reviews
Name: Tom Clancy’s EndWar
Genre: Real-Time Strategy
Platform: Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS, PSP, PC (Reviewed on DS)
Just about every major title seems to get a DS port these days. Unlike many console games that make the transition to the DS, a portable version of Tom Clancy’s EndWar actually made sense. Even though there’s a pretty good amount of RTS games already available on the handheld, EndWar, and its futuristic war setting, had the potential to stand out amongst a sea of fantasy-based titles. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunity, EndWar disappoints on just about every level.
EndWar is about as traditional as you get when it comes to RTS gameplay. The console version took innovation to a new level, implementing voice-controlled squads instead of point and click war mongering. Even though the DS has a microphone built in, the developers of the handheld version decided to go with the bland stylus-activated command-input approach. Come to think of it, you don’t even actually need to use the stylus, but it does make pointing and clicking a bit easier. In standard RTS fashion, units have a certain amount of movement and attack squares, or in this game’s case, hexagons. I hoped the game would play with a more table-top oriented hexagonal system where there were more sides to worry about defending than the traditional front, back, right, and left. Then the first conflict started, and my hopes were dashed rather quickly. Despite the game maps looking different from other RTS games, it plays just like every other game that came before it. Why the portable version couldn’t have taken chances like its console brethren is beyond me, but it sure would’ve been nice to see this game do anything new.
No DS owner will boast about the graphical output on the system. While many AAA titles make the most of the handheld’s power, many games available on the system don’t quite pack a pixilated punch. Sadly, EndWar falls into the category of games that , if you only looked at screen shots, you would think came out on the Genesis or Super Nintendo instead of a current system. There’s a negligible difference in the way the different types of ground troops look, with vehicles being the only sprites rendered with any true variation in their design. While the 90+ maps the game offers have variety in their layouts, the scenery (buildings, foliage, landmarks) populating the landscape are as generic as they come. It may not seem like a big deal, but once you spend hours staring at the map screen, you start to pick apart why things don’t look better or more varied. Once you actually engage an enemy force in battle, a brief animation is shown on the top screen. It’s neat the first time you see it, but again, seeing it over and over again will only serve to remind you how poor the game really looks.
While the single-player does give players a pretty lengthy, if standard, game, there are some decent multiplayer features as well. Probably the only thing this game does right is to offer a fairly robust (for a DS anyway) map editor. Not only can you share these maps when playing with a friend, but you can store up to 32 on the cartridge, giving you plenty of chances to prove your level-making prowess. This option is only available with local connections, and again, left me wanting the game to give just a bit more so it would stand out. EndWar does give players medals for meeting certain requirements (think Xbox Achievements) during a conflict, but I’m not certain they are much of a reason to replay completed missions, particularly on the higher difficulties where the computer AI tends to get frustratingly difficult. I’m all for a challenge, but there comes a point where it doesn’t become fun anymore, and this game has its share of missions like that.
Tom Clancy’s EndWar could’ve established itself as a must-own game had it done anything better or more stylishly than predecessors like Advance Wars. Instead, DS owners are given another RTS that brings nothing interesting to the table, and can get easily lost among the dozens of other games it shares so many similarities with. Frankly, this game isn’t even a must for Tom Clancy junkies. In translation to the DS, the game seemed to lose the style and flavor one would expect from a Clancy series, and along the way, lost any chance of be a fresh RTS IP on a system cluttered with games that are actually trying to stand out.
Related Articles:
Review: Luminous Arc 2 - Nintendo DS
Review: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 – PC
Review: Valkyria Chronicles - PS3
| Share this article: |
|
Comments
You can rent DS games?! hahahaha ugh. I actually find that the rental system is no longer really a way to enjoy games anymore. The last time I went to rent a game they wanted $9 for 5 days and when I got it home the disc was so bad that I couldn't load it.
I came from a family of renters, and now I never rent. I either buy, or don't buy. But I think it works in context with this site. Trash, Rent, or Buy gives me a general idea of the game. Every time I read the review and look at the scores for this site, I tend to agree.
And lets not forget that a game can be good in about 5 out of 6 categories (thus raising its score), but suck at the most important feature ... game-play (thus making it not even rentable). So I'd say that a game being rated a 6 and still not worth renting is a fair opinion.
Normally a 6 falls into the "Rent It" category, but I think the issue here is that this game is nothing different than every other in the genre, nothing spectacular or innovative. If that's the case, most people shouldn't even bother renting it, especially this time of year when there's no lack of good games.
It's a DS game. If you were expecting a higer review your crasy.
Thanks for the tip, Coop. It did clear up a number things, but still...
7-6: A fun and well made title. These scores represent the average game. These titles could have some great ideas but usually also have some factors that hold them back from being considered great.
That's what I would consider a 6 or 7 as well, but it's kind of hard to take it seriously when I read this: "Instead of capitalizing on the opportunity, EndWar disappoints on just about every level."
I'm not really disappointed with either the score or review on their own, it's just they seem out-of-sync when I consider them together.
If you're confused by our scoring click on the score above for our Editorial Statement, explaining how we work.
i will have to agree J-man and its something i have noticed on a lot of sites. The reviewer will trash the game, say maybe one good thing about it and then still give it 3 of 5 stars or in this case 6 of 10. If you say trash the game, i would think it needs to be below 5.. though i would say take out the number score and just leave the trash it, rent it or buy it, i think that should suffice for most people.
I'm pretty sure this is a turn-based strategy game, not real-time.
Also, this is why I don't like numerical scores. If the game is so bad (you barely had anything good to say about the game), why does it get a 6? Unless you start counting at 5, a 6 would indicate that it is slightly above average, and has more good things than bad. Then, the thing I really don't understand: Why would I trash an above-average game? I know, I should read the review. Well, I did, and I feel like the score and review contradict each other.
Scoring needs to be revised, in my opinion. I'll try not to turn this into a blog post, but I think that this is the kind of thing gets interesting games dismissed. Some people out there really decide their purchases based on review scores, and pass up on some overall good games. If bad games get above-average scores, then the bar is raised to unattainable levels, good games get overshadowed or dismissed and the gaming journalists' credibility suffers as a result.