• Publisher: Ubisoft
  • Release Date: Dec 6, 2005
Metascore
64

Mixed or average reviews - based on 16 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 16
  2. Negative: 2 out of 16
  1. Underneath its modest looks and intimidating, complex battle system is a turn-based strategy game that is surprisingly fun and satisfying.
  2. 70
    Battles 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.
  3. 70
    If 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.
  4. Players 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.
  5. It holds its own in a number of ways; it will serve fans of tactics and card-collecting games well. [Feb 2006, p.100]
  6. It’s all in the cards. Play the campaign to earn them and then use them to build your decks. [Mar 2006, p.91]
  7. 55
    Rather 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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]
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 14 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 7
  2. Negative: 2 out of 7
  1. Aug 4, 2014
    3
    Okay, so let's grab an action game and make an estrategy game out of it. Makes perfect sense, yeah. Oh wait NO IT DOES NOT. Well, I admit I'mOkay, so let's grab an action game and make an estrategy game out of it. Makes perfect sense, yeah. Oh wait NO IT DOES NOT. Well, I admit I'm not kind to strategy games, but come on! It's like making a fighting game of a series of games based around puzzles. I can picture it: PROFESSOR LAYTON VS STREET FIGHTER 4 ULTRA RECHARGED LIMITED EDITION. Full Review »
  2. Anonymous
    Jul 8, 2007
    5
    It's a very deep, well-thought out game. The only thing that lets it down is brain-dead AI. If they improved that, then I might have It's a very deep, well-thought out game. The only thing that lets it down is brain-dead AI. If they improved that, then I might have played through all the skirmish maps to unlock all the cards, and for fun. However, after beating the campaign, I was bored of the game because it was impossible to lose. Full Review »
  3. DavidH.
    Feb 1, 2006
    9
    You can't really knock a game for trying to be creative. I think it's a nice change. Sure it could have been better, but with the You can't really knock a game for trying to be creative. I think it's a nice change. Sure it could have been better, but with the graphical limitations of the DS, what more could they really have done? A 3D game just wouldn't look nice. I thought this was a creative way to get around that. Full Review »