Empire: Total War - Reception

Empire: Total War was recipient to a strong critical response within the video game industry, holding aggregate review scores of 88 percent and 90 percent on GameRankings and Metacritic respectively. Reviewers praised the large scope of the game's strategy map, PC Gamer UK noted that the game "takes a great deal of its design philosophy from the events and trends of its era", which enabled the game to reasonably reflect the challenges faced by the factions' historical counterparts. Praise was also given to the extensive number of factions, down to very small factions such as the Knights of St. John and a renegade pirate settlement. Kieron Gillen, reviewing for Eurogamer, described the campaign map as "endless" and due to the large amount of content, observed that he had managed to complete the entire campaign without even visiting the Indian theatre of play (approximately a full one fourth of the playable game world); a factor that enhanced the game's replayability. Other reviews echoed this sentiment; GameSpot stated that "even a short, 50-year campaign can take a good amount of time to complete, given that each turn requires strategic thinking on multiple fronts". Praise was further bestowed on the refined interface, introduction of a technology tree and level of strategic thinking required for the campaign map. However, some reviewers noted inconsistent behaviour with the campaign artificial intelligence; 1UP.com noted that it could perform illogical choices, such as "the occasional suicidal war between Dagestan and Russia", while GamePro was critical of the artificial intelligence in a number of areas, including the inability to mount a naval invasion or utilise effective strategies on the campaign map.

The real-time land battles in Empire were considered well constructed. Expressing that The Creative Assembly had effectively implemented what it had learned since Shogun: Total War, GameSpy described the addition of personal firearms and friendly fire as something that "changes the tactical nature of the game much as it did in real life", and noting that the player controls and enemy AI were "competent". IGN felt that the real-time aspects captured "the cinematic brilliance of it all without ever falling back on obvious exaggerations or pretenses" and that the controls, specifically in relation to unit formation, were much improved. GameSpot put the real-time land battles as "enjoyable to command and enjoyable to watch", particularly commending the amount of detail in each model and animation for every soldier, points carried in several other reviews. However, GameSpot thought that the artificial intelligence could appear "confused" in some circumstances, and the Game Informer "second opinion" review said that "the enemy AI falls apart from time to time". In addition, Eurogamer felt that units' pathfinding abilities in fort sieges were insufficient, and Game Informer also criticised pathfinding around obstacles.

Naval combat was subject to more criticism than land battles. PC Format described the visuals in a naval battle as "incredible", but stated that the controls were "frustrating; genuine naval tactics fast disappear out of the window as struggles to bring navy’s cannons to bear on the enemy". PC Gamer UK reciprocated this view, but noted that naval strategy was a "deeply difficult task" for a developer, and that "The Creative Assembly have done the best that their game template would allow". IGN praised the graphical quality of the naval battles and stated that "trying to line ships up correctly, making the most of the wind and choosing targets appropriately is very rewarding", but that "the formations and pathfinding leave a lot to be desired". GameSpot commented that "the AI seems incapable of managing with much success".

Despite criticisms, most reviews were ultimately favourable to Empire: Total War. While IGN felt that the game "drags a bit and there are some small, rough edges in the tactical battles", the game still "deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the greatest names in gaming history". 1UP.com finished by saying "For all its problems, it's undoubtedly progress", while Eurogamer felt that issues "limit to being merely one of the games of the year," but implied that a post-release patch could deal with these flaws. GameSpot summarised that the game was "complex and rewarding" and GameSpy praised the game for "the simplified interface elements, great campaign, and much-improved map and information screens make this the most accessible Total War yet, and a great place for those unfamiliar with the series to get started". Crispy Gamer, while acclaiming the game "spectacular" and "lovingly historical", criticised the documentation and concluded that the game falls apart due to its bad AI. The Game Informer reviewers criticised the AI, but still described the overall game experience as "fantastic" and "outstanding". GamePro provided a dissenting opinion; although describing Empire: Total War as a game with a potential that "with some extra tweaking, could have proven itself an excellent title", noted that it "has a heap of problems that need resolving" with bugs and crashes. PC Gamer UK enthusiastically proclaimed the game as "one of the most playable, important and accomplished games ever created".

The downloadable content The Warpath Campaign was criticised by Strategy Informer for not integrating into the original campaign and for only adding a few new units. Concerns were also voiced about the difficulty curve, though the reviewer felt the DLC provided players a challenge by playing as the technologically backward Native Americans against the European interlopers. Games Radar praised the focus on stealth and new tactics, and was complimentary about the low price of the DLC, but was critical of the campaign's historical accuracy.