Empires: Dawn of The Modern World - Reception

Reception

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World received positive critical reaction. Game Informer rated it 8.25/10, calling it "definitely worth your time if you dig the genre ..."; IGN gave it an 8.8/10, deemed it "a great strategy game", and stated that "Stainless Steel deserves to be proud of their second effort ..."; GameSpy referred to it as "an excellent RTS."

PC Game World, an online game site, claimed that the game's sound was "as good as it comes with this type of game, with nuclear weapons exploding, bombs going off, weapons firing, people hitting people with swords." Gamezone liked only certain visual elements, claiming that "the backgrounds of forests, meadows and water are very sharp, and are the best looking part of the game."

In a negative comment, GameSpot questioned the game's lack of guidance, stating that "he manual starts off saying as much, and there's no tutorial to walk you through the basics ...". Gamezone similarly noted, "As there is also no tutorial to speak of, players not familiar with the first Empires game, or who are new to RTS, may find themselves a bit lost." PC Gamer stated, "The unit formations are crummy and pathfinding is just as tenuous as in most RTS games ... and the missions are somewhat undercut by ... terrible voice-acting." The magazine found that the pathfinding algorithm often causes units to travel together in a disorganized mass and sometimes take more dangerous routes than necessary to reach locations. Computer Gaming World complained that the campaigns "are excessively story driven and include little in the way of straightforward build-and-raze missions."

Because critics perceived that Empires lacked significant innovations to the real-time strategy genre, they often drew comparisons to other games. Armchair Empire noted, "It's next to impossible to write about Empires... without mentioning Stainless Steel Studios' last project, Empire Earth." Many were surprised that the scope was smaller than that of Empire Earth, but agreed that the gameplay focused more on specific time periods by having fewer ages and civilizations. One critic called the game a "dumb man's Rise of Nations." Stratos Group wrote that Empires has "very few land-only maps, unlike Rise of Nations which was full of variety on this score." The progressions among ages were also compared: "Rise of Nations often ended in a flurry of age-rushing until everyone was driving tanks, but the offensive power available to the player in Empires means that advancing to the next age is not necessarily your highest immediate priority." Regarding civilization choices, Stratos stated that "After the cornucopia of choices available in Rise of Nations (18 cultures), the four early and five later cultures of Empires may seem a little small. This is not a real problem, though. The choices available are fun and varied." CNET remarked, "The design puts well-recognized historical action into play and makes believable use of the material, while adding some powerful spell-like effects to keep the action interesting. While it may not have the breadth of Rise of Nations' real-time empire building, the tight scope deals out dividends when it comes to fast-paced battles."