Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

 PC
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 22 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 22
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 22
  3. Negative: 0 out of 22
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. eToychest
    70
    A solid entry in the RTS market, but it's marred by appalling AI which detracts greatly from the single-player experience. Additionally, it's so similar in gameplay to Empire Earth that I find it hard to believe that it didn't begin its development as an add-on for that title.
  2. Computer Games Magazine
    70
    Empires isn't flashy or exotic enough to be crowned the new event horizon of the now officially clogged "historical" real-time strategy wheelhouse, but it's likable and shinier than most. [Feb 2004, p.64]
    All this publication's reviews
  3. Gamer's Pulse
    60
    It doesn’t do much to further the genre.
  5. Gamezilla!
    55
    This lack of variety in empires also leads to limited possibilities for opposing forces in your random games, to say the least. You'll spend a lot of time facing the Koreans.

Awards & Rankings

43
#43 Best PC Game of 2003
31
#31 Most Discussed PC Game of 2003
83
#83 Most Shared PC Game of 2003

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
8.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 82 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 65 out of 82
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 82
  3. Negative: 8 out of 82
  1. DavixAries
    Apr 29, 2023
    8
    A very addictive game, like any good RTS game, a lot of factions that differ from each other, the theme of developing technology from theA very addictive game, like any good RTS game, a lot of factions that differ from each other, the theme of developing technology from the Middle Ages to World War 2, fighting on land, sea and air, there is everything here. I recommend trying.… Full Review »
  2. llamayarmybar
    Mar 20, 2014
    7
    Empire Earth drew its influence from many different games in the RTS genre and sought to expand the ideas and concepts ofEmpire Earth drew its influence from many different games in the RTS genre and sought to expand the ideas and concepts of pseudo-micro-historical periods, which games like Age of Empires focused primarily on. However, where Age of Empires inspired Empire Earth, "Empires" seems to be inspired by the latter to a fatalistic degree. Instead of the amazing epochs that extended into a futuristic setting, we see the middle ages evolve to post world war 2 era technologies and themes. A grave mistake perhaps when compared to the ambitious Empire Earth. Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, is focused primarily on making the same sort of mistakes and even restoring the tedium that plagued Empire Earth. Overall being less engaging, less interesting and more bogged down by a resource system that was intolerably slow to begin with. So in other words, its a near direct take on what Empire Earth could've been without the experimentation and many technological ages that made Empire Earth unique and actually fun. The races have been stripped down to a mere three major ones with several different "possible" civilization changes as you begrudgingly move to the more modern ages. You have a choice at one point to become the Americans, the British, the Germans etc.. Its actually quite jarring for any faction to suddenly transform into a completely different Country and culture, but perhaps this was featured in the game for pseudo-historical reasons. As for the units, they are quite vast, but never particularly useful, and military skirmishes break out into weird scattered skirmishes- making it quite impossible to keep track of everything or what those units may be doing. The ability to build all over the map leads to the strangest patterns of AI players scattering their buildings in every direction, meaning you could have destroyed everything, aside from the one last standing hovel somewhere and you still haven't defeated the computer player. I often call this manner of AI building: "Total Annihilation Syndrome" and it is not only hilarious, but immensely distracting when an AI opponent has built things essentially right on the outskirts of your base simply to gather a resource near your starting position. Which brings me to the resource gathering- the gold mining is one of the absolute worst things I've ever seen in a game since the original Empire Earth. Its painfully slow to gather this one resource outside all others, it is one particular resource you will constantly spend and it is necessary for basically every upgrade you need or want. Meanwhile food, wood and stone gathering rates are at least decent and benefit from upgrades. Most matches you'll be moving from one gold pile to the next in an attempt to keep gold constantly streaming in. Its literally the achilles heel of the game and it is wholly not surprising that later games like Rise of Nations found better ways to deal with resource gathering in general- particularly with "gold." The combat is quite boring, it usually involves building as much as you can and sending wave after wave of units to wherever your opponent may be. The units are soulless and utter silly dialogue as you send them here and there and for some reason never seem to get upset at the rate at which they fall over and die. This is often, since the AI builds guard towers everywhere, guard towers that kill any unit very quickly. It is in fact one of "those" buildings, much like the original towers in Age of Empires, that brings me severe emotional grief upon remembering them and one wonders why they have to be built everywhere, near every resource, or wherever the AI is doing something. The game speed can be "adjusted" though. So you "Empire" mode and "Skirmish" mode which alters how many villagers can gather at one resource and makes the gathering rate much, much, much faster for everything. However, this gimps the game too, as in units have now even LESS health and die even faster in skirmish mode. Whereas in Empire mode, buildings have more hitpoints and so do most units. Where is the middle ground? Age of Empires got it right, Warcraft 2 got it right and Rise of Nations got it right. You'd think after several games Steel Studios would learn from their mistakes and figure out why Empires is devastatingly boring to play. Its not only boring, but its clearly not fun either. Rise and Fall was a better game and barely altered the formula, it just made resource gathering less of its focus. Not even 2 year later, Dawn of War came out and removed most of the resource management, allowing more of a concentration on military units and battles. Homeworld 2 came out the same YEAR and featured a better resource system with more of a focus on fleet formations and space battles. The point I'm trying to make is: "Their games are average and boring." Its no surprise at all why Steel Studios fell apart, their best game aped Age of Empires, but was swiftly knocked out by Age of Empires 2.… Full Review »
  3. HEIMDAL13
    Jan 6, 2014
    10
    It's an amazing game! The best classical RTS ever created. It's very balanced, whit a lot of nations, lot of units, and they are veryIt's an amazing game! The best classical RTS ever created. It's very balanced, whit a lot of nations, lot of units, and they are very different each other. The graphics were amazing at the time.
    Includes an editor, good skirmish mode, campaign, multiplayer, and it's very interesting to start from old ages to the ww2. Also the planes manage very well compared to other similar games (they are not static)    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »