Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 14
  2. Negative: 3 out of 14
  1. Like "Gladiator," Legion is so epic, engrossing, and downright fun that you overlook its shortcomings and simply have a great time, time after time. [Sept 2002, p.84]
  2. 78
    Historical shakiness aside, Legion offers some addictive gameplay, but doesn't quite rise to the glory of Rome.
  3. Legion’s quick fire, shallow approach may deter those who prefer to build a nation, and will no doubt not appeal to the hardcore strategists who look for something with a little more depth. However, for those looking for a fast paced strategy game will appreciate what Legion has to offer.
  4. A mindlessly entertaining strategy doesn’t break any new ground, and it becomes somewhat repetitive in a short amount of time.
  5. A good strategy game doesn't depend on graphics like some games, but instead needs depth of play that engrosses players for hours without micromanaging them to death.
  6. It has all the form of a great epic game but when put to the test, misses the chance to capture victory.
  7. I have to admit that this simplicity also makes it highly playable… I simply couldn't stop playing it until I conquered Britain, and that took me some time.
  8. If you're looking for a challenge or an in-depth game covering the Roman Empire, you might want to look elsewhere.
  9. A paper-thin manual "beer and pretzels" strategy game set during the age of Rome. [Sept 2002, p.82]
  10. Legion isn't so much a bad game as it is a rather dull one that doesn't quite know what it wants to be.
  11. No matter how much extra strategy you put on top of this combat system (as it is, not much), or how convoluted the maps and puzzles (they’re not) you are still going to be stuck with a fundamental flaw in the fact that the in-game fighting just ain’t fun.
  12. 40
    There's just nothing interesting in the dynamic of a snowballing collection of cities spitting out poorly distinguished armies that you can shunt into non-interactive battles to conquer generic enemies on an irrelevant map.
  13. While the developers have done a good job of crafting a simplistic strategy game, it lacks the depth that most players require today.
  14. The battles are pretty damn chaotic. They're also devoid of fun, have little rhyme or reason, and often leave you with no idea why you won or lost. [Oct 2002, p.97]
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 8 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 2
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 2
  3. Negative: 2 out of 2
  1. Apr 11, 2013
    When I picked up this game at a "discount" recently (5 dollars off the original price when it was first released) I was hoping it was going to be a competitive release to Rome: Total War. I couldn't be more wrong. This ancient "strategy" game makes it frustrating for one to control numbers of soldiers of any significant size, and it fails miserably at presenting ancient warfare in any realistic manner. Roman legions are given commands moving about in mobs and not in any orderly fashion whatsoever, representing barbarians more than any type of a civilized empire. Now I have the problem of trying to sell this title knowing that I wont get even a quarter of the price I paid for it. Boy, did I screw up! The game is a let down, but the cover looks cool!
    Full Review »
  2. Apr 16, 2013
    A micro-management nightmare, is putting it lightly. This game needs an update, badly. I got lost first in the complex HUD with tiny print and difficult controls. Hotkeys are difficult to remember and out of place for this sort of game, while the tactics of the game are non-existent. Full Review »