- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
This games intricacies are well worth the reward. [Feb 2006, p.111]
-
85The Nintendo DS shines and is probably the perfect piece of hardware for games of this type. The stylus and D-Pad compliment each other to allow players to quickly navigate the battlefield and switch between status screens.
-
81If you hate turn-based strategy and card collecting games, this probably isn't for you, no matter how big a fan of the series you are. But if you can keep an open mind, or if you really want to learn more of the Prince of Persia back story, this is a fun game that has a lot going for it.
-
76If you're thirsting for something else after playing "Advance Wars: Dual Strike," this game will easily fill your tactical appetite.
-
75The presentation could have been a little cleaner, especially with the colored box units that are present throughout entire battles, and the forced combination of touch screen and button control could be a stumbling block for some players.
-
74Underneath its modest looks and intimidating, complex battle system is a turn-based strategy game that is surprisingly fun and satisfying.
-
70If you don't like the genre, this won't convert you, but for those who are hooked on turn based battles, this will fit the bill nicely.
-
70Players who have been waiting for an adventure similar to "Sands of Time" may be disappointed with Battles of Prince of Persia, but strategy game fans will have fun. Ubisoft made a great adaptation to a genre totally different from the original and deserves more credit for this.
-
70Battles isn't as multifaceted as Advance Wars, nor does it convey the fairy-tale personality of its console cousins, but we encourage you to look past the plain façade: there's some unexpectedly engaging gameplay buried under it.
-
It holds its own in a number of ways; it will serve fans of tactics and card-collecting games well. [Feb 2006, p.100]
-
It's all in the cards. Play the campaign to earn them and then use them to build your decks. [Mar 2006, p.91]
-
55Rather than delivering a solid title full of familiar gameplay an alternate route was taken. While it does have a few moments of entertainment, there just aren't enough reasons to invest time and money into this product.
-
Though the game's stylus-based controls are tight, and for a while seems to offer a nice distraction, it soon becomes a chore to pick it up at all. With little story incentive and no hope for variety, you probably won't make it past the halfway mark.
-
At worst, it feels like a hollow exercise in brand extension, a game where the brand itself is utilised to provide a recognisable veneer, and nothing more. It's an amiable but unremarkable card-battling title, a robust but unspectacular game. [Feb 2006, p.93]
-
40Far too similar to games that are wonderful. So while it's not hideous or unplayable, it constantly reminds you of a far better game you could be playing instead.
-
40A strategic card battler that's missing out on any fun, intuitive design, or, worst of all, a point. Stick to your "Advance Wars" and leave this battlefield empty.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 3 out of 6
-
Mixed: 2 out of 6
-
Negative: 1 out of 6
-
Anonymous5
-
DavidH.9
-
GarrettG.5I think you should control one person and once you die be a different person in an army.It should be 3D.