Shadow of Rome
Reception
Reception
---------

*Shadow of Rome* received "generally favorable reviews". It holds an aggregate score of 75 out of 100 on [Metacritic](/wiki/Metacritic "Metacritic"), based on fifty\-two reviews.

*[Eurogamer](/wiki/Eurogamer "Eurogamer")*s Kristan Reed scored the game 6 out of 10, calling it "one of those frustrating 'nearly' games that could and should have been brilliant." He praised the concept of mixing two gameplay styles; "it would be easy to get stuck in a rut as a gaming experience if you were constantly engaged in a blistering hack\-and\-slash the whole time. Likewise, a pure stealth experience would soon feel restrictive and frustrating." However, he felt the stealth sections were underdeveloped, arguing "they're just never that enjoyable on a basic level," and calling them "tedious, exacting, basic and inconsistent." However, he was also critical of the action sections, calling them "blister inducing," and arguing "the same tactics get you through every time." He ultimately concluded "there's something oddly soulless about \[the game]."

*[GameRevolution](/wiki/GameRevolution "GameRevolution")*s Joe Dodson scored the game a C, arguing the mixing of gameplay styles was poorly executed; "Most games include stealth and action mechanics so that the player can choose how to approach a situation, but in *Shadow of Rome*, Octavianus cannot fight at all and Agrippa is about as stealthy as a hippo on [PCP](/wiki/Phencyclidine "Phencyclidine")." He also found the combat system shallow; "Agrippa's gameplay heavily relies on the X button. There are all sorts of special names for the crazy stuff he can do, but most of it requires one button press." He concluded, "despite its grandiose subject matter, *Shadow of Rome* is merely a bad stealth game chained to a limited action game."

[GameSpy](/wiki/GameSpy "GameSpy")'s Bryn Williams scored the game 3\.5 out of 5, writing it "oozes potential but ultimately fails to deliver greatness." He called the stealth levels "distinctly bland, and above all else, poorly designed." He was also critical of the [voice acting](/wiki/Voice_acting "Voice acting") and the [cutscenes](/wiki/Cutscene "Cutscene"), and concluded "the overall theme and premise of *Shadow of Rome* ends up coming across as a missed opportunity for gaming greatness. The pacing is thrown out of whack on a regular basis due to the crippled stealth elements."

*[IGN](/wiki/IGN "IGN")*s Ed Lewis scored it 7\.6 out of 10, calling the action sections "pretty damn satisfying." However, although he didn't dislike the stealth sections, he felt "neither side of the game \[...] is complex enough or \[has] enough detail to make them something to want to dig into." He concluded, "put both these elements of the game together and the result is the equivalent of a summer action flick with a decent plot."

*[GameSpot](/wiki/GameSpot "GameSpot")*s Greg Kasavin scored the game 8\.2 out of 10, praising the "intriguing storyline and great\-looking cinematic cutscenes." He felt it "successfully combines two distinctly different types of gameplay \[...] Feature for feature, there's nothing hugely original about *Shadow of Rome*, but its combination of different elements is definitely unique, its characters are expressive and fun to watch, and the quality of its presentation is right up there with the best of what the PlayStation 2 has to offer." He concluded "*Shadow of Rome* offers some of the best hack\-and\-slash combat out there and wraps it up in an interesting story that puts an original spin on the whole Julius Caesar\-getting\-murdered thing. It's also got plenty of gameplay variety to keep you motivated from start to finish, and it's always pretty to look at."


Would it have been better to focus on one type of gameplay?