User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1859 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. 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
  2. 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
  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. Apr 28, 2011
    3
    I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY.I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY. Okay here are two different reviews: 1) YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED A CIV GAME BEFORE Game is pretty cool, a lot to do and discover in the world of civilization. Graphics are somewhat up to date and it's a fun learning experience. Not the best strategy game you've ever played most likely, but a solid outing nonetheless. GRADE: B- 2) YOU HAVE PLAYED OTHER CIVS AND ARE POSSIBLY A CIV FANATIC LIKE MYSELF If you've played any other Civilization game to date, you will almost instantly notice that the game has been dumbed down SOOOO much it possibly brings tears to your eyes.
    - You can no longer manage your economy, taxes, luxuries, culture, religion, research, espionage, or just about anything else. The only things you can manage are your cities and units. - Diplomacy has been dumbed down as well. You can no longer trade techs or maps, and there is very little reason to conduct diplomacy besides trading luxury resources to keep your empire happiness. - MANIFEST DESTINY? THINK AGAIN. Oh how unhappy the happiness in this game will make you. Happiness is not city based anymore, rather it is now on a universal +/- scale for your ENTIRE EMPIRE. On any difficulty above Prince (I usually play on Emperor/Immortal) your happiness cap will SEVERELY LIMIT your ability to expand around the world. You will most likely be stuck to a handful of cities for a long time and you will have to carefully and painfully slowly expand so that your precious happiness doesn't drop. THE RESULT? Somewhere around 40-60% of the world map will be unsettled depending on your map type. ON IMMORTAL DIFFICULTY, EVEN THE AI WHO IS CHEATING THROUGH HIS NOSE STRUGGLES TO EXPAND ACROSS THE MAP. - WANT TO MAKE A BUSTLING DEMOCRACY THEN SWITCH TO FASCISM LATER IN THE INDUSTRIAL AGE? I THINK NOT BISMARCK. Once you pick your Civics you're stuck with them until the end of time... literally. And it's not like civics are easy to get, late game with large empires it takes 100s of turns to get enough culture. - Single Unit tiles is good and bad depending on your perspective. Ultimately though, it makes it very difficult to position your 8 units every single time you want to move across the map and makes invading other empires/cities more of a chore than fun. - A LOT OF FUN.... for until you're in the middle ages. Then the game drags and drags and dragssssssssssss like no tomorrow. WITH SO MUCH OF THE MICROMANAGEMENT STRIPPED FROM THE GAME, there is almost nothing to do besides choose what buildings to make in your cities. If you're not constantly declaring war on your neighbors then expect to spend most of your turns STARING AT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN HOPING SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENS. USUALLY DOESN'T UNLESS YOUR HOUSE CATCHES FIRE. - WANT A CULTURE VICTORY? TOO BAD GANDHI, THAT 4TH CITY IS GONNA COST YA... the game. Different victory types in Civilization have almost always been choose what you want to do early/mid way through the game and stick with it. But with this civilization, you damn better well have a strategy set if you want to win. This makes the game oh so much more boring that it was before. - Despite it being the year 2011 now, the AI of Civilization is still almost as woefully bad as it was in CIVILIZATION I ON DOS. The AI is AMAZINGLY STUPID, and all ramping up the difficulty does is MAKE THEM CHEAT LIKE NO TOMORROW. AIs will outresearch you, make far larger armies in less time, build wonders in half the time you do, and YOU WILL STILL ALMOST ALWAYS STOMP THEM. A travesty for modern gaming. Don't even get me started about diplomacy, the majority of the AI leaders are schizophrenic on their best days when taking their medication. GRADE: D- I'm sorry but this ISN'T CIVLIZATION. Empire Total War has far more depth than this current outing and that REALLY PAINS ME TO SAY THIS because I've always far preferred Civilization to the Total War series. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING WITH THIS GAME, it's more suited to be played with on an arcade stick much less on a PC. WILL EXPANSIONS SAVE THIS DISASTER OF A GAME? It could, but it's going to need something absolutely BRILLIANT, and judging by how bad this game is I have my doubts. Fingers crossed though.... BOTTOM LINE: I REALLY DON'T RECOMMEND THIS GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SINCERELY: AMAZINGLY DISAPPOINTED LONG TIME CIV FANATIC :(
    Expand
  5. Sep 26, 2010
    4
    I had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. OnceI had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. Once in-game, excitement at the new graphics and combat system are tempered by all the things that are missing. As others have posted, the missing details in the diplomacy screens are a huge problem that renders diplomacy almost useless. City States are even thinner in detail, and that is a feature that GalCiv 2 did way better. City management is a lot easier and the whole turn cycling interface improved is nicer, but the tech tree is also a dissapointment. And the whole anti-expansion philosophy is just un-fun.

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

    Finally, while I presume that the game will be patched quickly, it is crash-prone and has poor performance. The protracted time between turns is just unacceptable by even the middle of a Marathon game.
    Expand
  6. Sep 25, 2010
    3
    Being a long time fan of the Civilization franchise and having played Civ4 so much that I wore out 2 copies of the game, I have to say that Civ5 was a true disappointment. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, not even with the hex tile switch, but I did expect to get what I had gotten out of the others. I bought Civ5 because I liked how the series didn't change much, just got prettier.Being a long time fan of the Civilization franchise and having played Civ4 so much that I wore out 2 copies of the game, I have to say that Civ5 was a true disappointment. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, not even with the hex tile switch, but I did expect to get what I had gotten out of the others. I bought Civ5 because I liked how the series didn't change much, just got prettier. Overall, my biggest pet peeve is that the over-simplicity of this newest version has made the game less of a challenge and more of a tedious waste of time. I liked Civ4 because micromanagement seemed to really have an effect in the grand scheme. However, doing so in Civ5 feels like playing a pretty spread-sheet. First the bad:
    -The adjustment of the game length makes it feel like Civ3, which I like, but combining that with the extended length of turns makes for an over drawn out experience.
    -Difficulty is not adjusted by leader craftiness, but by the number of units that they bring to the fight.
    -The introduction of city-states was nice, but their nagging gets old really quick.
    -Not allowing unit stacking promotes strategy, but makes for increasingly frustrating front-lines.-
    In the 30 hours that I've played, I have found that there doesn't seem to be any kind of situation other than war to win. The readjustment of victory conditions makes domination more accessible, but the others become easily forgotten when trying to keep enough units around for defense (I've always been a cultural/space race victory kind of guy).
    -Boring, tedious, and exasperating war. I'm not kidding, even if a rival has basically no military, it will still take 10 turns to conquer a city.

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

    Maybe it's just my play style, but Civ5 doesn't pull me in like previous iterations. More often then not, I find myself wishing that I hadn't bothered with the game that enjoying it. If you are looking for the fun challenge found in previous versions of Civ, I suggest that you go back and play those as this one just doesn't cut it.
    Expand
  7. Sep 26, 2010
    0
    I'm a long time Civ fan, I've been playing back since the days of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, but this game just sucks. In a nutshell, the UI is non-functional, the AI is broken, the diplomatic system doesn't work, and the game is buggy as hell. It feels rushed, looks rushed, and will play like its rushed when it either crashes or grinds to a halt an hour or so in due to a memory leak.

    As
    I'm a long time Civ fan, I've been playing back since the days of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, but this game just sucks. In a nutshell, the UI is non-functional, the AI is broken, the diplomatic system doesn't work, and the game is buggy as hell. It feels rushed, looks rushed, and will play like its rushed when it either crashes or grinds to a halt an hour or so in due to a memory leak.

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

    On a final note, I know that a lot of hardcore Civ fans don't exactly have the best computers. Well, you might want to rethink this game. If you don't meet the rather high recommended requirements you will not be able to play on a map larger than standard- and even then the game will run like crap. I'm just below the recommended reqs, and with all my settings on minimum the game starts to chug on mid-late game standard maps. I have to say, for the performance the game doesn't even look that good so be warned.
    Expand
  8. Sep 27, 2010
    4
    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you!

    New features include: Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire! They
    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you!

    New features include:

    Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire!

    They removed all the bothering elements like religion, spies and diplomacy, so all you have to worry about is letting the game play for you! Another fantastic feature added is the settler bomb! Against all odds, are you somehow losing a war to an opponent? Well just drop a settler and all your troubles are over, you now have a unit with some of the best defense in the game, another city!

    Expect new dlc coming soon featuring an updated graphic pack; now this game will actually look like it uses its monstrous system requirements!
    Expand
  9. Sep 30, 2010
    2
    What an enormous disappointment. I am shocked that this game came from Sid Meierâ
  10. 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
  11. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    A fantastic addition to the Civ franchise. My greatest complaint with previous Civ games, which I've been playing since 1991, was that large armies were extremely unwieldy and frustrating to manage. Sea transportation logistics were also a frustrating time sink. Both of these problems have been solved with Civ V. Everything about the game screams polish and it runs like an absolute dream,A fantastic addition to the Civ franchise. My greatest complaint with previous Civ games, which I've been playing since 1991, was that large armies were extremely unwieldy and frustrating to manage. Sea transportation logistics were also a frustrating time sink. Both of these problems have been solved with Civ V. Everything about the game screams polish and it runs like an absolute dream, haven't had a hitch yet which is becoming so rare with new releases. Expand
  12. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    Continuing the tradition of sucking the soul from your body, Sid keeps up the legacy that is Civilization. After only one play through the thought of jumping into the next full work days worth of playing to feel the happiness in victory over the other Civilizations is still there. Slight tweaks are definitely noticeable in terms of cultural changes, military changes, and clearly definedContinuing the tradition of sucking the soul from your body, Sid keeps up the legacy that is Civilization. After only one play through the thought of jumping into the next full work days worth of playing to feel the happiness in victory over the other Civilizations is still there. Slight tweaks are definitely noticeable in terms of cultural changes, military changes, and clearly defined tech tree development. The new policy choices are a great new take on the game, I can't wait for the game to have added depth with mods. Best purchase I've made all year. = ) Expand
  13. Oct 16, 2012
    3
    I've been a Civ addict since the first version, and I was excited when I heard this was coming out. Unfortunately, it's probably the worst game to ever bear the name. I don't know what was going on in the studio when it was being developed, but the result looks as if nobody involved had ever designed a strategy game before. They had some interesting ideas but they failed to implementI've been a Civ addict since the first version, and I was excited when I heard this was coming out. Unfortunately, it's probably the worst game to ever bear the name. I don't know what was going on in the studio when it was being developed, but the result looks as if nobody involved had ever designed a strategy game before. They had some interesting ideas but they failed to implement them. I don't like to post bad reviews, but I think they earned this one. It's pretty much the "strategy game for people who don't like strategy games". Superficial, clumsy design, bad AI (even worse than usual), it might be an interesting failure from a new studio, but it loses a couple of points due to the pedigree. Expand
  14. Mar 7, 2013
    2
    If this game was the first of a series I wouldn't rate it so low, but this is Civilization 5 not 1! The Civ series should be nearing perfection not becoming worse. Civ4 is a better game even without any of its expansions. I will break up the rest of my review into what Civ5 did better, different, and worse than Civ4.

    The only part of Civ5 game play that I found better than Civ4 was that
    If this game was the first of a series I wouldn't rate it so low, but this is Civilization 5 not 1! The Civ series should be nearing perfection not becoming worse. Civ4 is a better game even without any of its expansions. I will break up the rest of my review into what Civ5 did better, different, and worse than Civ4.

    The only part of Civ5 game play that I found better than Civ4 was that there is a limited quantity of strategic resources like iron.

    Civ5 has some things that are different than Civ4. To me these things don't really make the game play better or worse, just different. City states, more ranged combat, hexes instead of squares, and updated graphics are examples.

    Now the list of things Civ5 does worse: 1 unit per tile (this one has a lot of repercussions on the pacing of the game), global happiness, the AI, less flexibility in your economy due to the removal or research/culture sliders, less flexibility in your government due to policies that last eternity rather than civics, removal of the health system with nothing to take its place, and probably many more things I'm forgetting at the moment.
    Expand
  15. Jul 15, 2013
    3
    As deep as its previous installments were, Civilization V in its original form simply does not deliver an experience that even remotely approaches the finesse of its prequels. While the hex tile change does add some freedom and depth, too many options have been removed and replaced with very uninteresting combat mechanics that, especially at endgame, result in a clickfest without any soulAs deep as its previous installments were, Civilization V in its original form simply does not deliver an experience that even remotely approaches the finesse of its prequels. While the hex tile change does add some freedom and depth, too many options have been removed and replaced with very uninteresting combat mechanics that, especially at endgame, result in a clickfest without any soul or body to it.

    Graphics 6/10 High detail but has various graphical glitches (such as terrain changes applying far too late).
    Sound 8/10 The soundtrack and fx add a lot to the experience of immersion and never annoy.
    Gameplay 5/10 Fun to play once or twice, tedious and boring after having seen the first few games you play. The AI is not up to scratch either and very easily defeated, even at high difficulty.
    Mechanics 1/10 Extremely lacking game mechanics that get worse as a game progresses along the tech tree late game virtually always results in mass nuking everyone, because every other option results in an endless, tedious clickfest to push through your turns and execute the attacks.

    Final note: the DLC's and expansions to this game, completely change the picture and fix most of its flaws.
    Expand
  16. Jul 30, 2013
    3
    I've played all versions of civilization: Civ Dos, Civ II, Civ III, Civ, IV and all Civs expansions. Played Call to Power, C-Evo, Freeciv, too. By far this is the worst version already launched.
  17. Dec 18, 2014
    9
    Fantastic installment in the series, at launch there were a lot of issues and the multiplayer was all but unplayable but over the years the various expansions have massively enhanced and improved this game into the utter gem it is today. Great single player, great multiplayer, probably the best turn based strategy game I've ever played. Love it.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Aug 18, 2012
    1
    I have been playing civ since the first one came out. I bought civ5 from a store and you cant even play the game if ya dont have internet to activate. Which is stupid. To cap it off you had to sit there and download yet another aplication to activate it. Why did the game designers not have this other ap on the disc? poor design ? Then after i fianlly got the game activated I was so veryI have been playing civ since the first one came out. I bought civ5 from a store and you cant even play the game if ya dont have internet to activate. Which is stupid. To cap it off you had to sit there and download yet another aplication to activate it. Why did the game designers not have this other ap on the disc? poor design ? Then after i fianlly got the game activated I was so very disapointed in the game. Less options than other versions. time between turns is stupid long. Load times take for ever and i have 4gigs of ram dual core. I would feel sorry for anyone trying to play this game on some older model computer. The only thing i actually liked about civ5 is razing cities. Unless they were former capitols or those city states which could not be razed. They also got rid of the stupid public works which was a nice change.liked the new culture thing. Things i hated were not able to raze capitols and city states. Not able to pass or do anything with mountains,
    No mags to move troops faster. Could not terriform. Stupid other nations would not even trade resources i had to go over an just take the resources from them.
    Could not activate till i went to a place with internet.
    Had to down load another stupid program to activate. the scenario editor dont work. When Civ VI comes out i hope it will actually be an improvement all the options of the old civs.
    Expand
  23. Jan 13, 2013
    3
    I enjoy strategy games but this game is unbearable to play. It is SO slow moving and boring. A single game will take you 20 some hours to play even on the quickest time setting. There is a multi-player option which is pointless because you will never finish a game. If you want to play on a tiny/small map with the quickest time setting you may finish some games but what is the fun in that?I enjoy strategy games but this game is unbearable to play. It is SO slow moving and boring. A single game will take you 20 some hours to play even on the quickest time setting. There is a multi-player option which is pointless because you will never finish a game. If you want to play on a tiny/small map with the quickest time setting you may finish some games but what is the fun in that?

    The game does everything to slow you down it seems. The movement restrictions are ridiculous, hills/forest/marshes are everywhere and waaaay overloaded simply to slow you down. When it comes to actual gameplay it is your average typical strategy game and you will be able to get way ahead of the computer barring the hardest difficulties.

    If you want a strategy game play Crusader Kings 2, this game is a dumbed down pour excuse for a game with their length making it seem hard and deep. There are no special diplomatic mechanics with the game and the units are very bland to choose from. Even if you spend hours to get your research up you will be disappointed.

    There is also not much difference in leaders which is lame. Each leader gets a bonus and some are clearly better than others which limits who you will play as right away. Some of the special units or building are helpful but hardly make a huge difference on the overall game.
    Expand
  24. Jul 17, 2014
    10
    Phenomenal, honestly. If you're a fan of 4x, poltics, management or strategy games this is truly a staple. Customization, replayability and incredibly addicting gameplay keep people playing this for hundreds and thousands of hours. The game has one major flaw, and that's if you get the base game with no expansions, packs or DLC then it can feel empy, which is a flaw. Though, at this pointPhenomenal, honestly. If you're a fan of 4x, poltics, management or strategy games this is truly a staple. Customization, replayability and incredibly addicting gameplay keep people playing this for hundreds and thousands of hours. The game has one major flaw, and that's if you get the base game with no expansions, packs or DLC then it can feel empy, which is a flaw. Though, at this point with all the bundle sales if you can get anything along with it it feels fleshed out and is probably one of the best games on the market for your money considering how many hours of gameplay it gives. Expand
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Mar 8, 2013
    2
    As a kid, I remember waiting for the original Civilization to come out. I don't know how many times I read the review and how much I waited. The actual experience was amazing. I've played every single Civ game since then, and I've always been a huge fan of the franchise. I feel the quality of it all, started to fall with civ4,
    and came to it's climax with Civ5. It's almost like a
    As a kid, I remember waiting for the original Civilization to come out. I don't know how many times I read the review and how much I waited. The actual experience was amazing. I've played every single Civ game since then, and I've always been a huge fan of the franchise. I feel the quality of it all, started to fall with civ4,
    and came to it's climax with Civ5. It's almost like a derivative of the music industry. They make cool bands play crap songs, in order to sell more records.

    Civ 5 was massively dumbed down, in order to reach a broader audience. As so many others have said,
    the lack of proper politics, tech trading and the likes, just makes this a very boring experience.

    I am not going to mention the bugs in this review, but the game is full of them!
    Expand
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. Feb 26, 2014
    8
    I played the hell outta Civ3, skipped Civ4 and play a lot (like 400 hours +) of Civ V.

    It is a great casual time sink that still captures the spirit of the Civ experience. We joke it is spreadsheet empire creation, but really there are a lot of ways to win. I do miss world effects like Pollution, greenhouse, planting trees etc. I also think that the last expansion are Weak. Brave
    I played the hell outta Civ3, skipped Civ4 and play a lot (like 400 hours +) of Civ V.

    It is a great casual time sink that still captures the spirit of the Civ experience.

    We joke it is spreadsheet empire creation, but really there are a lot of ways to win.

    I do miss world effects like Pollution, greenhouse, planting trees etc.
    I also think that the last expansion are Weak. Brave New World, not worth it. Culture / Tourism is awful and dull. Stick with Gods and Kings.

    Stacking armies I can take or leave. For me the effort it takes in Civ V to PROPERLY surround and take entrenched enemies / cities is a PERK not a down side.

    It does run a bit rough over the Multiplayer (I often switch to Grid view) later in the game as it tries to keep up with all the renders, AI actions and fights.

    Solid game. Just don't expect Civ 3 (or I guess 4)
    Expand
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. Oct 24, 2014
    2
    If you enjoyed Civ 4, this game is... not good. It continues the painful trend from Civ 3 of making you focus on smaller civilizations. Happiness is hard to understand, the units look all the same, and the game is slow... Stick to Civ 4.
  38. Jan 24, 2015
    9
    i'm going to go back a few of years to a time where I was obsessed with strategy games like Plants VS. Zombies and Bloons Tower Defense. While shopping, I have come across Civilization Revolution and immediately got hooked. I saw that you could build a gigantic empire and have epic troops destroy others and I practically fainted. Playing the game got me obsessed. I was so immersed everyi'm going to go back a few of years to a time where I was obsessed with strategy games like Plants VS. Zombies and Bloons Tower Defense. While shopping, I have come across Civilization Revolution and immediately got hooked. I saw that you could build a gigantic empire and have epic troops destroy others and I practically fainted. Playing the game got me obsessed. I was so immersed every time I would play it. Eventually I became a pro at that game. While shopping again I saw that they had a whole series of games and I got a little excited inside. I got one of the games, which I forgot which one, and had no clue what the heck I was doing. Eventually the game became boring and now I will never find it ever *cries*. Coming back to December 2014 was the Steam Holiday Sale. I had quite a bit of money for Gaben so I decided to look at all of the games. I saw that Civilization V with all of the DLC was 50% off and I decided to get it. I then remembered all of the memories I have had with Civilization Revolution. While playing the game I had a lot of fun although I so far hadn't played it much. It was kind of hard getting back into the Civilization franchise, but eventually I was back in it and I was having a lot of fun. In this game you play as one of the world's leaders of pretty much most of the countries. Your goal is to build an ultimate civilization (duh) and to be the best in technology and some other stuff. The game can be quite addictive because you may get into some long points of heavy thinking like wars and such, but when it is hushed down then the game may be a little boring and hard to get back into seeing as how it is a turn based game and you are going to have to wait quite a few turns for something to happen. Otherwise, this game is a fantastic game and deserves a 9.3. Expand
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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. Expand
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Jul 22, 2012
    8
    Having never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was prettyHaving never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was pretty enjoyable and provides a lot of play time for your money. It must be said that the steamworks modding system is really good and some of the mods are useful and others change the game enough to keep it interesting. Expand
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Nov 10, 2013
    4
    This game is an insult to the Civilization series, compared to Civilization 4 it lacks the depth of gameplay and has some serious balancing issues as well as containing AI that don't know how to play. As a stand alone game it isn't too brilliant either, with the game revolving around playing as the best civilizations and getting wonders which are overpowered the fastest. The rest of theThis game is an insult to the Civilization series, compared to Civilization 4 it lacks the depth of gameplay and has some serious balancing issues as well as containing AI that don't know how to play. As a stand alone game it isn't too brilliant either, with the game revolving around playing as the best civilizations and getting wonders which are overpowered the fastest. The rest of the features one would expect from a Civilization game were released in the form of DLC meaning the vanilla Civ 5 is an incomplete game. I do frequently play this online as my friends moved to it from other Civilization titles however we can agree this game is flawed. A terrible disappointment. Expand
  50. 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
  51. Dec 1, 2012
    1
    Want to know how boring this game is. Type the word boring over and over again for ten hours straight. Do that, and you'll be starting to get a notion of how boring this game is.

    The game is very pretty, and there are some nice tweaks. But,I don't play a game to just look at pretty pictures. I play it, and I bet most other folks do as well, for the challenge. Where CIV IV had one of
    Want to know how boring this game is. Type the word boring over and over again for ten hours straight. Do that, and you'll be starting to get a notion of how boring this game is.

    The game is very pretty, and there are some nice tweaks. But,I don't play a game to just look at pretty pictures. I play it, and I bet most other folks do as well, for the challenge. Where CIV IV had one of the best AI 's I've ever seen CIV V has a zombified AI. The computer run civ's are in desperate need of BRAINS! They aren't out to conquer the world, or even knock off your particular civilization. Instead they're largely content to let you slowly fossilize or conqure the world yourself. Conquering the world is actually the easiest way to win this game...yeah, go figure. Partly though, that because you can get started early and get the pain over with sooner. IF you have the patience, you could go for the space race victory. But, if you have that kind of patience, you should be able to hold off on buying this waste of computer memory of a game and spend your time finding something worth your time and money.
    Expand
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. May 11, 2011
    3
    Huge disappointment.

    I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago. It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable. 1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to
    Huge disappointment.

    I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago.

    It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable.

    1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to raze all enemy cities except capitals (that you can't raze) because I just couldn't afford the extra population (even as puppet cities). by the modern ages most of the map consisted of unworked, uninhabited land where barbarians roamed. Even if I didn't go for conquest and wouldn't burn the cities there still would be tons of unused land.

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

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

    4) Diplomacy is a random mess

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

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

    Mr. Sid Meyer, I'm very disappointed.
    Expand
  55. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Since i was 6 i've been playing Civilzation and Civilization V is the best and easiest for me to use (so far). It may be because i was younger and not able to fully understand the keyboard a few years ago but i find Civilization V easy to control and i really enjoy playing it.
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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.
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. Mar 30, 2012
    0
    You've probably already noticed that loads of Civ fans are unhappy with Civ V. I'm one of them. I bought Civilization I on release, and every other version since. Civ V is the first one that I can't even begin to enjoy. It's a massive step backwards. It's basically no longer Civilization, but some weird war game without any of the depth that made all the previous versions fun to play andYou've probably already noticed that loads of Civ fans are unhappy with Civ V. I'm one of them. I bought Civilization I on release, and every other version since. Civ V is the first one that I can't even begin to enjoy. It's a massive step backwards. It's basically no longer Civilization, but some weird war game without any of the depth that made all the previous versions fun to play and saw the series progress with each iteration. If anything, Civ V is kinda like Civ I in that it essentially removes all the additions to the series in between. Except that Civ I was actually fun to play and gave you the feeling of building a "Civilization to stand the test of time". This is a monstrosity not worthy of the name. I definitely won't be purchasing Civ VI in blind faith - and I never thought that I'd say that about a Civ game! Please Sid/Firaxis: focus on what made the Civ series so great - the "interesting decision paradigm". If you want to make a war game, by all means do, but then don't call it Civilization. Expand
  64. Oct 22, 2013
    9
    I never cared for the Civ series all that much. It was always playable, but slow tedious and boring to me. Oddly I enjoyed the heck out of Civ 5. It was easy to get into, faster paced than I expected and a hell of a lot of fun multiplier with my mates. A couple things I didn't like, AI was a bit dumber than expected on hard, late game really slows down, and the tech tree for the modern andI never cared for the Civ series all that much. It was always playable, but slow tedious and boring to me. Oddly I enjoyed the heck out of Civ 5. It was easy to get into, faster paced than I expected and a hell of a lot of fun multiplier with my mates. A couple things I didn't like, AI was a bit dumber than expected on hard, late game really slows down, and the tech tree for the modern and space age was to simple. They really should have spread out the tech more at the end. Overall a highly recommended game I will play well into the future. Expand
  65. Aug 1, 2013
    10
    Civilization V is truly the ultimate experience in casual (and a higher difficulties, hardcore) strategy gaming. Having played Civ III for many hours as a kid (I'm 18) and picking up a used copy of Civilization Revolution for PS3 a few years back, this was the first game that I bough when I re-entered the PC gaming world, and I was amazed. The graphics are astonishing for a turn-basedCivilization V is truly the ultimate experience in casual (and a higher difficulties, hardcore) strategy gaming. Having played Civ III for many hours as a kid (I'm 18) and picking up a used copy of Civilization Revolution for PS3 a few years back, this was the first game that I bough when I re-entered the PC gaming world, and I was amazed. The graphics are astonishing for a turn-based strategy game with water effects rivaling any blockbuster of today. Huge selections of empires with plenty of unique structures and units all wrapped up into a very fluid user interface make this a game worth experiencing. The music and voice-work are top notch, but it is really the gameplay that matters. Firaxis knows how to balance a game and any issues that existed at launch of both the base game, and DLCs were quickly patched. Historical knowledge is abound in the so-called "civilopedia" providing photographs and histories over all of the world leaders, wonders, city-states, and more. This game does also have Steam workshop support letting players modify it in all crazy ways if they do get bored. This coupled with the two expansions and the overall long term support allow this addictive game to force anyone to replay it time and time again.
    With this said, the AI is not perfect and the game can occasionally lag even on my PC (which exceeds recommended system requirements in each regard). Inability to stack certain units (i.e., great people, trading units, workers) can be frustrating, but for military units, it is one of the games shining innovations that changes the state of warfare only for the better. The new diplomacy victory and Shoshone empire are currently overpowered in the latest expansion, but I'm sure that will be balanced as Gods and Kings was so perfectly balanced.
    This is a game with infinite replay whether it be in single-player, scenarios, or the flawless multiplayer. This is the Grand Theft Auto of strategy games, a culmination of many superb parts working together to form an even more perfect whole. In the end, I'd give it a 9.8/10 if only to see if Firaxis can out-do itself in Civilization VI.
    Expand
  66. 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!
  67. Apr 24, 2011
    4
    Like many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available inLike many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available in older versions that are just plain missing here. I have also run into a number of massive technical issues ranging from the game over stressing my GTX465 to random lockups and crashes. There is a whole series of complaints about these issues and hopefully they will be repaired without requiring that I reach deep for another purchase.

    Based on my experience so far; if Civilization VI were offered tomorrow, I wouldn't buy it .
    Expand
  68. Feb 3, 2012
    2
    The lead designer of Civ5, Jon Shafer, made a lot of changes to the game mechanics of previous versions, in order to make the game more simple, stylish, and streamlined. Hex tiles, less roads (due to maintenance costs), one unit per tile (1UPT), global happiness, no religions, no change of policies, less tech/no tech trading. Unfortunately the many changes are badly integrated, and makeThe lead designer of Civ5, Jon Shafer, made a lot of changes to the game mechanics of previous versions, in order to make the game more simple, stylish, and streamlined. Hex tiles, less roads (due to maintenance costs), one unit per tile (1UPT), global happiness, no religions, no change of policies, less tech/no tech trading. Unfortunately the many changes are badly integrated, and make the game feel rushed and boring. Expand
  69. Nov 5, 2010
    3
    The game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a poorThe game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a poor marketing decision. A unique game name should've been applied, for example "Civilization: Reborn" or something like that. That would've indicated to us experienced Civilization gamers that the game is totally different and to expect big changes. Expand
  70. 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!
  71. 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
  72. Apr 7, 2012
    4
    I tried this game again after about 14 months, waste of my time. I am extremely disappointed the flawed gameplay mechanics are still around, I am even more disappointed about the technical bugs. There is no reason that my cursor should disappear in a section of city management after 18 months of release, It should support dual monitors, my cities shouldn't disappear occasionally, II tried this game again after about 14 months, waste of my time. I am extremely disappointed the flawed gameplay mechanics are still around, I am even more disappointed about the technical bugs. There is no reason that my cursor should disappear in a section of city management after 18 months of release, It should support dual monitors, my cities shouldn't disappear occasionally, I shouldn't have red sprites appear, etc etc. I think these things are the biggest proof of what a failure this game is. People argue that the gameplay is well done and thought out, if they thought so they would have completed the rest of their game. If an Indie game had this many issues a couple months after release it would be unacceptable, for a series with this much renown to suffer from these types of bugs 18 months after release is completely unacceptable. I am in the camp of never buying another firaxis/2k game on day one, I'm going to wait for extensive reviews before I purchase one. I think this is an extremely good example of how ridiculous critic reviews are, for this to be one of the highest rated games of all time is shameful. Expand
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. Dec 23, 2012
    3
    Signed up to metacritic purely to not recommend this game. Buy Civ4 which is superior in almost all aspects. They've taken all of the depth out of city building, empire maintenance, diplomacy, subterfuge, trade... the list goes on. The only improvement is the new combat system, but they didn't match that with an AI that could utilise it. Such a disappointment - glad I got it on the steamSigned up to metacritic purely to not recommend this game. Buy Civ4 which is superior in almost all aspects. They've taken all of the depth out of city building, empire maintenance, diplomacy, subterfuge, trade... the list goes on. The only improvement is the new combat system, but they didn't match that with an AI that could utilise it. Such a disappointment - glad I got it on the steam sale, otherwise I'd be furious.... Expand
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. May 16, 2012
    8
    I hated it at first, and then I loved it.
    I guess that at first I had an idealized image of what the series was, but after actually having gone back to play the old games I came back with a fresh look on CIV V.
    This is now my favourite game in the series, although there are some things missing that I would like, but they're apparently going to be re-introduced in the upcoming expansion.
  79. 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
  80. May 5, 2012
    9
    Civ 5 is not a bad game. I think they just went the wrong direction with it. The graphics are updated beautifully but the depth has been stripped back some. This will change to some degree with the release of Gods and kings, but if you are looking for more depth and content, you are better off loading Civ 4 mod Caveman to Cosmos. The mod is everything I hoped 5 would introduceCiv 5 is not a bad game. I think they just went the wrong direction with it. The graphics are updated beautifully but the depth has been stripped back some. This will change to some degree with the release of Gods and kings, but if you are looking for more depth and content, you are better off loading Civ 4 mod Caveman to Cosmos. The mod is everything I hoped 5 would introduce including so much depth and content it's almost TOO much to process. Some improvements that were made in 5 are: City-states- a cool new addition. Ranged units are ACTUALLY ranged units being able to attack from more than one space away. Hex grid is way better than square and unit stacking is gone. I find it more realistic, but it is a pain in the @$$ when you have to move garrisoned units to produce more. Gods and Kings will re-introduce a religion resource and units will receive a large bump in HP. I'm anxious to see how this will affect overall game strategy. Overall the game is solid and I must give it a thumbs up. Expand
  81. Mar 8, 2013
    1
    If you haven't played another civilization game before and are looking to start I suggest you go out and buy Civ 4. Its significantly better than this one. I was amazed when I first saw the graphics of this game. They are beautiful and seamless. I also liked the idea of resource scarcity where an iron supply can allow you to build up to 5units. (For example) In Civ 4 once you have theIf you haven't played another civilization game before and are looking to start I suggest you go out and buy Civ 4. Its significantly better than this one. I was amazed when I first saw the graphics of this game. They are beautiful and seamless. I also liked the idea of resource scarcity where an iron supply can allow you to build up to 5units. (For example) In Civ 4 once you have the critical resource there is no incentive for you to get another one of it. You'd have to be stupid to trade it and so except for the shield bonus it goes to waste. I was unsettled by the move to hexagonal tiles and the no unit stacking. Also cities acting as their own (Flawed it turns out) defense. However I found all 3 changes tolerable and even enjoyable for a time. I like the move to range units however what unit is "ranged" seems kind of arbitrary. The fact that two units can attack each other for a few turns without utter destruction of one in a way compensates for the lack of "stack".

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

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

    When it came to technology I understand the move away from tech trading. Much kinder on isolated starts. But doing so removed 90% of diplomacy for me. The "research deals" which replaced them were a sad surrogate. As well sometimes a civic would make a research deal with you and then break it prematurely. Costing you both gold to no ones benefit. That is either spite or poor game design. All and all this game is beautiful. But being a strategy game stripped of any real strategy it is quite pointless. I wish they would re-release civ 4 with this level of graphics.
    Expand
  82. Sep 28, 2014
    0
    Civilization V was pure crap when it was released in 2010. And despite all it's expansions and pointless DLC's it is still utter crap.

    Civ 5 is a dumbed down arcade game. As the game progresses you find that nothing interesting really ever happens. Turn after turn of pointlessly pressing the end turn button. Every design decision seems to come from the developers wish to do stuff
    Civilization V was pure crap when it was released in 2010. And despite all it's expansions and pointless DLC's it is still utter crap.

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

    Every design decision seems to come from the developers wish to do stuff differently and cater to the casual masses. The results is the mentioned dumbed downed piece of turd, which is no doubt loved by casual gamers around the globe.
    Expand
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. May 17, 2011
    8
    Civ V is a good game. I've been a fan of the series for over a decade and I can confidently say it stands well among its peers. It is greatly simplified over Civ IV, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. While I do miss the sheer depth of the last title Civ V has the sort of simplification that, more often than not, works well for the game. It's certainly a moreCiv V is a good game. I've been a fan of the series for over a decade and I can confidently say it stands well among its peers. It is greatly simplified over Civ IV, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. While I do miss the sheer depth of the last title Civ V has the sort of simplification that, more often than not, works well for the game. It's certainly a more approachable title for newcomers to the franchise, and there's still plenty for experiences players to finesse. The process of waging war is undeniably superior in this version, with the new hex grid adding a tactical element none of the other games ever had. The hex grid itself makes the playable world look and handle much nicer too. There are some definite improvements here, but the game doesn't quite live up to Civ IV's grandeur. Civ IV, especially after its expansions, is the better game, but Civ IV is one of the best 4x games ever conceived. By its own merits, Civilization V is still one of the best releases of the last year and well worth anyone's attention. Expand
  86. May 19, 2011
    3
    It is a reasonable game, but far worse than civ's previous incarnations, (including Civ 3...). The main focus moved to combat, to small tactics rather than long term strategy. Civ IV is, by far, a better, more complex game.
  87. Aug 6, 2012
    3
    In the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usualIn the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usual square ones. I think it makes the map look much better. The graphics are better in Civilization V, which you would expect. I like how accessible mods are in this game. It is much easier to use mods than past installments in the series. Now, the bad. The one unit per tile was a nice try, but it simply doesn't work. What should have been done is a Victoria II style supply limit system, where each tile could support a certain number of units. You could put as many units as you want on the tile, but there would be significant combat penalties for going over the limit. One unit per tile makes wars something you dread, as opposed to something you enjoyed in Civ IV. The diplomatic system is still messed up even two years after release. The AI leaders are inconsistent and change their minds quickly. The game got rid of religion which makes it less interesting. Finally, I'll explain my review score. Automatically, the game receives a four point deduction for not improving on its predecessor, the receives a 3 point deduction for OK gameplay. Expand
  88. Feb 13, 2013
    2
    I have to say, when i first saw this game, I was very impressed with it. The atmosphere, the choices, the models, all of it. However, as I played more than just a few games, Civ 5 's many shortcomings became apparent to me. The absolutely horrendous AI, for example, renders diplomacy useless. It is impossible to trade with any AI, because they will not accept any reasonable offer. Instead,I have to say, when i first saw this game, I was very impressed with it. The atmosphere, the choices, the models, all of it. However, as I played more than just a few games, Civ 5 's many shortcomings became apparent to me. The absolutely horrendous AI, for example, renders diplomacy useless. It is impossible to trade with any AI, because they will not accept any reasonable offer. Instead, they will demand everything you own for a scraps of iron or horse. Plus, the unpredictable way in which AIs act makes it impossible to make plans that relies on AIs. Random civs denounce me for no reason, or acts aggressive despite have an army a tenth of mine. The gameplay is also very shallow. The tile improvements look good at first, but eventually one realises that the only way to win is to spam build trade posts and farms. Every time. The combat is the same. There is no hint of infrastructure or anything, and the combat animations are repetitive and breaks one's immersion by being very cartoonish. Overall, I disliked this game mostly because of the absolutely horrendous AI. After all, it is no fun building an empire if everyone around you is acting like a dumbass. Expand
  89. Oct 3, 2010
    3
    man you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should haveman you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should have quit this franchise when it was still good enough. im deinstalling it and i play civ 4 again. Expand
  90. May 3, 2011
    4
    I played a few games of Civilization V and I have to say that it is clearly inferior to Civilization IV in tactics and strategy. The change from multiple units being allowed to occupy a single square to one unit per square severely limits a player's strategy, making combat cumbersome, and less interesting. The ability to defend cities without an army seems ridiculous, especially whenI played a few games of Civilization V and I have to say that it is clearly inferior to Civilization IV in tactics and strategy. The change from multiple units being allowed to occupy a single square to one unit per square severely limits a player's strategy, making combat cumbersome, and less interesting. The ability to defend cities without an army seems ridiculous, especially when combined with their ranged attack that is automatically upgraded as the game progresses; starting with a ranged attack even without the knowledge of archery. The scientific aspect of the game is much more simplified, and the amount of civilizations/leaders available to play is abysmal. The city building is more or less the same as in Civilization IV and Gandhi is still as treacherous as ever. In my opinion it is one of the more mediocre versions of Civilization, far inferior to the previous installment in the series. Expand
  91. Nov 30, 2011
    3
    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I
    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I played for months after release and often came back after a break for a game or two. With Civilization V I only played two full games to the end and one unfinished then it was time to shelf the game.
    It's obvious that simple patches or DLC's can't fix the game. It needs serious overhaul in so many aspects. Civilization V could have been so much better if all the new features had been implemented properly.
    Expand
  92. 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.
  93. 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
  94. Jan 25, 2012
    0
    Part II of II .
    Part B. The issues. The fact that in 2010 you get just a DVD in a box could already raise an eyebrow or two, with the exponential development of solid state memory, graphics, computer power etc, I would have expected more data, even a solid state item, and here is a marketing thoughtâ
  95. Sep 28, 2010
    4
    The 1up review has it right.

    This game is highly over-rated. I played it for 30 hours and really got into it, but the game has a tremendous amount of bugs and what I personally consider severe problems. I strategy game should have the proper UI to be able to see at a glance your resources, diplomacy, maintenance costs, etc. Instead, TONS of info is left out of both the UI and the manual,
    The 1up review has it right.

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

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

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

    Many game developers now have a nasty habit of just rushing out unfinished games filled with problems.
    Expand
  96. Sep 30, 2010
    4
    This game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refineThis game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refine problematic but life-like features, not yank them out altogether.

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

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

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

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

    They are counting on you to beta test their product for them. Deny them that privilege.
  99. Sep 30, 2010
    3
    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

    That's until you play your first two complete games. This game is full with bugs! You might wonder if they even played through the
    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

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

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

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

    Do yourself a favour and wait at least a month or two until the first big patches are release... that's if the developers have the courage to support the game..
    Expand
  100. Oct 6, 2010
    0
    Bugs, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator... this game is half finished and it will need a miracle patch or some modders to actually finish this game. ALOT of features of the previous games have just been dropped; the best we can hope is to be spoon fed the rest.
  101. May 25, 2012
    0
    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. 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.