User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1633 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 26, 2010
    4
    I had been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I have always been a fan (not a junkie) of Civ games. What a disappointment. The game looks terrific out of the box, but just on setup a few worrisome issues come clear. The number of civs and maps available to play is surprisingly low--okay, we get it, you'll be selling DLC--but it's like half of the counts available in Civ 4. Once in-game, excitement at the new graphics and combat system are tempered by all the things that are missing. As others have posted, the missing details in the diplomacy screens are a huge problem that renders diplomacy almost useless. City States are even thinner in detail, and that is a feature that GalCiv 2 did way better. City management is a lot easier and the whole turn cycling interface improved is nicer, but the tech tree is also a dissapointment. And the whole anti-expansion philosophy is just un-fun.

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

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

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

    Maybe it's just my play style, but Civ5 doesn't pull me in like previous iterations. More often then not, I find myself wishing that I hadn't bothered with the game that enjoying it. If you are looking for the fun challenge found in previous versions of Civ, I suggest that you go back and play those as this one just doesn't cut it.
    Expand
  3. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    A fantastic addition to the Civ franchise. My greatest complaint with previous Civ games, which I've been playing since 1991, was that large armies were extremely unwieldy and frustrating to manage. Sea transportation logistics were also a frustrating time sink. Both of these problems have been solved with Civ V. Everything about the game screams polish and it runs like an absolute dream, haven't had a hitch yet which is becoming so rare with new releases. Expand
  4. Sep 22, 2010
    6
    Let me start of by saying I am a long time fan of the Civilization series. I have owned all versions of civilizations from the day they were releases. Heck I am an old timer that was playing games like simearth back in the day.

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

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

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

    Maybe but Civ VII or Civ X they will give us something new :)
    Expand
  5. Sep 26, 2010
    0
    I'm a long time Civ fan, I've been playing back since the days of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, but this game just sucks. In a nutshell, the UI is non-functional, the AI is broken, the diplomatic system doesn't work, and the game is buggy as hell. It feels rushed, looks rushed, and will play like its rushed when it either crashes or grinds to a halt an hour or so in due to a memory leak.

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

    On a final note, I know that a lot of hardcore Civ fans don't exactly have the best computers. Well, you might want to rethink this game. If you don't meet the rather high recommended requirements you will not be able to play on a map larger than standard- and even then the game will run like crap. I'm just below the recommended reqs, and with all my settings on minimum the game starts to chug on mid-late game standard maps. I have to say, for the performance the game doesn't even look that good so be warned.
    Expand
  6. Apr 28, 2011
    3
    I've been playing Civilization since the 1st on DOS, when I had a computer that had no sound card so I had to imagine what it sounded like in my head. Yes that's how oldschool I am in terms of Civ. AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE PLAYED WELL OVER +100 HOURS FOR CIVILIZATION 5, I have tried my absolute best to try and love this game but I am sorry to announce that I have FAILED MISERABLY. Okay here are two different reviews: 1) YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED A CIV GAME BEFORE Game is pretty cool, a lot to do and discover in the world of civilization. Graphics are somewhat up to date and it's a fun learning experience. Not the best strategy game you've ever played most likely, but a solid outing nonetheless. GRADE: B- 2) YOU HAVE PLAYED OTHER CIVS AND ARE POSSIBLY A CIV FANATIC LIKE MYSELF If you've played any other Civilization game to date, you will almost instantly notice that the game has been dumbed down SOOOO much it possibly brings tears to your eyes.
    - You can no longer manage your economy, taxes, luxuries, culture, religion, research, espionage, or just about anything else. The only things you can manage are your cities and units. - Diplomacy has been dumbed down as well. You can no longer trade techs or maps, and there is very little reason to conduct diplomacy besides trading luxury resources to keep your empire happiness. - MANIFEST DESTINY? THINK AGAIN. Oh how unhappy the happiness in this game will make you. Happiness is not city based anymore, rather it is now on a universal +/- scale for your ENTIRE EMPIRE. On any difficulty above Prince (I usually play on Emperor/Immortal) your happiness cap will SEVERELY LIMIT your ability to expand around the world. You will most likely be stuck to a handful of cities for a long time and you will have to carefully and painfully slowly expand so that your precious happiness doesn't drop. THE RESULT? Somewhere around 40-60% of the world map will be unsettled depending on your map type. ON IMMORTAL DIFFICULTY, EVEN THE AI WHO IS CHEATING THROUGH HIS NOSE STRUGGLES TO EXPAND ACROSS THE MAP. - WANT TO MAKE A BUSTLING DEMOCRACY THEN SWITCH TO FASCISM LATER IN THE INDUSTRIAL AGE? I THINK NOT BISMARCK. Once you pick your Civics you're stuck with them until the end of time... literally. And it's not like civics are easy to get, late game with large empires it takes 100s of turns to get enough culture. - Single Unit tiles is good and bad depending on your perspective. Ultimately though, it makes it very difficult to position your 8 units every single time you want to move across the map and makes invading other empires/cities more of a chore than fun. - A LOT OF FUN.... for until you're in the middle ages. Then the game drags and drags and dragssssssssssss like no tomorrow. WITH SO MUCH OF THE MICROMANAGEMENT STRIPPED FROM THE GAME, there is almost nothing to do besides choose what buildings to make in your cities. If you're not constantly declaring war on your neighbors then expect to spend most of your turns STARING AT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN HOPING SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENS. USUALLY DOESN'T UNLESS YOUR HOUSE CATCHES FIRE. - WANT A CULTURE VICTORY? TOO BAD GANDHI, THAT 4TH CITY IS GONNA COST YA... the game. Different victory types in Civilization have almost always been choose what you want to do early/mid way through the game and stick with it. But with this civilization, you damn better well have a strategy set if you want to win. This makes the game oh so much more boring that it was before. - Despite it being the year 2011 now, the AI of Civilization is still almost as woefully bad as it was in CIVILIZATION I ON DOS. The AI is AMAZINGLY STUPID, and all ramping up the difficulty does is MAKE THEM CHEAT LIKE NO TOMORROW. AIs will outresearch you, make far larger armies in less time, build wonders in half the time you do, and YOU WILL STILL ALMOST ALWAYS STOMP THEM. A travesty for modern gaming. Don't even get me started about diplomacy, the majority of the AI leaders are schizophrenic on their best days when taking their medication. GRADE: D- I'm sorry but this ISN'T CIVLIZATION. Empire Total War has far more depth than this current outing and that REALLY PAINS ME TO SAY THIS because I've always far preferred Civilization to the Total War series. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING WITH THIS GAME, it's more suited to be played with on an arcade stick much less on a PC. WILL EXPANSIONS SAVE THIS DISASTER OF A GAME? It could, but it's going to need something absolutely BRILLIANT, and judging by how bad this game is I have my doubts. Fingers crossed though.... BOTTOM LINE: I REALLY DON'T RECOMMEND THIS GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SINCERELY: AMAZINGLY DISAPPOINTED LONG TIME CIV FANATIC :(
    Expand
  7. Sep 23, 2010
    7
    Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. First off, as of 2 days after the release of the game I have logged 16 hours of play time. About 12 of them on 2 to 4 player multiplayer games and the rest on single player.

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

    The new culture system is also very nice. The removal of religion and civics will definitely annoy some, but the new system of policies is a pretty good replacement. One is forced to plan ahead by timing the construction of wonders, settlers, and military units to coincide with the adoption of new policies. The new method of expanding ones border is also very interesting, a combination of culture and gold. Gold allows to choose what tiles you wish to buy, while culture automatically claims tiles for you. The AI is typically pretty good about picking the best places, but you can always buy up the places you really want if its going too slow. My biggest complaint for this game is the very very very spotty diplomacy system. For a game that was made with the intention of being more diplomatic and AIs are uncommonly aggressive. Diplomacy is now like taking a shot in the dark. You have a good idea of how to lower it, very little idea of how to raise it and absolutely no idea about how you stand with the other nations. In the previous Civ games my favorite way to win was diplomatic victory. Now, having tried for 5 to 6 games and having not succeeded even once, I'm starting to question if its even possible. If someone figures out the diplomacy system, without the use of a guide, please let me know. Another complaint I have with the game is the very bad multiplayer support. You can't save a multiplayer game, only autosave, and the autosave is not very reliable and is prone to self deletion. Having lost 4 to 5 current games with my friends, this is annoying to say the least. Furthermore I have yet to figure out how to play mods on multiplayer, someone let me know when they figure it out? For a game that comes from a long line of epic multiplayer friendly games, this is a huge disappointment. Many of my friends have already said they're not gonna waste anymore time on this game until the multiplayer aspect is fixed. Yet, if you don't mind single player games. Or if you don't mind multiplayer games that you'll almost never finish. I actually enjoyed the single player games and unfinished multiplayers to refine my strategy (But I am an addict). This is the pinnacle of turn based strategy games, and the design of the game itself outweighs most of the negatives that come from stupid AIs, horrible diplomacy, bad multiplayer support (all of which I hope will be fixed by patches). But until they do, this is not worthy of the legacy of Civilization. For now, a 7 out of 10.
    Expand
  8. Oct 5, 2010
    6
    I'm baffled that "professional" critics rated such a buggy mess of a game so high. Perhaps they only played a few hours or were limited to a demo or some other nonesense, because if you go read the 2K Support forums, you'll see that CIV V is filled with buggy AI, missing features, and straight up silly bugs. If you are considering purchasing this game for Multiplayer LAN games with your family, strongly reconsider until they have a chance to fix numerous issues plaguing this game. This game was definitely not ready for release. Expand
  9. Sep 27, 2010
    4
    If you were really bad at previous Civ games, and are looking for something more consoley, Civ Rev 2 is the game for you! New features include: Auto play! Just keep hitting next and automate! Free victories! Tired of the trouble of having to take each of your opponents cities? Now all you have to do is kill a scout and your opponent will literally give you half their empire! They removed all the bothering elements like religion, spies and diplomacy, so all you have to worry about is letting the game play for you! Another fantastic feature added is the settler bomb! Against all odds, are you somehow losing a war to an opponent? Well just drop a settler and all your troubles are over, you now have a unit with some of the best defense in the game, another city!

    Expect new dlc coming soon featuring an updated graphic pack; now this game will actually look like it uses its monstrous system requirements!
    Expand
  10. Sep 30, 2010
    2
    What an enormous disappointment. I am shocked that this game came from Sid Meierâ
  11. Sep 22, 2010
    10
    Continuing the tradition of sucking the soul from your body, Sid keeps up the legacy that is Civilization. After only one play through the thought of jumping into the next full work days worth of playing to feel the happiness in victory over the other Civilizations is still there. Slight tweaks are definitely noticeable in terms of cultural changes, military changes, and clearly defined tech tree development. The new policy choices are a great new take on the game, I can't wait for the game to have added depth with mods. Best purchase I've made all year. = ) Expand
  12. Sep 23, 2010
    5
    If you have never played another Civilization game before or found the others too complex then this is for you. Other wise CIV V just takes away too many of the more detailed and nuanced parts from previous games, especially items such as religion that really added a lot more depth to the game. Also missing is the ability to see the your diplomatic ratings and relationships in order to understand your neighbors. You can see current deal but have no sense of why or if the other civilizations like you or not. Also you cant make your own saves during multiplayer and need to rely on autosaves, and you have no other option other than simultaneous turns when playing multiplayer. This option when using the combat model simply does not work and feels more like an RTS or console game than what many of us have grown to love about CIV. If you have not played a CIV game before start here, if you own CIV IV stick with that. Expand
  13. Sep 27, 2010
    6
    As a longtime fan of the series, I unfortunately have to say that Civ5 has been vastly overrated by professional reviewers. That's probably because the game looks great and the real flaws don't start to show up until after a few hours of play.

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

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

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

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

    The lack of science/gold/culture sliders takes away a lot of customization potential that was fun to tinker with in previous Civ games. This became painfully apparent when going for a cultural victory. A cultural victory doesn't require the last 25% of the tech tree, but you can't stop researching until you run out of money. And in the meantime, because you're still researching new tech, your puppet states are building more and more new buildings and costing you more money. And when you run out of money you can't do a LOT of things, like rush-build or more importantly buy luxury resources and establish good relations with city states that provide culture. Basically you lose the ability to do the things that make the game fun. This is especially frustrating when it have been so easily solved with the old-school sliders, which were never that difficult to manage in the first place. Overall, it's a good, but not great game. It reminds me of Civ3, in that it attempts to add interesting new game concepts and surprisingly flops at aspects in which its predecessor excelled. On the bright side, Civ4 did a great job of combining the best of Civ2 and Civ3, so hopefully history repeats itself and Civ6 will be awesome.
    Expand
  14. May 11, 2011
    3
    Huge disappointment. I've played all civilization games starting from the very first one 20 years ago. It could have been a great game but for a few issues that despite being minor make the game completely unenjoyable. 1) there is a severe limit on the size of your empire. once you grow large enough, unhappyness kicks in with severe penalties. When going for conquest victory I had to raze all enemy cities except capitals (that you can't raze) because I just couldn't afford the extra population (even as puppet cities). by the modern ages most of the map consisted of unworked, uninhabited land where barbarians roamed. Even if I didn't go for conquest and wouldn't burn the cities there still would be tons of unused land.

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

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

    4) Diplomacy is a random mess

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

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

    Mr. Sid Meyer, I'm very disappointed.
    Expand
  15. Feb 3, 2012
    2
    The lead designer of Civ5, Jon Shafer, made a lot of changes to the game mechanics of previous versions, in order to make the game more simple, stylish, and streamlined. Hex tiles, less roads (due to maintenance costs), one unit per tile (1UPT), global happiness, no religions, no change of policies, less tech/no tech trading. Unfortunately the many changes are badly integrated, and make the game feel rushed and boring. Expand
  16. Apr 24, 2011
    4
    Like many others, I have played the Sid Meier's franchise games since the Alpha Centauri days. Although this version has a nice streamlined look and feel, it soon falls apart because of missing features and a neo-pacifist sensibility. There is no depth to diplomacy, science research or trading. The features are dumbed down while there are options and strategy's that were available in older versions that are just plain missing here. I have also run into a number of massive technical issues ranging from the game over stressing my GTX465 to random lockups and crashes. There is a whole series of complaints about these issues and hopefully they will be repaired without requiring that I reach deep for another purchase.

    Based on my experience so far; if Civilization VI were offered tomorrow, I wouldn't buy it .
    Expand
  17. Sep 28, 2010
    4
    The 1up review has it right.

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

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

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

    Many game developers now have a nasty habit of just rushing out unfinished games filled with problems.
    Expand
  18. Sep 30, 2010
    3
    Civ 5 is an unfinished game! At the first look it is a very good game. Great new features, good to start with both for new players and hardcore fans. Maybe some poor design choices which keep reappearing since Civilization 2, but overall it seems to be great.

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

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

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

    Do yourself a favour and wait at least a month or two until the first big patches are release... that's if the developers have the courage to support the game..
    Expand
  19. Dec 29, 2010
    3
    I was looking for more depth from Civ IV, so it's not surprising that I don't find Civ V very appealing as it is now. Defenders say Civ IV wasn't very good until the expansions, but it was a better game. Civ V is a boring war game. As other reviewers have noted, there is one efficient way to win: domination. The frustrating and illogical happiness system that punishes players for doing anything other than razing makes this not only a war game but a game of near genocide. (You can't raze other capital cities, but that's the only restriction.) Diplomacy is a joke. As other reviewers have said, the AI players feel like "angry speed bumps". The new patch tries to fix some of this, but the Social Policy system is linear, slow, and very boring. A cultural victory is about as fun as making a full-size house out of Elmer's glue and straws. Somehow having more cities means having less culture. The city states have no personality. It's not empire building. You're punished for expansion. The AI leaders endlessly harass you with bogus deals, bogus agreements, complaints, and taunts. Barbarians are numerous, designed to make the game seem less empty and pointless, but their distraction itself is empty and pointless. They can't be reformed/educated/assimilated. No... they don't even heal. I guess they're not really human, just speed bumps and gold caches. Boring war game. The barbarians are the hack/slash element for when players aren't hacking/slashing each others' cities. "Barbarian riflemen" that spring out of little huts that randomly appear and "barbarian destroyers" are really... Did I mention that multiplayer is barely functional? One can't even use custom maps, which makes the use of the SDK to create maps rather pointless. You can't even choose where certain human players and AI players specifically will start. I want an empire building game, not a bland repetitive war game resting on the laurels of its superior predecessors. The graphics are what sell this game, at first. They're pretty good, although the renderings of the leaders aren't all that great. Do the pro reviewers who give this game stellar marks actually play it more than an hour or two? Setting aside the many crash bugs, the "do nothing AI" bugs, and the brokenness of various game design elements -- there just isn't much to do during turns, at least not much that's interesting. Chasing the latest randomly spawned barbarian camp isn't interesting. Getting a request from one city state to destroy another (don't or you'll be denounced as a warmonger even when nearly all of the city states are simultaneously demanding that their peers be destroyed) gets old quickly. An interactive diplomacy system does not consist of being taunted and denounced. It's like the game's programming thinks "Gee, you haven't done much for X turns. You must be getting bored. Better get a war going." I'd like to see the next massive patch have absolutely nothing to do with war at all. The game is called Civilization. It is not called Conquest. Expand
  20. Jul 17, 2011
    6
    The days of plunking down $50 dollars for something in the Civilization series without thinking are over for me. As many of the other reviewers said, this game was just not ready to go. If it were a first release of Civ ever I'd give it much higher marks. But it's not. It's the 5th major version of the main game, and has had a ton of other manifestations, patches, add-ons, etc. Because of that, Civ 5 should be an embarrassment to the franchies. A new version of a game should build on the positive things in past versions. But there are features (particularly in the user interface) that are MISSING. They didn't bother to include a lot of the things (mostly little) that they included in *previous* versions. It's very difficult to get easily accessible information about profits and cities in a format that is intuitive and informative. It feels like one step forward and two steps back. It could be recoverable with some relatively minor fixes, but if they haven't done so yet, I doubt they are going to. As others have said, they lost their credibility with me on this game and the 'brand trust' has been eroded. -- I've raised my rating 2 since the last patch. Expand
  21. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Since i was 6 i've been playing Civilzation and Civilization V is the best and easiest for me to use (so far). It may be because i was younger and not able to fully understand the keyboard a few years ago but i find Civilization V easy to control and i really enjoy playing it.
  22. Oct 3, 2010
    6
    Simplified so a chimapnzee can play it, full of bugs and crashes, it is the worst of all Civ games. One leader for each nation? So if you want to play a specific nation, but do not like the leader traits, you are screwed. One unit per tile? Nice idea until the map is full of spawned units blocking each other's way. And how the is it possible for another empire units to come through my units as the are not there? How are we suppose to protect our city states at war with another major when not beiing at war witht the said major? Expand
  23. Sep 30, 2010
    4
    This game is a disappointment. It's playable -- it's very playable -- but it's shallow, and too easy. Yes, Civ IV had a lot going on, and this could be a challenge for the mythical mainstream audience ("mythical" because they'd never buy a Civ game in the first place), and it could certainly have been made to flow more easily; but the right way to make a game flow more easily is to refine problematic but life-like features, not yank them out altogether.

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

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

    And lastly, what is _up_ with this game's graphics? Ruinously high requirements; it chugs on my new laptop (which is Windows 7, but with Aero disabled); and it doesn't even look as good as Civ 3 (let alone 4)! I think it's a matter of bad artistic design... although even bad artistic design doesn't explain why the game has late-1990s-level lag in loading ground textures.
    Expand
  24. Oct 20, 2010
    6
    This new game lack of in-depth which Civ IV has. I am quite disappointed. There are less systems and civilizations to play with.

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


    This game is mediocre and didn't live up with the hype. I hope they will do better on the next expansion.
    Expand
  25. Nov 5, 2010
    3
    The game is hardly a successor in the great line of Civilization games. Unlike its predecessors, it fails to build upon what was already established. Many concepts, such as religion and espionage, have been eliminated from the game. As a stand alone game, like Civilization Revolution, it could be considered a great game. Perhaps the "V" designating it as the 5th installment was a poor marketing decision. A unique game name should've been applied, for example "Civilization: Reborn" or something like that. That would've indicated to us experienced Civilization gamers that the game is totally different and to expect big changes. Expand
  26. Nov 30, 2011
    3
    I had high expectations for Civilization V especially after reading some glaring critic reviews. The first hours of gaming I was happy and excited about the game just like most reviewers. After that the serious flaws in AI combat abilities, unfinished UI, bad performance and boring late (modern age) gameplay shocked me with thousand volts.
    All the previous games in Civilization series I
    played for months after release and often came back after a break for a game or two. With Civilization V I only played two full games to the end and one unfinished then it was time to shelf the game.
    It's obvious that simple patches or DLC's can't fix the game. It needs serious overhaul in so many aspects. Civilization V could have been so much better if all the new features had been implemented properly.
    Expand
  27. Sep 26, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The short of it is: if you have, and like Civ IV BTS, then don't bother. The only people who don't think that this is major dumbing down of the series obviously just don't 'get' strategy games. I've played through two full games now, one marathon and one normal. I like to play Huge, Marathon, Earth maps because of the 'epic' feel. this virtually can't be done on CIV V. Marathon is simply too slow (my rig exceeds recommended specs and hasn't crashed once). City-states make ridiculous demands eg "build a road to my town (on the other side of the planet) and they get really old really fast. On normal it was a bit better, except there's no way of telling if your neighbours are happy with you, so it's easy to descend into bloodshed if you're not disciplined. The end screens on Civ IV were short little movie, depending on which victory you attained. Civ V doesn't even have this - it's more like a "Conglaturation!, you have completed a great game" screen, and that's it. Combat is better, but the dumbing down of naval invasions means it's really easy to snatch the enemy's capital from sea. Capture all the enemy capitals and you win the game. That is of course if your units don't get lost on the way. Civ V has a really annoying habit of 'losing' units. it's a bit like the Total War series, where you have the remember where your units are. Not cool if you come back to a game after a long break. Likewise their "goto" commands break when they embark, often leading to a huge build up of units on the wrong coast. Aerial combat isn't much better, animations for the planes don't play properly. The ranges of combat missions aren't clear. etc etc. It just doesn't 'feel' epic anymore.
    I'll be looking forward to the first patch for this game and expansion, but at the moment my advice is to steer clear, definitely not worth the $$$
    Expand
  28. Oct 1, 2010
    4
    Disappointing and flawed. Another rush job for these modern times.

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

    They are counting on you to beta test their product for them. Deny them that privilege.
  29. Oct 3, 2010
    3
    This is a franchise that has lost it's way. Civ2 is perhaps my all time fav game, I am no hater. Civ5 is a piece of bloatware that has lost it's focus.

    Perhaps the developers felt that it was not commercially viable to release a 2D game, but the 3D characters do not serve the core vision of what the game is, they detract from it and limit the potential audience. I have an 8 core PC, why
    does it take up to 25 seconds to go to complete a turn?

    I will not nit pick individual decisions I feel were poor; which there were plenty of. But central core things, like the interface, are extremely lacking. The interface is a complete unreadable mess as you progress. Civ is a game about dealing with data, so why is it getting harder and harder to view and manage the data in these games?

    The user experience at the time the game should be the most fun (lots of cities, lots going on) is a complete, barely usable mess, and the game grinds to a halt.

    I don't need 3d animated flocking swarms of fish on the map, I will take a fun game and an easily readable fish icon.
    Expand
  30. Oct 3, 2010
    3
    man you killed my one and only fav strategy game ..... sid why you have done this ? have you got some threatening mails from your publisher to make the game as simple as possible so the majority can play it ? i cant group my armies anymore , already this small point destroyed my whole love that i had for this game. sid i think its time for you to find some new franchise , you should have quit this franchise when it was still good enough. im deinstalling it and i play civ 4 again. Expand
Metascore
90

Universal acclaim - based on 70 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 70
  2. Negative: 0 out of 70
  1. Apr 3, 2011
    90
    Despite my gripe with the animations in multiplayer, Civilization V is the perfect entry for the series' debut in the current generation of gaming.
  2. Jan 20, 2011
    80
    We're just a little bit disappointed that this Civ evolution isn't as polished as we'd expected. [Issue#102, p.108]
  3. Jan 15, 2011
    80
    An old franchise that knows who to evolve to adapt to modern times. Its latest new ideas might not be perfect, but serve the purpose of making the game even more interesting.