• Publisher: Ubisoft
  • Release Date: Feb 24, 2005

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 29
  2. Negative: 5 out of 29
  1. It is almost a management sim, like "Majesty" was...and it is almost a military sim, like "Starcraft" or "Age of Mythology." But it is unique in its design and only suffers from a few design flaws.
  2. Although some of the voice acting creaks, the peasants who sound like Goon Show rejects are surprisingly entertaining.
  3. A great game for an RTS newcomer, if there are any left out there. Also good for the city-builder game fan who wants to move into RTS type games at a leisurely pace.
  4. Heritage of Kings isn’t a bad game, although it doesn’t offer a whole lot more then other resource driven real time strategies that are available.
  5. If you felt "Warcraft III" had lost some appeal due to the shift from city building to more direct fighting, then The Settlers - Heritage of Kings is the game for you. It is a tad more oriented to the management side and has a couple more upgrading and research options than the Blizzard title, so you might enjoy the base building and upgrading.
  6. 65
    The gameplay, which I had believed would be changing fairly significantly, hasn't really changed a bit. Armies are organized a tad bit differently, but combat is still elementary school strategy for dummies.
  7. Addictive and compelling are not words that would be used to describe the gameplay.
  8. It is quite satisfying to power your way through the technology developments but having to do this over and over again, loses its entertainment value.
  9. 65
    Once you've been through the process a few times, however, it gradually becomes a snooze fest.
  10. Passable, though there is not enough new to it to really recommend it, and its flaws stand out like a sore thumb.
  11. Settlers is far from awful, it's just mind-numbingly dull. Which is far, far worse.
  12. It's a bold move forward for the series, but it's ultimately a move into blandness that robs the series of much of its earlier charm.
  13. This is a huge game, but not in a good way. There simply just isn't enough action or variety to keep your attention, and the complex economic structure feels just a tad bit too complex for its own good.
  14. The maps are very detailed, which will become evident when you will use the zoom function of the camera - too bad the ambient life is pretty scarce.
  15. The graphics are good, but every other feature is just scooped up from a number of other strategy games, and spread thinly.
  16. The game is downright boring, and although it looks pretty, even gamers new to the series probably won’t find many redeeming qualities in it.
  17. If you want your strategy to lean toward "SimCity"-style social engineering, then look no further than Heritage of Kings.
  18. It's not awful. Just empty. [March 2005, p.106]
  19. Unfortunately, because there are fewer resources than in previous versions, this becomes repetitive all too quickly.
  20. Heritage of Kings unceremoniously abandons the heritage of Settlers. [May 2005, p.62]
  21. While Heritage Of Kings has taken the series in a new direction without completely uprooting itself from the settlement-crafting past, it’s not been a successful evolution. Even the most lethargic and undemanding of gamers will quickly become bored of the gambolling wildlife and labouring peasants. [March 2005, p.87]
  22. By losing virtually everything that made the Settlers unique, Blue Byte has ended up with something that - somewhat predictably - that's the same as everything else, but not as good. From an original to the photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.
  23. Worst of all, we found that picking a particularly potent crew of heroes virtually ensures victories, stealing even the element of suspense.
  24. Kings' city-building isn't deep enough for a well-functioning settlement to be its own reward, and the combat is confused and equally shallow.
  25. 40
    Think about building up the biggest, most elaborate base you can imagine in an Age of Empires game. Now imagine it takes four times as long as any other RTS game on the market. Then imagine that all this elaborate building leads up to a strategy portion that would have seemed primitive and simple back in 1997 when "Age of Empires" first came out.
  26. 40
    A solid disappointment. Fans of the series will find nothing to like here and real-time strategy gamers have plenty of better games to play.
  27. Only hardcore, completist fans of the franchise and those who play new games to relive old ones should appy here. [July 2005, p.59]
  28. The new Settlers has abandoned everything that used to make a good Settlers-game. The new direction has made the game into mediocre and dated RTS with an unappealing storyline. [May 2005, p.88]
  29. Like David Hasselhoff's singing career, Settlers is popular in Germany and just sort of barely tolerated elsewhere. [June 2005, p.96]
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 33 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 22
  2. Negative: 12 out of 22
  1. Jul 26, 2012
    First of all, it's not Settlers. I don't know why were the developers replaced the Settlers gameplay with this, because it's not so good. The campaign is boring. Very boring. The skirmish is worse. There is no AI. Yes, you read it good. There is no AI. I played on a skirmish map for nearly 1 and a half hour and then I discovered that the enemy is standing and doing nothing (like Patrick Star). Anyway the economic system is a failure too. The workers (I think they are slaves, because they don't need beds to sleep or food to eat, maybe they are aliens) are gathering resources too slow, terribly slow. This thing makes the game horribly boring. Maybe watching the wall for 2 hours is more exciting. To say something good, the graphics are pretty good. But it's not enough, because the gameplay is bad and the whole game is way too boring. A bad game, don't buy it! Full Review »
  2. Feb 11, 2011
    Not quite as bad as people make out, but not good enough to be considered a decent strategy game. Building up a city on the peaceful no fighting map is quite fun, but to play the game properly the main thing you do is look for resources, not fight battles. Worth getting if all you like doing is building up cities, although there is an irritating lack of walls to build. Full Review »
  3. Nov 25, 2010
    While this game has no real resemblance to current Settlers games or previous ones, If you view the game as its own and not as a part of a series, you will find it to be a fun, if a bit slow, RTS game. Even if you wish to build your city and not be attacked unless you want to be, theres a mission for it. I myself found this game very enjoyable. Full Review »