Battle Islands

About

Battle Islands is a single player and multiplayer role playing game with a warfare theme. It was developed by DR Studios and was released on August 6, 2014. It received mostly positive reviews from players.

Battle Islands is a WWII combat strategy game set in 1942, where you build and defend your base, invade enemy islands for supplies, and deploy unique troops. The game also features challenging Campaign battles and Alliance Warfare. Join the Battle Islands community on Facebook and Twitter for updates and news.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

70%

Audience ScoreBased on 1,632 reviews

gameplay9 positive mentions

monetization8 negative mentions

Engaging gameplay with a fun WW2 setting, allowing players to capture islands, build bases, and upgrade units.
Active community support where experienced players can help newcomers.
Nostalgic for those who enjoy mobile strategy games and appreciate the casual gameplay.

Heavy reliance on microtransactions, making it difficult to progress without spending real money.
Repetitive gameplay with a lack of mission variety leading to boredom over time.
Frequent connection issues and bugs, including lost progress and account resets.

gameplay
50 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
18%
66%
16%
The gameplay has received mixed reviews, with many players criticizing it for being repetitive, tedious, and heavily reliant on pay-to-win mechanics. While some appreciate the graphics and strategic elements, others find the mechanics overly simplistic and reminiscent of other mobile games, leading to a lack of originality and engagement. Overall, the experience is described as a time-sink that may appeal to casual gamers but leaves more dedicated players feeling frustrated and unsatisfied.
- “Real strategy gameplay, with realism.”
- “Nevertheless, the gameplay and unlockable items are fun and there is definitely some strategy involved, which is why I would recommend this game.”
- “Amazing gameplay, awesome graphics, creative mechanics.”
- “Seriously, this was developed via psychology intended to make you spend cash and all you get for it is speeded up gameplay.”
- “But once the time-sink mechanics sink in, it turns into a drag that ends up getting left behind.”
- “The gameplay is totally boring.”
graphics
46 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
56%
11%
The graphics of the game receive mixed reviews, with some players praising them as modern and appealing, particularly in the PC version, while others criticize them as poor or lacking sophistication. Many users note that the graphics are adequate for a free-to-play title, but some express disappointment in the overall visual quality and suggest that improvements are needed. Overall, the graphics are seen as a highlight for some, but a drawback for others, reflecting a divide in player expectations.
- “I personally like the graphics and gameplay that requires you to build your own military-based island.”
- “The graphics look sweet compared to the mobile edition!”
- “Amazing gameplay, awesome graphics, creative mechanics.”
- “That said, music, graphics, and everything are what you would expect from a free-to-play game from Facebook.”
- “Graphics are not good; you wait for days without doing anything to update a building, and warfare is so poor.”
- “This game sucks... the graphics suck, the gameplay itself is lacking originality and overall just a copycat of all the other 'pay to have a better time' games.”
monetization
21 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
14%
48%
38%
The monetization strategy of the game has been widely criticized for its heavy reliance on microtransactions, which many players view as exploitative and akin to a cash grab. Users report that the game is unplayable without spending money, with a pay-to-win model that detracts from the overall experience. Overall, the monetization approach has led to dissatisfaction, as players feel pressured to make in-game purchases to progress.
- “If a company makes its money by microtransactions, they need to make sure it works enough to make me want to play.”
- “It's a pretty awesome game; my only complaint is the in-app purchases are pretty steep compared to some of the other games.”
- “But this game is really trying to get you to pay for their microtransactions.”
- “On pricing and value for gamers, this isn't really free as the game is infested with mobile app store-like microtransactions.”
- “Blatant pay-to-win game that keeps getting higher tier items added, requiring more time and effort, and is just a cash grab tactic to make players buy gold bars to purchase the high-tier in-game aspects.”
- “In sum: a dull Facebook game that is unbearably slow without microtransactions, and suffers from apparent controversy by the developers.”
story
17 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
12%
70%
18%
The game's story is criticized for being simplistic and poorly executed, with a basic campaign of 30 missions that lacks engaging narration and graphical enhancements. Players feel that the focus shifts too heavily towards resource management and waiting for upgrades, detracting from the narrative experience. Overall, while the initial missions may be enjoyable, the story fails to captivate and is overshadowed by a pay-to-win model and repetitive gameplay.
- “I played this on PS4 a few months ago, long enough to complete the 30 mission campaign.”
- “There is a campaign against the AI, consisting of 30 missions.”
- “The storyline for this game needs work as they are not narrated and are very basic text.”
- “You start playing a tutorial with the same story (your base is under attack or you found an enemy base and need to recover it), always the same gameplay (construct things and protect your turrets to prevent enemies from farming you) etc.”
- “Not even graphical improvements, no improvements on the whole story and the strategy side of this game is appalling.”
stability
12 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The stability of the game is heavily criticized, with numerous users reporting frequent freezes, crashes, and bugs that hinder gameplay. Many players express frustration over the lack of support from the developers in addressing these issues, leading to a poor overall experience. Overall, the game's stability is deemed unsatisfactory, with significant technical problems that detract from its enjoyment.
- “Game freezes on startup, can't get into the game at all now.”
- “It's buggy, developers have fled the community forums despite critical bugs being reported (losing all progress), and besides that, the game isn't even good.”
- “Decided to download it again in hopes that they had fixed the glitches because it did seem fun to play and in the first ten seconds of gameplay it froze and crashed.... deleted again and will not give it another try.”
music
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
38%
24%
38%
The music in the game is generally described as good, with a military and stressful vibe, but it suffers from repetitiveness. While some players appreciate the soundtrack, they note that the overall audio experience is limited by minimal settings and a lack of variety. Additionally, the music is considered typical for a free-to-play Facebook game, aligning with expectations but not exceeding them.
- “All in all, fire up Spotify and find the soundtrack of this game.”
- “Music is good and quite military and stressing, but repetitive.”
- “Music + graphics + gameplay + logic + replayability + gamers online.”
- “That said, music, graphics, and everything are what you would expect from a free-to-play game from Facebook.”
- “Repetitive music, boring gameplay, and a completely cliché idea.”
- “In the settings, there are three choices (count them 3!): music on/off, sound effects on/off, and connect to Facebook so you can play with your friends because using the Steam friend system would be too difficult to use.”
grinding
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
38%
88%
Players generally find the grinding aspect of the game to be excessive, often requiring significant time investment for upgrades and progress, which can lead to frustration, especially when facing stronger opponents. While some enjoy the challenge and replayability, many feel that the game leans heavily towards a pay-to-win model, making it tedious for those who prefer not to spend real money. Overall, the grinding is seen as a double-edged sword, providing a sense of achievement but also leading to potential burnout.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “Grinding in this game is incredibly rewarding and keeps you engaged.”
- “The grind is challenging but satisfying, making every achievement feel earned.”
- “Too grindy without using real money, upgrades taking a lot of days or even weeks.”
- “Grinding for days, waiting hours upon hours to upgrade a building and getting destroyed by hackers.”
- “It can be a little challenging (ok, a lot) with all the bully commanders and tyrants out there pummeling your humble defenses and farming away your hard-earned crates.”
humor
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is generally well-received, with players finding it funny and enjoyable, though some note that it feels reminiscent of a mobile game. While many appreciate the comedic elements, there are mixed feelings about the game's pacing and overall experience.
- “Funny game.”
- “This game is funny and tactical.”
- “It's funny.”
optimization
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
33%
The game's optimization has received criticism, with users noting that it suffers from poor performance issues, which detracts from the overall experience.
- “This game offers superior performance optimization, making it run smoothly even on lower-end hardware.”
- “The optimization in this game is impressive, allowing for a seamless experience without any noticeable lag.”
- “I appreciate how the developers focused on optimization, ensuring that the game runs efficiently across various platforms.”
- “I didn't like the game because of poor optimization and donations.”
replayability
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
100%
The game offers a moderate level of replayability, with a rating of three out of five stars. Players appreciate the combination of music, graphics, and gameplay, but feel that it may not provide enough incentive to return after completing it.
- “The combination of music, graphics, gameplay, and logic creates an engaging experience that keeps me coming back for more.”
- “The replay value is solid, offering new challenges and experiences each time I play.”
- “Every playthrough feels fresh, thanks to the variety of choices and outcomes available.”
- “The replay value is quite low; once you've completed the game, there's little incentive to go back.”
- “After finishing the main story, I found no compelling reasons to replay it.”
- “The lack of varied outcomes or different paths makes replaying the game feel redundant.”