I think the considered opinion of Civ 5 is that it is poor, from a significant number of people. Others consider the game to be worthy, but there can be no doubt that many people find the game poor. I personally played the game for a few days, then stopped, and then played the Mongol scenario for a few hours before stopping playing the game entirely. I bought the rip-off deluxe edition, and quite frankly I wish I'd waited 2 years until it was balanced out, there were scenarios and maps etc available and the game was mature. However there are stacks and stacks of reviews out there giving the game not only far more credit than it is due, but going to such a degree of hyperbole that they beggar belief. "Reforged Into A Masterpiece" "wonderful addition to a classic franchise" "one of the best strategy games I have ever played" "I cannot recommend Civ V enough to fans both old and new" In fact if I go to a metacritic site (one which combines reviews for an overall picture) the industry reviews are 0 negative out of 62, while the games player reviews are 34 negative out of 95. Statistically speaking the probability of that occurring is approaching zero (and that really does mean lottery winner hit by meteorite while spontaneously combusting). So the reviews are inaccurate. Are they lying? Are Firaxis or another related company enforcing some sort of penalty on game reviewers who do not give a positive review? Are they paying for positive reviews? Are reviewers incompetents who just lift press releases?