CivCity: Rome PC

Metascore
67

Mixed or average reviews - based on 46 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 46
  2. Negative: 2 out of 46
Buy On
  1. While there is an addictive quality to the game, the bugs and bizarre behavior of your citizens can sometimes pull the game into the realm of frustration instead of enjoyment.
  2. It’s easy to use and understand menus and information pages make for fun gameplay and quick results when you know what to change to improve your citizen’s lives.
  3. No franchise was built in a day, and I’m afraid it might take another installment before CivCity Rome lives up to its potential.
  4. Younger gamers will enjoy the Roman atmosphere and fairly easy game play and there are enough features and variety in CivCity: Rome to make it a good addition to any strategy game collection.
  5. 70
    An enjoyable variation on city-builders, and it certainly makes for a pleasant trip down memory lane for Caesar fans like me. The problem is, the game's flaws will keep it from being little more than a nine-day wonder on players' hard drives.
  6. A more challenging economic system would add a lot to the game and make it more replay-friendly. But as a step up from a lightweight like Glory of the Roman Empire, CivCity is engrossing enough to command a couple weeks of play time.
  7. An overly structured Campaign mode, and a directionless sandbox experience, help to bog the game down with bland gameplay and future of (dare we suggest) possible mediocrity.
  8. games(TM)
    70
    Genuinely offers something new to a genre whose form is now long established. [Sept 2006, p.110]
  9. CivCity follows an old model for a city builder. If you are a fan of the Pharaoh series, you may find a home here with CivCity: Rome. It focuses around the economy rather than any type of military action.
  10. Roughly equal parts frustration and stupidly compelling gameplay.
  11. The biggest problems with CivCity: Rome, however, lie in its numerous bugs and terrible camera.
  12. Overall CivCity feels unbalanced and rather short for a game of this genre.
  13. Despite a few new twists to the core gameplay, its middling graphics and its lacking features drag it down from what could have been a must buy for fans of ancient era city builders to yet another game that fails to advance the genre in any real and meaningful way.
  14. CivCity: Rome fails to capture the glory of Rome or of the Civilization series of games.
  15. CivCity: Rome could have been a classic, but it wound up just another city builder.
  16. Considering the game is too dissimilar to appeal to Civ fans, too simplistic to appeal to SimCity veterans and too bland to appeal to gamers looking for a Roman epic, it’s tricky to pinpoint who exactly will want to buy CivCity: Rome. It’s not irredeemably broken, but it is repetitive and a little on the dull side.
  17. Sadly, its similarity to earlier titles and it's somewhat mechanical game play, this one gets a Fans Only for fans of city sims and fans of all things ancient or ancient Roman.
  18. PC Gamer UK
    65
    Worst of all is its absense of an Undo function. [Aug 2006, p.78]
  19. 63
    Untrustworthy artificial intelligence, hit and miss land plots for resources and graphics, though charming, that we're no longer all that impressed with are all quite substantial disappointments. There's enough here for authentic Roman wanabees, but for everyone else it's a case of been there, done that, bought and outgrown the t-shirt.
  20. A Civilization-branded carbon copy of other games in the city building genre, CivCity: Rome has a few too many flaws to justify purchase over its competition.
  21. Mission objectives lack imagination, and after constructing several cities the game can feel repetitive and formulaic.
  22. The bottom line is Rome loses its fun sometime around the ten-hour mark of the campaign.
  23. AceGamez
    60
    Problems like the poor camera angle and dated graphics are sure to put off a lot of gamers, while feeling like a clone of Caesar will probably dissuade most fans of city builders from getting properly into the game.
  24. While the graphics impress and the inhabitants all go about their business with a smooth efficiency, the game makes too many demands to maintain interest. Worse, there are few moments in the game that don’t awaken a feeling of déjà vu.
  25. While it's not nearly as deep as you'd expect for a game with the Firaxis seal of approval on it in terms of features or gameplay, CivCity Rome manages to provide a significant level of entertainment, despite its obvious and glaring faults.
  26. A passable enough way to while away the rainy summer evenings. But remember, there is much more to discover outside these lacklustre city walls.
  27. A basic city building game is joined with simple combat, trading, and research. CivCity Rome is very plain and not very fun to play.
  28. Computer Games Magazine
    50
    No wonder the actual Romans threw up walls. [Nov. 2006, p.74]
  29. 50
    Too hard for novices, too repetitive for veterans, and too silly for warmongers, CivCity Rome falls into the netherworld of games that you wished you could've liked more.
  30. We'd like to apologise to Sid Meier - this game, while not terrible, has sullied your good name and brand. Our only suggestion is to never let someone else make a game for you and to make sure the inevitable next game in the franchise explores a less familiar environ and period.
  31. 50
    It becomes especially maddening when you're trying to navigate a heavily developed city where one errant mouse click can banish an otherwise productive structure to the ether.
  32. 50
    Probably one of the most unimaginative titles branded with the Civilization name.
User Score
6.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 30 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 6
  2. Negative: 2 out of 6
  1. Dec 27, 2010
    2
    This game reminds me of Caesar III but with slightly better graphics, that do not make up for the lack of game-play. Let me say that CaesarThis game reminds me of Caesar III but with slightly better graphics, that do not make up for the lack of game-play. Let me say that Caesar III was more fun for game-play. This game was worth the 99cents i paid and I am glad i did not pay anymore. Full Review »
  2. DevinFore
    Jun 1, 2008
    6
    Its a good game, but the people are a little small and i find myself straining my eyes even in full zoom to get a clear picture of just one ofIts a good game, but the people are a little small and i find myself straining my eyes even in full zoom to get a clear picture of just one of the people. Its fun for the first hour or 2 but then it just gets boring. the only fun part is when the enemys come to ur city Full Review »
  3. KalmanK.
    Sep 26, 2007
    4
    I am truly sorry for this game. I loved Firefly's Stronghold, but lately, they have no luck with 3d engines. This game is plain ugly, so I am truly sorry for this game. I loved Firefly's Stronghold, but lately, they have no luck with 3d engines. This game is plain ugly, so if you are looking for a citybuilder with an atmosphere, look someplace else. Also, the game was prone to totally freeze up, forcing me to push the reset button (I dont know the last time when a game did this to my machine but it was loooong ago) And the 3-4 min loading time BEFORE the main menu? It is a joke right? For the economy sim part, I cant say good or bad neither. Simply could not play long enough to appriceate it. After the fifth city (and third freeze) I uninstalled the game. A very bad place to put 40 bucks, all I say. Full Review »