User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1756 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 12, 2013
    The latest instalment of the long running series continues the evolution of the ultimate strategy game. Starting with a single band of settlers at the dawn of man-kind the goal is to create the ultimate civilization to eclipse all rivals. Whether you do this by colonising the stars, waging war on your enemies or marvelling all comers with your sophisticated culture is completely up to you.

    Forgoing the usual campaign mode Civilization instead allows players to create a world of their own devising and jump right into it either by themselves or with others in multiplayer. Customisation has always been key to the series and before each game players can choose the makeup of their world such as the balance of ocean to land or the scarcity of natural resources.

    Continuing its turned based, rather than real time, gameplay this new edition does make a few changes from the previous instalment. For the first time it ditches the square based tiles and replaces them with hexagons allowing for more realistic terrain movement. The ability to stack multiple units on single tiles is also removed. This prevents the 'stack of dooms' seen in previous titles that made battles dull wars of attrition at later stages of the game.

    As would be expected new technologies and units are also added to the mix and a few features, such as religion, have been removed although most impact positively on the gameplay. In the end whether you are successful or not the Civilization series has always been about creating your own stories and yet again it succeeds.
  2. Oct 7, 2010
    This is a very good game. I might not rate it higher because I over hyped myself too much over it but after a few marathon sessions I can say I am satisfied. I am not a long time fan of the series, I did play Civilization IV for longer than I should admit to so I can only compare the two and so far I think IV had a bigger impact on me.
  3. Jun 12, 2013
    Civ V is a fantastic strategy game. This is my first foray into the series and I am very impressed. I've lost hours in its infinite replayability and addicting gameplay. Definitely one of the best Turn based Strategy games available.
  4. AWG
    Jul 21, 2013
    I've never been a big fan of strategy games, and in fact I'm not a big fan of this fifth installment of the Sid Meier's Civilization saga, even if it looks and sounds cool.
  5. Jul 31, 2014
    My first Civilization experience and I must admit that all the stories of it's addictive nature (just one more turn) were absolutely spot-on. Even though it was my first run ever and I was still learning as I went along, just during my first game I poured about 30 hours of non-stop gameplay into it and that speak for itself more than anything. In the role of Alexander the Great I conquered the world with my Greek army, destroyed Napoleon, Washington, and once I invented proper technology to cross the seas I massacred the Germans and China hiding behind The Great Wall (praise the siege cannons). Enjoyed it thoroughly, but one the other hand I must admit that one time was probably enough, especially since Civ V lacks any sort of continual campaign with story mode that would engage you and take you on the adventure through time and evolution perhaps, in the Age of Empires style. In this format, it's basically just a randomly created sessions, so there's not much motivation to go on playing for me, but for what it is, it's really good. 7/10 Expand
  6. Jul 7, 2012
    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 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
  7. Mar 3, 2012
    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.
  8. Jun 1, 2012
    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 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
  9. Jun 13, 2012
    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 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
  10. Jun 8, 2013
    When published this game was still born, the WORST Civ game by far. It had bugs, LAG and constant crash to desktop. THE AI was stupid and the whole thing was just a mess of data that did not add up to a good game. Nearly three years later, and basically three years of WORK on improving the game and we can finally say this is indeed a GOOD game. Gods and Kings is NECESSARY, and all the DLC helps, but bundled together and on sale Civ 5 is finally the game it should have been at launch. Well done Firaxis! Cudos for a rare show of professional pride and persistence! A good game now, worthy of the Civilisation name. Not as good as Civ 4, but close. Expand
  11. Nov 29, 2013
    Although it did get rid of some of the best things that made Civ4 really good, it still had better graphics with a somewhat decent gameplay. But if you are a heavy Civ fan, then this may not be the best one for you.
  12. Dec 25, 2013
    Civilization V is one of the best turn-based strategy games (very addictive). Not many problems but overly aggressive A.I. is really kind of annoying.
  13. Dec 16, 2013
    I bought this during a major sale and to be honest, thought it was quite boring at first. Every once in a while I would get in the mood to play it, would get a few hours into a match, and then end up quitting it or starting a new one.
    These games were never my type of game anyway...

    However, recently I picked the game back up and started a new match. This time, I managed to make it
    into the 1700s-1800s and found myself getting extremely into the game. After minding my own business for quite some time, Queen Elizabeth started spying on me and stole my technology! I mean, what a b****! I gave her luxury pearls for nothing when her kingdom needed it most! So I decided to go and confront her about it and she just blows me off! This is unacceptable! Let's see how she feels when her Prodestant missionaries show up in my Buddhist's Holy City again!!!...And then after I wiped her smug attitude off the continent, I took over the World Congress and enacted MY religion as the world religion! I hold 60% of the delegates and no one will stop me! MY RELIGION WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!

    You get the idea.....
  14. Jul 26, 2013
    As a lifetime of Civilization and Alpha Centauri, I liked this game. Actually, the 5th version is better than 3d and 4th. It's also slightly better than Civ 2 but still a bit worse than Alpha Centauri.
    The new things i liked were the hex grid, the ranged units (though they were in Alpha Centauri already), the cities which can fire at enemies, the OCC mode, the civ-specific bonuses, the
    culture and growth of city-worked area.
    The things I didn't like are the independent cities (useless and pointless addition, I just conquered them all), the strange new system of happiness (depends on special resources, wft), and the strange system of government tweaking (you just unlock something once, and it stays).
    Overall, it's a good game and I played it 5 or 10 times in total, won on 6th level of difficulty (but never managed to beat the 7th). I am still playing Alpha Centauri and have been playing it for 10 years at least, just for comparison.
    Cmon guys, please make Alpha Centauri 2.
  15. Jun 17, 2013
    Still playing it, still enjoying it so long after buying it. So nice to find a game with such re playability. The last expansion was a bit weak but looking forward to the next, the more content for this game the better. I am a big fan of the Civ series and while this isnt the strongest in some respects (Weird technical issues it had concerning performance for a long time) its still more of a good thing and unlike many great series it hasnt got so far from its roots that it lost its appeal. More of the same and thank god for that! Expand
  16. May 1, 2011
    I played Civilization since version 2, and this game is ok. It's easier on Prince than civ 4, at least I've never seen over 9000 stacks suddenly appear at my borders. Well, there are no stacks anyway. The game plays differently than previous versions.
  17. May 31, 2012
    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'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
  18. Aug 1, 2013
    Sid Meier's Civilization is a strategy game you can play a very long time, but the challange misses at the end and if you play it on higher difficulties, the enemy is unfair. Generally is the KI difficult to understand. It looks nice, there is music for every nation, the control is easy and there is a large variety of units and buildings. Also a lot of fun in multiplayer.
  19. Sep 29, 2010
    Civ 5 starts off awesome. The graphics are great, the new combat mechanics are cool, and there's lots of neat things to explore...

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

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

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

    The game isn't bad, and if you're not a Civ fanatic you will probably find a lot to like. But for the people who are good at the TBS genre and Civ in particular, there won't be much to hold your attention over Civ 4.
  20. Jan 24, 2011
    i started with civ 2 and loved it. then civ 4 came and disapointed me. so i needed a pick-me up and civ 5 was the answere. the first game was so exiting. i love the diplomacy it makes the game revived after civ 4's failure in diplomacy. the combat system is great and fun it is not just #'s vs #'s. if you have less units you can win a war if you use terrain and uprades to your advantage. this is for REAL STRATEGY GAMERS that know how unlike the civ 4 freaks that have only played #4 and have no idea what strategy is. you need to use your noggin to win. fun and addicting. deserves alot more attention. Expand
  21. Jan 31, 2012
    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'll be thrilled to see your civilisation blossom. Expand
  22. Jan 20, 2012
    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 improvement over previous iterations. Expand
  23. Nov 7, 2013
    I particularly enjoyed the additions to Civilization V. The introduction of city states adds a layer of depth to the game. You can develop alliances with them and this can result in them giving you free units, or you can fight with them. The interface is also much cleaner in Civilization V, with the exact level of happiness and culture produced clearly displayed. The graphics have also been vastly improved, with terrain surfaces looking highly detailed and vibrant, especially the water which reflects the sunlight. The sound effects and music is also good, although I did prefer the Leonard Nimoy voice overs in Civilization IV than the voice overs in Civilization V. Some of the gameplay mechanic changes have drastically altered the tactical aspects of the game. Having only one unit on a tile encourages more tactical unit placement rather than just mass unit rushes like you can do in Civilization IV. The capture mechanics of cities is also better with cities having a health rating. I also like the fact that cities can bombard nearby units, and this is especially useful in counteracting annoying barbarian attacks. Expand
  24. Oct 31, 2013
    This game is addiction, it defines addiction. But being addicted to a game does not always mean its good. But Civilisation as a franchise is great. There are issues, but it does not hide the fact that a good game exists here. Just one more move
  25. May 22, 2012
    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.
  26. Jan 6, 2014
    I'm no gamer but the fact that this game has me in a headlock definitely is noteworthy. It's so in depth and fun to play. The way it's set up makes it hard to grow tired of.
  27. Jul 10, 2014
    As someone who always loved history, never touched a strategy game, but always wanted to: This is the game that started my love for the genre. And i can say that i was lucky to start with the best of the best.

    This game has almost all the things you would need to be a leader of a civilization, Diplomacy, Anarchy, Economy and of course Total wars.
  28. Jun 3, 2013
    I hated the death stacks from the Civs of old and loved the actual ranged attacks from ranged units from Civ 4 mods so was really stoked for Civ 5. However, they vanilla game, not sure how patches have addressed it, game was never properly balanced around the changes. Late game it was common to see every single square on the map occupied by a unit. Unlike Civ 4 where you had to strategically select city sites, Civ 5 brings back ICS (Infinite City Sprawl) as the best strat. Essentially, it doesn't matter where you build a city, it's a net gain. That 1 square tundra island surround by useless water? Yes,build on everyone you find. Overall, Civ 5 is a mixed bag. Glad to see the hex system, ranged units, and death of death stacks but the overall tuning and balancing didn't keep pace with the changes. Expand
  29. Nov 20, 2012
    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.
  30. Mar 11, 2013
    My all time favorite turn based strategy game: I have over 700 hours logged on Steam and I still haven't tried all the features included. I totally love the new graphics, the soundtrack the voice acting, the Interface and most game mechanics. I have nothing but admiration for the bold move to go hexagonal without unit stacking: no more stacking 50 units on one tile. And while at first I didn't like the lack of deep info screens, I now appreciate the absence of tedious micromanagement. Each game has a great flow from start to end. Volumes have been written on the strategy forums, that means it's still deep enough, right? I could go on and on lauding this game to infinity so I'll quit here. One bit of negative is the online multiplayer: me and some friends tried that a few times, but we just couldn't enjoy it. It's not entirely turn-based and sometimes the one that clicks faster will win the battle, meh. On the other hand, local hotseat is great fun if you choose to cooperate. (Make all local players part of the same team, then plot against AI teams. Feels like a boardgame... great!) Expand
  31. Mar 8, 2013
    As a kid, I remember waiting for the original Civilization to come out. I don't know how many times I read the review and how much I waited. The actual experience was amazing. I've played every single Civ game since then, and I've always been a huge fan of the franchise. I feel the quality of it all, started to fall with civ4,
    and came to it's climax with Civ5. It's almost like a
    derivative of the music industry. They make cool bands play crap songs, in order to sell more records.

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

    I am not going to mention the bugs in this review, but the game is full of them!
  32. Oct 8, 2011
    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 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
  33. Feb 15, 2011
    Great game and I'm an old Civ addict. Has kept me addicted longer than any civ game since civ 1. The new combat system is great. There are a few things I would like to see done better, such as more interesting diplomacy and more of an emphasis on religion. But overall a really addicting, fun addition to the Civ franchise. I'm giving it a 10 because I think it should be 9.5 but can't choose that here. Expand
  34. May 19, 2012
    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 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
  35. Mar 26, 2011
    This game is problematic for me. I played the demo, liked it quite a lot, bought the game, and I almost don't play it at all. This probably is tied to the fact that I'm a BIG fan of the fourth installment, which I definetly prefer. But Civ V has a number of elements that I cannot but regard as flaws: not that I'm not used to them, but that i regard them worse than in the previous part. On the other hand, there are some very nice introductions, such as the battle system. recommendable, but if you're a hardcore fan of the previous part, you may be disappointed because the amount of changes. Expand
  36. Aug 12, 2013
    One of my favorite strategy games. I always thought Civ was a boring series, but after playing Civ V during a Steam free weekend I actually enjoyed it. It allows you to forge your own empire, and choose whether to pursue a republic of peace, or an empire of destruction. Fun, addictive turn-based game. Hasn't crashed once on me.
  37. Mar 8, 2013
    If you haven't played another civilization game before and are looking to start I suggest you go out and buy Civ 4. Its significantly better than this one. I was amazed when I first saw the graphics of this game. They are beautiful and seamless. I also liked the idea of resource scarcity where an iron supply can allow you to build up to 5units. (For example) In Civ 4 once you have the critical resource there is no incentive for you to get another one of it. You'd have to be stupid to trade it and so except for the shield bonus it goes to waste. I was unsettled by the move to hexagonal tiles and the no unit stacking. Also cities acting as their own (Flawed it turns out) defense. However I found all 3 changes tolerable and even enjoyable for a time. I like the move to range units however what unit is "ranged" seems kind of arbitrary. The fact that two units can attack each other for a few turns without utter destruction of one in a way compensates for the lack of "stack".

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

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

    When it came to technology I understand the move away from tech trading. Much kinder on isolated starts. But doing so removed 90% of diplomacy for me. The "research deals" which replaced them were a sad surrogate. As well sometimes a civic would make a research deal with you and then break it prematurely. Costing you both gold to no ones benefit. That is either spite or poor game design. All and all this game is beautiful. But being a strategy game stripped of any real strategy it is quite pointless. I wish they would re-release civ 4 with this level of graphics.
  38. Jan 17, 2013
    É um clássico! Todos os jogos dessa franquia de 1991 são ótimos.
    Civilization V não fica atrás e realmente vale a pena, dá pra ficar horas direto.
    Pra quem nunca jogou nenhum deles, vale a pena deixar pra comprar a expansão Gods & Kings depois, mas pra quem já está familiarizado com a série, sugiro nem jogar
    antes de comprar a expansão.

    É uma parte importante do jogo que não deveria vir em um DLC, mas no pacote principal, já que não é uma adesão apenas de recursos e não de conteúdo. Espionagem e Religião, Profetas, Missionários, Inquisidores, manipulação de eleições e roubo de tecnologia são algumas novidades de Gods & Kings.
  39. May 5, 2012
    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 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
  40. Oct 4, 2011
    Having enjoyed each Civ game, this was a total let down. Civ 5 is a giant step backwards in terms of complexity and is not even worth the $15 I paid for it as a steam special. Once you get past the new graphics - which I'd happily do away with for greater game complexity - Civ 5 feels hollow and dumbed down. It is obvious which game review sites/magazines are paid off for positive reviews as the user reviews are resoundingly negative and disappointed. I agree with comments stating how the AI is poor, diplomacy is neutered and practically meaningless. The new civics program doesn't gel well with the historical policies of civilizations. It is also virtually impossible to maintain a large army due to special resources being required for certain units. Please tell me why I need aluminum to build modern armor or a missile cruiser, when neither use aluminum in the "real world". Overall the game is poorly designed and rushed to the market. It is a crappy product hidden in a nicely wrapped box. I want my money back. Expand
  41. Apr 9, 2012
    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.
  42. Nov 14, 2012
    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 an interesting idea...too bad the AI couldn't figure it out. I miss the old city management of Civ 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
  43. Sep 27, 2010
    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you! New features include: Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire! They removed all the bothering elements like religion, spies and diplomacy, so all you have to worry about is letting the game play for you! Another fantastic feature added is the settler bomb! Against all odds, are you somehow losing a war to an opponent? Well just drop a settler and all your troubles are over, you now have a unit with some of the best defense in the game, another city!

    Expect new dlc coming soon featuring an updated graphic pack; now this game will actually look like it uses its monstrous system requirements!
  44. Oct 9, 2010
    Ah, Civilization. This series has kept me up many a night, expanding my empires to try and take down my enemies will pure tactics. And this fifth iteration of the series will not disappoint, not at all. The first thing you are probably going to notice when you boot this game up is the graphics. They are simply amazing; the hills and oceans and deserts look so real you'll want to make sure that this game isn't actually real. And there are some changes made to things like the interface, movement, and quite a few other things. These changes mostly are to make the game easier for new players to jump in, and I promise you it won't ruin the experience for Civ vets. Also you'll notice that the standard square-spaces have been replaced with hexes. Honestly, this changes pretty much nothing, and you'll adjust to it within moments of playing. You get a diverse selection of leaders with different abilities; instead of things like higher health in cities you get abilities like having units fight at full strength even when wounded, or having your navy be more powerful. The game itself runs as smooth as butter (Or something else that is really smooth, like ice cream) even on lower-end systems, and even when you crank up the graphics it still will give you 40+ FPS, an amazing feat. If you enjoyed any of the previous Civ titles, or if you like strategy games, get this game. Expand
  45. Feb 13, 2014
    In the fine new tradition of dumbing classic franchises down to appeal to the blind, the mentally impaired and people who hate gaming, Civilization takes a nosedive in the horrible fifth installment. Tons of stuff that made Civ IV timeless has been removed, including map trading, vassals, religions, flexible civics, unit stacks and attrition to name a few things. Meanwhile dubious things have been added like global happiness ratings which makes it pointless to make big empires (In a Civ game. It`s true) and city states that reposition your camera on them every time they have some pointless task for you to perform.
    The worst part is that some of it had been tried out in Civ 3, which was the least impressive installment until this release, and removed for Civ 4 because it made the game dull and uncool.
    So compared to Civ 4 there is less complexity, less freedom, much hand holding and worthless fluff, poor diplomacy and many many questionable design features. It is slow, boring and unexciting. The economy doesn`t work properly, there are no active trade routes like in Civ 4 but just automatic ones when you build roads and harbors. And to top it all off there is basically no AI anywhere.
    I just played a game as Persia and had 10 workers on auto. By the year 1100 AD all these workers had built 0 roads. None, zip, nada. Presumably they were waiting until all the forests had been cleared and every possible resource tile and farm had been finished before starting the roads. In other words the automation is pointless and you have to manually build roads if you want any.
    The less said about the enemy AI the better. It is unpredictable, stupid and never improves at higher levels. It just cheats. Give this turkey a wide berth and go get the real Civilization (Civ 4. hell even Civ 2 or the original DOS game is better than this.) immediately.
    Casual gaming at its worst.
  46. Oct 14, 2014
    Oh dear. While the graphics have improved, many core gameplay elements have been changed from prior versions of the Civ series, and not typically for the better. For example, you can now only put one unit on each tile - which makes moving your army a massive chore compared to previous games. City-states also require a lot more micromanagement than previous games where you dealt only with the big empires. All in all, it feels like the game has been dumbed down, with too much focus on graphics over gameplay, relative to the previous titles in the series. If you haven't played strategy games before, you can try it. If you have, though, you're better off with Civ 4, or one of the older games in the series. Expand
  47. Sep 22, 2010
    So many annoying things have been streamlined without dumbing the game down. No more counting out 2 tiles away from your city, your boundaries are more fluid. Wonder limits appear to be tossed out, which was an annoying strategy-lite factor to track in IV . (I noticed lots of well-placed streamlining... I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention some.)

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

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

    The communication of why things happen isn't so esoteric "It's too crowded!!!!" comments are now clearly quantified. Civic options are a bit more fleshed out as "policies". They follow a more formal tree, but have relevance throughout the game. AI is cool too. During one war I was winning, my AI opponent offered a great peace deal. Unfortunately he whisked in a defensive pact. Silly me, I didn't think about it until he started killing one of my city state allies and quipped, "I'm beating up on your buddy. What you gonna do about it?" It's like any later edition of a game: Modern game design is simply more sophisticated nowadays. Some folks will dislike the differences, but in the case of Civ V, I like what they did to it.
  48. Jul 2, 2013
    They decided to try to revamp the Civ series with Civ V, and in my opinion, they did a pretty decent job.

    If you are coming from Civ IV, there are quite a large number of changes that you need to note, the largest thing they changed was the fact that the map is hex-based and you are limited to 1 military, and 1 civilian unit per hex. This does allot to fix the anemic combat in the Civ
    games, and adds a large amount of actual strategy to fights, instead of moving stacks of death to steam-roll things. They also made it very hard to attack cities compared to before, since cities actually have a large amount of power, and can actually hold off a crowd of units by themselves.

    Anyways, if you enjoy building and managing an empire with the focus on managing the empire combined with some turn based combat, then Civ V is a great choice. If you didnt really like the Civ series before this due to the combat, try this one, its much better.

    The vanilla game is fun, but I would heavily recommend that you get the God & Kings expansion at the very least, as it fixes a ton of issues with the combat (all units health are measured with 100x more HP, so a modern tank cant be destroyed by bum-rushing with a mob of super low tech units), and adds a bunch of new things in the mix like espionage and religion.

    If you decide to get this game, get the gold edition. Prepare to lose many hours of sleep to this game once you start playing though... a standard game will last anywhere between 8-10 hours on average.
  49. Apr 18, 2014
    Not replayable. Why? because, except for their leader appearances and city overviews, all civs are almost the same, same improvement, same policy, same research, same army... After knowing this fact, you will know how hollow this game is and no any desire to play the game again using other civs.
    In addition, the battle part is indeed the game's weakness, you have to control every army one
    by one and see their laggy animations. When in later game, this is more disturbing so that I just gift most of them to city states.
    IMO, This game is about parameters balancing (you play with numbers), mainly food, culture, science, gold and fairy. you control them by actions, mainly building, diplomacy, research and policy. And you enjoy how wonderful values you can achieve.
    So, if you prefer more direct stimulation like graphics diversity in many RTS games, Civ is not for you. In graphics, Civ looks very repetitive. The difference between civs are distinct parameter enhancing.
  50. Feb 24, 2014
    The original game is fun to play and it delivers what the modern iteration of Civ franchise should deliver. The biggest flaw are bugs and technical issues, which were resolved later. They were significant however. As time went, many things were fixed and added in the expansions, but the start wasn't smooth. If you want to play this game, I would therefore recommend getting it with the expansion packs. As the original "vanilla" version, the game has many problems and my impressions were mixed in the beginning. Expand
  51. Jun 24, 2014
    I play Civilization since the Civ II, and this is another great game. It is even more awesome with other human players, where diplomatics are involved.

    I would love to give it more points, but unfortunately, I'm sick of the DLC system. If we look at it without knowing there are DLC's (Gods and Kings, Brave New World) and out of context, we could say it's a 9/10. So if you're new to Civ,
    it's worth your money. Now I highly recommend buying the full pack on Steam with the DLC's, which is now very cheap, because it adds so much to the game, that you can't go back to the normal one after that.

    There goes my negative point. Why the hell didn't they put those add-ons in the first place ? I know the answer is "money" but for Civ-addicts like me, this is an insult. I managed to get the extension for a minimum amount of money but Gods and Kings was over 30€ when it came out, this is ridiculous for a bunch of options that could have been put in the early game.

    The Civilization franchise has always been good, we enjoy the new combat system, not allowing you to stack 1 billion units like it was in Civ IV, we enjoy the new culture system (replaced in Brave New World). I miss the cultural expansion of your cities, sometimes swallowing other players cities if your culture was massive, but let's say they needed to make it different, it's not a bad thing.

    Conclusion : With the DLC's it's much better, if you buy it, buy it all, but try to get in on sale, because the full price is exaggerated.
  52. Aug 6, 2012
    In the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usual square ones. I think it makes the map look much better. The graphics are better in Civilization V, which you would expect. I like how accessible mods are in this game. It is much easier to use mods than past installments in the series. Now, the bad. The one unit per tile was a nice try, but it simply doesn't work. What should have been done is a Victoria II style supply limit system, where each tile could support a certain number of units. You could put as many units as you want on the tile, but there would be significant combat penalties for going over the limit. One unit per tile makes wars something you dread, as opposed to something you enjoyed in Civ IV. The diplomatic system is still messed up even two years after release. The AI leaders are inconsistent and change their minds quickly. The game got rid of religion which makes it less interesting. Finally, I'll explain my review score. Automatically, the game receives a four point deduction for not improving on its predecessor, the receives a 3 point deduction for OK gameplay. Expand
  53. Jul 21, 2013
    This game in vanilla form is a middle finger to all Civ IV fans. After all the DLC are added it becomes a pretty nice game. You will need ton increase the difficulty level as they didn't do a good job with the AI.
  54. Jun 25, 2013
    Probably the best Civilization game thus far especially for anyone looking just fun strategy gaming. The game looks gorgeous and features some new features like hex-tiles and social policies (get to select civilization bonuses when culture grows enough).

    Can't say if this is the best CIV game (or not) for all you hardcore strategy nuts since I'm not that hardcore myself. I do think that
    the current user score (7.2) is unfair. If this was was non-civilization game, the score would easily be around 8 or 9. Expand
  55. Nov 15, 2011
    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!!!
  56. Feb 10, 2014
    I would make a short, snappy, funny review, yet it needs to be 150 characters long, so I'll just fill it up with nonsense. qijnfkongfangfj;naf;jnal;jfn;aljfn;ljafnajf'o[iqwjhvfio'jhq3woithq[0t0[qhfo[uihqofhq;ofhaqhf;oiaushf;iuabhsf;iuahwfi;uahfi;uahfihbafjhaifbaoifioauhfiafhiauf. THERE WE GO! This is the best game I ever played. 7.

  57. Jan 9, 2011
    Highly overrated game. It can take dozens of turns for a single small event to happen and there's not a single interesting thing in the entire game. Anyone who plays actual games such as Starcraft II will fall asleep watching or playing Civ V because it's such a dumbed down simple game that a 5 year old could play it.

    If you build 1 thing every 15 turns there's no skill or thought
    Attacks can take dozens of turns to do anything, again making people simply fall asleep.
    Play the demo if you'd like, skip buying it.
  58. Oct 15, 2013
    An decent strategic game, grossly overpriced at the release. It looks quite fine and has some great art, but not even that justifies the terrible performance issues, meaning you won't be able to play huge maps, as the waiting time between turns grows unbearably long.

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

    That said, this review concerns only the original release priced now at 30EUR. I would say there are better options of spending your money right now.Only with all the DLCs, it feels somehow complete and fully enjoyable. You would have also had spent 100EUR on it, if you were buying it one DLC after another, so. Alpha Centauri cost me some 20 when it was new. Just sayin'.
  59. Jul 6, 2014
    REVIEW UPDATE---The best strategy game in gaming history. It's so addicting that you can play this like 16 hours straight easily. Excellent make this also it's mods. It has so many good mods in Steam Workshop. Only reason why this game is a 9/10 cause of it's multiplayer sucks. Lobbies are hard to join. Saving is almost impossible. Also and well you see when play this game. Then u know what i'm taking about. 9/10. Expand
  60. Oct 15, 2013
    This game is the most addicting game I have ever played. While I have only played Civilization IV and this one, I can say that Civilization V is fantastic. Managing an entire empire is extremely fun to do. this game is also very visually appealing. My biggest concern with it was that everyone seems to hate you because you settle land that nobody owns, but the leaders "consider it theirs." Also passed about 500 turns, the game can get glitchy no matter what computer I play it on. Expand
  61. Apr 14, 2011
    Civ5 is a rather bad action game. Controls are limited and it is best played with a gamepad. It also helps to be intoxicated while playing. I takes about 10 hours to beat the game on STEAM difficulty. Most of the time is spent navigating the mouse pointer and hitting "end turn" about 300 times. Everything else is more or less autopilot. Your opponents (barbarian tribes and barbarian boss tribes) don't know who they are what they are where they are and what they are supposed to do, so it is a single player. Mulitplayer is broken, but totally ROCKS according to the devs. I recommend thsi game to enyone who is short of hate and / or boredom. Expand
  62. Aug 31, 2011
    Imagine Civ 3 but slower. ALOT slower. It seriously is just like civ 3 but a small, tiny, micro-scopic uniqueness to each civilization. Gameplay is the same, graphics are better, and overall its the sam civ game you know, just shinnier. OH OH OH! and its dumbed down. If you are also a fan of Empire earth....imagine empire earth 2 towards 3. Its basically like that
  63. Nov 21, 2011
    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.
  64. Nov 23, 2011
    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 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
  65. Dec 31, 2011
    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.
  66. Dec 29, 2012
    The game is plays well enough, looks nice and has great peripheral qualities. However it ultimately feels like a step back from CIV 4. Many of the intriguing elements of the previous installment are missing here. There is less resources, less improvements, no religion and your limited to one unit per tile. The global happiness mechanic doesn't perform as intended. The civ-specific abilities are extremely unbalanced. City states are more a nuisance than anything else and are out of place in a 4X game. Expand
  67. Aug 6, 2014
    Sid Meier's Civilization V can be summed up in one word: addicting. I find it extremely difficult to pull myself away from this game at most times, and I end up playing for hours upon hours. It's exhilarating to choose a civilization and try to dominate the other opposing civilizations. Whether winning by cultural, domination, diplomatic, or science victory, it's all really fun. It's a great experience to see your civilization explore the area, meet new civilizations and city-states, and fight off barbarians, as they grow and technologically advance from ancient times to modern times. Multiplayer can be really fun, but it's almost impossible to finish a game because either the random people you get paired up with leave the game right away or everyone gets disconnected, so it can be frustrating at times. This is a fantastic game but also addicting so beware. Expand
  68. May 2, 2012
    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...
  69. Jun 23, 2011
    What has happened to Sid Meier? Has he lost all self-respect? First Revolutions and now this piece of crappola! Next he'll be putting out a Facebook version of Civ, for F's sake! Oh, wait... What's that!? HE IS!?! Sid, 2K, Firaxis... some or all of the former are to blame for the decimation of this storied franchise. I've played this series since Numero Uno, spent thousands of hours on every subsequent iteration, but can not bring myself to complete a SINGLE game of Civ V! They dumbed down all of the strategy elements that make a Civ game a F'N CIV GAME!!! Gotta get that casual/console market interested. Apparently, Core Fans just aren't good enough any more... Who cares if I've helped pave the way for you! Just another in a long line of greed induced SELLOUTS! F**K YOU, YOU GREEDY BASTARDOS!!! Expand
  70. Mar 4, 2013
    My first experience with a series of "Civilization" I would rate positively. This is good and nice strategy game giving a lot of possibilities to create and lead their own civilization to victory. The game addictive well but end-game is boring
  71. Feb 26, 2014
    I played the hell outta Civ3, skipped Civ4 and play a lot (like 400 hours +) of Civ V. It is a great casual time sink that still captures the spirit of the Civ experience. We joke it is spreadsheet empire creation, but really there are a lot of ways to win. I do miss world effects like Pollution, greenhouse, planting trees etc. I also think that the last expansion are Weak. Brave New World, not worth it. Culture / Tourism is awful and dull. Stick with Gods and Kings.

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

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

    Solid game. Just don't expect Civ 3 (or I guess 4)
  72. Jun 19, 2014
    A classic example of trying to make up for lack of depth with high level graphics. So, it's pretty. Then what?

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

    No religion, corporations, fine tuning, etc.

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

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

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

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


    Ranged combat. Done right.

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

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

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

    REPLAYABILITY: Honestly, couldn't play a game through until the expansions. I got bored, even with an audiobook running. With III and IV losing half a day wasn't uncommon, this was a drag.
  73. Aug 25, 2011
    Updated 8/25:
    Yes, the game was not ideal at start. But the developers have shown good support, fixing issues and adding new content. TF2 took many years to initially release, and then took even longer to get all the maps and content for people to really enjoy it.
    As for the game, it is different than past Civ games I expect. I like the changes, work to make gameplay easier to pick up but
    still offering depth. Combat is more strategic with limits on units per tile, with a nice interface to prevent units from getting lost in micromanaging. The game is a staple as co-op with my friends. Hosting the game does need decent RAM, but patches have helped trim down the memory usage.
    There is great support for addon development for maps and scenarios, and the built-in market offers a convenient way to find tweaks you want.
    I have had no issues with the game, put in over 150 hours, and enjoy the consistent support of updates and DLC. The game could use better AI options, and random events would be a great addition, but the game is definitely enjoyable. The game is likely more akin to Galactic Civilizations 2 (an amazing game) rather than previous Civ games, but the game wouldn't be fun being the same as the old games with just new graphics. It's a new start for the series, but it's more appealing and easier for newcomers.
  74. Jun 4, 2011
    Jun 4, 2011
    CivforBrains Jun 2, 2011 3 I've been playing Civ games since the Civ I and have thoroughly enjoyed them all. (Civ III was my least liked Civ though.) This latest Civ however, I have tried my hardest to like but I just can't do it. Besides an awful AI and terrible diplomacy, this game flat out isn't very fun at all. It's streamlined and frankly quite dumbed down.
    Expect a console version within 1 1/2 years after they finish their true love Civ World.

    It is truly incredulous how the "professional" reviewers gave this piece of crap such high marks. Something definitely is rotten in the state of the gaming industry. Likely there are more than a few guerrilla posters on here as well. The developers also seem more intent on releasing DLC than properly fixing the game. In my opinion, 2K Games is largely responsible for ruining the Civ franchise. I don't blame Jon Shafer very much. This game was clearly released at least one year too early. Not much more to say. Perhaps they'll right the ship with Civ VI but I wouldn't count on it.
  75. Sep 8, 2011
    Get Civilization 4 and BtS instead (you don't need Warlords, BTS has all of Warlords in it).
    5 has worse AI, only just barely matches the visual quality of modded Civilization 4, is much harder to mod and thus barely enjoys any modding community unlike 4, and the game is just too damn easy due to how unbalanced everything is. On top of that, there's hardly any multiplayer support.
    Just get
    Civ4. Want more civilizations than 4 has to offer? They've been modded in. Want better graphics? They've been modded in. Hell, you can get mods that make each nation's units look unique, so that a Portugese and a Dutch unit will not be clones like they are in 5. Then to make things worse, Firaxis has actually started -selling- civilizations, putting less work into them than modders do, for $5 each.
    This sequel doesn't even deserve to exist if it can't compete with its predecessor on any field.
  76. Nov 29, 2011
    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. Mar 22, 2012
    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 single space. A lot of players see such a huge change as a bad thing but being different isn't necessarily being worse. Expand
  78. Sep 28, 2014
    This game series needs some work. They seem to try to do the same game over and over, and this one gets boring quickly. Not much to tell against it, it is clearly not bad, but it is not fun either. Hex & no stack is a good feature (for combat units, for others it is not), but otherwise, what changed since the first of the series? 6 is a bit harsh, but punishes the lack of improvements & the DLC politics. Expand
  79. Oct 13, 2010
    Pros: gorgeous graphics, excellent GUI, well thought-out tutorial mode, hexes instead of squares, sophisticated tech tree. Cons: dumb AI (opponent massing armies at your borders and nothing happens, workers who fail to complete roads), etc. It really is an excellent concept and obviously a lot of effort and money went into the development. I just wish I could like it more and give it a better score. But there are times when I feel like I'm in a grind. Like trying to level up in a MMORPG. Can't put my finger on it specifically, but to "tidy up" the game so that strategic moves seem more compelling and the game doesn't tend to tread water in places.

    Nevertheless, if you're a RTS fan, you'll definitely want this one. No doubt there will be patches and other content made available and hopefully some of the concerns people have voiced here will be resolved.
  80. Oct 27, 2012
    Well this game brought some genuine graphics and UI design. But it did not succeed in many areas. The AI is way too aggressive and at higher levels you often end up being declared war by 5 out of 7 AI opponents. What a frustrating experience. Also everything is taking still very long, you cant complete game in decent number of hours, it will be like 5 or more hours to win. I think it's possible today to make it faster and save you from all the tedious activities, deciding what to build on every single hex in every single turn. You should be able to set your typical path through the tech and build trees and reuse those. The final spoiler is, that anything you do, you will end up in war. Even if you try to be polite and nice, there is no peace alternative in real game, it is only theoretical. I managed to win peacefully once from like 30 attempts and it was by mere luck anyway. So this game does copy typical american colonial consumeristic philosophy - expand, fight, kill and consume. More means always better. What a disappointment. Expand
  81. Mar 23, 2013
    I'm a big fan of the Civ series but this one is the first civ game that bored me after only a couple of hours. Tons of dlc but no innovation, odd new combat mechanics (1 unit per hex but the maps are too small), a lot of missing features from the old games, less management,....

    Feels like a "Civ Light" for newcomers to the genre
  82. Jun 5, 2014
    This game feels like it's about half the quality of the previous and famous Civilization 4. It looks better than 4 but it should, it's a newer game. I feel like many of the streamlined changes from "revolution" found their way into 5, as in many of your actions lack depth. Still, hundreds of hours of play has to count for something and it's certainly enjoyable despite being shallow.
  83. Mar 3, 2012
    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.
  84. Apr 12, 2011
    With the fifth series the developers made some radical changes for the civilization series, including some bold new choices. I spent a long time playing the game before commenting as it is difficult to review a classic franchise. The best improvement is the combat system. Combat is now on a hex system. One army per hex. Ranged units can fire from hexes away but are generally weaker from attack, making the organization of your army critical. Non fast units move as fast like scouts in prior game (2 hexes over open ground, 1 hex over rough terrain), which makes terrain important. One bad change, and a baffling design choice, is the UI. In Civ 4 the UI told you everything you needed to know. You could tell how you were doing in points, and could hold your pointer over a resource to instantly know how many you have. No longer, for some reason. Advisors are back, but they only give general advice that most experienced civ players should already know. They are not an adequate replacement for Civ 4's excellent information screens. Cities take much more time to produce both buildings and units. Which means you must be selective about what you build. I can see why this was done, but the effect is that the game feels much slower than its predecessors. Happiness is now an empire wide trait. Instead of having happy and unhappy cities, every city has an equal amount of happiness which rises and falls together. Unfortunately, this means that a game of conquest and annexing conquered cities (which is now much harder, as cities take several turns to fall and can defend themselves with ranged attacks) can cripple your entire kingdom. This also slows down the game. I'd give this game a hesitant recommendation. I would also strongly advise having a very fast hard drive if you wish to play on any map beyond the smallest. Expand
  85. Aug 6, 2012
    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!
  86. Jan 13, 2013
    I enjoy strategy games but this game is unbearable to play. It is SO slow moving and boring. A single game will take you 20 some hours to play even on the quickest time setting. There is a multi-player option which is pointless because you will never finish a game. If you want to play on a tiny/small map with the quickest time setting you may finish some games but what is the fun in that?

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

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

    There is also not much difference in leaders which is lame. Each leader gets a bonus and some are clearly better than others which limits who you will play as right away. Some of the special units or building are helpful but hardly make a huge difference on the overall game.
  87. Nov 8, 2013
    Another great sequel to an awesome series. All the additions to 5 make it stand out form past entries and the visuals are just amazing. Playing offline is very fun because games could last you months; you come back and play whenever you want. Online matches take a while but they're a blast; kind of like monopoly in a way. I would love to see an port of this game to next gen consoles. 9/10
  88. Oct 20, 2014
    4 years and I still find new things to do. 4 years and i still play regularly. I think that I have to give it a ten at this point because it clearly is amazing if its the only game I've played continuously for 4 years.
  89. Mar 6, 2011
    I got this game shortly after it was released and quickly realised this was not a Civilization game at all. The game play of this game consists mostly of next next next with the AI handling most things for you. All the challenges and fun of the series has been stripped away and replaced by want feels like a console version of Civilization. Also dipsite the patches, the slow down and lack around the 15th century is still so bad, I doubt I will be able to finish it. So far I have lacked the will power to try. Civilization 1 and Civilization 4 remain my 2 favourites, just so you know where I am coming from and what I liked about the Civ series.

    Fans of the old Civ games seem to have a universal hate for Civilization 5, where as new fans that have never seen it have no idea whats missing and so like it.
  90. Aug 1, 2011
    Long time Civ player. The hate this game has received is fueled mostly by:
    1. Peoples' tenancy to expect the release of a squeal to fulfill all their wildest dreams.
    2. Peoples' fear of change.
    Some specific changes for the good: The graphics are smooth and beautiful. The gameplay is streamlined and requires less micromanaging. No more stacked units!!, MUCH easier for units to travel
    across water, far superior user-friendly interface. There are plenty of other little changes to come and more gameplay balances, tweaks and fixes to come (remember everyone, EVERY civ game had bugs).
    Steam makes installation, updates, friend management and communication easy as well as adding achievements.
  91. Apr 6, 2013
    Overall a great game, but after playing Civ II, III, and IV it seems lacking something. I do not like how there are random city states, and how it is centered on combat. Yes in Civ IV the micro-managing could get annoying, but I enjoyed it all the same.
  92. May 10, 2012
    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.
  93. May 14, 2012
    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.
  94. Jul 22, 2012
    Having never played a Civilization game before this, I was pretty pleased with this game. I can't compare it to Civ 4 like others, but what I got was a varied turn-based strategy game that was a lot of fun. I agree with others that the city-state mechanic is awful - they often just act as a frustrating buffer between you and enemies. However, they can be removed. The game was pretty enjoyable and provides a lot of play time for your money. It must be said that the steamworks modding system is really good and some of the mods are useful and others change the game enough to keep it interesting. Expand
  95. Jul 15, 2013
    As deep as its previous installments were, Civilization V in its original form simply does not deliver an experience that even remotely approaches the finesse of its prequels. While the hex tile change does add some freedom and depth, too many options have been removed and replaced with very uninteresting combat mechanics that, especially at endgame, result in a clickfest without any soul or body to it.

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

    Final note: the DLC's and expansions to this game, completely change the picture and fix most of its flaws.
  96. Oct 14, 2013
    I enjoyed this game to hell and I still enjoy it now. This game is a new adventure every time you play it and it gives it a major replay value. I had a ton of fun with this game and the DLC's are worth it to, you will have tons of fun crushing enemy empires or becoming a culture, science or diplomacy based empire. If you love turn based strategy games or just love strategy games at all this is a must get!

    (Except planes are really god damn cheap).
  97. Feb 21, 2014
    I've never had a turn based game made me lose track of time the way Civ V has. You would think a turn based game could get old... but after spending almost 100 hours in the game... I keep coming back for more. Great game.
  98. May 30, 2011
    Meh - definitely not what I was hoping for - It's still fun to play for few hours but when i finished 2nd one like 20 times (my favorite game for a loooong time -strong 10) and was little disappointed with 3 (would give it around 7), but hooked again with 4 (9 in my scale) this one definitely didn't went in good direction for me. It has few nice new elements (like hex fields, nation specialization or barbarian activity) but a lot more were disappointing or just plain bad - happiness was definitely this thing for me - it is just unlogic why it had so global scale - i mean i could understand that if i have 1 revolting city I would get some negative bonus for every other city in empire - but we do not have this kind of mechanics here - here every new citizen gives negative impact doesn't matter if he was born in reachest city at plannet or poorest one with blazing borders- and when i build coloseum in 1 city it makes my every citizen little happier - the hell why??? It's like I should be happy when I live in New York that stadium was built in Denver - and like I would even care. Because of this global impact of happiness this killed my main tactics - to be an expansionist asap- you can't -every new city gives bigger negative impact than it can produce hapiness in next 30 turns. Another thing coming from hapiness is conquering cities - when you do that the only intelligent step is to burn it to the ground and place right away new city in the same spot - because you pretty fast will have population boom there anyway (especially if you have few free states providing food as allies-then new citizen every turn) and won't get such a big negative happiness bonus for different culture. What a hell? the only right way in conquer is total extermination? I don't like that - and it's not teaching kids nowadays to think properly and we don't want to raise new hitlers are we? I won't be pointing every other change that I wasn't found of - others did that already, so will only focus at happiness as main reason why this CiV has butchered gameplay - and in long term is just not fun to play. - So meh. No expansions or DLC that i'll buy for this one - going back to 4 or will wait for 6. Expand
  99. Aug 9, 2011
    It was good......when I got it to work - which took forever!

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

    All in all - you can buy this game, but don't go in expecting much revolution from the older Civ games - and certainly don't go in expecting it to be as good as those Civ games - it's good, but not THAT good
  100. Dec 16, 2012
    My first time playing the civilization series and I got hooked on it. It is much fun and challenging - right when you think you just might have peace with your neighbor civs they attack you from all sides. A really fun game to play.

Universal acclaim - based on 70 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 70
  2. Negative: 0 out of 70
  1. Apr 3, 2011
    Despite my gripe with the animations in multiplayer, Civilization V is the perfect entry for the series' debut in the current generation of gaming.
  2. Jan 20, 2011
    We're just a little bit disappointed that this Civ evolution isn't as polished as we'd expected. [Issue#102, p.108]
  3. Jan 15, 2011
    An old franchise that knows who to evolve to adapt to modern times. Its latest new ideas might not be perfect, but serve the purpose of making the game even more interesting.