- Publisher: Ubisoft
- Release Date: Aug 29, 2017
User Score
Generally favorable reviews- based on 1333 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 1,085 out of 1333
-
Mixed: 158 out of 1333
-
Negative: 90 out of 1333
Buy Now
Review this game
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- By date
- Most helpful
There are no user reviews yet - Be first to review Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle.
Awards & Rankings
-
Aug 23, 2018Overall, Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle brings a welcome shot of vitality to the turn-based strategy genre thanks to interesting team mechanics and a colorful Nintendo theme that sets it apart from its contemporaries. Taking one of the biggest IPs in the world and marrying it to an all new type of gameplay was a huge risk that paid off wonderfully, and I’m glad that it finally found its way to my Switch. Now, bring me a sequel with a couple of needed improvements and 100% fewer rabbids, and we’re in business…
-
Jan 19, 2018Mario + Rabbids is an incredibly welcome surprise. I assumed that a game starring Rabbids would become grating long before completion, but my fears turned out to be unsubstantiated. Beep-0 is a great lead character, and the Rabbids' hijinks are dialed back to a level that works. This is a fun take on a tactical RPG; the simplification of hit percentages worked especially well. The game isn't without fault — greater variety in characters and levels along with more meaningful customization would be welcome — but most of the issues are minor in comparison to how much fun the game is to play. Hopefully Mario + Rabbids marks the beginning of a new series and a sequel will take these ideas further.
-
CD-ActionNov 16, 2017Ubisoft acquired Nintendo’s license, added some Rabbids in the mix and entrusted the game to its Italian studio that never developed any large game on its own. What’s more, neither the studio nor both IPs had anything to do with tactical games. I still don’t understand how Kingdom Battle turned out so good. [11/2017, p.46]