Star Wars: Empire At War Review

Chocolate chip Wookiees.

Version tested: PC

That Galaxy Far, Far Away never seems to get a moment's rest. I suppose there must be death for these things to be really interesting, but wouldn't a smuggling game or a Wookiee cookery anthology just shake things up a bit?

Och, don't mind me - I'm prone to such whimsies, and I'm not at all unhappy to be spending a few hours with the real-time strategising of Empire At War. He's not exactly Old Ben when it comes to the war stories, but he's still got a fair bit to say, much of it regurgitated in a way that is distinctly 2006 - but we'll come to that later.

This latest Star Wars strategy is real-time throughout, which is unusual since it takes on a multi-tired approach, a bit like the Total War games. Unlike the turn-based overview map of a Total War game map, the galactic conquest map in Empire At War is set in real-time - and you can see the comings and goings of fleets as you play. It's an unusual way of approaching things, but it works. It's actually pretty refreshing to be able to react realistically to what's about to happen - to be able keep an eye on nearby troop build-ups, and grind cash like there's no tomorrow (which there isn't, since there aren't any days/seasons in space, right?) Anyway...

This galactic map, which features numerous solar systems from the game universe, is the initial board from which the other tiers of the game spring. Command a selection of units to enter orbit around a planet and you open up the slightly aged space combat section (real-time on a 2D plane), where squadrons of fighters and command ships are single units in a battle between asteroids. Once the heavens are secure you can drop troops down on to the planet itself - and then there's the main course of good old RTS stodge to keep you busy.

'Star Wars: Empire At War' Screenshot 1

Pretty, but not quite a picture.

Of course there's also the planetary micromanagement side-screens, and a good deal of R2-D2 bleeping noises, but nevertheless this is RTS that we've seen before. Mention of such a recipe will probably put a chill in the belly of many PC veterans, but their fear is largely unwarranted, since Empire At War has been carefully baked to ensure that none of the sections are overbearing, fundamentally repugnant, or sticking to the sides of the tin. On passing the space salt, we can clearly observe it's all rather similar to a now-ancient strategy named Imperium Galactica (of which there were two), which attempted to blend planetary combat, space combat, and epic galactic conquest in a single campaign. Empire At War wants to be this all-encompassing game of galactic conquest, but it never quite manages the Wagnerian sweep that gives Space Opera its name.

Of course you also need to spend a small amount of brain-time on the economics in your wallet and the tactical position of your empire as a whole, which is a bit dull. All this means that like Imperium Galactica, Empire At War doesn't quite manage the orbital trajectory of greatness, and is likely to become a distant gaming comet, only occasionally earning a blip on the sturdiest of fanboy retroscopes.

'Star Wars: Empire At War' Screenshot 2

Ripened planets must be picked and refrigerated before they spoil.

The hefty Star Wars baggage, of course, has to come along for the ride. The single-player campaign faces you with the situation following the latest films, as factions in the shattered Republic reform themselves into the Rebel Alliance on one side, and the Empire on the other. You can play as either faction, with a storyline largely dictating where you will go next. Vader gets his space war on, and tells the story of how James Earl Jones became the most feared voice actor in the galaxy, while the Rebels get on with all that pre-Skywalker rebelling that will one day lead up to the Deathstar going pop. Obligatory music, sound effects and cameo appearances mean that all the usual suspects are dragged back into the mix - assets such as the droids, space pirates, and Jabba's bounty chums are integral to the proceedings, either as leaders of a faction, or as planetary resources that can make your strategic life a little easier.

The AT-ATs are a bit of a disappointment, but the hordes of little rebel troopers (and fleeing Wookiee civilians) do deliver some charm. The key problem with the ground RTS is that it's just so slow and predictable. With enough reinforcements you can simply blast your way from one choke point to the next, eventually eradicating the enemy and claiming a rather hollow victory.

Back on the top tier - the galactic map - things are satisfyingly straightforward. Tactics are all rather simple, and never complex enough to provide that Chess-like capacity to feint and go for the kill. The movement of forces and the delivery of troops is all a bit pedestrian.

Anyway, the story unfolds in a series of missions that must be completed to advance, all of which lead up to your victory circa A New Hope. (I should mention that you don't have to play the storyline, and can also play freeform galactic conquest once you've mastered things). The movement of troops and the production of resources will keep most folk engrossed for literally minutes at a time, but it's never long before an engagement of some sort.

'Star Wars: Empire At War' Screenshot 3

The exploding ice-cream van of Koron VII. Exploding. Yesterday.

Initially these come as blind encounters - you end up charging in with far too many or far too few troops to take on what actually lies in wait in orbit, or on the planet's surface. Both theatres of conflict are represented by traditional RTS conceits, with 3D space not even being nodded at. This is no Homeworld - it's a tank rush with capital ships, although generally beautifully framed in planets, nebulae and chattering Imperial commanders. The tiny whizzing groups of fighters belie how useful the special abilities of each craft can be, and taking down a Star Destroyer because you were smart (and not simply more numerous) is a pleasant achievement... at least the first couple of times.

That's the problem with multi-tiered strategy games like this: even in Rome Total War, in which the real-time sections are exquisite, the temptation is just to auto-resolve so that you can get on with the conquest. Unless you're really bent on making all those fiddly battles bend to you whim (as many Rome players are) then you're simply going to give up after a few goes. Empire At War doesn't have the visual flair or the tactical titillation to keep your nose to the grindstone, and those planetary fights become a ticklist of reinforcement balance and turret erection. Now I think about it, they're not just a bit predictable - they're entirely superfluous.

Ultimately, there's no single aspect of the game that really demands your interest. To place it in perspective I've also refreshed my memory of Rome: Total War and Dawn of War. The pace and visual impact of Dawn of War make Empire At War's RTS sections simply disappear into the shadows, and the tactical map of Rome Total War would have been a fine game even without the beautiful sieges and epic battles that underpin it; Empire At War by contrast looks a little but like "My First Wargame". But hey, at least it's not Force Commander.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (32) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Helios #1 6 years ago

    I played the demo. I couldn't get past the turbolasers on the planet :(

    ZOMGWTFFIRSTLOLOLOLOL
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/06 @ 15:12
  • el_pollo_diablo #2 6 years ago

    I think I'd be happy never to see anything else Star Wars related again for the rest of my life.
  • Hicksy #3 6 years ago

  • Eldritch #4 6 years ago

    Far too ugly to make me care.
  • frod. #5 6 years ago

    Hooray for old school captions! \o/

    Looks a bit dissapointing this one, how does it compare up to that other new spacey thing? (Imperium Galactic Civilization Empire 27 or whatever its called)
  • Mr_Whacker #6 6 years ago

    Multi-tired? I didn't realise it focused on Phantom Menace. Tee hee.
  • Furbs #7 6 years ago

    I assume they didnt let Ellie review this one since a) its half decent b) It'd be 10/10? :)
  • MrChuckles #8 6 years ago

    Securom, bleurgh. My mate can't even get an original copy of this to run on his machine and he doesn't even have any image software.
  • Stickman #9 6 years ago

    Probably the blandest game I've played in years.
  • myiagros #10 6 years ago

    one of the least enjoyable games i've had the displeasure of playing so far this year. For me 7 is probably a little on the high side.
    Edited by 1 at 23/02/06 @ 12:28
  • Moonprince #11 6 years ago

    Could try how the pirate version gets around the protection. Maybe that would get it running. Not that you will want it run after playing ;)
  • zErOb_cOOl #12 6 years ago

    Had very high hopes of this, after reading glowing things about it, and I'm a little disappointed. Ah well, suppose its only another game with a Star wars theme, that there are already far better examples of.
  • Perry #13 6 years ago

    Off topic, but I can not see the Guitar Hero pre-order anywhere.
    Anyone else seen it?
  • UncleLou #14 6 years ago

    I find it enjoyable, and the 3 different gamemodes tie together very well. It's not as good as it could have been, true. The score seems about right to me.
  • tincanrocket #15 6 years ago

    Well, a 7 does seem about right, but it has an enjoyment factor that has kept me interested - sure, it's not a classic, but I'd still say it was good (and verging on very good if, like me, you like Star Wars and strategy games). Not perfect, but with some fan support and future modding it could well become great. Oh, and I actually really like Imperium Galactica, but I also bought MOO3, so I obviously am a sucker and need my head examined :I
  • Ignatius_Cheese #16 6 years ago

    Not to discredit my opinion of computer games in any way shape or form but I actually quite liked Force Commander...

    /covers head in arms
  • Daryoon #17 6 years ago

    I thought the rebels didn't win their "first victory" until just before the original film? D:
  • Biggles #18 6 years ago

    I liked force commander too!

    *runs and hides behind a rock
  • reality_cheque #19 6 years ago

    I was hoping for more. I'll just stick to Dawn of War.
  • Crube #20 6 years ago

    oh goody, ANOTHER star wars game

    *yawn*


    the truly sad thing is that it will probably be lapped up by the SW fanboys as norml, leading to MORE SW games....
  • smoison #21 6 years ago

    Worth giveing a try. The demo made me wan to try it.

    No multiplayer review? I guess its like rome multiplayer...
    Edited by 1 at 23/02/06 @ 14:47
  • ave #22 6 years ago

    "and the tactical map of Rome Total War would have been a fine game even without the beautiful sieges and epic battles that underpin it;"

    lawl

    (sorry, but its just funny reading that from someone who iirc, is a fan of paradox's games)
  • urban #23 6 years ago

    definatly deserves a 8 i'm afraid...completely relentless in its attack to prove its a great game, and i'd have to surrender.
  • Ryuken #24 6 years ago

    "Of course you also need to spend a small amount of brain-time on the economics in your wallet and the tactical position of your empire as a whole, which is a bit dull. "

    I think that was just the best part about IG(II). Combining the neat stuff from MoOII with real-time battles/real-time campaign play. SW: EaW is just too simplistic on that first part though (and quite a bit on the second part too like you mentioned). I wonder though, what your reaction is to a game like GalCiv II.
    Edited by 2 at 23/02/06 @ 16:38
  • Amajiro #25 6 years ago

    Yep, that review is pretty much spot on. The space battles are pretty cool tho, even though the directors mode makes it a bit like watching a Star Wars movie edited by someone with Tourettes.
  • Stickman #26 6 years ago

  • ImGameCube #27 6 years ago

    Advanced Doungeons and Dragons?
  • SeesThroughAll #28 6 years ago

    Petroglyph... a phoenix reborn out of Westwood Studios' finest people. Hmmm, OK, except maybe for Joe Kucan and those three guys who went to EA.
    Edited by 1 at 23/02/06 @ 22:16
  • Royal Fool #29 6 years ago

    Yes, at least it's not Force Commander, although the ground parts are scarily similar. The galactic part plays more like a simplified version Rebellion.

    But overall, the game disappointed me. :(

    Also, I was shocked by how powerful Darth Vader is. Didn't get to play with any other jedi/sith guys, but the fact that he deflects nearly all energy weapons and can kill a small army makes him very fearsome. The force is most certainly with him.
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/06 @ 03:26
  • Yeevle #30 6 years ago

    "the truly sad thing is that it will probably be lapped up by the SW fanboys as norml, leading to MORE SW games...."

    Not by me, I gave up on that crap after the handling of SWG.
  • UncleLou #31 6 years ago

    Let's keep some perspective, eh. This is by no means a crappy SW cash-in. It's a good, although not a great, game, done by a whole bunch of ex-Westwood guys, with some fresh ideas. It's a bit too simple in places, just like Battle for Middle-Earth was. And no, I am not a huge SW fan. I look back at the original trilogy with fond memories, but that's about it.
  • Spanker #32 6 years ago

    As a Star Wars fan who has given the games a wide berth the last 3-4 years it's not bad coming back to this. 8/10 from me. Land battles are very simplistic tho - like a 6 yo RTS with better graphics and animation.