Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 5 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 5
  2. Negative: 0 out of 5
  1. Jan 31, 2011
    60
    «Meanwhile, you'd better spend your money on something better» - we usually reserve verdicts like this for amateur-made games. It's hard to believe that this empty shell of a game was made by a team of industry veterans.
  2. Dec 23, 2010
    60
    The lack of any multiplayer at the time of release is a huge oversight. We felt it would have been nice to play a few matches against a similarly skilled human opponent in order to learn the game and ready ourselves for the campaign. We hope such functionality will be added in the future, as it would greatly enhance the overall experience.
  3. Dec 23, 2010
    55
    Guardians of Graxia is quite flawed. The gameplay tends to become painfully slow, and bugs hinder what was otherwise a decent tactical experience.
  4. 50
    Remake of the original desk card game came from veterans of Westwood Studios. Unfortunately, its magic doesn't work on the monitor as it should. [Issue#200]
  5. Feb 11, 2011
    50
    An excellent adaptation of the board game that completely forgets to include that all important social aspect. [Feb 2011, p.66]
User Score
7.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 18 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 8
  2. Negative: 3 out of 8
  1. Mar 6, 2011
    3
    This game is like most "We want to be Magic the Gathering" computer games, except for one small thing:
    The people designing it never
    This game is like most "We want to be Magic the Gathering" computer games, except for one small thing:
    The people designing it never understood that when you buy a Turn-based strategy game you want a relaxing non-stressing game compared to Real-time strategy. At first I thought "Hmm well it's just these first maps that suck hard", but then I realized there isn't a map in the game that isn't based on a time limit!! I mean omfg! the level of idiocy from the designers is baffling, and trust me: I'm gonna use this game as an example as to how most computer game designers just don't grasp who their target consumer is...
    I bought it cheep, but after the third Campaign map I was bored and annoyed. Then I tried the Custom Maps and EVERY ONE of them where at least as bad as the campaign maps.
    Don't waste your time, the hunt for the heir to HoMM3 continues elsewhere... (Note how I DON'T mention HoMM 4 and 5, since they too are examples of the above mentioned lack of grey matter from the designers)
    Full Review »
  2. Oct 12, 2012
    6
    This game was better than most people gave it credit for. Definitely enjoyable for the time I spent playing it. That being said, it was veryThis game was better than most people gave it credit for. Definitely enjoyable for the time I spent playing it. That being said, it was very underwhelming. Short campaign, no multi-player, bad ai, broken achievements, broken victory conditions, no ability to make your own decks, and no replay value. Even the expansion was almost pointless. However, if all its short comings were fixed it could form a core of a very good turn based tactics game. It just isn't there at this time. Full Review »
  3. Jul 6, 2011
    4
    A pitiful attempt at combining Magic: The Gathering with elements of the Heroes of Might and Magic series. This game fails on all fronts.A pitiful attempt at combining Magic: The Gathering with elements of the Heroes of Might and Magic series. This game fails on all fronts. Creatures are generic, unit models are ugly, and animations are woefully simple and uninspired. Don't expect any redeeming game-play either, as the Campaign is a meagre 5 scenarios, though I was thankful for it's brevity merely 3 missions in. The game also loves to throw stats and numbers around, however, any tactical element is crushed by the battle system's sheer dependency on randomly drawn cards. I purchased this game for a measly $3 on Steam, and I have to say that it wasn't worth it Full Review »