Civilization is an interesting world-building game. While this iteration is certainly simplified by comparison to its younger predecessors, in some ways there’s something about the simplification that makes for a great afternoon. Hours of my time have been spent moving my little marionettes over water, land, and air, my workers toiling to make strangely anachronistic farms, while my cities flourish with their uniquely styled buttresses. Each game is a bit race, a lot of patience, and ultimately, a vast ocean of thought.
Perhaps what is truly great about Civilization V, like its predecessors, is the interaction with the unknown. It’s somewhat impossible to know what will or won’t work oftentimes, so experimentation is one of the more welcome changes, even if it might hurt your actual production later on down the road. The secret to success seems to lie in changing your strategy up in steps, which gives the game a nice even flow in terms of progression.
Sometimes, admittedly, the game can seem to have lulls where not a lot is going on, but this largely seems to result from the fact that automation is far greater than any of the past games, and to be honest the profiling seems to work rather well at accomplishing the goals set out. Alternatively, what might be just as lulling is its minimalism. The game is, while distinct and beautiful, not quite as lush and beautified as strategy games like Anno 1404.
The play in the game is admittedly a bit awkward, with the computers generally being rather odd characters, and seem to have less personality than they had in their predecessor. In a sense, the normalization has also helped the player grasp the rules without the need for a help screen, but in some ways that was what made the past Civilization games so great–the requisite knowledge to play effectively.
A rather interesting change is the ways in which the possible victory scenarios seem to evolve as play continues. The actual goals themselves are rather immediate, and certain play types are, for obvious reasons, likely to favor one form of victory over another. For example, small group city play largely encourages using things other than warfare, while open, expansionist city play prefers the opposite. While it’s technically possible, to win by military might even with the one city challenge, the task on all but the smaller maps becomes somewhat monumental, due to the nature of the AI.
The AI is perhaps what is tellingly troubling in the game. The AI doesn’t really get better on harder difficulties, it just gets more inherent advantages, allowing it to outpace your production. This is obviously blatantly unfair, but the coding of the AI doesn’t seem well enough aware of itself to really call it a bad decision. The AI is almost always making simple, easily readable decisions.
That, sadly is the game’s strength and its weakness, as the player progresses, they will take advantage and make the game somewhat less fun over long playtimes.
Recommended: Yes