wonderful graphics, hex grid, and intense battles, there is much to be desired. Depth was simply stripped away for a more action-based experience. This game never felt like a grand strategy game to me. Hopefully, the new expansion pack will address some of the shortcomings, but in my opinion, it is too little, too late.
  7. Aug 3, 2012
    5
    This is my first time playing a civilization game since I played Civ 3 as a kid, although I play RTS games often. At first glance, Civ V is great - it has spectacular graphics, and a great soundtrack. The social policies system and the Science system are interesting and seem well thought out. But underneath the surface, Civ V doesn't quite live up to the hype. The game is a buggy mess -This is my first time playing a civilization game since I played Civ 3 as a kid, although I play RTS games often. At first glance, Civ V is great - it has spectacular graphics, and a great soundtrack. The social policies system and the Science system are interesting and seem well thought out. But underneath the surface, Civ V doesn't quite live up to the hype. The game is a buggy mess - often times, I won't be able to click the Next Turn button, for example, because it says "A Unit Needs Orders" when I have given all of my units orders. This is after installing all available patches, two years after the game's initial release! The combat in Civ V involves very little strategy - as long as your units aren't hard-countered by the enemy's (this is VERY easy to figure out) all that matters is who has the largest military. Civ V's strategy lies entirely in what order the player researches technologies, adapts policies, chooses to produce, etc. and has little to nothing to do with combat - reading Sun Tzu's The Art of War won't help you here. Capturing a city takes at least three turns, even if your opponent has no military and you have several strong units attacking the city. Multiplayer support is horrible, with people constantly disconnecting and crashing while I'm either in the lobby trying to get a game together, or already playing one. There is no way to change game settings once you click the "Host Game" button and open your lobby. To do so you have to kick everyone out and start a new game. This is ridiculous, strategy games from a decade ago have the ability to change settings while in the lobby. Diplomacy with AIs is impossible - even a long-time ally, who I've had multiple trade deals and research agreements with, who is far weaker than me, will declare war on me for no reason... twice! The only indication I had (which was quite obvious) was that the AI stationed its military units close to my territory for several turns before attacking. Nothing on the diplomacy screens hinted that the AI disliked me. However, the AIs have supposedly been improved in the Gods & Kings expansion... I'll see if there's any truth to that.

    I have to give Civilization V a 5/10 because it's fun to play, and it seems like some effort was put into its creation. From what I've been told by longtime fans of the series going back to Civ 3 or 4, Civ V is prettier, but a step backwards where gameplay is concerned. The exclusion of key gameplay features from earlier Civ games, such as espionage and religion, was clearly a cash grab for Firaxis, now that they are charging $30 for an expansion to add these feature to Civ V. I'm sick of developers churning out pretty games that have worse gameplay than their predecesors. Civ V is a prime example of this, therefore I really can't kiss Firaxis' ass and give them a positive review.
    Expand
  8. Mar 23, 2013
    6
    I'm a big fan of the Civ series but this one is the first civ game that bored me after only a couple of hours. Tons of dlc but no innovation, odd new combat mechanics (1 unit per hex but the maps are too small), a lot of missing features from the old games, less management,....

    Feels like a "Civ Light" for newcomers to the genre
  9. Nov 17, 2012
    6
    Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing,Most of the time it feels like a dumbed down version of Civ 4. No religion, no public health and diplomacy options have been badly pruned, providing a most straightforward gameplay, if well lacking many features. On the good side, the hex tile is well implemented and, combined with the inability to stack units, renders most of the old "square tile" tactics useless, which is a good thing, since it encourages tactical thinking instead of just sending the infamous "Stacks of Doom" and watching things burn. The graphics look awesome, yeah, but I would have sacrificed the eye candy for some gameplay depth. In a nutshell: If you liked Civ4, odds are you won't like this. Expand
  10. Aug 12, 2013
    7
    It´s important to look at details in every work that has its history of doing great things. But what most bored me in Civ V were, beyond the details, the feelling. The feeling that the old and invincible atmosphere of great games, like Civ II and Civ III, or til the good job from Civ IV, were completely missed by a kind of test or adventure to try a "new thing" that perhaps would make someIt´s important to look at details in every work that has its history of doing great things. But what most bored me in Civ V were, beyond the details, the feelling. The feeling that the old and invincible atmosphere of great games, like Civ II and Civ III, or til the good job from Civ IV, were completely missed by a kind of test or adventure to try a "new thing" that perhaps would make some revolution... here is the thing: they tried, but they couldn´t. Civ V is a disrespect to everything that previous Civilization games gathered. Expand
  11. Oct 14, 2014
    6
    Oh dear. While the graphics have improved, many core gameplay elements have been changed from prior versions of the Civ series, and not typically for the better. For example, you can now only put one unit on each tile - which makes moving your army a massive chore compared to previous games. City-states also require a lot more micromanagement than previous games where you dealt only withOh dear. While the graphics have improved, many core gameplay elements have been changed from prior versions of the Civ series, and not typically for the better. For example, you can now only put one unit on each tile - which makes moving your army a massive chore compared to previous games. City-states also require a lot more micromanagement than previous games where you dealt only with the big empires. All in all, it feels like the game has been dumbed down, with too much focus on graphics over gameplay, relative to the previous titles in the series. If you haven't played strategy games before, you can try it. If you have, though, you're better off with Civ 4, or one of the older games in the series. Expand
  12. AWG
    Jul 21, 2013
    6
    I've never been a big fan of strategy games, and in fact I'm not a big fan of this fifth installment of the Sid Meier's Civilization saga, even if it looks and sounds cool.
  13. Sep 28, 2014
    6
    This game series needs some work. They seem to try to do the same game over and over, and this one gets boring quickly. Not much to tell against it, it is clearly not bad, but it is not fun either. Hex & no stack is a good feature (for combat units, for others it is not), but otherwise, what changed since the first of the series? 6 is a bit harsh, but punishes the lack of improvements &This game series needs some work. They seem to try to do the same game over and over, and this one gets boring quickly. Not much to tell against it, it is clearly not bad, but it is not fun either. Hex & no stack is a good feature (for combat units, for others it is not), but otherwise, what changed since the first of the series? 6 is a bit harsh, but punishes the lack of improvements & the DLC politics. Expand
  14. Sep 21, 2013
    5
    Good: The game is a fun game. Right off the bat. It's fun, and addicting like all of the other Civ games. Graphics are great (they don't make or break a game, but it's still nice that the game at least looks good). Also, hexagon tiles are far superior to squares in terms of tactical game play.

    The medium: Combat is both good and bad. The good news is that combat is much more
    Good: The game is a fun game. Right off the bat. It's fun, and addicting like all of the other Civ games. Graphics are great (they don't make or break a game, but it's still nice that the game at least looks good). Also, hexagon tiles are far superior to squares in terms of tactical game play.

    The medium: Combat is both good and bad. The good news is that combat is much more strategic, and is based on chance anymore. The bad news is that the AI doesn't know how to use 1 unit per tile!!! This makes the AI so easy to just destroy.

    The Bad: And that's another horrifying aspect of this game, the ai. Unless you are a new guy to the series, or are playing like in Deity, if you lose, you probably screwed something up horribly. Also, the game seems WAY too over simplified, and there aren't as many features to shape the way you want your empire to be run as there were in Civ 4! Now, this is fixed in 2 expansions (plus the AI is way better), but the fact that you have to buy two expansion packs to make a below average game turn into an amazing strategy game is highway robbery.
    Expand
  15. Dec 11, 2013
    5
    It's an undeveloped game. It misses all the fun parts of the "Civilization" games such as technology trading and religion. Including city-states to the game is interesting, but the fact that you can't see the relations between different civs is depressing and frustrating.
  16. Jun 5, 2014
    7
    This game feels like it's about half the quality of the previous and famous Civilization 4. It looks better than 4 but it should, it's a newer game. I feel like many of the streamlined changes from "revolution" found their way into 5, as in many of your actions lack depth. Still, hundreds of hours of play has to count for something and it's certainly enjoyable despite being shallow.
  17. Jun 19, 2014
    5
    A classic example of trying to make up for lack of depth with high level graphics. So, it's pretty. Then what?

    CONS: Dumbed down, bigtime. Another example of catering to the post BC WoW crowd that whine about stuff being too hard. Like the foregone conclusion of helicopter mommies and the bubble wrap generation where kids now are raised to get everything for almost nothing, cuz
    A classic example of trying to make up for lack of depth with high level graphics. So, it's pretty. Then what?

    CONS: Dumbed down, bigtime. Another example of catering to the post BC WoW crowd that whine about stuff being too hard. Like the foregone conclusion of helicopter mommies and the bubble wrap generation where kids now are raised to get everything for almost nothing, cuz they're special, right? Don't give my kid a markdown on her paper cuz she has excuses for the late turnin creates monsters. These monsters are affecting gaming in a bad way. /rantoff Seriously, CIv III and IV fans are going to cry after playing this game.

    No religion, corporations, fine tuning, etc.

    Culture on takeover doesn't make sense. I did breathe a sigh of relief on seeing the borders unchanged, but such a thing doesn't make sense. City flipping by culture is gone. Again, doesn't make sense.

    Diplomacy makes no sense. You can have good relations with someone only to have them scream at you the next turn for no known reason.

    Loss of discovery on mining sites. The mined resources are set, they don't deplete, ever, and you can never discover anything new elsewhere. Doesn't make sense.

    No armies. There is room here for the old 3 stack on a general, I think. Could add some complexity.

    PROS:

    Ranged combat. Done right.

    Non-stackable units. Allows for real tactics over, for example, China showing up with 70 endgame units on a single tile to attack a city in a single turn.

    City defense: Common sense addition. Adding structures like walls adds more to these defenses. A garrison, more defenses. Again, you cannot stack 70 units on a single tile, though one could argue more than 1 for the city, you have an option for 1. The inherent defenses of the city compensate for this though...and the city itself can fire a ranged barrage every turn.

    Navy: A powerful navy can take over coastal cities without any need of land units. Adds balance.

    REPLAYABILITY: Honestly, couldn't play a game through until the expansions. I got bored, even with an audiobook running. With III and IV losing half a day wasn't uncommon, this was a drag.
    Expand
  18. 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.
  19. 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
    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.
    Expand
  20. Oct 18, 2010
    5
    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

    The good: Graphics are great, especially the diplomat renderings. The sound effects are mostly the same as old civ
    Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.

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

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

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

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

    On top of all of this is the single worst part of the game: the computer AI takes entirely too long to think on its turn. Civ4's early days had a similar problem, with the late-game turning into a slog-fest as clicking 'next turn' inevitably resulted in anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds of down-time during which your computer tanks to a crawl. By the end game, I typically find myself spending more time reading news on my cell phone than actually playing the game. As such, it got to the point where playing past 1800AD was more chore than fun. (Don't try to
    Expand
  21. 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 ofThe 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. Collapse
  22. Oct 20, 2010
    6
    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

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

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

    This game is mediocre and didn't live up with the hype. I hope they will do better on the next expansion.
    Expand
  23. Oct 13, 2010
    5
    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

    Civilization V fixes most of the problems that plagued
    Sid Meier has always prided himself on creating fun. This product is a noble effort to improve the Civ franchise, which has probably brough more fun into the world than any other, but ultimately it is an incomplete product. If you haven't played Civilization before, play Civ4, it's better, on balance. And, alas, more fun.

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

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

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

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

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

    In summary, I see in this product noble efforts to improve on civ 4 that, on balance, failed. The game is less likely to keep me up until 4am pressing the 'Next turn' button than did Civ IV because I care less about my little baby civs then I used to, and find it more inane beating up on my supid enemies than in the past. Nice try Firaxis, but no good. Thumbs down.
    Expand
  24. Oct 7, 2011
    5
    This game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the olderThis game has all the potential to be a great game. A new game play concept, nice graphics, easy to use (unpack and play) etc etc. However, the tech tree is what makes the games in the series so enjoyable (what to develop next, what new buildings, wonders and units will it enable etc). In Civilization V this tech tree is way to short. Whilst the early developments are similar to the older games, it takes few inventions in the later years to develop flight and eventually win through a space race. I have reinstalled Civilization IV with its expansion sets to really immerse in a realistic tech tree (and accept the fact of huge stacked armies). Expand
  25. Jul 5, 2011
    7
    Will moving civ towards a social game gain more loyal fans than it loses? Only time will tell. Civ 5 tries to innovate a bit more than being just an incremental civilization UI refresh, but the features get boring ratgher quickly. This is the first Civ game that I did not play 6+ hours the day I got it. Ia few hours then I lost interest. I try it again now and then but, I won't be buyingWill moving civ towards a social game gain more loyal fans than it loses? Only time will tell. Civ 5 tries to innovate a bit more than being just an incremental civilization UI refresh, but the features get boring ratgher quickly. This is the first Civ game that I did not play 6+ hours the day I got it. Ia few hours then I lost interest. I try it again now and then but, I won't be buying anymore civ stuff until the inevitable civ 6. The game mechanics have more of a casual game feel. Heck, I almost epected the city screens to have me play Gems with resources. City states are interesting, but otherwise Diplomacy is marginal. War is launching marching wave after wave onto a city. Archery and artillery was kind of neat at first, but couldn't carry the game. Worth a try if you can pick it up on sale or if you're new to the series. Not for me. Expand
  26. Jul 23, 2011
    6
    Civilization V is a deep, refreshing take on the Civilization franchise. In past iterations the player needed to be diplomatic in order to rule the world. Oh, did I say deep and refreshing? Forgive me, I meant to say that Civilization V, in comparison to its predecessors, is shallow in game mechanics which ultimately left me regretful for not reading more reviews before the big purchase.Civilization V is a deep, refreshing take on the Civilization franchise. In past iterations the player needed to be diplomatic in order to rule the world. Oh, did I say deep and refreshing? Forgive me, I meant to say that Civilization V, in comparison to its predecessors, is shallow in game mechanics which ultimately left me regretful for not reading more reviews before the big purchase. Luckily I found Civ V on sale for about $20 dollars and that's just about what this game seems to be worth. Why Sid Meier and his teams left critical gameplay features on the cutting room floor escapes me. Religion, a major staple of the Civilization franchise, has been completely removed. Diplomacy consists of few clickable options such as trading, war, and "discussions," which truly only serves as a shortcut to the trading screen. However, Civilization V is not a hole-filled game.

    After playing several long matches on standard settings I will say that Civilization V picks up the slack of its former iterations. Cities are much harder to capture. They require the coordination of several units, all on the offensive against powerful city cannons that can brush away small forces. Military combat is much more streamlined; with hexagonal tiles and no unit stacking, smart tactical management of the player's units takes a major role in world dominance. Although combat is much improved, other methods of winning matches are shadowed by the polished combat systems. In every match I played, online and offline, I found that players and AI opt for the Dominance victory instead of the more peaceful options such as cultural or scientific victories. Towards the end of long games, many players will have a hefty income of gold and will be able to instantly purchase whole armies or buildings, easily turning the tide of a battle. Whether or not this option is a glorious feature or a mechanic hinderance still eludes me, perhaps some sort of penalty for abusing the new system could be set in place.

    Civilization V would have worked at a higher plane had it choose to adopt the micro mechanics of Civilization IV while keeping the new military system. Diplomacy definitely needs more depth; the detail of the different world leaders and their backdrops are fun and animated, but it's only the icing on a cake made from rocks.
    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. 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.
  29. 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 mySimplified 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
  30. 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
    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
  31. Nov 7, 2011
    5
    I like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build aI like all civ games. Civ IV was, no IS a great game. Civ V is only average game. Playing single is waste a time - AI is too stupid. Multi is better, but before last patch playing with more that 4 people was impossible. Now is better, but changing in the world wonders was a very bad idea. Wonders is too mach powerful. If play 1 vs 1 - the game win who first discovery a atom and build a atomic bomb. Playing with more people is better, but sill a average. Expand
  32. Oct 20, 2010
    6
    I'm a huge fan of the series, but this was just a let down. They took some interesting mechanics and tried to push the genre forward, but ended up introducing a lot of buggy gameplay -- barely working multiplayer, poor matchmaking and lobby efforts, bugs all over the place, and an unbalanced game. This one should have been left in the oven another 6 months to bake. Too early, and leavesI'm a huge fan of the series, but this was just a let down. They took some interesting mechanics and tried to push the genre forward, but ended up introducing a lot of buggy gameplay -- barely working multiplayer, poor matchmaking and lobby efforts, bugs all over the place, and an unbalanced game. This one should have been left in the oven another 6 months to bake. Too early, and leaves me with a doughy taste in my mouth. Expand
  33. Nov 1, 2010
    6
    Civilization V has promise, but is ultimately a very flawed game riddled with bugs and poor or even unfinished implementations. Coupled with sluggish performance on decent computers, my advice would be to stay clear of the game until it can be patched to a decent level. Check back in in 6 months or more.

    5.0 out of 10.0.
  34. Apr 12, 2011
    6
    With the fifth series the developers made some radical changes for the civilization series, including some bold new choices. I spent a long time playing the game before commenting as it is difficult to review a classic franchise. The best improvement is the combat system. Combat is now on a hex system. One army per hex. Ranged units can fire from hexes away but are generally weaker fromWith the fifth series the developers made some radical changes for the civilization series, including some bold new choices. I spent a long time playing the game before commenting as it is difficult to review a classic franchise. The best improvement is the combat system. Combat is now on a hex system. One army per hex. Ranged units can fire from hexes away but are generally weaker from attack, making the organization of your army critical. Non fast units move as fast like scouts in prior game (2 hexes over open ground, 1 hex over rough terrain), which makes terrain important. One bad change, and a baffling design choice, is the UI. In Civ 4 the UI told you everything you needed to know. You could tell how you were doing in points, and could hold your pointer over a resource to instantly know how many you have. No longer, for some reason. Advisors are back, but they only give general advice that most experienced civ players should already know. They are not an adequate replacement for Civ 4's excellent information screens. Cities take much more time to produce both buildings and units. Which means you must be selective about what you build. I can see why this was done, but the effect is that the game feels much slower than its predecessors. Happiness is now an empire wide trait. Instead of having happy and unhappy cities, every city has an equal amount of happiness which rises and falls together. Unfortunately, this means that a game of conquest and annexing conquered cities (which is now much harder, as cities take several turns to fall and can defend themselves with ranged attacks) can cripple your entire kingdom. This also slows down the game. I'd give this game a hesitant recommendation. I would also strongly advise having a very fast hard drive if you wish to play on any map beyond the smallest. Expand
  35. Oct 8, 2011
    6
    I have been playing strategy games (rts and turn based) ever since Age of Empires 2. I prayed god like a thousand times to finally see a game which is as good as my old and beloved Age of Mythology. And civilization 5 was no exception on this. This game grabs you with a weird kind of addiction if you start playing. You may sit to play this for 30 minutes and find out that 2 hours areI have been playing strategy games (rts and turn based) ever since Age of Empires 2. I prayed god like a thousand times to finally see a game which is as good as my old and beloved Age of Mythology. And civilization 5 was no exception on this. This game grabs you with a weird kind of addiction if you start playing. You may sit to play this for 30 minutes and find out that 2 hours are already passed. But the important part is the Civilizations actually have no difference than the other in particular. This makes the game really basic in variety. For godsake the only difference Between Aztecs and French are 1 different unit for each and 1 more unit/building if you are in luck. And uh there is also 1 more bonus between any 2 countries(For example Aztecs get some culture bonus for each enemy units they killed). I don't study history but even i can tell you at least 10 difference between the Aztecs and French People. This game really needs some more variation. Expand
  36. Nov 20, 2012
    6
    It's a good game, but just not nearly what Civ IV was (or Civ III for that matter). I've been playing Civ since the original was released many years ago, and have never been disappointed by anything the series has ever done. But once I played Civ V I became worried about the future of this series. Civ V has been dumbed down significantly from it's predecessors. It's a sad change.
  37. 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!
  38. 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!
  39. 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.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
  40. 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**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
  41. 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 theUnfortunately, 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
  42. Jul 27, 2011
    6
    Some good stuff in this game, but also a lot of idiocies. The good stuff, is that the multiple paths to winning really work. Previous versions were all about expanding, but in this version a compact civilization can do very well. The bad is that the game is unecessarily hard to manage. A lot of techniques that existed in prior versions are missing. Such as being able to set your citySome good stuff in this game, but also a lot of idiocies. The good stuff, is that the multiple paths to winning really work. Previous versions were all about expanding, but in this version a compact civilization can do very well. The bad is that the game is unecessarily hard to manage. A lot of techniques that existed in prior versions are missing. Such as being able to set your city preferences across the empire from one city. Or, being able to go to a city screen from the F2 city summary view, or being able to change production in the same F2 view. It also is cheap that you the game does not take into account production to date when purchasing a building. All of these were probably left out to help sell the sequel in typical Sid Meir fashion. Expand
  43. Aug 3, 2012
    6
    pro: the exagon strategy system
    cons: no religion, no espionage, empire limitation system, the cost of the road system, console-enterface of city management
  44. Aug 9, 2011
    7
    It was good......when I got it to work - which took forever!

    But when I say "good"....not as good as Civilization 4 - not as good as beyond the sword either, it has a lot of the strategy and abilities removed, and to be honest, it is in essence a prettier dumbed down version of Civ 4, it isn't as good as Civ 4 - which is a game I did enjoy, albieit it was a very buggy game I was
    It was good......when I got it to work - which took forever!

    But when I say "good"....not as good as Civilization 4 - not as good as beyond the sword either, it has a lot of the strategy and abilities removed, and to be honest, it is in essence a prettier dumbed down version of Civ 4, it isn't as good as Civ 4 - which is a game I did enjoy, albieit it was a very buggy game I was enjoying.

    All in all - you can buy this game, but don't go in expecting much revolution from the older Civ games - and certainly don't go in expecting it to be as good as those Civ games - it's good, but not THAT good
    Expand
  45. 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
    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
  46. Oct 13, 2010
    7
    Pros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it aPros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it a better score. But there are times when I feel like I'm in a grind. Like trying to level up in a MMORPG. Can't put my finger on it specifically, but to "tidy up" the game so that strategic moves seem more compelling and the game doesn't tend to tread water in places.

    Nevertheless, if you're a RTS fan, you'll definitely want this one. No doubt there will be patches and other content made available and hopefully some of the concerns people have voiced here will be resolved.
    Expand
  47. 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.
  48. 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, nationMeh - 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
  49. 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.
  50. 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 alsoThe 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
  51. Xyz
    Nov 19, 2010
    7
    What to say about this one? The first thing that comes to mind is that it still is Civilization. BUT it's Civilization dumbed down for masses. If you want features that made this series great, go back to Civ4. Don't get me wrong, this is a good game, the thing is, its worse than its predecessors. It has got better graphics, and some improved features (I for one enjoyed the new combatWhat to say about this one? The first thing that comes to mind is that it still is Civilization. BUT it's Civilization dumbed down for masses. If you want features that made this series great, go back to Civ4. Don't get me wrong, this is a good game, the thing is, its worse than its predecessors. It has got better graphics, and some improved features (I for one enjoyed the new combat system), but if you're a Civ fan like me, this one looks like a step back... To conclude: if you've never played a Civ game, this one is the perfect entry point, but when you master it and want more complexity go back to previous games, you wont be disappointed Expand
  52. Sep 28, 2010
    7
    To be honest I was hoping for more. I have played all the civs starting with the first one. The additions to this version do not remove the jaded feel I have playing it. Its fun, but so was the previous one. The city states are nice addition. Hexes don't add anything. Non stacking of armies is a bit annoying and unrealistic. Gfx are very nice. I
  53. Oct 6, 2010
    5
    After 32 hours of playing I have to put this game aside until the bugs are fixed. I am playing on a large map and I'm experiencing crashes when loading saved games, plus the game occasionally hangs while AI are taking their turns. I can't believe all the "professional" reviewers overlooked the bugs! It is all definitely worse in the modern age, when there is lots going on. The AI is alsoAfter 32 hours of playing I have to put this game aside until the bugs are fixed. I am playing on a large map and I'm experiencing crashes when loading saved games, plus the game occasionally hangs while AI are taking their turns. I can't believe all the "professional" reviewers overlooked the bugs! It is all definitely worse in the modern age, when there is lots going on. The AI is also very, very poor - diplomacy is broken, and the Persians just gifted me half their civilization (something like 20 cities) after I attacked with only 6 mediocre units. Very annoying. Expand
  54. Dec 19, 2010
    5
    One word to describe Civ 5 perfectly: simplification. Or maybe: disappointment.
    They should really have called this game Civ Revolutions 2, because that is how it plays like.
    As a long term Civfanatic I played every Civgame since Civ I, and I can't help but feel terribly disappointed by Firaxis newest game. Although, after the bad Colo game I saw it coming. The Major flaws imho: hexagon
    One word to describe Civ 5 perfectly: simplification. Or maybe: disappointment.
    They should really have called this game Civ Revolutions 2, because that is how it plays like.
    As a long term Civfanatic I played every Civgame since Civ I, and I can't help but feel terribly disappointed by Firaxis newest game. Although, after the bad Colo game I saw it coming.
    The Major flaws imho: hexagon tiles that look weird, the one unit / one tile - rule - come on, as if that is realistic...it complicates a lot of things to the point where I feel bothered playing this game, it's a real bummer. The compulsory Steam - love it or hate it. Also there are too few Civs in vanilla but this can be fixed, as well as the missing wonder movies.
    The half baked civic system isn't worth mentioning.
    Imho one should wait 1-2 years til the modders fixed the game to a point where it is playable.
    Expand
  55. Mar 1, 2013
    7
    I have trouble reviewing this game, because I know it is a good game, but I don't like it. Civ V doesn't feel like Civilization, and Civilization is what I wanted.

    If you're a fan of old-school tabletop wargames, definitely get in on this action. If you didn't like previous Civilization games, give this one a try it's completely different. If you liked the previous 4 Civilizations,
    I have trouble reviewing this game, because I know it is a good game, but I don't like it. Civ V doesn't feel like Civilization, and Civilization is what I wanted.

    If you're a fan of old-school tabletop wargames, definitely get in on this action. If you didn't like previous Civilization games, give this one a try it's completely different. If you liked the previous 4 Civilizations, which allowed you to build giant empires of carefully managed cities, spreading like locust across the land as you blazed through the tech tree and slammed out wonders to the beat of the bass, this is sadly not that at all.

    Snail's pace expansion that's severely hampered mechanics even on the easiest levels keeps you from expanding like previous games. Barbarians constantly spawn encampments right on your borders, spewing endless units in to the mists anywhere you don't have it constantly under surveillance. City-States seize vital resources and moan to you about their neighbors constantly, while claiming protection from foreign powers you've barely even encountered yet. Restrictions on support numbers from given resources add realism, but again hamper the expansion and fun of the previous titles in the series. Everything seems focused on creating a series of tiny countries where the cities serve merely as focal points for the fighting, rather than being the actual focus of the game like before. The focus is on the combat, and the combat just isn't very engaging. Even on large worlds, space seems constrained, and you can't bring power to bear the way you can in earlier Civs.

    I don't want this to sound like Civ V is a bad game it isn't. This is a good game for people who like the wargame/simulation genre. Heck, I'd probably even like it myself... if I wasn't looking for a Civilization title! Civilization was one of the first PC titles I ever really got in to, and its successors Civ 2, Alpha Centauri, Civ 3, and Civ 4 all held my attention for hundreds of hours. Civ V is not Civilization, and despite more than 50 hours and several attempts, I just can't enjoy it.
    Expand
  56. Oct 19, 2010
    5
    I have never played Civilization I, II, III, or IV.
    I decided to try the demo and I was hooked.
    However, after a few long games I think it is pretty apparent that the AI is severely lacking. AI players don't appear to be motivated by anything but expanding their territory and conquest. They don't appear to ever attempt a victory through, diplomacy, culture, or technology. The
    I have never played Civilization I, II, III, or IV.
    I decided to try the demo and I was hooked.
    However, after a few long games I think it is pretty apparent that the AI is severely lacking.
    AI players don't appear to be motivated by anything but expanding their territory and conquest. They don't appear to ever attempt a victory through, diplomacy, culture, or technology. The leader/diplomacy screens look great and are fully voiced, but the AI doesn't seem to respond to diplomacy in any meaningful way.
    Basically, in single-player, any type of victory besides conquest, and any action besides building up your military is a waste of time.
    Expand
  57. Mar 8, 2011
    5
    I have to say that this 5 is hard for me to give, mostly because I'm a big fan of the Civ series, but this game has so many bugs in it (still, even now after Firaxis patched the game a couple of weeks ago) that it's almost impossible to enjoy. And believe me I'm trying to--If you can get through all of the glitches and crashes (I've had to force quit several times or just end up on myI have to say that this 5 is hard for me to give, mostly because I'm a big fan of the Civ series, but this game has so many bugs in it (still, even now after Firaxis patched the game a couple of weeks ago) that it's almost impossible to enjoy. And believe me I'm trying to--If you can get through all of the glitches and crashes (I've had to force quit several times or just end up on my desktop when I'm trying to START a game) the gameplay itself is quite good...
    Yes there are a few things missing for fans of Civ IV (I particularly miss the religion aspect...as has been mentioned many times elsewhere) but the gameplay seems solid...the AI hasn't given me too many problems and I like the fact that only one unit is able to be in a square at a time (no more gigantic stacks of units slowing gameplay down).....but in the end...it's a fun game in principle (thus my 5), but with so many flaws that it's really hard to sit down and enjoy.

    I hope to change this review in the future if it gets fixed
    Expand
  58. Dec 3, 2010
    5
    The good things first, wars are more fun now and less of a dice game. It does look really good in DX11 mode. Alot things have been streamlined and even so playing it still gives you the typical Civilization feeling. However there is alot of things which clearly were not mentioned in official reviews at all. Despite best intentions the game is still littered with exploits, game-stoppingThe good things first, wars are more fun now and less of a dice game. It does look really good in DX11 mode. Alot things have been streamlined and even so playing it still gives you the typical Civilization feeling. However there is alot of things which clearly were not mentioned in official reviews at all. Despite best intentions the game is still littered with exploits, game-stopping bugs and ghastly performance issues being the result of poor optimization with the latter two coming to bear in games featuring large and huge maps. The UI is tends to be a cause for frequent lock-ups and confusions and also feels rather clunky. The AI behaves rather erratic and illogical, refuses to cooperate and to be offensive altogether even when it would be far better for it to do so. On the sound side there seems to be a step back altogether, whereas Civ4 would offer era-typical scores for your cultures it is now just back to using licensed scores of somewhat awkward choice and mediocre quality. Expand
  59. Mar 6, 2011
    5
    I got this game shortly after it was released and quickly realised this was not a Civilization game at all. The game play of this game consists mostly of next next next with the AI handling most things for you. All the challenges and fun of the series has been stripped away and replaced by want feels like a console version of Civilization. Also dipsite the patches, the slow down and lackI got this game shortly after it was released and quickly realised this was not a Civilization game at all. The game play of this game consists mostly of next next next with the AI handling most things for you. All the challenges and fun of the series has been stripped away and replaced by want feels like a console version of Civilization. Also dipsite the patches, the slow down and lack around the 15th century is still so bad, I doubt I will be able to finish it. So far I have lacked the will power to try. Civilization 1 and Civilization 4 remain my 2 favourites, just so you know where I am coming from and what I liked about the Civ series.

    Fans of the old Civ games seem to have a universal hate for Civilization 5, where as new fans that have never seen it have no idea whats missing and so like it.
    Expand
  60. Mar 9, 2011
    5
    CIV 2 was a better game in almost every single aspect !!
    they have taken the very soul of the franchise and turned it into something quite abhorent... something to look at. I was proud of being a fan of a game that was just that; a game.
    PLEASE stop trying to improve the graphics evry time! do chess or card games benefit from pretty pictures? NO!
    let us all pray that CIV-VI will one for the fans
  61. Mar 14, 2011
    6
    I think Civilization 5 is an okay game by itself, but if you compare it to Civilization 4 it... yeah. To sum it up as best as I can, I think Civilization 5 is just "dumbed down" a bit. You don't have to focus on as many things, religions were completely removed from the game, and hexagon upgrades were way more obvious. Speaking of hexagons, I absolutely hate the hex system. It means youI think Civilization 5 is an okay game by itself, but if you compare it to Civilization 4 it... yeah. To sum it up as best as I can, I think Civilization 5 is just "dumbed down" a bit. You don't have to focus on as many things, religions were completely removed from the game, and hexagon upgrades were way more obvious. Speaking of hexagons, I absolutely hate the hex system. It means you have way less plots of land available per city, which took away a lot of the fun. The city-state system was a little lame too; I didn't want to have to bother dealing with greedy and disobedient city-state allies when I could just conquer them and use them and their land for myself. The AI has some of the same, if not worse, problems that Civ 4 had. Why in the world my best ally spontaneously decides to declare war on everyone, including myself, is beyond me. The expansions for Civ 4 were definitely worth it on Steam when you could get Civ 4 + all expansions for like, 20 USD/Euros, but Civ 5's DLC that adds just one civilization choice makes me want to vomit. Honestly, most games of this current era tend to "dumb down" their gameplay, but the Civilization series is all about strategy. Expand
  62. Jun 11, 2012
    6
    My first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover thatMy first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover that the game designers hate the expansionist strategy. As for new features, the no unit stacking rule is kind of cool, and city-states are OK but clutter up the map. Some things never change, though: the AI is still a joke. Expand
  63. Oct 15, 2013
    6
    An decent strategic game, grossly overpriced at the release. It looks quite fine and has some great art, but not even that justifies the terrible performance issues, meaning you won't be able to play huge maps, as the waiting time between turns grows unbearably long.

    It felt not complex enough at release, having no religions, a silly culture mechanic, no spying at all and absolutely
    An decent strategic game, grossly overpriced at the release. It looks quite fine and has some great art, but not even that justifies the terrible performance issues, meaning you won't be able to play huge maps, as the waiting time between turns grows unbearably long.

    It felt not complex enough at release, having no religions, a silly culture mechanic, no spying at all and absolutely horrible, worthless diplomacy. It was still decent. If you really want to give it a shot, I'd say you have to purchase the GoTY edition, which only gives this games enough complex features to justify playing it. Or even calling it Civilization.

    That said, this review concerns only the original release priced now at 30EUR. I would say there are better options of spending your money right now.Only with all the DLCs, it feels somehow complete and fully enjoyable. You would have also had spent 100EUR on it, if you were buying it one DLC after another, so. Alpha Centauri cost me some 20 when it was new. Just sayin'.
    Expand
  64. Apr 9, 2012
    6
    There are few changes from previous iterations that work great, namely 1 unit per tile. But bad AI and incredible resource hog on larger maps, as well as the unecessary simplification of the game take away from the experience brought on by the previous versions.
  65. Mar 26, 2012
    6
    Fun game. Once. But surprisingly little replay value. If you're looking for depth, the buildings/tech/armies/culture aren't elaborate enough to make you want to slog through it more than once or twice.
  66. May 25, 2012
    5
    I had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. HowI had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. How could they not retain religion? I mean, it has shaped history significantly whether good or bad. Other than that, I quite missed stacking units. Although, with those new hexes, you can work out strategies better, like flanking and 'outmaneuvering' your enemy, getting around seems harder, so my reaction to that is quite mixed. AI is dumbed out as ever, and the game is plagued with bugs.. Diplomacy and trades felt really dull, too. I also wished that the live-action advisors from old buddy civ 2 would make a come back (*remember Elvis?). Well, not live action, but animated like the leaders of the civs you encounter. That would be quite sick. Other than that, the music was great, although it gets a little exaggerated at some occasions, like some war themes. Overall, I felt quite sad by this game, being a fan of the previous civ games. This would've rocked had they not remove major pieces of content in the game. Expand
  67. Jun 14, 2012
    5
    I started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun toI started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun to play, and instead creates an monotonous experience, best avoided. I know I'm not alone when I say, I'm sticking with Civ IV and praying for more from Civ VI. Expand
  68. Mar 14, 2013
    5
    It's good enough to almost make me forgets how much better Civ IV was.The AI still sucks. Diplomacy is impossible. The hex system, you can basically forget it's there. Its only purpose is to make the 1 unit-per-tile thing playable. The game-speeds basically boil down to unplayably fast (epic or faster) or mind-numbingly slow (marathon). Luckily though, they dumbed the game down so muchIt's good enough to almost make me forgets how much better Civ IV was.The AI still sucks. Diplomacy is impossible. The hex system, you can basically forget it's there. Its only purpose is to make the 1 unit-per-tile thing playable. The game-speeds basically boil down to unplayably fast (epic or faster) or mind-numbingly slow (marathon). Luckily though, they dumbed the game down so much that it can basically play itself while you're not at war so I just turn it to marathon and read a book while I play.. One thing they still haven't fixed with mods is the sound-track. it repeats a couple of stereotypical game tracks ad nauseum, but that's what ipods are for. Also its glitchy and the loading times are horrible. Without a bunch of mods it's not worth playing. I got it for 75% off though so I can't complain too much. Expand
  69. May 1, 2013
    7
    I never played the earlier versions of Civ but I got a good amount of enjoyment out of this one. The vanilla version became stale after a while (before Gods and Kings); I do have to admit that.

    Even with that addition however there were still some very annoying/lacking aspects of gameplay. Luckily there is a decent modding community behind the game that ended up fixing a good amount of
    I never played the earlier versions of Civ but I got a good amount of enjoyment out of this one. The vanilla version became stale after a while (before Gods and Kings); I do have to admit that.

    Even with that addition however there were still some very annoying/lacking aspects of gameplay. Luckily there is a decent modding community behind the game that ended up fixing a good amount of those issues for me.

    The multiplayer is incredibly lacking- I could only stomach one game before giving up on it entirely.

    Overall the vanilla version of the game seemed incomplete and lacking to me. I'm still not sure if I'll be getting the new DLC as my backlog is a bit deep but if you can get this game DLC on a steam sale I'd definitely give it a shot.
    Expand
  70. Sep 4, 2013
    7
    Pros:
    -Keeps you entertained for many hours
    -Lots of buildings, units, wonders and nations in a huge world.
    -Lots of strategy

    Cons:
    -Nations are similar
    -Diplomacy does not work.
    -Late game becomes boring
    -Needs the expansions before its a true masterpiece.

    Conclusion: Without the expansions it has many flaws but is still entertaining for many hours.
  71. Apr 16, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I may surprise some of you, but waiting more than15 minutes to download an install a game when I actually bought a CD rom is just disgusting. I would not even comment on the game. How come I cannot score it as less than 4? Expand
  72. Oct 23, 2011
    5
    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money. ok, graphics and sounds are nice. but everything else is realy bad. this game simply has NO working KI. it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background. "attack the player at time x" "ask him for contract"
    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money.
    ok, graphics and sounds are nice.
    but everything else is realy bad.
    this game simply has NO working KI.
    it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background.
    "attack the player at time x"
    "ask him for contract" (even if the have never seen you)
    "battle with player y" (but no results are seen)

    my resume: :(
    Expand
  73. 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.
  74. Nov 6, 2010
    6
    A good but simply incomplete release. This is an overhauled version of civ, there isn't much remaining of the previous game's finely tuned mechaics. So as you might expect there are some aspects that work well, and some that make you scatch your head. Overall the game makes a refreshing change from its predecessor, and still retains that addictive civ feeling. Why 6/10 then? Simply put,A good but simply incomplete release. This is an overhauled version of civ, there isn't much remaining of the previous game's finely tuned mechaics. So as you might expect there are some aspects that work well, and some that make you scatch your head. Overall the game makes a refreshing change from its predecessor, and still retains that addictive civ feeling. Why 6/10 then? Simply put, the AI is atrocious. It has absolutely no idea how to fight a war, and engaging in diplomacy is both confusing and frustrating. The only way to play a decent game against the AI is to give it ridiculously large handicaps on the highest difficulty settings, which just feels stupid (and it's still not that hard). Multiplayer is OK. Barebones, but it works. Frankly if you haven't bought civ 5 yet and are thinking about it, I would wait 6 or 12 months for the game to be fully patched up before considering it again. Expand
  75. Feb 5, 2011
    5
    Owned every Civ game since they started coming out. They ruined this one by making it PC and console. The game is watered down so the console can handle it. It's a shame when they ruin great games for the PC because the console can't handle what the PC can offer. Sorry Sid! Console games are the PCs little retarded brother that can't handle BIGBOY games!
  76. Apr 20, 2011
    6
    This is a fantastic game to play when it works a buggy, laggy frustrating mess of a game when it doesnâ
  77. May 1, 2011
    7
    I played Civilization since version 2, and this game is ok. It's easier on Prince than civ 4, at least I've never seen over 9000 stacks suddenly appear at my borders. Well, there are no stacks anyway. The game plays differently than previous versions.
  78. Mar 26, 2011
    7
    This game is problematic for me. I played the demo, liked it quite a lot, bought the game, and I almost don't play it at all. This probably is tied to the fact that I'm a BIG fan of the fourth installment, which I definetly prefer. But Civ V has a number of elements that I cannot but regard as flaws: not that I'm not used to them, but that i regard them worse than in the previous part. OnThis game is problematic for me. I played the demo, liked it quite a lot, bought the game, and I almost don't play it at all. This probably is tied to the fact that I'm a BIG fan of the fourth installment, which I definetly prefer. But Civ V has a number of elements that I cannot but regard as flaws: not that I'm not used to them, but that i regard them worse than in the previous part. On the other hand, there are some very nice introductions, such as the battle system. recommendable, but if you're a hardcore fan of the previous part, you may be disappointed because the amount of changes. Expand
  79. Mar 3, 2011
    7
    A while ago, I bought Civ 4 and fell in love. For several weeks, I could barely detach myself from the game. Even now go back from time to time and enjoy playing it greatly. When Civ 5 was announced, I was excited; But for a while I wasn't able to purchase it. Recently I found it had a demo, so I took a night to play through it. It is very fun, just as fun as Civ 4. Some of the new changesA while ago, I bought Civ 4 and fell in love. For several weeks, I could barely detach myself from the game. Even now go back from time to time and enjoy playing it greatly. When Civ 5 was announced, I was excited; But for a while I wasn't able to purchase it. Recently I found it had a demo, so I took a night to play through it. It is very fun, just as fun as Civ 4. Some of the new changes I enjoyed (particularly combat and culture). That being said, some of the changes I did not enjoy (namely city states and diplomacy with the new AI). I'd say it balances out pretty well and is probably just as fun as Civ 4, but that's exactly what turned me off. I figure, why should I pay 50 dollars to get a game that i'll have as much fun with as the previous title? For this reason, I will not be buying the full version. I'm already familiar and comfortable with the interface of Civ 4 and more importantly, I already own it.

    Overall, Civ 5 is a very good game like Civ 4, and for someone new to the Civilization series who wants an out an innovative and deep strategy game, i'd say definitely go with Civ 5. But if you already own Civ 4, well, i'd say save your money, or at least make sure you play through the demo before you buy it, because you may realize, like me, that Civ 4 is good enough and you can save those 50 dollars for something else.
    Expand
  80. Apr 15, 2011
    7
    I got this game the day it was released. Previous releases have warranted this type of action, and, though enamored at first, I kept waiting for the challenge to appear in the game. I've run rampant through the game, getting achievements and it all seems so easy compared to the other incarnations of Civ. I gave up playing it after a month or two of decimating the game on all levels.I got this game the day it was released. Previous releases have warranted this type of action, and, though enamored at first, I kept waiting for the challenge to appear in the game. I've run rampant through the game, getting achievements and it all seems so easy compared to the other incarnations of Civ. I gave up playing it after a month or two of decimating the game on all levels.

    Steam just had a sale on all the expansions, so I grabbed them all and will be playing again. They've done a lot of patches to the AI, so we'll see what changes. The other reviews of the combat system are spot on, only 1 unit per hex is bothersome, and I'll carpet the world with units. This can be interesting for logistics of attacking, but makes it far too easy to defend.
    Expand
  81. Jun 13, 2012
    7
    I just wanted to update my review a bit now that the game has been out for a couple years and there's an expansion right around the corner. I previously rated it a 5, but looking back that was a little unfair. Civ 5 has improved quite a bit since launch, though there are still serious issues inherent to its basic design. The biggest issue is 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT). At its heart, 1UPT is aI just wanted to update my review a bit now that the game has been out for a couple years and there's an expansion right around the corner. I previously rated it a 5, but looking back that was a little unfair. Civ 5 has improved quite a bit since launch, though there are still serious issues inherent to its basic design. The biggest issue is 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT). At its heart, 1UPT is a poor mechanic that the AI simply cannot handle, making most wars completely one sided, and the management of a large army annoying. Other mechanics, such as happiness, limits on expansion, and diplomacy (as always) are poorly developed. Policies and the various Civilizations themselves feel neutered compared to previous games. Communism and fascism, for example, have NO penalties, whereas previously they were powerful, but had issues you needed to manage to make them work. Despite all this, Civ 5 manages to preserve its 'just one more turn' charm and you can still spend the majority of a day playing without realizing it. Hopefully the expansion will add (well, reintroduce) some much needed strategic depth in the form of religion and espionage. Expand
  82. Mar 25, 2011
    7
    At first i didnt really seem to enjoy this game, it took me a little while to get into it. When i did it was pretty fun, combat is improved from previous iterations, social policies are pretty awesome. diplomacy is a huge let down, it was obviously programmed to make them seem like players rather than nation leaders. moreover theres not much encouragement to make strong allies in the gameAt first i didnt really seem to enjoy this game, it took me a little while to get into it. When i did it was pretty fun, combat is improved from previous iterations, social policies are pretty awesome. diplomacy is a huge let down, it was obviously programmed to make them seem like players rather than nation leaders. moreover theres not much encouragement to make strong allies in the game because you know that eventually they'll just backstab you anyway because there not national leaders they are players trying to win (often very poorly too). My biggest gripe in this game is that you don't feel like you are running a civilization, you feel like your playing just another game. So if your a fan of the civ franchise for the builder aspect of the game, i'd recommend sticking with civ 4. Expand
  83. Apr 6, 2013
    7
    Overall a great game, but after playing Civ II, III, and IV it seems lacking something. I do not like how there are random city states, and how it is centered on combat. Yes in Civ IV the micro-managing could get annoying, but I enjoyed it all the same.
  84. Nov 2, 2011
    7
    Great game for eycandy. Cities max-out radius 3 - much larger (Civ Test of time allowed much larger cities). Took out much of the features of civ 4 but kept most of the war-unfriendly features (I'm not a war person myself, but a lot of other players are). Civ5 forces you to use steam. Mods are centralized like StarCraft II. Civ5 is intellectual tyranny with a 'please don't sue me'Great game for eycandy. Cities max-out radius 3 - much larger (Civ Test of time allowed much larger cities). Took out much of the features of civ 4 but kept most of the war-unfriendly features (I'm not a war person myself, but a lot of other players are). Civ5 forces you to use steam. Mods are centralized like StarCraft II. Civ5 is intellectual tyranny with a 'please don't sue me' atmosphere on the mods. Civ5 and StarCraft 2 are a taste of the coming police state in america. Still addicting game though. Expand
  85. Nov 29, 2011
    7
    Disappointing, but not bad or unplayable. Due to the weird AI, you can always go all military and have some fun for a while. The multiplayer? Doesn't work. It would be actually a really good game if you could have offline player vs player games.
  86. Jun 3, 2013
    6
    I hated the death stacks from the Civs of old and loved the actual ranged attacks from ranged units from Civ 4 mods so was really stoked for Civ 5. However, they vanilla game, not sure how patches have addressed it, game was never properly balanced around the changes. Late game it was common to see every single square on the map occupied by a unit. Unlike Civ 4 where you had toI hated the death stacks from the Civs of old and loved the actual ranged attacks from ranged units from Civ 4 mods so was really stoked for Civ 5. However, they vanilla game, not sure how patches have addressed it, game was never properly balanced around the changes. Late game it was common to see every single square on the map occupied by a unit. Unlike Civ 4 where you had to strategically select city sites, Civ 5 brings back ICS (Infinite City Sprawl) as the best strat. Essentially, it doesn't matter where you build a city, it's a net gain. That 1 square tundra island surround by useless water? Yes,build on everyone you find. Overall, Civ 5 is a mixed bag. Glad to see the hex system, ranged units, and death of death stacks but the overall tuning and balancing didn't keep pace with the changes. Expand
  87. May 7, 2012
    7
    This seems to be a "love it or hate it" game. You have to like turn based strategy games, first of all, which is already pretty rare. Veterans to the series seem to not like this game because it's been "dumbed down." I still liked it, had over 200 hours of fun with it. Taking a day off school to turn a settler and a warrior into an expansive 20 city empire that leads the world inThis seems to be a "love it or hate it" game. You have to like turn based strategy games, first of all, which is already pretty rare. Veterans to the series seem to not like this game because it's been "dumbed down." I still liked it, had over 200 hours of fun with it. Taking a day off school to turn a settler and a warrior into an expansive 20 city empire that leads the world in everything is a rewarding experience. I played Civ 4 and Civ 5, and I have to say I like Civ 5 better simply because of the better UI, the one unit per hex, and the combat system in general. The AI is pretty dumb, though. If you're buying this game for the multiplayer, all I can say is just don't, nobody plays it and the nature of the game just isn't conducive to it. In short, think of it as a more refined Civ 4. Expand
  88. May 31, 2012
    7
    Great, unique game that actually didn't copy its predecessors AND is good. It's very enjoyable, there are tons of ways to build your empire, making every game unique. The turn by turn aspect makes the game stress-free and strategic, unlike RTS games. The game isn't overly complicated, and well organized, while having a decent amount of content. The actual "fun" factor of the game isn'tGreat, unique game that actually didn't copy its predecessors AND is good. It's very enjoyable, there are tons of ways to build your empire, making every game unique. The turn by turn aspect makes the game stress-free and strategic, unlike RTS games. The game isn't overly complicated, and well organized, while having a decent amount of content. The actual "fun" factor of the game isn't perfect though, because games are very long, and moving units from one part of the map to the other can take like 15 minutes, going turn by turn, it's long and horrible. I find this sad because the game had potential, if it wasn't so long and boring to get anything done. I have played 50 hours, and still have enjoyed it, but I can't say it's a flawless game Expand
  89. Sep 14, 2012
    7
    The hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is theThe hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is the atrocious AI and the pseudo difficulty setting which is more accurately defined as a "handicap" system. Expand
  90. Jun 8, 2013
    7
    When published this game was still born, the WORST Civ game by far. It had bugs, LAG and constant crash to desktop. THE AI was stupid and the whole thing was just a mess of data that did not add up to a good game. Nearly three years later, and basically three years of WORK on improving the game and we can finally say this is indeed a GOOD game. Gods and Kings is NECESSARY, and all the DLCWhen published this game was still born, the WORST Civ game by far. It had bugs, LAG and constant crash to desktop. THE AI was stupid and the whole thing was just a mess of data that did not add up to a good game. Nearly three years later, and basically three years of WORK on improving the game and we can finally say this is indeed a GOOD game. Gods and Kings is NECESSARY, and all the DLC helps, but bundled together and on sale Civ 5 is finally the game it should have been at launch. Well done Firaxis! Cudos for a rare show of professional pride and persistence! A good game now, worthy of the Civilisation name. Not as good as Civ 4, but close. Expand
  91. Jun 18, 2013
    7
    What can I say about Civ V that hasn't already been said a million times.
    It's not like the others, it's not as big, it's not as intricate, etc.
    This is all true, but I've never played any other Civ games, and for me, this one was pretty fun to me. That said, it is a very flawed game. The AI is very wonky, and the barbarians can be a bit weird sometimes, but on the whole. It's a fun
    What can I say about Civ V that hasn't already been said a million times.
    It's not like the others, it's not as big, it's not as intricate, etc.
    This is all true, but I've never played any other Civ games, and for me, this one was pretty fun to me.
    That said, it is a very flawed game. The AI is very wonky, and the barbarians can be a bit weird sometimes, but on the whole. It's a fun game. If you've played other civs, you may not like it, but as a first time player, I really like it.
    Expand
  92. Sep 7, 2013
    7
    ---Rating---
    Design: 3 /5 (recycles the same formula, most but not all changes constitute "streamlining")
    Polish: 4 /5 (graphics are acceptable given the game's nature, but nothing too impressive) Value: 4 /5 (decent replay value as always and nice mod support, but limited choice of factions) ---Review--- Civilization V is certainly playable and enjoyable at that, but- perhaps
    ---Rating---
    Design: 3 /5 (recycles the same formula, most but not all changes constitute "streamlining")
    Polish: 4 /5 (graphics are acceptable given the game's nature, but nothing too impressive)
    Value: 4 /5 (decent replay value as always and nice mod support, but limited choice of factions)

    ---Review---
    Civilization V is certainly playable and enjoyable at that, but- perhaps unsurprisingly- this iteration of the ever popular series amounts to little more than a re-skinning of previous entries. The hex-based map and in-game mod database are welcome additions, but otherwise most changes could be lumped under the banner of "streamlining" (for better or worse). It's a decent choice for those who somehow still haven't ever tried a Civilization game, but Civ V doesn't make too many significant improvements over previous installments.
    Expand
  93. Nov 18, 2013
    7
    If forget about that nothing good left from Civ III and Civ IV and that this game is quite lagy and bagy, and none playing it online so quite hard to find ppl to play (must be in groups and need at last 4-5 hours to find someone), game is quite normal, think for economical-political strategy it's very PC depended (heavy) and very expencive that's problem to find ppl for play, but if youIf forget about that nothing good left from Civ III and Civ IV and that this game is quite lagy and bagy, and none playing it online so quite hard to find ppl to play (must be in groups and need at last 4-5 hours to find someone), game is quite normal, think for economical-political strategy it's very PC depended (heavy) and very expencive that's problem to find ppl for play, but if you find 3-4 people it's quite interesting and not bad game... Expand
  94. Oct 21, 2013
    7
    Très bon jeu, un bon nombre de civilisation différentes (ce qui rend difficile l'équilibrage du coup malheureusement, une poignet sont avantagés avec leur bonus de départ), de nombreux types de cartes et de nombreux choix disponibles au niveau stratégique en fonction de la victoire que l'on vise.

    Le seul point vraiment négatif est la stabilité surtout côté multi. Aléatoirement le jeu
    Très bon jeu, un bon nombre de civilisation différentes (ce qui rend difficile l'équilibrage du coup malheureusement, une poignet sont avantagés avec leur bonus de départ), de nombreux types de cartes et de nombreux choix disponibles au niveau stratégique en fonction de la victoire que l'on vise.

    Le seul point vraiment négatif est la stabilité surtout côté multi. Aléatoirement le jeu peut renvoyer sur l'écran de chargement (qui peut parfois durée plusieurs minute au point de croire qu'il a freeze, voir crasher un moment.) Le fait que les games soit host côté joueurs rend les parties très difficiles jouer (quasiment injouable dés que l'on dépasse les 150-180 pings). Malheureusement une bonne machine ne suffit donc pas pour jouer correctement et ceci cause d'une mauvaise optimisation du jeu la base.
    Expand
  95. Jul 31, 2014
    7
    My first Civilization experience and I must admit that all the stories of it's addictive nature (just one more turn) were absolutely spot-on. Even though it was my first run ever and I was still learning as I went along, just during my first game I poured about 30 hours of non-stop gameplay into it and that speak for itself more than anything. In the role of Alexander the Great I conqueredMy first Civilization experience and I must admit that all the stories of it's addictive nature (just one more turn) were absolutely spot-on. Even though it was my first run ever and I was still learning as I went along, just during my first game I poured about 30 hours of non-stop gameplay into it and that speak for itself more than anything. In the role of Alexander the Great I conquered the world with my Greek army, destroyed Napoleon, Washington, and once I invented proper technology to cross the seas I massacred the Germans and China hiding behind The Great Wall (praise the siege cannons). Enjoyed it thoroughly, but one the other hand I must admit that one time was probably enough, especially since Civ V lacks any sort of continual campaign with story mode that would engage you and take you on the adventure through time and evolution perhaps, in the Age of Empires style. In this format, it's basically just a randomly created sessions, so there's not much motivation to go on playing for me, but for what it is, it's really good. 7/10 Expand
  96. Feb 24, 2014
    6
    The original game is fun to play and it delivers what the modern iteration of Civ franchise should deliver. The biggest flaw are bugs and technical issues, which were resolved later. They were significant however. As time went, many things were fixed and added in the expansions, but the start wasn't smooth. If you want to play this game, I would therefore recommend getting it with theThe original game is fun to play and it delivers what the modern iteration of Civ franchise should deliver. The biggest flaw are bugs and technical issues, which were resolved later. They were significant however. As time went, many things were fixed and added in the expansions, but the start wasn't smooth. If you want to play this game, I would therefore recommend getting it with the expansion packs. As the original "vanilla" version, the game has many problems and my impressions were mixed in the beginning. Expand
  97. Nov 14, 2012
    5
    Pretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was anPretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was an interesting idea...too bad the AI couldn't figure it out. I miss the old city management of Civ 4...it feels more bland and I feel like I have less control. Also, cities feel far more static than they use to: border expansion feels slower and is much less noticeable. Let's hope they can do a better job for the next iteration...I'll stick to Civ 4 until then. Expand
  98. May 2, 2012
    6
    Unplayable at release but after a few patches it's a really good game! What I dislike about the game is the weird AI and that the time between turns is way too long. The AI does not have to be the smartest but I'd really like them to make sense...
  99. Jun 22, 2012
    7
    Not too many new features from the previous games. The additional features are minor and mostly unnecessary (the hexagonal tiles end up unmeaningful). Most of the old features are simplified; maybe oversimplified. And the game takes so much memory; around 1GB-1.5GB; textures never load completely after a load.
  100. May 27, 2015
    6
    Background :
    I bought the complete edition with all DLCs on the Humble Bundle store for about 15$. Younger, I played similar games a little but I've not played any since years. I played the default game mode using all default settings (difficulty beginner). Usually I rarely rush a game but this game feels more like work than entertainment so I rushed it like I would rush finishing a task
    Background :
    I bought the complete edition with all DLCs on the Humble Bundle store for about 15$. Younger, I played similar games a little but I've not played any since years. I played the default game mode using all default settings (difficulty beginner). Usually I rarely rush a game but this game feels more like work than entertainment so I rushed it like I would rush finishing a task and it took me 2 days (16 hours) to finish the game.

    Review :
    I'm pretty new to Civilization so obviously I don't review it like a fan would. Personally, I think that they should change the default settings to make the game simpler/shorter and more fast paced. Despite the in-game tips provided, the complexity felt overwhelming. I know you can somehow change the settings but I would like the default settings to be more "user-friendly". I'm a programmer and I hardly see how a casual gamer can start being interested in this game, except a kid with tons of hours in front of him. Personally, I would prefer a game where the focus is more on the war and less on culture/religion/faith/science/happiness.
    Expand
  101. Jul 17, 2011
    0
    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 ofThe 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. 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.