User Score

No user score yet- Awaiting 2 more ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 2
  2. Negative: 0 out of 2

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. Dec 5, 2013
    Although it tries to refresh the match-three formula by adding some minor RPG elements, it unfortunately fails to deliver a worthwhile experience. You have to build an entire village by buying new buildings and upgrades using all the resources and money you keep gathering by matching 3 of a kind of each. As you further progress you are rewarded by unlocking new power-ups which can be used in-game. Those upgrades could be useful if it weren't for the fact that it takes a lot of time for their meter to charge and by the time you reach the best ones you are already too tired of having played dozens of levels that really offer you no rewarding challenge.

    It's not unplayable but it's definitely one of the most monotonous games I've played in a while. You can totally skip this one without any remorse.

Mixed or average reviews - based on 20 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 20
  2. Negative: 2 out of 20
  1. Another shining example of how the simplest concept can be the most addictive. [Nov 2008, p.84]
  2. Save your sesterces for something else. [Dec 2008, p.80]
  3. In spite of its shortcomings, however, Cradle of Rome is still an oddly addictive puzzler. There’s no real city planning, the screen sensitivity wreaks all sorts of havoc during puzzles, and the presentation in strictly bare-bones.