Metascore
72

Mixed or average reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 18
  2. Negative: 0 out of 18
  1. Grand Ages: Rome is yet another generic city-builder set in ancient Rome.
  2. Grand Ages: Rome is a decent game that doesn't try very hard to break out of the city-building mold. Instead it fits comfortably in the age old staples of the genre. The only good thing about this is the developers laid a good foundation for them to work with on the inevitable sequel, which will hopefully come up with something new and really make this game break out.
  3. Throwing in the massively upgraded engine, which makes the game look even more luscious than before the game could hardly be better, and with music that suits both the period and manages to be both pleasant and doesn't distract from the game, this can only be hailed as a massive success.
  4. It’s a big, polished and fulfilling game and we were impressed by the slick HUD and the right-click radial construction menu, which facilitates a sophisticated economic system. There’s plenty of replay value, fourplayer multiplayer and an editor to boot, too.
  5. Despite some glaring issues with this game I still enjoyed it immensely. It's fun, addictive and relaxing.
  6. The game as a whole is really well done, so Grand Ages: Rome is really worth to play.
  7. An expansive campaign, numerous multiplayer options, and excellently varied mission goals give this title a lot of mileage.
  8. The motivating RPG part, the good graphics and the family revenge story make Grand Ages: Rome a real competitor to "Caesar 4."
  9. The developers seem to have learned from their previous mistakes and have implemented some rather extreme but useful changes into Grand Ages: Rome. In technical respects the game may convince, although the user friendliness would still need some improvement. However, for those interested in this kind of game Grand Ages: Rome is a good choice nevertheless.
  10. Looks like Rome was ahead of its time: raw materials weren't transported, they were teleported. At least that's what happens in Grand Ages: Rome, because the focus of the game is not on building effective transportation. Instead you need to build an efficient economy. This can be quite motivating if you enjoy being rewarded for your city planning.
  11. If Grand Ages: Rome had been a real time strategy, it would have had a lot more value. But, seeing as it lacks the adrenaline, we are left yearning for details, for culturally and historically correct references, or for the magic of ancient lives.
  12. 70
    It might not add anything new to the genre but it's still reasonably entertaining, especially if you're keen on the period it's set in.
  13. 68
    Grand Ages: Rome is an enjoyable game, but if you've played any of the other city-builders that have come along in the last ten years, you'll quickly grow bored of this one.
  14. Grand Ages: Rome will win no prizes for cleverness or originality, though the military subgame is better than we are used to in this genre. It is mostly a surprising refinement in a series that has been mostly bland and pointless.
  15. You can turn yourself into the ruler of an ancient city who manages every single detail to make his city grow and prosper. If the devs improve their battle system we have here a quite promising new strategy game. [Mar 2009]
  16. Mildly engaging. [May 2009, p.97]
  17. Its worst sin is simply being too ordinary. [May 2009, p.71]
  18. To say that the game is shallow would be harsh, but it certainly doesn't plumb the potential depths of the period, and while it has multiplayer I can't see it having much longevity. [May 2009, p.77]
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 39 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 12
  2. Negative: 0 out of 12
  1. SeanB
    Mar 24, 2009
    9
    This game is GORGEOUS! The graphics are so nice. Rich textures and lighting. A stylish depth of field that is used at screenshot style This game is GORGEOUS! The graphics are so nice. Rich textures and lighting. A stylish depth of field that is used at screenshot style angles. The transport system was simplified to nothing. You now focus on where things are and less on how it gets there. This means you can build a gorgeous city that most City-sims wouldn't allow due to the rules of movement. It is easy to do any basic task, with a stream-lined and sensible interface. It allows the player to focus on the grand goal of building a city and crushing the barbarians that threaten good Roman citizens. Full Review »
  2. ChrisThomas
    Aug 14, 2009
    8
    I would say 8.5. the thing this game lacks is re playability. you could say it has it because of the fact you can choose a different family toI would say 8.5. the thing this game lacks is re playability. you could say it has it because of the fact you can choose a different family to play as. But the missions themselves are the same. The multiplayer from what I have seen has died off fairly fast. The only way to get a match is to auto find one which makes getting to play certain maps and match types impossible. Having more playable factions should be their next step when they either make an expansion for this game or create Grand Ages 2. Overall its a great game with good graphics, in-depth storyline, decent multiplayer when it first came out ( as said before somewhat dead now ), and a half decent combat system although outdated still offers some strategy and offers a good spectacle to watch when you play a 2v2 and each sides has a good amount of units. Overall its a good game any city-building fanatic should try, Not the best but certainly the best thing for this specific time period and settings so far. Price is a tad bit high though it should be lowered to 30$ in the US. Full Review »
  3. Mehve
    Apr 6, 2009
    8
    Not ground-breaking, but more refined than many other city-builders, with quite attractive visuals. Resource management is good, without the Not ground-breaking, but more refined than many other city-builders, with quite attractive visuals. Resource management is good, without the issue of transportation complicating things (for better or for worse). Combat is lackluster, lacking much variety or opportunities for advanced tactics, and entirely non-existent in quite a few missions. The plot has the potential to be interesting, but remains a little thin and hides most of the time. Ultimately, while this is technically an RTS, the pacing is far, FAR more Simcity than it is Starcraft. Full Review »