Earth 2160

 PC
  • Publisher: Midway
  • Release Date: Nov 16, 2005
Metascore
73

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 31
  2. Mixed: 17 out of 31
  3. Negative: 0 out of 31
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. Gamer's Hell
    90
    It may not replace "Star Craft" in terms of stature—but it’s damn close. The multiplayer matches are suitably intense, and the single-player campaign delivers everything in terms of both expectation and intention.
  2. BonusStage
    87
    The super high learning cure will absolutely knock quite a few gamers out of their seats, again, especially if they try to jump into things like they’re playing "Starcraft" for the 2000th time.
  3. Gamers Europe
    85
    Earth 2160 uses every trick in the strategy book to great effect. If you can think of a feature, it’s probably there. We can expect a sequel because of the way the last campaign ends, but I won’t spoil it for you.
  5. Computer Games Online RO
    85
    The singleplayer story may not win any awards any time soon and the voice acting will most likely make you go nuts on more than one occasion, but the solid set of features, good AI as well as a dedicated and active online community will keep you in the front of your PC for hours on end.
  6. Worth Playing
    85
    An extremely lengthy, deep, and beautiful strategy experience. From the very start, you'll find yourself drawn in and playing for quite a long time.
  7. GamingTrend
    85
    If you are looking to sink your teeth into a challenging and graphically strong RTS game this may be what you are seeking especially in a time where there are not many options available in this genre right now. Just be prepared for a hard fight, and get ready to go it alone.
  8. GameZone
    84
    A really good RTS game that will capture your imagination as you try to become victorious over your foes.
  9. IC-Games
    83
    If you are sick of the countless WW2 RTS games on the market today you’ll be a fool if you let Earth 2160 pass you by. With four campaigns and an extensive multiplayer mode we can see this one lasting well into the development of "Earth 2170."
  10. VideoGamesLife
    80
    To compare "Earth 2160" directly with past greats like "Command & Conquer" and "Total Annihilation" is to miss the point. No, it’s not as inspired or as absorbing or as fun as those earlier games. But to find a fresh game which dares to take the baton from those titles and carry it forward another hundred yards is a real pleasure.
  11. IGN
    79
    It has amazing faction balance that include some awesome base building strategies and terrific tech tree. On the other hand, it has a campaign that simply plods along with a slow pace, lack of creativity in mission design, and a story that is fatiguing thanks in large part to some amusingly bad characters and horrible voice-overs.
  12. eToychest
    78
    Earth 2160 is competent, and while it doesn’t break much new ground, it is nonetheless a decent game.
  13. PC Gamer
    78
    A must for hardcore RTS nuts, but not the best option for casual players. [Feb 2006, p.48]
    All this publication's reviews
  14. Game Over Online
    78
    With an interesting premise, four campaigns and a large amount of depth with the researchable technology tree, Earth 2160 allows hardcore strategy fans the option to tailor make their own units and plans for galactic conquest.
  15. Digital Entertainment News
    75
    Earth 2160 is a display of both good and evil; with its great graphics and its awful voice-overs.

Awards & Rankings

85
#85 Best PC Game of 2005
30
#30 Most Discussed PC Game of 2005
80
#80 Most Shared PC Game of 2005

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 104 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 62 out of 104
  2. Mixed: 24 out of 104
  3. Negative: 18 out of 104
  1. MattK.
    Jun 2, 2006
    2
    I have to give this a 2 as I cant actually play it 98% of the time because of the excessive copy prevention. Installed on steam it requires a I have to give this a 2 as I cant actually play it 98% of the time because of the excessive copy prevention. Installed on steam it requires a constant internet connection, and if (for whatever reason) the game cannot connect to it's precious little server, the game will not even come close to loading. It's a shame as the first time I ran the game it played without a hitch, since then it's just been a frustrating problem for me. I haven't been able to play it for one minute in the past week and a half!… Full Review »
  2. JaydenPickens
    Feb 20, 2019
    7
    We'll build a wall and have the UCS pay for it. Just kidding, the game is great. It has a few problems here and there, but mostly it'sWe'll build a wall and have the UCS pay for it. Just kidding, the game is great. It has a few problems here and there, but mostly it's enjoyable rts. Pickens approves!… Full Review »
  3. DudasDrakaan
    Dec 23, 2011
    5
    What I have to say about this game is that it is mediocre, and this -- after its fantastic predecessor, Earth 2150, is a serious let down forWhat I have to say about this game is that it is mediocre, and this -- after its fantastic predecessor, Earth 2150, is a serious let down for previous fans. What I laugh about is apparently the only people who bought this game did so through steam; I did not. I'm one of the true originals who was excited about a sequel for one of my favorite strategies of all time. Therefore: my rating has nothing to do with technicals. My reviews never do. It is about a much more crucial facet: the content of the game itself. _____ Allow me to just summarize and say that there is nothing here that really separates 2160 from any other strategy. If you are looking at a new strategy to seek variety, then look elsewhere. Unlike 2150, you cannot really customize your units to be your own, unique design. Furthermore, the pacing is that of Starcraft II: that is to say clicking speed and reaction time is more important than strategy and tactics. And advancing technologically seems irritatingly unrewarding. You'll do it to keep the status quo, but don't expect to come out with some powerful tech that your enemy cannot counter with pure massive numbers. Most will say "so what," but the original did not play with this feature and the fact that they changed it to its current state of merely being a copy of other strategy games from the time. Though SCII was not around when 2160 came out, the experiences are very similar so expect 2160 to be a worse looking, less-balanced game with a practically dead community (what community?). As for the story -- which no one I've seen has mentioned -- is just terrible. Perhaps if you think the Sci-Fi channel movies have good storylines, then you'll like this... but really the story of this game is about like the sequel to Starship Troopers movie (not the book). That is to say a mediocre story with interesting points that suddenly was **** on and left harden in the sun. The story is more a soap now, with focus on personal relationships, than on politics and the cultures of the different factions. Once again, average in itself but terrible in respect to its predecessor. ______ Take this in stride. The game at least functions. There are at least groupings and defense, and so forth. The AI will kick your ass until you figure out its quircks. There is resource acquisition and technological advancement. But advancement will not get you victory unless one side has completely neglected advancing... But is any of this new? It makes me sad that its predecessor from many years before was vastly superior. It was unique and challenging; this one just seems to want to be a Blizzard game. But I say not all games need to be Blizzard games: there needs to be variety, and this game simply is not it. Some people care nothing about variety. Then, please, play this game: you will enjoy the monotony, I'm sure. _____ Perhaps this will sate those who have not played the game yet see fit to give a game a good rating due to not seeing a "reason" for a negative review. _____ Main negatives: -> Gameplay focused on reflex rather than strategy. -> Repetitive, lack of variety and customization of the predecessor. -> Poor, melodramatic storyline. -> Drops cultural and political complexity of predecessor. -> Lack of community. _____ Positive: +> It works. +> It's cheap (now). +> You can laugh at the bad writing. +> There is advancement and neat technologies (though they do not mean much, honestly, during gameplay).… Full Review »
See all user reviews »