Battles of Prince of Persia

 DS
  • Publisher: Ubisoft
  • Release Date: Dec 6, 2005
Metascore
64

Mixed or average reviews - based on 16 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 16
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 16
  3. Negative: 2 out of 16
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. GameSpot
    74
    Underneath its modest looks and intimidating, complex battle system is a turn-based strategy game that is surprisingly fun and satisfying.
  2. GameSpy
    70
    Battles isn't as multifaceted as Advance Wars, nor does it convey the fairy-tale personality of its console cousins, but we encourage you to look past the plain façade: there's some unexpectedly engaging gameplay buried under it.
  3. PALGN
    70
    If you don't like the genre, this won't convert you, but for those who are hooked on turn based battles, this will fit the bill nicely.
  5. Universo Nintendo
    70
    Players who have been waiting for an adventure similar to "Sands of Time" may be disappointed with Battles of Prince of Persia, but strategy game fans will have fun. Ubisoft made a great adaptation to a genre totally different from the original and deserves more credit for this.
  6. Nintendo Power
    65
    It holds its own in a number of ways; it will serve fans of tactics and card-collecting games well. [Feb 2006, p.100]
    All this publication's reviews
  7. Computer Games Magazine
    60
    It’s all in the cards. Play the campaign to earn them and then use them to build your decks. [Mar 2006, p.91]
    All this publication's reviews
  8. IGN
    55
    Rather than delivering a solid title full of familiar gameplay an alternate route was taken. While it does have a few moments of entertainment, there just aren’t enough reasons to invest time and money into this product.
  9. NintendoWorldReport
    55
    Though the game's stylus-based controls are tight, and for a while seems to offer a nice distraction, it soon becomes a chore to pick it up at all. With little story incentive and no hope for variety, you probably won't make it past the halfway mark.
  10. Edge Magazine
    50
    At worst, it feels like a hollow exercise in brand extension, a game where the brand itself is utilised to provide a recognisable veneer, and nothing more. It’s an amiable but unremarkable card-battling title, a robust but unspectacular game. [Feb 2006, p.93]
    All this publication's reviews

Awards & Rankings

44
#44 Best DS Game of 2005
35
#35 Most Discussed DS Game of 2005
31
#31 Most Shared DS Game of 2005

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 17 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 17
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 17
  3. Negative: 2 out of 17
  1. 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.    … Full Review »
  2. 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.… Full Review »
  3. 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.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »