Sid Meier's Civilization V PC

User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2094 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

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. Nov 29, 2012
    10
    After the release of Gods and Kings, Civ V has become one of the best turned-based strategy games of all time. Don't listen to the Civ III and IV fans who complained about this game earlier. It's a fantastic game. The only cons of this game as of the latest update is that this game requires a high powered pc to play on higher settings, and the game is almost too addicting! ;) ***ALSO, IFAfter the release of Gods and Kings, Civ V has become one of the best turned-based strategy games of all time. Don't listen to the Civ III and IV fans who complained about this game earlier. It's a fantastic game. The only cons of this game as of the latest update is that this game requires a high powered pc to play on higher settings, and the game is almost too addicting! ;) ***ALSO, IF YOU GAVE THIS GAME A 0, YOU ARE AN IDIOT, PERIOD. UNLESS THE GAME ABSOLUTELY DIDN'T WORK, A ZERO IS NOT WARRANTED. METACRITIC NEEDS TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO GIVE ZEROS TO KEEP IMMATURE CHILDREN FROM RUINING THE INTEGRITY OF USER REVIEW SCORES.*** Expand
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. Nov 14, 2012
    5
    Pretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was anPretty disappointing: at release time, it felt like some of the features might not be finished, and the game overall felt pretty stripped down. I could tell this was not developed by someone who had a particular passion for the series, and who got caught up in shaking things up, forgetting to maintain some of that good complexity we had in Civ 4. The new, more tactical, combat was an interesting idea...too bad the AI couldn't figure it out. I miss the old city management of Civ 4...it feels more bland and I feel like I have less control. Also, cities feel far more static than they use to: border expansion feels slower and is much less noticeable. Let's hope they can do a better job for the next iteration...I'll stick to Civ 4 until then. Expand
  6. Nov 12, 2012
    10
    This review was a long time coming. I basically have 3 different reviews based on performance. When I first bought the game, I had technical issues with game performance. I couldn't get DX11 to work and the game played like a 15 year old game on my fairly new desktop. The game was simply unplayable. When the game does work, it's one of the most complex and entertaining games I haveThis review was a long time coming. I basically have 3 different reviews based on performance. When I first bought the game, I had technical issues with game performance. I couldn't get DX11 to work and the game played like a 15 year old game on my fairly new desktop. The game was simply unplayable. When the game does work, it's one of the most complex and entertaining games I have ever played. Absolutely outstanding. Very deep and has almost endless replay value. The DLC is abundant and still likely to see some new releases in the future. The game on Steam also has a great modding community. Makes it easy to try out other people's creations. All of the extras are just gravy as the base game is the best strategy game of its kind in the world. Civ V will probably hold this title until Civ 6 comes out in half a decade or so. Expand
  7. Oct 30, 2012
    0
    I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems,I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems, it was just a game after all. But one of those games you would forgive anything, simply because it has something magical around it. Civ 4 is, as many have pointed out here as well, the pinnacle of the series. Again, of course it had aspects which could have been improved, and btw the Civ series was NEVER the hardest, toughest or most complicated strategy game out there. Try playing the Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron series, or many others, and you'll see what I mean. Civ has always been a coulourful, entertaining gem, a perfect mix of micro and macro managing, even though the AI was never any good, and some mechanics were certainly improvable. Now we have this..I don't even know how to define it. So, Dear Sid, all of a sudden, after 20 years of pure genius, you decided that people saying "oh no, I have to actually research a tech that will allow me to build transport ships and THEN I must load my units on them?? BOORING" were the ones to listen, while those that made it possible for you to be in business today, those that bought and supported your products in a time when even owning a PC was something (I don't live in the US by the way), were to be insulted in this way. For the respect I still have towards your past wonders, I'll just stop it here, because you know what I'm talking about, the negative comments are really not necessary. You, above everyone else in this world, know perfectly well what has happened to the Civ franchise.

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

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

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

    Quoque tu, Sid
    Expand
  8. Oct 27, 2012
    3
    Well this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it'sWell this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it's possible today to make it faster and save you from all the tedious activities, deciding what to build on every single hex in every single turn. You should be able to set your typical path through the tech and build trees and reuse those. The final spoiler is, that anything you do, you will end up in war. Even if you try to be polite and nice, there is no peace alternative in real game, it is only theoretical. I managed to win peacefully once from like 30 attempts and it was by mere luck anyway. So this game does copy typical american colonial consumeristic philosophy - expand, fight, kill and consume. More means always better. What a disappointment. Expand
  9. 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
  10. Sep 14, 2012
    7
    The hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is theThe hex system is a massive improvement for the Civ franchise, it's just a shame the game was riddled with balance issues for the better part of a year after its initial release. Certain wonders were necessitated for victory, certain Civ's were necessary for particular wins (cultural, etc), but fortunately most balance issues have been resolved. The achilles heal of the game is the atrocious AI and the pseudo difficulty setting which is more accurately defined as a "handicap" system. Expand
  11. 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
  12. Aug 6, 2012
    9
    4+/5 (Very Good)

    If you enjoy playing games like RISK, where a game can take DAYS to finish, CIV5 is for you.

    The best part? I don't actually care about winning in CIV5, it's how you get to the end that is fun and somehow hugely satisfying. (even if you lose)

    I don't even finish all of my games and still feel good about them!
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Aug 1, 2012
    9
    Civilization V, the ultimate time waster. A very solid game, especially since the patches and expansion for a night kickin back with friends and having a few beers. A long night at that. For both long time and newcoming players of the Civilization series, you'll feel right at home here. A lot of reviews on here complain about the "lack of depth" in the game, but they act as though itCivilization V, the ultimate time waster. A very solid game, especially since the patches and expansion for a night kickin back with friends and having a few beers. A long night at that. For both long time and newcoming players of the Civilization series, you'll feel right at home here. A lot of reviews on here complain about the "lack of depth" in the game, but they act as though it is no longer difficult or deep because of the removal of a few features (many of which are now available in DLC's), but I personally think that they improvements they made over the previous games allow for more tactical depth than ever. Gone are the days of stacking so many units that you could ceaselessly barrage a city until it falls to its knees. Now, you really have to plan carefully and prepare for a siege, as you should. I had tremendous fun figuring out and mastering the combat system. Everything from where to place the catapults so as to be useful, but not too vulnerable as well as who are the front line marines sent in essentially to do little damage on a suicide mission before you bring in the big guns. The gameplay is fluid, and in multiplayer the combat is intense once air units are introduced as you scramble to intercept air units headed for your beloved cities. Early game, building wonders and researching technology can take FOREVER. But what a lot of people here seem to overlook is the realism that goes along with that. Fact is, it did take forever to build The Great Wall, Hanging Gardens, etc. And once nations began becoming industrialized, things really sped up. This holds true in the Civilization series. By the time I hit the industrial era, I was completing wonders in 3-4 turns, builds in 1-2, and every unit in 1. BUT, if you play your cards wrong, you could end up developing no research a turn, or with your production at or near a standstill. Every decision you make seems to have greater implications in Civ V than the previous, as there are less to make which ends up making you really have to weigh your options much more. I'd argue that the game has more depth in that each decision you make is absolutely crucial, whereas in Civ IV I found myself able to let a lot more go with much less staring at that screen while others wait for you to hit that next turn button.

    There's a lot of very negative reviews out there with scores of 0-5, and to you I say... Really? The programming, design and execution of the game is excellent. A lot of people here discuss Civ like it's some sort of sacred thing. It's a board game in virtual form people, they have to make changes if they want to progress. Stop acting as though the series holds any sort of loyalty towards you. I personally see video games as art, and like good art, the artist does what they think is best. If you have a better idea, get involved in the process yourself. If not, at LEAST give constructive criticism, not this "this game is a waste of money, total piece of **** It's not like the old one." Just makes you look like a douche, as this game was obviously meticulously crafted from the ground up by the developers. If you think Civ IV is the perfect game, then keep playing that. As for myself, I honestly cannot think of a better turn based strategy game out there. Total War: Shogun 2 was fun, but the limitation of 2 players per campaign has really limited myself from playing it as on my weekend off I like to LAN with 3-4 friends, bbq, and play some strategy games. I have always seen games like this as a highly social thing, like board games. This crushes any turn based strategy or board game in terms of replayability.

    I just don't understand why people refer to it being more of a casual game. Aren't all games casual? Cause I feel the term is being used very loosely. Cookin Mama and CoD is casual, and no CoD kiddie would even make it halfway through a game of Civ without throwing a bored tantrum from lack of headshots. Just because Civ allows more of a social experience is not a bad thing, as it IS just a board game video game essentially. We already have RPG's for that antisocial desire in us. I think between Fallout, Dragon Age, Dark Souls, Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Disciples, etc. I have had my fill of sitting in a room by myself. Being an IT guy, that is my job pretty much, so on weekends I like to get together with fellow nerds and game hard for those few days off. And this game is perfect for that when you don't feel like dealing with the clenched shoulder intensity of a SCII or LoL game.
    Expand
  17. Jul 29, 2012
    3
    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city - stupid, dumb,
    Boring game, nice but boring. Same thing than Civilization 3 (the only other one I played): play a couple of games when you're really bored then put back in its box where it belongs.
    Couple of things that annoyed me:
    - no real information accessible (like: how many happiness this town is generating ? from what ?) so you never know what to do when you capture a new city
    - stupid, dumb, irrational AI ever: I am at war with some Civ, we make peace, another Civ crushes them, I liberate them, they're on guard towards me (despite the liberation..) then 20 rounds later, when they spawn one pikeman, they decide its a good thing to declare war on me (with my numerous tanks and foreign legion, good going AI!)
    - advisors interface completely designed by indian staff (yes offense): like 10 pages saying the same thing about which city is best to develop military units (instead of putting it on one page...)
    - talking about the advisors: they're high, and I mean real high: I am at war with a more powerful CIV (at least I guess in term of number of units) and Im kicking their asses (like 13 victories on 15 battles -> resulting in destruction of enemy units) and still the military advisor tells me the war is going bad.
    - nasty scrolling bug when you click on next turn: if you go on some side of the screen, it will scroll forever until the end of opponent actions
    - automatic selection of unit horrible: like you manually select an unit at some critical place in the game (like a big fight), it will then go somewhere else completely (despite the fact you actually shown interest for THIS specific place), ok maybe there was a setting for that, I didnt look for it.
    - there is no automatic focus on enemy / ally movement sometimes so you might miss what is happening (not when it involves you - thanks god)

    If you want the rolls of management game, try Anno series, if you want the rolls of Turn based strategy / fighting game (well the fighting is more deep so it might not be the best choice for you), try Total War series...
    Expand
  18. 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
  19. Jul 7, 2012
    3
    I hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part onI hate this game, but not for the same reasons as the others. I review this as someone wjo barely played any Civilizations, and I sure wish I didn't play this one. Huge fundamental flaws- you start a civ, you explore a bit and discover that other civs are way too close, and you can barely explore anymore. At the same time you're builing other cities and working the land. And you part on the map becomes a convoluted mess, and every action is a complete chore. And then other civs start complaining constantly. I know some people are very good at the game and they can handle all that, but I would like to have some fun added to the games I play. Expand
  20. Jun 26, 2012
    10
    I've been an RTS fan since the 90's with C&C:red alert so of course for the last few years i've know about civilization. I've always known i should have played it but never did. On a whim i tried out a demo and i bought the game that night. This is the most dauntly complex game i may have ever played. Its the thrill and variation of Risk with all the complexities of raising a nation fromI've been an RTS fan since the 90's with C&C:red alert so of course for the last few years i've know about civilization. I've always known i should have played it but never did. On a whim i tried out a demo and i bought the game that night. This is the most dauntly complex game i may have ever played. Its the thrill and variation of Risk with all the complexities of raising a nation from scratch. This game is so fun and addicting on it's own that they didnt even need to do anything but give you one game type, "play game" haha. I havent been this hooked to a game since WOW like 5 years ago. Expand
  21. Jun 26, 2012
    5
    I would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes the game tedious towards the end - so many units not enough space. Not having stacking is a real issue when attacking a city that is only accessible by one tile - really irritating if you have the larger army - most of which u then waste waiting forI would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes the game tedious towards the end - so many units not enough space. Not having stacking is a real issue when attacking a city that is only accessible by one tile - really irritating if you have the larger army - most of which u then waste waiting for their turn to attack

    If you don't get attacked a X amount of time in the game then its probably an even duller game, at least when your neighbor decides they've had enough of you it gently prods you in to some action (or some unit micro-management if you will).

    I think the city states were an interesting idea but on the whole there annoying and tend to start wars - so more micro-management of your units.

    I think CIV is a let down - I think CIV4 was the more superior game (186 hours of steam game time) - and a game I bought twice and would buy again if i so lost it, lets hope 6 has fixed some issues. On one side note there are available mods appearing so maybe some of those could turn the game around - but seriously i don't expect a full release game to rely on mods.
    Expand
  22. Jun 23, 2012
    3
    It's actually insulting to think of this game as the sequel of the much-more-awesome Civilization 4. Besides the combat system, which saw some neat improvement, everything else was dumbed down to the point your only management consist of choosing what's next on your cities' production queue. Extremely accessible for newcomers, an insult for old gamers. The User Interface looks good if youIt's actually insulting to think of this game as the sequel of the much-more-awesome Civilization 4. Besides the combat system, which saw some neat improvement, everything else was dumbed down to the point your only management consist of choosing what's next on your cities' production queue. Extremely accessible for newcomers, an insult for old gamers. The User Interface looks good if you say you're playing it on facebook though. Expand
  23. Jun 22, 2012
    7
    Not too many new features from the previous games. The additional features are minor and mostly unnecessary (the hexagonal tiles end up unmeaningful). Most of the old features are simplified; maybe oversimplified. And the game takes so much memory; around 1GB-1.5GB; textures never load completely after a load.
  24. Jun 18, 2012
    10
    I loved Panzer General and found combat in prior Civs to be annoying, as there were just too many units. Now, I love to march my units line abreast into enemy territory and find the military part of the game to be fun. So, despite not being able to play on the largest map (my dual core just takes too long in the late game turns - hmm the PC turns 5 in November - maybe I should get a new PCI loved Panzer General and found combat in prior Civs to be annoying, as there were just too many units. Now, I love to march my units line abreast into enemy territory and find the military part of the game to be fun. So, despite not being able to play on the largest map (my dual core just takes too long in the late game turns - hmm the PC turns 5 in November - maybe I should get a new PC - nah, it still works), I will now try out the new expansion, Gods & Kings. Yes, this review is long overdue - I have been playing Civ V since about 2 days after it was initially relesed in 2010. Rate it a 10. Expand
  25. Jun 14, 2012
    5
    I started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun toI started out playing Civ I way back when and I always looked forward to the next incarnation of Civilization. Up until now, each new version, was always a step forward, this is the only game in the Civ franchise that seems to have taken a step backwards. I would recommend Civ III before I would recommend this game to someone. Oversimplified, it takes out much of what makes Civ fun to play, and instead creates an monotonous experience, best avoided. I know I'm not alone when I say, I'm sticking with Civ IV and praying for more from Civ VI. Expand
  26. Jun 13, 2012
    7
    I just wanted to update my review a bit now that the game has been out for a couple years and there's an expansion right around the corner. I previously rated it a 5, but looking back that was a little unfair. Civ 5 has improved quite a bit since launch, though there are still serious issues inherent to its basic design. The biggest issue is 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT). At its heart, 1UPT is aI just wanted to update my review a bit now that the game has been out for a couple years and there's an expansion right around the corner. I previously rated it a 5, but looking back that was a little unfair. Civ 5 has improved quite a bit since launch, though there are still serious issues inherent to its basic design. The biggest issue is 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT). At its heart, 1UPT is a poor mechanic that the AI simply cannot handle, making most wars completely one sided, and the management of a large army annoying. Other mechanics, such as happiness, limits on expansion, and diplomacy (as always) are poorly developed. Policies and the various Civilizations themselves feel neutered compared to previous games. Communism and fascism, for example, have NO penalties, whereas previously they were powerful, but had issues you needed to manage to make them work. Despite all this, Civ 5 manages to preserve its 'just one more turn' charm and you can still spend the majority of a day playing without realizing it. Hopefully the expansion will add (well, reintroduce) some much needed strategic depth in the form of religion and espionage. Expand
  27. Jun 11, 2012
    6
    My first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover thatMy first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover that the game designers hate the expansionist strategy. As for new features, the no unit stacking rule is kind of cool, and city-states are OK but clutter up the map. Some things never change, though: the AI is still a joke. Expand
  28. Jun 9, 2012
    0
    I can`t play, I waste myI can`t play, I waste my time......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Expand
  29. Jun 2, 2012
    10
    This is what happens when develpors listen to the gamer's. Awesome games come out that follow the legacy of its predecessor. Civ 5 is truly excellent just like Civ 4 but the only thing i miss is being able to look into the city and see all the buildinds you built.
  30. Jun 2, 2012
    1
    The single player is good and works fine. The games itself is not as deep as previous games but that's not the worst thing for me. The worst thing is: my 3 friends and me have bought this game on steam last weekend to play multiplayer. It's been like 1.5 years since realese, right? But it's still incredibly unstable. The "please wait" bug is ridiculous. For each 100 turns we reloaded theThe single player is good and works fine. The games itself is not as deep as previous games but that's not the worst thing for me. The worst thing is: my 3 friends and me have bought this game on steam last weekend to play multiplayer. It's been like 1.5 years since realese, right? But it's still incredibly unstable. The "please wait" bug is ridiculous. For each 100 turns we reloaded the game around 6-7 times. And after the second time our save became corrupted and we couldn't make it to the next turn because of the bug, we simply deleted the game. Multiplayer is simply unplayable. Also, typos in russian version are horrible. 1C-Softclub just as usual did their awful job.
    If not for multiplayer, i'd put it 6/10, because despite the lack of religion and other cool things previous parts had, it's still a rather enjoyable game. But the multiplayer just doesn't work properly for us. Therefore => 1/10
    Expand
  31. Jun 1, 2012
    9
    I'm just going to let it out that this is the first Civilization game I have ever played and you know what? I'm glad I played this first because I want to play the rest of the Civilization games and see how they evolved. Civilization V to a new comer like me is pure straight addiction. When I first played this game, I couldn't stop playing until it was 8 in the morning and I was startingI'm just going to let it out that this is the first Civilization game I have ever played and you know what? I'm glad I played this first because I want to play the rest of the Civilization games and see how they evolved. Civilization V to a new comer like me is pure straight addiction. When I first played this game, I couldn't stop playing until it was 8 in the morning and I was starting to hallucinate from the lack of sleep. I was determined to build my empire, I wanted my enemies to burn for defying my empire and I wanted to get every single hexagon spaces for my cities. This game is so addictive that I try my best to avoid playing it. Getting my personal experience out of the way, I'm going to say how Civilization is from a new comer's perspective. I think this game is really good. I don't know how the previous Civilization games played or how their mechanics work or how good they were but I really like the turn based style of this game. The board game like nature of the game made me think harder than most strategy games and I also thought the overall mechanics of it was really deep. What I think is that this game is for people who are completely new or just being introduced to Civilization as I have seen some gameplay of the previous games and they look quite complicated, maybe even more complicated than this. I say if you want to be introduced to this franchise, check Civilization V out. I know I did. Expand
  32. May 31, 2012
    7
    Great, unique game that actually didn't copy its predecessors AND is good. It's very enjoyable, there are tons of ways to build your empire, making every game unique. The turn by turn aspect makes the game stress-free and strategic, unlike RTS games. The game isn't overly complicated, and well organized, while having a decent amount of content. The actual "fun" factor of the game isn'tGreat, unique game that actually didn't copy its predecessors AND is good. It's very enjoyable, there are tons of ways to build your empire, making every game unique. The turn by turn aspect makes the game stress-free and strategic, unlike RTS games. The game isn't overly complicated, and well organized, while having a decent amount of content. The actual "fun" factor of the game isn't perfect though, because games are very long, and moving units from one part of the map to the other can take like 15 minutes, going turn by turn, it's long and horrible. I find this sad because the game had potential, if it wasn't so long and boring to get anything done. I have played 50 hours, and still have enjoyed it, but I can't say it's a flawless game Expand
  33. May 29, 2012
    9
    I have been playing Civilization since the first game was released back in 1991. I can only give this game 9/10 with all the expansions installed. Without the expansions and without the patches that have been released to day it is a 7/10 at best. I am a fan. I avoid multi-player because I ONLY play Marathon game-length. The AI is pretty stupid and predictable, but I play to win! It is anI have been playing Civilization since the first game was released back in 1991. I can only give this game 9/10 with all the expansions installed. Without the expansions and without the patches that have been released to day it is a 7/10 at best. I am a fan. I avoid multi-player because I ONLY play Marathon game-length. The AI is pretty stupid and predictable, but I play to win! It is an enjoyable game, and I am a fan of no unit stacking. I always hated that I could make an invincible stack that would move around the game as a stack of death razing every city I came accross until I won. Combat is great in this game! It requires strat. You have to move an army into place before-hand, plan your routes, use land and sea, you need to send in reinforcements to areas which are wearing down... and none of the pathetic click and win RTS style. I am a Big fan of this game. Expand
  34. May 27, 2012
    4
    I've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplifiedI've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplified to attract a larger market. No unit stacking is more of a pain than anything, micromanaging doesn't seem worth it, time between turns is agonizingly long. The long wait between turns is not helped by the boring background music that doesn't seem to ever change. All in all, I'd probably recommend Civ 4 over this if you haven't bought it already. Expand
  35. May 25, 2012
    5
    I had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. HowI had high hopes for this game, but when I finally played this game, I felt really disappointed. Right in the childhood. While I liked some improvements or additions like city-states (which were quite interesting), a lot of stuff that made the previous games so good were just plucked out and replaced with useless stuff, or are just not there. Like religion. OH MY GOD I MISS RELIGION. How could they not retain religion? I mean, it has shaped history significantly whether good or bad. Other than that, I quite missed stacking units. Although, with those new hexes, you can work out strategies better, like flanking and 'outmaneuvering' your enemy, getting around seems harder, so my reaction to that is quite mixed. AI is dumbed out as ever, and the game is plagued with bugs.. Diplomacy and trades felt really dull, too. I also wished that the live-action advisors from old buddy civ 2 would make a come back (*remember Elvis?). Well, not live action, but animated like the leaders of the civs you encounter. That would be quite sick. Other than that, the music was great, although it gets a little exaggerated at some occasions, like some war themes. Overall, I felt quite sad by this game, being a fan of the previous civ games. This would've rocked had they not remove major pieces of content in the game. Expand
  36. 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.
  37. May 19, 2012
    10
    Civilization V is currently my absolute favorite strategy game that I have played. Civilization V is a brilliant game with excellent gameplay and graphics, but obviously the main qualm it has with most players is that it seems inferior to Civ IV. Well, having played Civ IV, I can say that Civ V is massively better, in terms of gameplay, graphics, and general playability. Large problems inCivilization V is currently my absolute favorite strategy game that I have played. Civilization V is a brilliant game with excellent gameplay and graphics, but obviously the main qualm it has with most players is that it seems inferior to Civ IV. Well, having played Civ IV, I can say that Civ V is massively better, in terms of gameplay, graphics, and general playability. Large problems in Civ IV included STACKS OF DOOM, in which one could create a bloody massive army and generally annihilate everything in your way. With Civ V this is removed, and strategy comes back instead of blind unit spamming. Expand
  38. 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.
  39. May 14, 2012
    8
    Good version of Civ games, new generation of victory conditions and interactions with other nations on map. Graphics good, replayability good, a knock on in game cutscenes being replaces with static images, and some on screen improvement tiles losing in game action. The mines used to actually have cars and flames, etc.
  40. May 10, 2012
    4
    I have an 2nd Gen I5 2500K Cpu. A GTX 460 1 GB card, 8GB of ram and new Z68 chip motherboard.

    All my gear was new.mine is the best machine out of all my friends. It runs battlefield 3 on 1920 - 1080p at high/ultra with filters x16. I CAN'T RUN THIS. Early game the jerking is bad, but late game its torturous. The wait from clicking end turn until getting to go is
    I have an 2nd Gen I5 2500K Cpu. A GTX 460 1 GB card, 8GB of ram and new Z68 chip motherboard.

    All my gear was new.mine is the best machine out of all my friends.

    It runs battlefield 3 on 1920 - 1080p at high/ultra with filters x16. I CAN'T RUN THIS. Early game the jerking is bad, but late game its torturous. The wait from clicking end turn until getting to go is seemingly endless and if you where expecting to manage a war or something it would send you mental. I have clocked Civ 4 maybe 6 - 8 times. You dust it down ever so often and spend a day of taxing enjoyment, once completed back it goes till the next time. I will not be playing 5 again until probably 2 computers from now, then it might just work well enough for me to enjoy. Yours Thagun.

    Ps There is a demo, so if you want to get it, try that first. Save some heartache later maybe. :)
    Expand
  41. 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
  42. May 7, 2012
    7
    This seems to be a "love it or hate it" game. You have to like turn based strategy games, first of all, which is already pretty rare. Veterans to the series seem to not like this game because it's been "dumbed down." I still liked it, had over 200 hours of fun with it. Taking a day off school to turn a settler and a warrior into an expansive 20 city empire that leads the world inThis seems to be a "love it or hate it" game. You have to like turn based strategy games, first of all, which is already pretty rare. Veterans to the series seem to not like this game because it's been "dumbed down." I still liked it, had over 200 hours of fun with it. Taking a day off school to turn a settler and a warrior into an expansive 20 city empire that leads the world in everything is a rewarding experience. I played Civ 4 and Civ 5, and I have to say I like Civ 5 better simply because of the better UI, the one unit per hex, and the combat system in general. The AI is pretty dumb, though. If you're buying this game for the multiplayer, all I can say is just don't, nobody plays it and the nature of the game just isn't conducive to it. In short, think of it as a more refined Civ 4. Expand
  43. 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
  44. May 2, 2012
    2
    This is a very addictive game. HOWEVER. No normal human has the time to play it. I have put 40 hours into this game, finished 1 match (wich i lost in the 1400s) and just lost my second after putting 20 hours into a match. The game itself is so enraging that i almost punched my computer. you should never be able to put 20 hours into a single match and loose the entire game in a matter ofThis is a very addictive game. HOWEVER. No normal human has the time to play it. I have put 40 hours into this game, finished 1 match (wich i lost in the 1400s) and just lost my second after putting 20 hours into a match. The game itself is so enraging that i almost punched my computer. you should never be able to put 20 hours into a single match and loose the entire game in a matter of minutes. its sickening. Expand
  45. May 2, 2012
    6
    Unplayable at release but after a few patches it's a really good game! What I dislike about the game is the weird AI and that the time between turns is way too long. The AI does not have to be the smartest but I'd really like them to make sense...
  46. Apr 24, 2012
    10
    The first time a turn-based strategy game has been as fun as an RTS game like Starcraft 2. A great game, very enjoyable and refined gameplay.
    Pros: graphics, singleplayer experience, gameplay, music, lore, vision
    Cons: multiplayer is sometimes buggy, doesn't support animations at present
  47. Apr 15, 2012
    4
    Total Disappointed... CIV 5 is a FAIL game.. with a fail AI and a fail strategic concept. The only thing I liked is the introduction of city-states and the particular attention to the graphics. The rest is all garbage. Poor diplomacy. Ridiculous combat system. Accelerated timing too much. Do yourself a favor: play CIV III, is the best of the series.
  48. Apr 9, 2012
    6
    There are few changes from previous iterations that work great, namely 1 unit per tile. But bad AI and incredible resource hog on larger maps, as well as the unecessary simplification of the game take away from the experience brought on by the previous versions.
  49. 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
  50. Apr 5, 2012
    8
    The latest incarnation of the all time PC classic is the best yet. This latest version has changed to a hex based system and combat has been completely overhauled, making it much more tactical. After the disappointing Civ 4, this is a welcome return to form for the series and the turn based 'just one more go' gameplay is more addictive than ever. This version has integrated modding builtThe latest incarnation of the all time PC classic is the best yet. This latest version has changed to a hex based system and combat has been completely overhauled, making it much more tactical. After the disappointing Civ 4, this is a welcome return to form for the series and the turn based 'just one more go' gameplay is more addictive than ever. This version has integrated modding built into the interface and allows mods to be selected and loaded in-game very easily, giving it infinite replay value. Multiplayer implementation is now a much more viable proposition than in previous versions, making this the complete package. This game will take up many, many hours of your life and therefore comes wholeheartedly recommended.â Expand
  51. 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
  52. Mar 29, 2012
    0
    Mac OS X version is unplayable on my system despite meeting the stated computer requirements: check forums regarding compatibility before purchase. //While the Mac platform isn't known for excellent gaming, I'd never had any problems with Aspyr ports in the past. However, Civilization 5 runs so choppy on my system even at the lowest resolution and graphics settings that it becomes aMac OS X version is unplayable on my system despite meeting the stated computer requirements: check forums regarding compatibility before purchase. //While the Mac platform isn't known for excellent gaming, I'd never had any problems with Aspyr ports in the past. However, Civilization 5 runs so choppy on my system even at the lowest resolution and graphics settings that it becomes a massive waste of time after turn 100. Reading other user complaints, there seem to be an abundance of tech issues on both the PC and Mac platforms. IMO, the publisher is delinquent for releasing a title that plays so poorly according to its own recommended specs. Make sure other users with systems similar to yours don't have issues before purchase. Expand
  53. Mar 26, 2012
    6
    Fun game. Once. But surprisingly little replay value. If you're looking for depth, the buildings/tech/armies/culture aren't elaborate enough to make you want to slog through it more than once or twice.
  54. Mar 22, 2012
    9
    A great addition to the Civilization series, but not quite as good as Civ IV. The removal of things like espionage and religion, only to be re-added in a later expansion, is very disappointing. It does try to shake things up by not only going to a hex tile system instead of squares, but only allowing one unit per space when before you could stack up an entire continental army on a singleA great addition to the Civilization series, but not quite as good as Civ IV. The removal of things like espionage and religion, only to be re-added in a later expansion, is very disappointing. It does try to shake things up by not only going to a hex tile system instead of squares, but only allowing one unit per space when before you could stack up an entire continental army on a single space. A lot of players see such a huge change as a bad thing but being different isn't necessarily being worse. Expand
  55. Mar 19, 2012
    10
    Nice turn based strategy game. You will be in charge of managing the development of a civilization. You will be challenge by other civilizations who will compete against you and others for land and resources; you can manage your victory in several ways: For example, a civilization can win by Cultural Victory or by Domination Victory (other victory conditions available). The game let youNice turn based strategy game. You will be in charge of managing the development of a civilization. You will be challenge by other civilizations who will compete against you and others for land and resources; you can manage your victory in several ways: For example, a civilization can win by Cultural Victory or by Domination Victory (other victory conditions available). The game let you create military units that range from ancient times (archers for example) to modern era (tanks!). You also have to manage city resources (although it can be automated) like food, production and mines, for that purpose several buildings can be constructed. Also, community mods (extra content for free) is available. For those interested in achievements, this game has Steam achievements. I haven't play the multiplayer part of this game. Well, that's all. Expand
  56. Mar 14, 2012
    9
    As background, I've played Civilization only since the 3rd, which was the one that turned me on to all turn-based games. The intro pooped on my computer, but I'm still running a dual core on a 32-bit OS, so I kind of expect things like that. Right clicking to move is a bit frustrating, was the first thing I noticed. I have played only at the Warlord (4) level so far - they are foolish,As background, I've played Civilization only since the 3rd, which was the one that turned me on to all turn-based games. The intro pooped on my computer, but I'm still running a dual core on a 32-bit OS, so I kind of expect things like that. Right clicking to move is a bit frustrating, was the first thing I noticed. I have played only at the Warlord (4) level so far - they are foolish, but not wholly incapable of taking advantage of your missteps. I think the "denouncement" feature is what drives a lot of the aggressive diplomacy in the AI - at one point after being denounced by a few major civs, every city-state on the continent declared war on me. What I truly enjoy is how the new and the old have been paired in this game. The concepts are true to the core of turn-based strategy - the hexagonal tiles paired with the decision to remove stacking units makes combat and assaults of cities much more engaging. Though it is a lot easier to defend cities from early barbarian attackers, It's also much harder to make impenetrable fortresses of your major cities in the later stages of the game - a proper siege is very possible using artillery and infantry. The new culture system coupled with the happiness and social policy system makes for interesting game choices. Happiness levels in your empire are entirely transparent, and there are many ways to adjust these levels through social policies which are funded by culture. The other thing I enjoy is the lack of universally expansionist AI. In previous titles, the enemy AI would pack their cities like sardines and aggressively nab resources by simply building a new city - even if it meant stifling that city's ability to expand beyond 6 or 7 population. However in Civ V, the AI avoids this and develops each city properly, allowing room for expansion - in one of my marathon/huge games, I still had room just beyond my borders to develop cities at year 1810. Beyond all the new features that have added to the depth of the gameplay, a few simple ones have made it turns go MUCH quicker. The "End Turn" button will be replaced by important prompts such as "Choose new Research" when you finish a tech on that turn, or "Unit needs orders" when a unit that isn't asleep or fortified has not expended its moves. This makes things a lot easier because instead of tediously browsing over a large battlefield, the game simply finds those units for you and prevents you from ending turn without giving them an order or telling them to wait/sleep/fortify - I'd be surprised if every turn-based game doesn't adopt this feature eventually. This review has been a haphazard collection of new features, but I'd like to say that I am very pleased with the game overall - it brought more new features to the game in a single expansion than many of the previous installments, and did so with a surprising amount of grace. This review might be a year and a half after release (time flies- next turn) but I think this is a major stepping stone for the Civilization series and look forward to its refinement in future titles. Expand
  57. Mar 13, 2012
    9
    Firstly, I'm not really sure what all the complaints are for. I came here during the recent Steam sale, and after playing Civ IV, I wanted to see what was new. Let's just say I'm impressed - it's hard to begin where to start. The graphics and whole UI overhaul is great, the best out of the games so far, and I really love the new HUD controls onscreen (the best thing probably being theFirstly, I'm not really sure what all the complaints are for. I came here during the recent Steam sale, and after playing Civ IV, I wanted to see what was new. Let's just say I'm impressed - it's hard to begin where to start. The graphics and whole UI overhaul is great, the best out of the games so far, and I really love the new HUD controls onscreen (the best thing probably being the notification button above the map and the info panes to the right). It's easy to use without being dumbed down.

    Secondly, the games itself is great! As always, there are plenty of ways to win and make friends or fight enemies. I'm not quite sure if its new, but I enjoyed having allies in the surrounding 'city-states' (places in the game that take up land, but aren't fighting to win the game), which really helps if you're in a war without support. I personally haven't tried out the multiplayer mode, but single player is super (as always).

    In conclusion, I wouldn't spend a lot on the game, but its worth the money, and certainly killed a lot of my time!
    Expand
  58. Mar 12, 2012
    4
    A big disappointment. I'm a big fan since Civ 1. A year ago i was still playing Civ 2 on my laptop from time to time. The only thing i liked was the combat system. Game is pretty shallow for a civ game and lacks lots of things previous games had. Policy system is a joke, probably taken from tabletop it's not suitable for a computer game. I can only recommend this game to people who areA big disappointment. I'm a big fan since Civ 1. A year ago i was still playing Civ 2 on my laptop from time to time. The only thing i liked was the combat system. Game is pretty shallow for a civ game and lacks lots of things previous games had. Policy system is a joke, probably taken from tabletop it's not suitable for a computer game. I can only recommend this game to people who are novice to turn based games or casual players who don't want to spend too much time for a single game.

    The fact that this game had a high score from the critics is another joke in my opinion.
    Expand
  59. Mar 5, 2012
    0
    bought the game hours ago, disc just prompts a steam install requiring a key, key worked fine, steam install DOES NOT WORK. very poor steam customer support, email only, no replies, not to mention no solutions for other people with my problems. game is probably great, but if you're trying to buy it legitimately, you're going to get screwed.
  60. Mar 5, 2012
    10
    Best game I have ever played, Been playing for about 1.5 years, have been playing for awhile, never had a problem with the game, game play is great, it requires a brain, or just common sense, a bit of both and you could amount to something, the community is what sells it for me, everyone after awhile knows everyone, you will be meeting pass friends of the game, i can name several off theBest game I have ever played, Been playing for about 1.5 years, have been playing for awhile, never had a problem with the game, game play is great, it requires a brain, or just common sense, a bit of both and you could amount to something, the community is what sells it for me, everyone after awhile knows everyone, you will be meeting pass friends of the game, i can name several off the top of my head, this game opens up new challenges with the DLC's too! I love this game. Expand
  61. Mar 5, 2012
    4
    I played Civ 1 right at the beginning, and then Civ 2. Missed the other iterations. Coming back to Civ V is a big disppointment. Very dumbed down version of what I remember Civ to be. No complexity, no challenge, no fun. Boo. UPDATE: I've now bought Civ IV, and played it for a few hours. Immediately obvious that its much better than Civ V. Its what a Civ game should be; not dumbed downI played Civ 1 right at the beginning, and then Civ 2. Missed the other iterations. Coming back to Civ V is a big disppointment. Very dumbed down version of what I remember Civ to be. No complexity, no challenge, no fun. Boo. UPDATE: I've now bought Civ IV, and played it for a few hours. Immediately obvious that its much better than Civ V. Its what a Civ game should be; not dumbed down for the button masher crowd. Expand
  62. Mar 3, 2012
    4
    Poorly designed, poorly executed, and very poorly coded and optimized. This game is like paying to watch fat people **** If you want a good Civ game, stick with Civilization IV and its expansions.
  63. Mar 3, 2012
    8
    There are a lot of good ideas here but unfortunately a myriad of performance issues and a sloppy multiplayer mode prevents this Civ iteration from achieving true greatness.
  64. Feb 28, 2012
    8
    I played about 20 hours of Civ IV almost 5 years ago so my memory of the game is hazy, and I basically came into Civ 5 as a newcomer. The game is addicting. I can see why veterans prefer the previous title. It was more challenging, there were more civilizations, multiplayer was more stable, it was DRM free, etc. Civ 5 makes it much easier to learn the game and presents a superior interfaceI played about 20 hours of Civ IV almost 5 years ago so my memory of the game is hazy, and I basically came into Civ 5 as a newcomer. The game is addicting. I can see why veterans prefer the previous title. It was more challenging, there were more civilizations, multiplayer was more stable, it was DRM free, etc. Civ 5 makes it much easier to learn the game and presents a superior interface and better graphics (which it better do since it came out in 2010 and the budget I assume was huge). The strategy is still there and the introduction of the hex grid is arguably better. For newcomers, this is a great place to start and get a feel for the game. What I dislike about the game are the poor AI diplomacy, unfair AI difficulty in later settings, and a botched multiplayer that lacks turn animations, has consistent connectivity issues, and puts players in unfair location on the map (sometimes 3 players can be on the same continent while a 4th player is by himself on a separate continent). But aside from that, it's still a fun game and I've spent 70 hours with it so far. Expand
  65. Feb 14, 2012
    8
    Long Civ fan here, been playing since Civ1 on the Amiga.

    Civ5 was full of bugs and incomplete features at release. Now, 1 year and half later, it's pretty stable and way more balanced. I have played more than 800 hours and the game is great, it's easily the best strategy game around. I don't give it 10/10 because it still has some flaws that need addressing and because I expected more
    Long Civ fan here, been playing since Civ1 on the Amiga.

    Civ5 was full of bugs and incomplete features at release. Now, 1 year and half later, it's pretty stable and way more balanced. I have played more than 800 hours and the game is great, it's easily the best strategy game around. I don't give it 10/10 because it still has some flaws that need addressing and because I expected more from a Civ game. In fact some of the problems that rid Civ5 were brilliantly solved in Civ4, it's like Firaxis forgot what they did in their previous game and started from scratch. Despite some flaws, there are no game-breaking problems anymore, the game is great and will give you hundreds of hours of fun, the mod community is alive and there are some excellent mods around.
    Expand
  66. 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
  67. Jan 31, 2012
    9
    Let me start by saying that it's a special game. Civ V could go for a single player campaign like Anno series. Go for some tutorials + hours and hours of complicated mission forcing you to fulfill the screenplay writers idea. But that's not Civ V! It has tons of freedom in it's gameplay design and it is not ashamed to use it. You can play it for a week, you can play it for a month. You'llLet me start by saying that it's a special game. Civ V could go for a single player campaign like Anno series. Go for some tutorials + hours and hours of complicated mission forcing you to fulfill the screenplay writers idea. But that's not Civ V! It has tons of freedom in it's gameplay design and it is not ashamed to use it. You can play it for a week, you can play it for a month. You'll be thrilled to see your civilisation blossom. Expand
  68. Jan 25, 2012
    10
    PART I of II

    Well, where to start?
    First my two cents on the reasons for the release of a bug and untested product.
    Mind my lack of punctuation but the Metacritic site does not like quotes, parenthesis and the likeâ
  69. 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
  70. Jan 20, 2012
    8
    A fun game with lots of replay value. The main things I dont' like about it is the overly aggressive AI. Your ally from the last 100 turns could just choose to attack you over nothing because you might be a threat considering you share borders. The game has quite a good balance between accessibility and depth, but I'd like to have more depth in combat, while it is still a vast improvementA fun game with lots of replay value. The main things I dont' like about it is the overly aggressive AI. Your ally from the last 100 turns could just choose to attack you over nothing because you might be a threat considering you share borders. The game has quite a good balance between accessibility and depth, but I'd like to have more depth in combat, while it is still a vast improvement over previous iterations. Expand
  71. 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.
  72. Dec 29, 2011
    10
    Best Civilization game so far. I've played 200 hours without even noticing that I did. Addicting, easy to play and deep. The DLCs sucks, though. You really get nothing for your money if you buy those. I wish they released an expansion instead.
  73. Dec 22, 2011
    9
    I play Civ series from Civ II, and every new version have something new. I like new graphics but also only one unit per hex is also better solution than endless stack units.
  74. Dec 5, 2011
    10
    If you enjoy the turn based strategy genre, this is the game for you. I felt it improved on almost every aspect of the previous versions of the Civ universe.
  75. 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
  76. Nov 29, 2011
    7
    Disappointing, but not bad or unplayable. Due to the weird AI, you can always go all military and have some fun for a while. The multiplayer? Doesn't work. It would be actually a really good game if you could have offline player vs player games.
  77. Nov 28, 2011
    9
    Bought this in a Steam sale for $20 instead of the usual $50, and perhaps that inclines me to be more positive about the game than some people here, but I find this a rewarding and very addictive game. have not played Civilization games for many years (Civilization 2 was the last one I played) so I'm not comparing this to its predecessors.

    To me this seems to strike a nice balance
    Bought this in a Steam sale for $20 instead of the usual $50, and perhaps that inclines me to be more positive about the game than some people here, but I find this a rewarding and very addictive game. have not played Civilization games for many years (Civilization 2 was the last one I played) so I'm not comparing this to its predecessors.

    To me this seems to strike a nice balance between playability and depth, and the automation features are a nice option to save you from some of the tedium of doing the same thing over and over again. Just automate those units you don't care about and focus on the units that are most important for your main strategy. You don't have to use the automation if you don't want to, so any "dumbing down" it brings is entirely optional.

    It's fun without being too shallow, there's a fair amount of complexity to it, and it's challenging enough for me. I'm not a really hardcore strategy gamer so perhaps it's not for them and I can see why they might worry for the series if previous instalments were more complex, but it's still one of the best strategy games I have played.
    Expand
  78. Nov 23, 2011
    10
    I have always loved civilization games and IV (both expansions, but especially BTS; Beyond the Sword) was by far the best. That would be as close to a 10 as I could give to any game. With that being said, As much as I love Civ 5, there are definitely some downsides. The good: Graphics are decent, gameplay is new and inventive, battles are epic and amazing, and a lot of theI have always loved civilization games and IV (both expansions, but especially BTS; Beyond the Sword) was by far the best. That would be as close to a 10 as I could give to any game. With that being said, As much as I love Civ 5, there are definitely some downsides. The good: Graphics are decent, gameplay is new and inventive, battles are epic and amazing, and a lot of the console/management system has been streamlined. On the flip side, it's amazing what streamlining can do and how much of the game they gutted. This is very much a micromanagement game to the core and they took out quite a lot of those options! Let alone some of the other minor issues, this feels like a game that was re done but not quite done fully. I feel that this game could have utilized system resources better (processors/RAM) and the AI should at this day and age been revamped to a point where it is slightly more intelligent than mathematical numbers (I know, I know, what else does it have? Either the AI is too stupid or too smart to the point of cheating...). My biggest pet peeve is all of the crazy DLC they keep pumping out and selling, very disapointing to see the marketing involved in this and how big of sell-outs they have become. We will never get the same value for our games again. At the end of the day, I won't lie when I say I have probably pumped in close to 200 hours into this game and I definitely found it to be worthwhile, there are definite quirks and minor things that I wish could be fixed. Expand
  79. Nov 21, 2011
    8
    I loved the game, but am disappointed with how much is being sold as DLC rather than being included in the original game, and DLC that only adds civilizations and not really anything new or interesting. I do like most of the changes to the base game, but overall it is just another addition to a very successful franchise.
  80. Nov 20, 2011
    8
    fun if you have the computer power.
    a good board game that can be really fun if played with friends. the endless possibility's of strategy is going to keep you coming back.
    Playing with the ai is good up to 300 turns on a large world, Even with a decent pc, I was waiting a few minutes between turns.
  81. Nov 20, 2011
    8
    This score may be a little misleading considering this game probably ties Civilization 3 with the lowest score I'd give a game in this wonderful series. That being said the game made a couple of bold choices that I believe help move the series forward. The two ideas I really love in this game is the one unit per tile combat system and the policy tree system. Many probably loved theThis score may be a little misleading considering this game probably ties Civilization 3 with the lowest score I'd give a game in this wonderful series. That being said the game made a couple of bold choices that I believe help move the series forward. The two ideas I really love in this game is the one unit per tile combat system and the policy tree system. Many probably loved the governments in the former games and I liked them too but I feel this system shows the evolution of a civilization better than a I'm going to be a despot for most of the game then suddenly switch to communism or democracy towards the end. I feel it shows the idea that the history of your culture is not lost and allows ideas like England having a republic/democracy but keeping its original monarchy structure. Also allows for more customization of exactly how your economy/government structure is going to function. The things that disappoint me about the game is global happiness and the lack of espionage. Global happiness is too dumbed down and it's unrealistic that a poor town on the fringe of your empire would have the same happiness level as the capital city that is a thriving metropolis. The lack of espionage to me is the biggest miss, I enjoyed both using espionage to my advantage and defending my cities from enemy use of espionage. It's a vital part of the dynamics of war and diplomacy throughout history and I wish they would have kept the idea in the games. Overall a good game, not on the level of Civ 2 or Civ 4 but another yet another good addition that helps move the series forward. Expand
  82. Nov 19, 2011
    0
    I am a fan of civilization since CIV1 and I loved all the CIV until and including CIV4. And I am really disapointed by CIV5 concepts. The game is totally unrealistic and boring. It is not pleasant to play. I will not play any longer to CIV5.
  83. Nov 15, 2011
    9
    I have played Civ since the first one!!! This is another great addition to the great series! Some feathers are good some not but overall it's still amazing game! I just hope they won't dumb down it too much in next one!!!
  84. Nov 14, 2011
    9
    Okay I love it. Great game graphics, I love the integration of city-states and the tech-tree is so diverse. I could go on and on about the pros of Civ V. The game was so well made and I highly advise this game for anyone to purchase. Only one con, something I liked from Civ Rev, whatever happened to culturally converting cities?
  85. Nov 8, 2011
    9
    An amazingly well done game to add to this great franchise of games. the new hex tiles work so much better than the previous tiles. Only complaint is the ai can be a bit dim witted at times.
  86. 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
  87. Nov 6, 2011
    4
    The game has come along way but took a wrong turn at Civ 4 and from there things have gotten worse. I started playing these games at Civ3 brilliant strategy game where you build an empire and gather culture or conquer the enemys. The best ever game was Civ3 Conquest which was able to maintain science-production-growth-gold really well and city building. However when civ4 was introduced itThe game has come along way but took a wrong turn at Civ 4 and from there things have gotten worse. I started playing these games at Civ3 brilliant strategy game where you build an empire and gather culture or conquer the enemys. The best ever game was Civ3 Conquest which was able to maintain science-production-growth-gold really well and city building. However when civ4 was introduced it focused more on not needing citys and how can u have an empire with 5 citys the bonus to civ4 was the fighting mechanics that was a great improvement. However now civ5 has changed once again the same problems as civ 4 but adding more content to make it even worse.

    Pros- Beautiful graphics - graphics dont make a good game but they do make for a fake review by critics
    Expand
  88. Nov 2, 2011
    2
    Terrible, played it for 4 hours, won, put it back in the box. Where is the 'civvyness' in it? My enemies never scheme against me, never see through me mechanations against them, Hard here feels like beginner in civ IV. If you're new to the series, don't like thinking too hard, love mediocre graphics and gameplay, then this is for you. And if all the Civ games had been like that I would notTerrible, played it for 4 hours, won, put it back in the box. Where is the 'civvyness' in it? My enemies never scheme against me, never see through me mechanations against them, Hard here feels like beginner in civ IV. If you're new to the series, don't like thinking too hard, love mediocre graphics and gameplay, then this is for you. And if all the Civ games had been like that I would not be nearly as disappointed, or for that matter, have bought it. But as a sequel it is an Elementary school play released after a Blockbuster movie, and it even costs more than the movie! Disappointing. Expand
  89. Nov 2, 2011
    7
    Great game for eycandy. Cities max-out radius 3 - much larger (Civ Test of time allowed much larger cities). Took out much of the features of civ 4 but kept most of the war-unfriendly features (I'm not a war person myself, but a lot of other players are). Civ5 forces you to use steam. Mods are centralized like StarCraft II. Civ5 is intellectual tyranny with a 'please don't sue me'Great game for eycandy. Cities max-out radius 3 - much larger (Civ Test of time allowed much larger cities). Took out much of the features of civ 4 but kept most of the war-unfriendly features (I'm not a war person myself, but a lot of other players are). Civ5 forces you to use steam. Mods are centralized like StarCraft II. Civ5 is intellectual tyranny with a 'please don't sue me' atmosphere on the mods. Civ5 and StarCraft 2 are a taste of the coming police state in america. Still addicting game though. Expand
  90. Oct 28, 2011
    10
    I played Civ 2 but that was a long time ago. I really enjoyed how they've removed so much of the tedious parts of the game (micro managing workers for instance) and you can play a game in a couple of hours now although 3-6 is probably average. Lots more ways to win. The various achievements encourage you to try the different races. I was able to figure the game out without too muchI played Civ 2 but that was a long time ago. I really enjoyed how they've removed so much of the tedious parts of the game (micro managing workers for instance) and you can play a game in a couple of hours now although 3-6 is probably average. Lots more ways to win. The various achievements encourage you to try the different races. I was able to figure the game out without too much trouble. The multitude of difficulty levels means that players of EVERY ability will have fun. As you get better with strategy, you can slowly raise the difficulty level. This is important to keep frustration levels down. The graphics are really nice. Expand
  91. Oct 26, 2011
    1
    as a long time fan of the civ series, this one was a massive disappointment. it seems they've removed or "streamlined" many aspects of the civ formula that made all the predecessors to this one great games.

    by far the most glaring issue is the AI. the AI in civ games was always a weak point, but in this one the stupidity of the AI players is on a whole new level. small empires with no
    as a long time fan of the civ series, this one was a massive disappointment. it seems they've removed or "streamlined" many aspects of the civ formula that made all the predecessors to this one great games.

    by far the most glaring issue is the AI. the AI in civ games was always a weak point, but in this one the stupidity of the AI players is on a whole new level. small empires with no army will declare war on huge empires with massive armies, friendly empires will denounce you for having too many units in their territory after you've just rescued them from being conquered and returned their cities, declaring war on too many other civs will cause friendly civs to denounce you as a "war monger", even if all the civs you declared war on were attacking your friends, etc.
    Expand
  92. Oct 23, 2011
    5
    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money. ok, graphics and sounds are nice. but everything else is realy bad. this game simply has NO working KI. it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background. "attack the player at time x" "ask him for contract"
    this game is absolutely overrated!
    i am not the typical strategy gamer but still i am a good stategy gamer ;)
    but civ 5 was a pure waste of money.
    ok, graphics and sounds are nice.
    but everything else is realy bad.
    this game simply has NO working KI.
    it feels like there are only a few scripts are working and waiting in the background.
    "attack the player at time x"
    "ask him for contract" (even if the have never seen you)
    "battle with player y" (but no results are seen)

    my resume: :(
    Expand
  93. Oct 15, 2011
    0
    This is the most disappointing sequel I have ever played. I played Civ4 for well over 1000 hours of my life. I played Civ5 for 36 hours according to Steam, and I haven`t had the slightest urge to pick it up again. Civ 5 is like Civ4 with slightly better graphics, a hexagonal playing field and a whole lot of things removed including everything I considered fun, and it was clearly made byThis is the most disappointing sequel I have ever played. I played Civ4 for well over 1000 hours of my life. I played Civ5 for 36 hours according to Steam, and I haven`t had the slightest urge to pick it up again. Civ 5 is like Civ4 with slightly better graphics, a hexagonal playing field and a whole lot of things removed including everything I considered fun, and it was clearly made by people who don`t know why gamers played the previous Civ games. Where do I begin... Let`s start with the AI. It has obviously not received any QA time whatsoever. You will repeatedly encounter the other civs behaving in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. The other civs will declare war at random, and ask you for help and then brand you a warmonger and hold a grudge against you for thousands of years because you did what they asked for and helped them. The other civs have a way of ganging up on the human-controlled civ and making demands of it that they don`t make of each other. Wonders feel useless, and instead of animations you just get a cheesy image.There is no technology trading. The technology race feels irrelevant. Making research pacts is idiotic. Renewing research pacts is idiotic. Neutral nation states that give you `missions` -- idiotic. Punishing civs for expanding by making cities exceedingly expensive while half the world map remains empty well into the industrial age -- idiotic. On occasion, other civs won`t bother to build a second city or any units for that matter. Cities are weapons -- idiotic. Archers can fire over hundreds of kilometres. Only one unit can fit per tile, meaning that vulnerable units often have no protection. This game feels like the war is actually happening between 10 soldiers versus a tank rather than a unit that symbolizes a whole infantry or armored division. The war is a cartoon of Civ4`s war. Hexagonal tiles are a very lazy improvement, and the game gains little through them. There are no ending animations and no summary of history, probably because it would expose how broken the AI is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That is the kind of civ game I would like to play, but of course it would take some thought to appreciate and lots of time and effort to construct. Civ5 on the other hand was rushed and designed to look good for 5 hours, just long enough for the reviewer to give it its high mark and then give up on it.
    Expand
  94. Oct 9, 2011
    9
    Civ V is definitely my favorite 4X games out there and I still play it along with Civ IV BTS(Yes! playing both is possible). The core gameplay of Civ series is still there presented in beautiful graphic and slimmed down interface coupled with very engaging combat system. The game had many issues on its first release but since then great effort from both Firaxis and Civ community hasCiv V is definitely my favorite 4X games out there and I still play it along with Civ IV BTS(Yes! playing both is possible). The core gameplay of Civ series is still there presented in beautiful graphic and slimmed down interface coupled with very engaging combat system. The game had many issues on its first release but since then great effort from both Firaxis and Civ community has improved this game a lot more just like in 2005 they did to Civ IV. Expand
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. Oct 4, 2011
    3
    Having enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviewsHaving enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviews as the user reviews are resoundingly negative and disappointed. I agree with comments stating how the AI is poor, diplomacy is neutered and practically meaningless. The new civics program doesn't gel well with the historical policies of civilizations. It is also virtually impossible to maintain a large army due to special resources being required for certain units. Please tell me why I need aluminum to build modern armor or a missile cruiser, when neither use aluminum in the "real world". Overall the game is poorly designed and rushed to the market. It is a crappy product hidden in a nicely wrapped box. I want my money back. Expand
  98. Oct 4, 2011
    4
    What a disappointment! This game is basically a dumbed down version of Civ 4, with slightly better graphics. The AI is a joke. The cutscenes are gone and the game gets very old quite fast. With the removal of religion, civics, espionage and meaningful diplomacy, Civ 5 represents what is wrong with the gaming industry. Namely, "dumb it down and add shiny graphics - but not cut scenes orWhat a disappointment! This game is basically a dumbed down version of Civ 4, with slightly better graphics. The AI is a joke. The cutscenes are gone and the game gets very old quite fast. With the removal of religion, civics, espionage and meaningful diplomacy, Civ 5 represents what is wrong with the gaming industry. Namely, "dumb it down and add shiny graphics - but not cut scenes or movies when you win, because that is hard." Lame. Expand
  99. 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!
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. games(TM)
    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.