Tom Clancy's EndWar Review

Better not have soldier headset.

Version tested: Xbox 360

The end of oil may be bad news for motorists, but it's been solid fuel for game developers, who seem to agree that the result will be superpowers jabbing nuclear fingers at one another. THQ's Frontlines toyed with the idea earlier this year, and now it's Ubisoft's turn to speculate on what might happen if Russia, Europe and the USA find themselves squabbling over diminishing natural resources.

If that's well within the Clancy comfort zone, however, EndWar itself is not. It's a console real-time strategy game, attempting to get around the issues that have dogged the genre outside of its PC home for years.

Developer Ubisoft Shanghai goes about this in two ways. The first is an intuitive two-pronged control system, ideally suited to the demands of the armchair strategist, designed to overcome the relative limitations of the control pad. Players command their forces with a superbly implemented voice-recognition system, in conjunction with a refined context-sensitive set of pad controls, and both elements are precise and fast. The lack of mouse control is no longer something to curse in the heat of battle.

The second part of the plan is to change the focus of the battle altogether, and zone in on small-scale skirmishes rather than traditional resource-gathering and research. Instead of zoomed-out overhead views and landscapes shrouded by the fog of war, the action is presented relatively close up, from a crisply detailed albeit somewhat bland 3D viewpoint just above and behind whichever unit you've selected. You can move and rotate with the left and right sticks, flick between units with the d-pad, and issue basic context-sensitive commands by moving a cursor over your target or location and clicking on it.

'Tom Clancy's EndWar' Screenshot 1

Don't worry, it's not a hex-based war game.

But much more in the spirit of things is to hook up a headset and bellow orders like a testosterone-damaged alpha-male war-pig. After a brief calibration procedure, everything from securing uplinks to switching units and taking cover becomes second nature. Holding down the right trigger, you can string together simple sentences, such as 'unit 1, secure foxtrot' or 'unit 4, attack hostile 3', which can be a lot quicker than having to manually flick between units on the d-pad, even if the pad interface is a simple and effective backup. A mixture of the two works best, with certain commands quicker on the pad and some evidently better voiced. Just make sure you have a wired headset, because the game's best played with the mic very close to your mouth to drown out the background noise. From the game. Fight in a library or something.

The actual combat, meanwhile, operates on an easy-to-follow rock-paper-scissors principle, where transports beat choppers, choppers beat tanks, and tanks beat transports. With just seven unit types to worry about (riflemen, engineers, artillery, command vehicles, tanks, transports and gunships), tactics are intuitive. You may well discover that riflemen, for example, are effective placed inside buildings first rather than fighting in the open, and good use of cover and sensible unit placement becomes important once you understand each unit's weaknesses, and the demands of certain mission types.

'Tom Clancy's EndWar' Screenshot 2

Buying upgrades between battles make you well hard.

Missions come in four distinct flavours and the parameters are straightforward, regardless of whether you choose the Americans, Russians or Europeans. Raid involves destroying buildings or defending them for ten minutes, the goal in Conquest is to hold more than half the uplink stations for five minutes, Assault is a simple 'kill everything' battle, and Siege is about attacking or defending a critical uplink for as long as instructed. It's superficially stripped-down and basic, then, but EndWar has depth in its training and upgrade system, which allows players to apply up to 150 upgrades for each faction and rewards them for keeping experienced units alive. Points earned in each round can be used to beef up attack and defence abilities, or, for example, upgrade riflemen units to sniper units.

With no specific resource-gathering necessary (no oil, remember), EndWar instead utilises a regenerating Command Point system, allowing you to replace downed units at the cost of four CPs. Over time, CPs regenerate, and you also gain a CP bonus every time you secure an uplink or kill an enemy, so the resources, if you will, come through positive actions rather than the more traditional route of going down pit. Stripping out the standard mining removes a layer of strategy, but it keeps you focused on the action rather than fiddly micromanagement. EndWar also employs CPs to power special attacks like air-strikes, force recon and electronic warfare. One CP, for example, finances an air-strike to help finish off bothersome targets, such as long-range artillery, without having to risk precious units to do the job.

On the whole, EndWar is at its best when it keeps things simple with clearly defined roles and abilities. By the time you're dealing with 12 units and multiple abilities, however, the slick, streamlined feeling of the early game is lost among fiddly nannying, and the player AI doesn't help with a few dim choices, like infantry units unable to stand on the right side of cover or take up new positions when theirs is blown. Pathfinding can be more than a little irritating, with units prone to blunder into danger when an evidently safer and equally swift route exists, and units regularly slide around trees and get in each other's way. When this happens in a combat situation, it often means a suicidal ceasefire while they untangle themselves. And having to dictate to a unit to use their special ability every single time is a waste of time, and can be exasperating when you feel like you ought to be focusing on more important matters.

'Tom Clancy's EndWar' Screenshot 3

Somehow they've made it look like Halo in this screenshot. Well done.

As a defensive game it's simple enough to handle, but unless you know what you're doing you'll get crushed even on the lowest difficulty setting if you take the initiative. Even when you're doing well, the game allows the losing opponent (during Conquest mode, for example) to unleash a WMD attack, potentially wiping out most of your forces. You could be wiping the floor with your opposite number and find yourself on the back foot in seconds. It's a great way of keeping players in the game when things are going against them, but it can be used in a ruinous way. The other player does get to strike back with a WMD of their own later, but by then the war may be lost.

There's also little difference between factions. It's generally accepted tradition to give each faction its own unique powers and abilities, but here it's limited to minor tweaks. Perhaps the time saved there was spent trying to solve the camera problems, as the zoomed-in default view also makes it easy to lose track of imminent danger. A zoomed out, overhead Sit Rep map can be called upon, and rectifies matters to some degree, but the game works best when you can see what's happening in multiple areas at once, not just some of the time.

'Tom Clancy's EndWar' Screenshot 4

Look closer and you'll see our good friends rock, paper and scissors duking it out.

Online, EndWar offers a persistent battle mode, Theatre of War. Essentially identical to the single-player game, players fight against human opponents and the results are calculated every 24 hours, and the battlegrounds re-established. In the same way as the offline game, you use credits and experience points to beef up units and continue your quest for global domination. All this works well for a while, although the scope is rather limited given that, once you've fought your battles that day, all there is to do is fight another player over the same maps. You do the same thing the next day, and while it's good to have persistency, the repetition starts to wear.

Making a genuinely accessible real-time strategy game for console owners is definitely a worthy aim though, and EndWar gets a lot of things right: a beautifully slick interface, stripped down mechanics, and the best voice-recognition system of any game we've played. It's got plenty to offer armchair strategists, but balancing issues, pathfinding and AI niggles and a disappointing lack of variety in factions stop it just short of its obvious potential. It's lacking a bit of Clancy magic, then, although we'll be interested to see where Ubisoft takes it from here.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (45) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • dr_faulk #1 3 years ago

    Oooooh! This sounds good! (At the right price!)
  • X #2 3 years ago

    Sounds pretty good. If they can improve this with a few patches then it could be something very nice. I used to play Planetside so hopefully it improves on that.
  • cyacomini #3 3 years ago

    Can you play without a headset?

    I just can't see myself sitting shouting at the tele...

  • krudster #4 3 years ago

    Yes, it's perfectly playable without voice commands.
  • TheRealBadabing #5 3 years ago

    Is there a list anywhere of the words recognised by the voice command software? Wanted to like the demo but felt that the point of voice control was lost if the player had to resort to the controller for many useful functions (take cover etc).

    Also, in the ads I have seen the players are saying things like "take flanking position". Is this blatant marketing bullshit or have they really expanded the vocabulary and interface that much from the demo?
  • EzyRyder #6 3 years ago

    It reads like an 8 to me :)
  • Beano #7 3 years ago

    As good as Banj... ehh.. never mind ;)
  • Eraysor #8 3 years ago

    I really enjoyed the demo. And I didn't find the camera irritating, the fact that you have a low viewpoint makes it a bit more realistic rather than having a magical floating camera in the sky. You can just use helicopters to see further, that's what I did anyway.
  • b00n #9 3 years ago

    So, still no real reason to play an RTS on console.
  • Feet #10 3 years ago

    I would have prefered a hexed based war game.
  • barchetta #11 3 years ago

    Would be nice if the louder you SHOUTED the faster your units ran/moved/panicked...

    Still, I can see me having a number of 'Lt. Gorman' moments during hectic moments... "er... pull back and er.... move to er..."
  • Stuz359 #12 3 years ago

    I really enjoyed the demo but not enough to justify buying this full price. Probably pick it up in six months. And yes, I did feel like a tit talking to my tele but I was impressed with the technology
  • Xedoss #13 3 years ago

    @TheRealBadabing.

    I've played the full version at a demo a few days ago.
    It's mostly just "Calling all tanks, attack hostile 5" or "Unit 1 secure alpha".

    Most used:
    - move to
    - attack
    - secure

    There are some variations on the above, but it's things like "WMD Alpha" or "Deploy tanks".

    It's never stuff like take flanking positions or supressing fire or whatever. Or at least, I didn't come across any of them.
    And i played it for a few hours.

    Its just basic simple orders.
  • gingerlink #14 3 years ago

    Looks like the games I want to get are hitting 7s

    *is now anticipating a 7 for mirror's edge*
    Edited by 1 at 06/11/08 @ 10:30
  • oxymoron #15 3 years ago

    @ barchetta,

    but on the flipside of that you could have a Vaquez moments too,

    LETS ROCK!!!!!

    /send all of your troops on a kill frenzy,


    hmmm, this could have potential
  • barchetta #16 3 years ago

    Hah, yeah that sounds more like it - "its the only way to be sure...."
  • JDub #17 3 years ago

    Played the demo a few days ago and was pleasantly surprised. Voice commands worked well and was able to string together some lengthy ones e.g 'unit 4 plus unit 7 secure foxtrot', etc. Not bad.

    Might pick this up if I find it cheap... :)
  • coojam #18 3 years ago

    This was brilliant in multiplayer against a friend
  • Wildsleven #19 3 years ago

    not as good as gow2 eh? lol :p
  • rhubarbandcustard #20 3 years ago

    As someone who develops Tourettes Syndrome while playing games I wonder whether the designers have built in a panic feature on to troop movement as the expletives begin to flow.

    Left, Left, I SAID LEFT YOU STUPID FUCKING GAME....COCKSUCKER...COCKSUCKER
  • dr_swin #21 3 years ago

    This sounds like a game which should have been released in the january/february period. It has got sod all chance of making an impression amongst all the other behemoths released this month.
  • miiiguel #22 3 years ago

    The lack of Clancy's magic is a positive point imo.
  • RedSparrows #23 3 years ago

    Hmm, I think I'll nab this when cheaper. The online mode sounds like my cup of tea, I wonder if Ubi will patch in anything to spice it up a bit. The customisation of units sounds sweet.
  • FWB #24 3 years ago

    I wasn't convinced by the actual gameplay of this. Seemed very generic despite the controls being great. A couple of questions:

    1) How big do the maps get? Is the demo map the only size?
    2) What is map terrain like? Does it vary? The demo was very flat, which, in my view, led to limited strategic options. It seemed like line of sight wasn't very important.
  • polaris70 #25 3 years ago

    I'll be picking this up tomorrow, I loved the demo and the graphics are great, even if a little bland, for an RTS - or should I say RTT (real-time-tactical) because I think this game has started a sub-genre all on its own. The online is great fun. For those people not happy that you don't have a 'god' camera, then you can change settings in options to raise the camera level (it has three settings), this won't give you overhead view but it will lift the camera a bit, I play on the medium camera setting. Also, if you have a Command vehicle you can get a 'god' view (which is a map of the battlefield) just by saying 'sitrep'. You can only see enemy units if they are in line of sight of one of your own units in sitrep, but it helps to manage the battle when it gets a bit complicated.
  • ParanoidZombie #26 3 years ago

    One thing for sure, the voice commands work flawlessly. The demo really impressed me on that aspect, it's much better than your usual point n'click / press 3 buttons simultaneously control scheme. Translate your thoughts into a simple sentence and your troops respond instantly, it's fantastic, especially if it triggers something spectacular onscreen (like a WMD blast, for exemple). BUT it will probably take a couple sequels before ubisoft can give us a meatier package, with more game types and a deeper gameplay.
  • polaris70 #27 3 years ago

    @ParanoidZombie:
    I like the fact that there is no base building/resource management in this game, although I can understand why that might turn off some RTS fans. It puts the focus on manouvering your units and responding/reacting to situations and basically using your head. You cannot spam with one super-unit type in this game for two reasons. The first reason is that all units have a role and can be countered by another unit. The second reason is that you never have enough units so you are constantly thinking on your feet. Also, when you can upgrade units in the final game that should give it a bit more strategic depth, but in my eyes this game is all about tactics.
  • BobsUncle #28 3 years ago

    Demo was rubbish I thought. You can't see much from the shitty point of view around your unit, and like the reviewer says, once they attack you get fucked. Everything happens too quick and you start getting attacked from everywhere. All you hear is "Unit 4 is under attack, unit 5 is dying". It's a bit frustrating when your voice command is misunderstood too, situations like;

    "Unit 3, retreat"

    "I'm sorry sir, I didn't understand that"

    "Unit 3, re.." too late, they're dead.

    I was really looking forward to this but I'm not getting it now. Thank god for the demo or I'd have wasted 40 quid.
  • ParanoidZombie #29 3 years ago

    @polaris70: Agreed. But I played the demo a lot (couldn't get enough of calling air strikes), and the game reminds me of civilization revolution: it's a great tactical game, perfectly suited for multiplayer, but fact is that after a lengthy session i had the nagging feeling that i had already discovered all the content the game had to offer, except for the units' upgrades. That's why having a couple of totally unique factions is essential in a RTS IMO, in order to keep things fresh and give the game more lasting appeal.
  • polaris70 #30 3 years ago

    @ParanoidZombie: Hopefully the units upgrades in the final game will give a bit more variety. For me this is a multiplayer game because it's relatively easy to get into but the fun is not knowing what your human opponent will do, and adjusting accordingly. I believe there is a saying about Chess (although I don't play it much), that it takes one hour to learn and a lifetime to master. EndWar will take a bit longer than an hour to get to grips with, but I can see a similar sort of thing. The fun will be all in the tactics.
  • Kill_Crazy #31 3 years ago

    A bit disappointing really. Will pick it up on the cheap after christmas.

    /wishes they'd bring DefCon to console.
  • Pulsar_t #32 3 years ago

    So, still no real reason to play an RTS on console.

    Sif the PC is faring any better? What decent game came after CoH? "Dumbed down" is the key phrase here.
  • hahayou #33 3 years ago

    Pulsar_t: The CoH expansion. And there's another coming out. Sins, too.
  • EzyRyder #34 3 years ago

    Pulsar_t

    Supreme Commander
    Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance
    Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3
    Command and Conquer 3
    World In Conflict
    Sins of the Solar Empire
    Europa Universalis III (not an RTS though!)

    Empire: Total War (next year!)
  • BobsUncle #35 3 years ago

    EzyRyder, don't forget

    Dawn Of War 2, the only reason to own a PC. :-)
  • MuppetThumper #36 3 years ago

    i wish goddamn Tom Clancy would pass away with Michael Crichton. but no, there's too many knobs out there that buy this rehashed shit.
  • Pulsar_t #37 3 years ago

    Supreme Commander
    Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance - both are rehashes of a ten year old game.. only real addition was the overview thing
    Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 - Eh?
    Command and Conquer 3 - Again, eh? Generals Zero Hour still tops both
    World In Conflict - Hardly an improvement on Ground Control 2
    Sins of the Solar Empire - Haven't tried this. A Homeworld clone?
    Europa Universalis III - you said it.. Not an RTS!

    So in short RTS is regressing at this pace. Let's wait and see what Creative Assembly has in store for us though.
  • TRUTH #38 3 years ago

    I personally prefer turn-based rather the RTS...The reason is more thought and strategy is usually needed. I find in RTS - you usually need just build a large army and rush in - usually this always works.
  • 3william56 #39 3 years ago

    I don't understand the comment about wired headset. Surely that will bring you nearer the TV, and hence more background noise to deal with?? Better to just turn down the sound system, no?
  • bioreit #40 3 years ago

    @ 3william56

    On 360 - reviewed platform - the wired headset is wired into your controller, not your console. As most people probably use wireless 360 controllers, that means the headset is as far away as normal. Could have been made a little clearer by Krudster I suppose...

    I'm still glad I had a chance to play both the beta and the demo - decided this game really wasn't for me. The voice control was awesome, but the core mechanics of the game just seemed a mite clunky.

    And in multiplayer, the balancing of opponents wasn't that great - I lost count of the number of times my units were driven into the ground because the ghet I was playing against was upgraded to the hilt, so my APCs would get torn to shreds by his choppers, my choppers were annihilated by his tanks, etc. 'Rock, paper, scissors' style gameplay is all well and good, but when you make it so paper destroys scissors in three seconds flat, something's gone wrong...
  • EzyRyder #41 3 years ago

    Supreme Commander
    Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance - both are rehashes of a ten year old game.. only real addition was the overview thing

    Yes, it is a rehash but a damn good one. Not for being an old idea it means is bad. It is also very much improved with not only the zoon view but a whole load of goodies, like the massive transports, the masssive superweapons and the depth in strategy/tactics (Total Annihilation didn't come close, believe me).

    Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 - Eh?
    Command and Conquer 3 - Again, eh? Generals Zero Hour still tops both

    Tops both where? In Multiplayer, I would agree partly with you. They are mostly old school RTS, but they are loads of fun and well made.

    World In Conflict - Hardly an improvement on Ground Control 2 - I did play this a bit and didn't like it much but seems that most people consider this game a considerable improvement on Ground Control

    Sins of the Solar Empire - Haven't tried this. A Homeworld clone? - that is just very cynical, again. More like pick and mix of Master of Orion and HomeWorld - not my cup of tea, but it has got a legion of fanatics.

    Europa Universalis III - you said it.. Not an RTS! - But still a strategy game in real time like no other - and the consoles don't have anything similar.

    Company of Heroes at the end of the day is just a rehash of Dune 2, just really well oiled and tuned up. Nothing original in it - if you are going this way

    So in short RTS is regressing at this pace. Let's wait and see what Creative Assembly has in store for us though.

    About the Total War series, not really an RTS either though - more like a mix of Europa Universalis and Ground Control (in the Napoleonic Wars ofc).

    You have also got Spore, some people consider it a Strategy Game. If you want to play any kind of strategy game, just get a PC - it is better.
  • Dr.Mott #42 3 years ago

    I'm interested, but will it work with a Geordie accent?
  • krudster #43 3 years ago

  • Dr.Mott #44 3 years ago

    Good to know. I might pick this up then.
  • jlaakso #45 3 years ago

    Too bad the mechanics are a bit shallow, can't see playing this for very long. Still, it's the first RTS I've ever played where I didn't feel like I was fighting the controls. Yes, this includes every PC RTS ever.