Battles of Prince of Persia

1. DavidH.

   Feb 1, 2006

   9

   You can't really knock a game for trying to be creative. I think it's a nice change. Sure it could have been better, but with the You can't really knock a game for trying to be creative. I think it's a nice change. Sure it could have been better, but with the graphical limitations of the DS, what more could they really have done? A 3D game just wouldn't look nice. I thought this was a creative way to get around that.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
2. [Anonymous]

   Dec 8, 2005

   8

   Not bad, not great, but if you like the idea of a strategy game driven by the cards you play, it's actually pretty good. I don't Not bad, not great, but if you like the idea of a strategy game driven by the cards you play, it's actually pretty good. I don't know why everyone is knocking this without playing it. It's actually a pretty novel game. I've only played the first 3 levels but so-far it's quite entertaining. Sure, UBI maybe wanted someting to compete with PSP MG-AC!D, but this game is unique by itself. First it is a 2D game set in the PoP universe between PoP-SoT and PoP-WW. It fills the gap in the story. Pretty cool by itself - enough said, but keep in mind there is some text to read because it is a good story driven game. The gameplay is typical of a strategy wargame, moving troops around and making attacks. The kicker with this game is that your genergal can only give so many orders per turn based on the number on the card played for that turn. You have to think seriously about how many troops you want to move so you don't run out of cards depending on how you've built your card deck. There are also other cards besides order cards that have special effects for your troops or magical attacks. This game is not just another MTG or Yu-gi-oh wanna be, it's someting totally hybrid. The battles are structured on a triangle strength system like from Fire Emblem where swords>archers, archers>pikes, pikes>swords. Control-wise I thought the game was easy to pick up with a low learning curve. The game makes good use of the touch-screen in a meaningful way as most of your control can be done there. This makes moving troops, playing cards, and organizing your deck easier. The graphics are a little weak, but they are done in a charming PoP style. The battle animation gets repetitive unless your doing magical or special attacks, but you can disable it. The sound is good and the music fits the PoP game perfectly. Value-wise, I wish the game had wi-fi play, but the multiplayer options seem good as there is hot-seat with on cartridge. I haven't tried this myself yet, and you can also trade cards via wireless-link. Tilt-wise, I'm gonna reccomend this game to anyone who likes card-based games. Furthermore, if you like strategy war games this one may be for you. There are 9 generals to choose from (3 Persia, 3 India, 3 Daeva) and they all have different traits from melee, ranged, and magic combat. There are also many different strength and different abilty units, with like 200 cards to collect... And it's a strategy game so it's different every time you play due to the computer AI, which seems pretty decent so far. Sure the game's a little different from other turn-based games you're use to (Advance Wars) but it is very unique and something different. If you like card collecting and games that are driven by a good story that you have control over through strategic battles, then at least rent BoPoP to try it out. C'mon people, give it a chance!… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
4. ninjaguy454

   Feb 14, 2021

   8

   There are a variety of words I could use to describe this game. Unique, weird, interesting, addicting, gimmicky, easy. I think each could beThere are a variety of words I could use to describe this game. Unique, weird, interesting, addicting, gimmicky, easy. I think each could be applied based on what someone is looking to get out of it.
   
   I visited this title 16 years after its release. When I first stumbled upon it, I figured it was something that came out towards the end of the brand's life, somewhere around or after 2010, maybe trying to cash in on the movie. The fact that it came out 5 years prior, at the beginning of the NDS lifespan leveraged it more leeway from me.
   
   Looking back at the old critic and user reviews it seems as though this was a rather unexpected release for the series. Something that's more of a tie-in spin-off game, as opposed to an adaptation like Sands of Time for the GBA.
   
   To be fair, who could expect a turn-based strategy game with a couple of twists. Going into it, I certainly didn't expect it, and I immediately became hypercritical... that was until I played the game.
   
   The gameplay is by no means perfect. It has an 'Advanced Wars' sort of vibe with the familiar Prince of Persia skin pasted over it. I've heard people describe card-game elements about it, but really this extends to the fact that you give orders via a set of dealt playable cards out of a customizable deck.
   The cards can provide buffs to your troops and/or debuffs to enemies with a fair variety and a wide selection of options to choose from. I think it adds more to diversify the combat and works you to be more strategic with more limited options. Although it does add a degree of RNG, I haven't found even the ultra-rare cards to have a game-altering effect where I might've won where I would've lost or vise versa. But that was solely during the single-player campaign, I'm not sure how it would affect multiplayer.
   
   Overall, I found the gameplay is very addicting, but there are a few concerns or complaints I have about it:
   - First, disable the battle animations.
   Although they're fun to look at, I found them to be too slow and they add little to the gameplay.
   
   - Second, the campaign felt very easy. Although I had a fun time playing through it, I didn't lose a single scenario and I can't determine if that was due to the poor AI or perhaps just some tilted stats in the player's favor.
   
   - Lastly, I don't care much for the controls. This was kind of a key giveaway the game was developed early in the console's lifespan (or that I hoped it was). The controls felt like they may have made more sense on a PC, where you have to use the DPAD to cycle through units and choose whether you want to move your view with the stylus. The way the camera moves isn't done via dragging akin to how you navigate a browser sayyy on a smartphone. Moving the stylus instead moves the camera based on which edge of the screen you move it towards. Akin to a strategy game on PC.
   
   The game did hook me and I would recommend checking it out if you can. I'd love to check out the multiplayer if I could. This is definitely a weird take on the franchise, but I think it has a niche and can definitely occupy someone else who enjoys the genre for a solid 10-20 hours at least.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
5. GarrettG.

   Jan 26, 2006

   5

   I think you should control one person and once you die be a different person in an army.It should be 3D.

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
6. Anonymous

   Jul 8, 2007

   5

   It's a very deep, well-thought out game. The only thing that lets it down is brain-dead AI. If they improved that, then I might have It's a very deep, well-thought out game. The only thing that lets it down is brain-dead AI. If they improved that, then I might have played through all the skirmish maps to unlock all the cards, and for fun. However, after beating the campaign, I was bored of the game because it was impossible to lose.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
7. JasonT.

   Dec 10, 2005

   3

   While the game has many new and unique ideas, the implementation falls short. The use of only a stylus for most of the controls bogs the game While the game has many new and unique ideas, the implementation falls short. The use of only a stylus for most of the controls bogs the game down, and looking around the map while seeing if any of your units are being targeted is horribly complicated. The graphics are minimal, and most of the time it's like watching a chess game where you can only see a quarter of the board. While the card system is a neat idea, and I like that you can get new cards at the end of each battle, The effects of those cards are hard to see, and often will leave you guessing as to what happened. The deck edit is also not very well done, and though you can have three different decks, I beat the game with minimal edit to one. The gameplay overall is novel at first, but after time seems to drag on. and on. This game needed smaller maps, better controls, and a tweaking of the deck edit program to be successful. If you like the story line, then play it for a laugh, but don't buy it.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
8. EremitaJ

   Aug 4, 2014

   3

   Okay, so let's grab an action game and make an estrategy game out of it. Makes perfect sense, yeah. Oh wait NO IT DOES NOT. Well, I admit I'mOkay, so let's grab an action game and make an estrategy game out of it. Makes perfect sense, yeah. Oh wait NO IT DOES NOT. Well, I admit I'm not kind to strategy games, but come on! It's like making a fighting game of a series of games based around puzzles. I can picture it: PROFESSOR LAYTON VS STREET FIGHTER 4 ULTRA RECHARGED LIMITED EDITION.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful

See all 8 User Reviews