Universe at War: Earth Assault Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 2 April, 2008

What is it good for?

Version tested: Xbox 360

The first-person shooter, once legendary for its inferiority on consoles, is now firmly established as a cross-platform genre to be reckoned with. So much so, in fact, that any claim that mouse and keyboard are better than joypad is now down to personal preference rather than technical truth. Which just leaves real-time strategy as the last bastion of PC snobbery.

Shooters may have evolved on the mouse, but all it took was some rethinking for the principles to work on twin sticks. RTS, on the other hand, is designed for the mouse from the ground up, relying on precise clicks, menu navigation and fast map sweeps for its success. Things are starting to change, slowly, but Petroglyph's Universe at War - developed simultaneously for both PC and 360 - was supposed to be the game to really break through and open up the genre to consoles.

Sadly, the PC version didn't exactly blow us away - "simply too flawed to spend too much time on" trilled Rob, as he signed off with a disappointed 7/10. Wouldn't it be awesome to report that the 360 version of this game was not only superior to its PC sibling, but represented a strategy experience that finally makes RTS gameplay work on a joypad?

It would be awesome...

But it's not going to happen, is it? For one thing, Universe at War's 360 version - delayed by several months - has inherited most of the PC version's shortcomings: a weak and linear campaign mode, which does little to explore the potential of the different alien races, and a stiff camera that only allows a limited view of the battlefield, being chief among them. But this version then compounds those complaints with technical issues so severe that the game becomes borderline unplayable at times.

'Universe at War: Earth Assault' Screenshot 2

The Hierarchy is a combination of zealous alien races hellbent on wiping out mankind. Nothing like the Covenant then.

The good stuff first, though. Rather than try and copy the PC controls, Petroglyph has radically overhauled the way the game is played for the 360. The shoulder buttons and triggers are used to call up context-sensitive rotating menus, or to magnify the map for rapid movement. So, for instance, with no units selected you can call up a command menu that allows you to send build orders to any of your structures, from anywhere on the map.

With a unit selected, these menus become specific, allowing quick access to special attacks and abilities. And there's a clever quick-select system that allows you to scroll through all your unit types and select all the units of a certain type instantly. By pressing the Back button you can assign all the selected units to your own groupings, enabling you to create the sort of mixed platoons that would be a few CTRL-clicks away on the PC. It doesn't take too long for this system to become second nature. It's never as intuitive as the mouse, but it does a pretty fine job of mapping all the important functions to buttons and sticks without becoming bogged down. Hopefully some future game will take the core idea and develop it further.

For now, this clever notion is undermined by a clumsy selection tool, which "paints" the units you want rather than click-dragging them into service. It's no secret that dragging a box doesn't work terribly well on the joypad, so it does make sense to have a more intuitive console alternative. Here, you guide a large green circle over the troops you want, rather than boxing them in. What you gain in immediacy you lose in usefulness, as it's almost impossible to accurately pick out the troops you want. The selection area is fuzzy, leaving you with a broad stroke approach that works completely contrary to the genre - it's fine when dealing with handfuls of units, but on a busy screen, there's no way of knowing who'll be caught up in your enormous lime spotlight. Separating your units one by one, and spacing them really far apart so you can put them into useful groups is such a massive fiddle that you eventually end up using the all-or-nothing troop-select feature and just flinging everything you have into battle in bulk. It's indicative of the game's unsophisticated design that this is usually all you need to do anyway.

It's the technical side that really spoils the party though. The PC version suffered from some uninspiring visuals and occasional slowdown, but these minor hiccups have evolved into full-blown embarrassing eggy burps for the 360. The game is full of lo-res textures, with units depicted as crudely animated stick figures, devoid of any real detail. The cut-scenes are a travesty, with ballooned polygon humans and jerky aliens acting out the woeful story with all the grace of a 1996 PlayStation intro.

That's nothing compared to what happens during gameplay. With anything more than forty units moving on screen, the framerate drops. And by "drops", I mean "plummets screaming like a buffalo on a bungee". This is a considerable problem, since the unit cap allows for at least twice that number. In other words, operate at full capacity and get some battles going on (you know, the idea behind the whole game) and I swear the frame-rate hits single figures, with characters slooooowly cycling through their rudimentary animations as the engine struggles to keep up. Coupled with the skittish selection process, when the graphics splutter this alarmingly, simply ordering your troops around becomes virtually impossible. The nasty alien Hierarchy operate from enormous armoured walkers, which must be taken down by focusing your firepower on panels on the side. As you can imagine, highlighting and clicking on these small moving targets with a joystick is tricky enough at the best of times. When the game turns to treacle, you might as well leave them to it, make a cup of tea and come back when everything has settled down.

'Universe at War: Earth Assault' Screenshot 3

The Masari. Ancient. Pompous. Poncey. Elves, in other words.

These appalling cock-ups only worsen when you add online into the equation, meaning that there's little point spending time on the multiplayer modes, despite some great ideas. The Conquer the Globe mode, for instance, allows you to take part in a persistent on-going campaign of push-and-pull combat across numerous world zones. Fantastic fun, at least if it wasn't blighted by crippling lag and fudged game speed. It's pretty obvious that any 360 player picking this up to play against PC owners using Games for Windows' much-trumpeted cross-platform play is going to be at a serious disadvantage.

For all the control innovations that come tantalisingly close to solving the riddle of joypad RTS play, Universe at War is constantly blighted by unforgivable slowdown that, at its worst, all but breaks the game. Concerns about the undercooked campaign and minor control issues are insignificant by comparison. It's pretty clear that the delay between PC and 360 releases was caused by a desperate need to coax the console game engine into a workable state and if this is the fixed version, I'd hate to see what it looked like four months ago. Console RTS fans may not have much to choose from, but we deserve better than this.

4 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (61) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • rhinoxious #1 4 years ago

    Oh dear.

  • barnard666 #2 4 years ago

    I wanted this to be good...battle for middle earth had similar frame rate issues....I guess I'll be letting it pass me by :(

  • bloodflowers #3 4 years ago

    Shame, I'd like a good RTS on the 360.

    The LOTR one had a similar problem - when things got busy things got really, REALLY slow.

  • rashes #4 4 years ago

    that is very dissapointing...

  • bengray66 #5 4 years ago

    If i want shite i think i had better wait for the new 50cent game.

  • butler` #6 4 years ago

    Compare Halo 3 'professionals' with competitive Quake3/4 players then re-write that opening paragraph, it makes my cry inside. :[

  • FWB #7 4 years ago

    Demo was boring.

  • Jigglybean #8 4 years ago

    It is a good game and players who purchased it have loved it. Player reviewers on gamespot have been giving this 8-9s. Still the console will NEVER beat the PC for RTS/FPS gaming

  • Krelle #9 4 years ago

    lawd, get over yourself butler

  • jmctavish #10 4 years ago

    Shooters are still crap on console's compared to the PC. Only the wii comes anywhere close to the controls of a mouse and keyboard. Don't delude yourself that FPS games are as good on a console, especially when you play online.

  • menage #11 4 years ago

    Let's turn this into a PC vs Console thread shall we. For the billionth time.

    The slowdown issues are hardly caused by the hardware I think. Just bad porting.
    Edited by 1 at 02/04/08 @ 15:25

  • viper_h #12 4 years ago

    Glad to see I'm not the only one who disagreed with that first paragraph.

    I cannot fathom why anyone would want to use a joypad over a keyboard and mouse. The best joypad FPS experience I've ever had was on the N64 with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark in the 1.2 Solitaire configuration.

    I can't get used to dual analog sticks, and I don't feel an analog stick is necessary for movement either. I liked the 4 C movement buttons on the N64 pad and wish they'd bring that design back. Unfortnately to me, dual analog is as intuitive as rubbing my tummy while patting my head.

    Oh and shit game.

  • crozon #13 4 years ago

    FPS controls on a console are OK, but nowhere good enough to be compared to a mouse and keyboard. If it was that good, why don't proffesional players use a joypad.

    Now for RTS games, lets see what happens with that halo rts game.

  • rashes #14 4 years ago

    @butler`+ @jmctavish + @viper_h

    Have you guys nothing better to do? That discussion IS a collosal waste of time...

  • Xerx3s #15 4 years ago

    "Shooters are still crap on console's compared to the PC. Only the wii comes anywhere close to the controls of a mouse and keyboard. Don't delude yourself that FPS games are as good on a console, especially when you play online."

    Have no delusions, ALL consoles fail to approach the pixel perfect controls of the pc.

  • miiiguel #16 4 years ago

    I don't like keyboards to play, and I have no intention of becoming a "pro gamer", as I already have a profession. Anyway, it's a matter of taste, I guess. I also can't stand "office-desk" gaming anymore.

  • Gurgeh #17 4 years ago

    "any claim that mouse and keyboard are better than joypad is now down to personal preference rather than technical truth"

    Hilariously wrong. A decent player with keyboard and mouse would destroy someone using a joypad in a FPS and IIRC on Halo 2 it's been demonstrated time and again.

  • jmctavish #18 4 years ago

    Well made single player FPSs on consoles are fine. The best ones take into account the limitations of a game pad. It's online where they go to shit usually.

  • japstersam #19 4 years ago

    every game thread ever on here just turns into either

    PS3 vs 360
    PC vs 360
    PS3 vs PC

    etcetcetc
    but this game doesn't look great, i want a RTS on my xbox and i'm tempted by C+C but i'm gonna wait till something really catches my eye :)

  • menage #20 4 years ago

    The last thing I want to do after a day in the office is get behind a PC again. Gives my arm the cramps.

  • Darren #21 4 years ago

    I'm not surprised by this review as IGN berated the game for the same reasons as EG only they gave it a 6.

  • Ryuken #22 4 years ago

    Hmm, this game uses a beefed-up Star Wars: Empire at War engine and it still lags on a Xbox360? That's pretty poor.

  • Vaxadrin #23 4 years ago

    The game is fun, it just has framerate issues. The control scheme is sublime.

    Playing online is a blast. The factions are all really unique & interesting, and it throws out the whole tank rush mentality that ruined C&C3 for me.

    According to the devs, a big patch is on the way to help with performance.

    If you like RTS's and don't have an up to date PC, I recommend at least renting it. I bought it and don't regret it one bit.

  • miiiguel #24 4 years ago

    japstersam, this pathetic "war" started when 360 dared to have a litle success..., imho. Did you ever hear such fuss in the XBox 180 era ?

  • Benno #25 4 years ago

    supreme commander is going to own console RTSs

  • BM #26 4 years ago

    I have my PC in my little study room, and use that mainly for work. I have my 360 in my lounge, hooked up to a nice HDTV with a good amp and speakers. There's no way I'd want (at best) a wireless keyboard and mouse to play games on my TV. Alot of people like an 'entertainment system' (and I use that in the broadest sense of the word) that is in their living room. They can get friends and family round, and have a bit of a laugh playing the console of their choice.

    How's them apples, PC lovers?

  • kincaide #27 4 years ago

    Where is the ProEvoWii review?

  • WinterSnowblind #28 4 years ago

    Since when did more accurate controls = best?

    Personally, I far prefer playing FPS games on consoles, just because it isn't as fast or as accurate doesn't make it any less enjoyable. Come on, I know you elitest PC guys aren't really that shallow. The same goes for RTS games, I found C&C3 to be very enjoyable on the 360 and may I add that it didn't suffer from any slow down or frame rate issues. The fact you guys on the PC can play it with a slightly more accurate control system really doesn't bother me.

  • Azazel #29 4 years ago

    So much so, in fact, that any claim that mouse and keyboard are better than joypad is now down to personal preference rather than technical truth.

    Ha.

    Criticism of that statement probably means nothing coming from me though.

    I'm such a snob that I refuse to acknowledge anything after Quakeworld as being worthwhile.

    BUT IT'S TRUE.

    /runs

  • miiiguel #30 4 years ago

    I do apreciate that a gamepad is not comparable to a keyboard! Having a keyboard in front of me during work hours is more than enough.

    Although, and unfortunatly, I was born way before Quake came out.
    Edited by 1 at 02/04/08 @ 17:44

  • Vaxadrin #31 4 years ago

    "thanks to the current educational standards and lack of any drive in kids these days, incapable of even turning on a PC without dribbling or having a seizure."

    Actually they taught 'Snobby PC Gamer Twat 101' in our school; education is not a valid excuse for the console-using subhumans. Those idiots probably couldn't handle the incredibly simple task of researching video cards, scouring the net to find a good one under £300, disassembling the PC case, installing the video card, installing the drivers, patching the game to be compatible with those drivers, then, once the game crashes to the desktop every 30 seconds, downloading the latest video card drivers that released while the box was sitting on the shelf at the warehouse. Fucking morons.

  • tapper #32 4 years ago

    Well.. it'd pretty easy to test the claim in the opening paragraph now when most new PC shooters supports the xbox 360 gamepad. I wouldn't bet any money on the gamepad coming out on top though.

  • miiiguel #33 4 years ago

    It continues to surprise me why PC gamers want console gamers to start to use computers for gaming. Just the other day this sharpfishdude wanted to put a PC in my living room, and started to get nasty...

    I say, let it go.

  • Vaxadrin #34 4 years ago

    "PC in the hands of a reasonably intelligent individual will never crash to desktop"

    April fools was yesterday. I did fall for it though, you got me.

  • Vaxadrin #35 4 years ago

    I'm posting this from an abacus.

  • miiiguel #36 4 years ago

    FluffyTucker, that's good. And I like to be called a kid, thx!. Too bad it's only possible via internet...
    :)

    "PC in the hands of a reasonably intelligent individual will never crash to desktop"
    Mainframes now have GUI's ? and play games ? wow!
    Edited by 1 at 02/04/08 @ 18:12

  • Vaxadrin #37 4 years ago

    "I'm shocked you managed to type that out and hit "submit" before the PC crashed to desktop."

    Me too! I'm glad we're finally seeing eye to eye.

  • Vaxadrin #38 4 years ago

    I accept your apology.

  • Vaxadrin #39 4 years ago

    Let's celebrate by playing some Smash Brothers. Don't worry, those other players in the room is perfectly normal. Just grab one of the button-pressy hand-holdy things.

  • Vaxadrin #40 4 years ago

    I'm actually a yank, I just visit EG because your editors are much wittier than ours, and your user comments much more fun, as evidenced by our little discourse here.

  • Vaxadrin #41 4 years ago

    I'm more green with envy over Freshly Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland.

  • Vaxadrin #42 4 years ago

    Universe at War: Earth Assault is a fun game.

  • UncleLou #43 4 years ago

    Well, my PC has certainly crashed less in the last 2 or 3 years than my DS froze, for example.

    /shrugs

  • dryden555 #44 4 years ago

    RTS games without a mouse dont make sense. You need a fast and more importantly _efficient_ pointing system.

  • beastmaster #45 4 years ago

    PC vs 360? Who gives a shit? I mean...really?

  • YourMessageHere #46 4 years ago

    +1 for first paragraph outrage. Sure you can use a pad if you want, provided the game is designed for it; you can just use a mouse better. I have nothing against consoles, but I do hate it when people claim they are as good as PCs for sorts of games that evolved on PC hardware.

    JSPOOLElol

    No skill in mouse aiming? You've clearly never played online PC FPS then. You're so used to pads that you don't even realise that console FPS games are massively simplified for their benefit. Since "The Games Industry" in its infinite avarice, sorry, wisdom, has decided that FPS works on consoles and made most FPSs multiformat, any given multiformat game on PC has been a lot easier; the level design, feel of the controls and enemy AI and animations are all designed to allow for the limitations of pads.

    Shadowrun proves nothing. It is autoaimed to hell and has huge shot dispersion cones; it cripples most of the PC's advantages to allow for pad players. Under such circumstances I expect DS controls would probably do just as well. Quake III on the DC, which apparently some PC players could play online against console players, did not suffer this. DC players were, by all accounts, handed their arses in all cases.

    RTS can work on consoles, sure. This is not one that does. And I bet you Endwar ends up on PC too.

  • anomagnus #47 4 years ago

    Not as good as viking

    you all should play that.....

  • bloodflowers #48 4 years ago

    Can the PC weenies stop crying about the first paragraph now please? I'm sure you have yet more hardware upgrades to attend to.

  • tapper #49 4 years ago

    Considering that the intro was obvious flamebait it's not surprising that it turned into PC vs console debate. It was probably the authors intention.

  • Krun #50 4 years ago

    I was hoping this would be ok. But this just sounds broken. Maybe I'll give it a go when it's in the bargain bin and it's been patched. I imagine that won't be long.

    So anyone want to sell me their pre-ordered copy for £5?

  • Waldo #51 4 years ago

    Even with a mouse and keyboard, this game was nothing special.

  • BPotemkin #52 4 years ago

    'It was probably the authors intention.'

    Yes. Dan Whitehead wrote this review with the intention of pissing you all off at the start. He's that vindicative. Really.

  • DanWhitehead #53 4 years ago

    It's true. I'm a cruel monster.

  • Luckz #54 4 years ago

    @rashes:
    "Have you guys nothing better to do? That discussion IS a collosal waste of time... "

    Starting an article with such bullshit forces readers to wonder if EG supplies its writers with free crack cocaine (and enforces the comments observed here).

  • Mashum #55 4 years ago

    Sorry in advance for continuing this pointless debate... but.. to say that PC controls are superior because in a theoretical deathmatch a mouse user would beat a pad user is blindly missing the whole point of what we all come here to read (and argue) about.

    Video games reward the player for learning skills. A game isn't necessarily better or worse for making it easier to shoot bad guys. Would snooker be a better game if you got rid of the white ball and just hit the coloured ones straight into the pockets... or better still forgot the cues and just picked them up? (no it would still be boring)

    Clunky controls are a problem in some console FPSs but that's really down to the individual game. I say all this as a recovering PC Counterstrike addict.. N64 Goldeneye addict.. xbox Halo(l) addict.. DOS Doom addict... etc..
    Edited by 1 at 03/04/08 @ 00:39

  • 3william56 #56 4 years ago

    It's sort of amusing how people hold Quake up to be such a pinnacle of mouse gaming, when it had such strong autoaim (particularly vertical) that it was easily controllable with just the keyboard, and would have been a doddle on a joypad. And it rocked for that reason. Anal pixel clicking is a lame dead end gaming mechanic IMHO and has held back a lot of FPS game design which would have been more *fun* with a forgiving aim system. But a typing keyboard? For movement? What century is this??

  • Ryuken #57 4 years ago

    Because mouse and keyboard haven't changed 1000 times over the years like gamepads have or because they don't look as iconic or as cool as a gamepad they're passé? They're still the future for certain popular genres, precision aiming or precision controlling coupled with logical movement controls is essential if you really want to feel like you've made that kill or that movement/attack order yourself. More control = great and leads to more options for the player. How simplifying an aim/control system is any good or would allow for a more fun FPS (or even RTS) design is beyond me, it only gives developers an excuse to open up their games for the masses (read: make them far too easy).

    Of course, console FPS's and RTS's are fine as long as the console design doesn't infect the PC version and vice versa.
    Edited by 1 at 03/04/08 @ 09:35

  • butler` #58 4 years ago

    @JSPOOLE

    rofl, I've seen some poor arguments come out of Halo types but you sir win.

    And to all the people with the "omg how much time u hav!?1" and "who gives a shit about pc vs console" may want to direct themselves to the first paragraph then comment again.

    Just because console FPSs have a decent controls these days (how long did that take them, 7 years or so?), doesn't mean they come near kb/m.

  • koji_m #59 4 years ago

    I actually like the game, takes a while to get a hang of the controls but once you figure them out, it's actually pretty good

    had some nice online matches and stuff, certainly not a 4/10 imho

  • ParanoidZombie #60 4 years ago

    Good Seinfeld reference. I can't help but thinking that those Internet forums are full of Kramers and George Costanzas.
    Edited by 1 at 03/04/08 @ 12:30

  • dryden555 #61 4 years ago

    Bleh -- auto-targeting on console FPS games is not a "solution" to console FPS games.