Faces of War

 PC
  • Publisher: Ubisoft
  • Release Date: Sep 12, 2006
Metascore
67

Mixed or average reviews - based on 21 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 21
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 21
  3. Negative: 1 out of 21
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. Pelit (Finland)
    90
    Multiplayer mode needs some redesigning, too, but otherwise the package is pretty darn impressive. [Oct 2006]
    All this publication's reviews
  2. CPUGamer
    89
    Game mechanics such as physics and cover make the multiplayer matches very addicting.
  3. PC Gamer UK
    81
    For all the action, for all the explosions, for all the adamantium-spined squad members, it's really not for the impatient - but if you don't mind fighting the control system as much as the Krauts, it's a refreshingly different take on what was rapidly becoming a tired setting. [Nov 2006, p.74]
    All this publication's reviews
  5. 1UP
    80
    Tons of content, beautiful graphics, outrageously enjoyable gameplay -- these make up for its couple of foibles.
  6. Eurogamer
    80
    When it comes to cutting-edge WW2 strategy there are other worthy options besides the highly-decorated "Company of Heroes."
  7. PC Format
    79
    Still a superior RTS, but it's not as impressive an update as we'd have liked. [Dec 2006, p.113]
    All this publication's reviews
  8. PC Zone UK
    75
    It's all still hard, and it still suffers a little from a lack of intuition and dropping you in the deep end. But the pleasure and satisfaction to be had from completing a mission is still there. [Dec 2006, p.100]
    All this publication's reviews
  9. Gamers Europe
    75
    Aside from a few minor flaws in gameplay mechanics and AI, which Ubisoft is rectifying, Faces of War is a fresh take on an old classic.
  10. IGN
    70
    Released right around the same time as THQ's "Company of Heroes," Faces of War suffers from the worst case of bad timing since Abraham Lincoln decided to wait until intermission to get some popcorn.
  11. GameSpot
    60
    Faces of War proves that even something as formulaic as a World War II real-time strategy game can still go awry.
  12. GamesRadar+
    60
    Faces of War wins on several fronts with its attractive destructible environments and solid multiplayer options; unfortunately, it falls short of total victory with frustrating AI and extensive micro-management duties, especially in single-player.
  13. VideoGamer
    60
    As war games go, Faces of War is more of a blundering, well meaning Private than a seasoned General.
  14. Gamers' Temple
    60
    Faces of War has its moments ... some good ones and plenty of frustrating ones.
  15. Gamezilla!
    60
    Is there something good here? Yes, Faces of War is quite original and that’s good. However, it is marred by bad design choices, and in the end I’d just wait for the next iteration of this game.
  16. GameShark
    58
    The stability problems really detract from the experience.
  17. Jolt Online Gaming UK
    54
    An interesting addition to the genre at best, but is only an average example of what’s available that, apart from its looks, offers little that hasn’t been done before and more importantly, done better.
  18. Total Video Games
    50
    In most ways the game feels like so many European developed RTS titles that fail to connect with gamers that it's only the Direct Control function (and the well known logo of Ubisoft) that lifts it ever so slightly out of the crowd of other strategy games developed across mainland Europe.
  19. PALGN
    50
    Outside of the few nice gameplay options, Faces of War offers absolutely nothing to gamers that are looking for a fulfilling World War strategy game.
  20. Computer Games Magazine
    50
    Released within days of THQ’s “Company of Heroes”, a game with much higher production values and infinitely sharper focus, Faces will most likely go down in history as 2006’s other WWII RTS, even if it does have a leg up in some areas. [Dec. 2006, p.77]
    All this publication's reviews
  21. Worth Playing
    50
    I thought the ideas and potential were great, but the execution was severely lacking. FoW will lure unsuspecting buyers with its attractive appearance, but it has little else to offer.
  22. PC Gamer
    46
    If I'm ever drafted for another tour of duty like this, I'm gonna shoot myself in the foot. [Holiday 2006, p.78]
    All this publication's reviews

Awards & Rankings

44
#44 Most Discussed PC Game of 2006
27
#27 Most Shared PC Game of 2006

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 79 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 79
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 79
  3. Negative: 6 out of 79
  1. GervantRBR
    Feb 11, 2021
    10
    A great RTS game leading up to today’s Men of War assault squad 2. The unique thing about this game is the direct control mode which makes itA great RTS game leading up to today’s Men of War assault squad 2. The unique thing about this game is the direct control mode which makes it so you don’t have to rely on stupid AI leading your characters.
    A campaign with non repetitive missions is the greatest thing on this game, you command the Soviets in the attack on Berlin, or the Germans in the operation Wacht am Rhein, or the Americans on Omaha beach, it is the JEWEL between the older RTS games.    … Full Review »
  2. Kerveros
    Apr 3, 2014
    9
    A true successor os S: HOWW2. Missions may be less in number (only 9 actual missions), but they take much more time to complete. The lastA true successor os S: HOWW2. Missions may be less in number (only 9 actual missions), but they take much more time to complete. The last Allied mission (where you start in a flooded city and in the end you have to take out some artillery fortifications, took me like 6 hours...of INTENSE gameplay. And I add that I played it in tactics mode. Have to say anything else? One bullet from nowhere may just 1-shot your soldier. It is not funny at all. But this way the game is intense and makes you act fast and think fast at the same time. After 1 mission you will really need some rest. Unfortunately you cannot pause and issue orders in the same way as in S: HOWW2 which is something vital and the reason I rate it 9/10 and not 10/10.

    Graphics. Pretty cool. Camera fully rotating, fully zooming, nice animations and physics. The game was released in 2006 and for that period its graphics must have been stunning. The environment is realistic and detailed, fully destructible and takes you to the area where the actual battle took place. The figures move smoothly, spill blood, fall down or get launched by explosions very nicely. Physics is a strong aspect of this game. Even heavy tanks demolish buildings when they pass through them. I was in ISU-2 and was literally smashing everything on my pass. Fun times…

    As I mentioned before, there are not many missions to play. Just 9 (3 for Soviet, 3 for Allies, 3 for Teutons). But you will need hours to complete just 1 mission, and after that you will need some rest…it is intense, especially with tactics mode. And here I have to explain something about it. You will just die as easily as the enemy, so your mistakes will be punished even harsher. You rush towards machine gunners who are behind road blocks? In seconds all your squad will be empty red bars. You will have to throw grenades, take an indirect approach and then throw grenades again to make them get out of cover. This is what we mean “tactics”. So yeah you will have to use tactics even more than before. It will be too intense though and I sometimes got pissed that 1 random bullet could just kill my guy 1-shot. Many people say that AI is not smarter on tactics etc etc. I inform you that it might not be smarter (AI in 2006 was still something under development, so stop qq’ing…nowadays titles have even worse AI), but it will hit MUCH harder. And this is enough to make the game more challenging. The difficulty gap is obvious if you play both tactics and arcade.

    The AI thingy…yeah it is not perfect, but still can make you feel desperate. It knows damn well how to come out from nowhere to **** you up. Enemy infantry waiting patiently hidden behind some obstacle for your tank to pass by and then throw an AT grenade (or even Panzershreck) at it from 2meters. Boom. And boom you are dead. You made the mistake not to support the tank with infantry! Since it is AI, it HAS to be overwhelming in such a game. It HAS to make you feel that the odds are impossible. This is how it becomes challenging. And I like it. I will always remember missions that made me play them for hours, and in the end I was sore. So, no matter how, the AI manages to make it tough. Do not expect some walk in the park.

    Again, this game, like its predecessors (S: HOWW2 and Silent Heroes) and its successors (Men Of War series) is made for HC gamers of this SPECIFIC style. Yes we like the micromanagement. Yes we like to start with 100 bullets and loot the rest 1000 from dead corpses. Yeah we like to see enemies 10 times our number to attack us and have to kill them all. And we damn adore not having to build bases to replenish our losses. Each soldier for us is something that must not die. Ever. In other games grenade is an ability with CD. Here, you can throw all your grenades one after another. Your only limit is how many you actually have in your inventory. Realistic? Yes. Fun? Even more. Sometimes though, the action is so fast that you do not have time to breathe and replenish ammo from bodies. But in general, if you are careful and not careless, you will not have such a problem. This game has the habit to make you walk at its pace, and not at YOUR pace. More challenges and we like them.

    If you are not ready for some owning from the AI, at least in the beginning when you will be getting acquainted with the changes from S: HOWW2 (if you have not played you should not read this review and not even try this game), do not try it. You WILL cry. It is one of the games I have played from start to end on tactics mode and I feel proud. Last allied mission. I had to take out some artillery defenses above a beach. It was some kind of fort with 2meter walls, narrow corridors WITHOUT ceiling. Instead of bashing my head in these corridors in front of some MG’s, I took a soldier outside and he was throwing grenades above the 2-3m wall on the heads of the enemy soldiers inside. It was thinking that made it possible and not numbers and zerging like in other…”strategy” games.    … Full Review »
  3. JacobBartle
    Jun 1, 2008
    9
    This is a great game. Hadn't heard of it until I saw it at Circuit City for $3.29. Best three bucks I ever spent on a video game. IThis is a great game. Hadn't heard of it until I saw it at Circuit City for $3.29. Best three bucks I ever spent on a video game. I don't think it's really comparable to Company of Heroes, which I've played since '06. CoH is a pure RTS game with a larger scale, while Faces of War picks and chooses: you have third-person shooter, squad-based tactics, tank sim, resource management (ammo & fuel), etc.

    I love the inventory system, incredible attention to detail, extremely challenging missions (quadruple your fun with co-op!), and destructible environments. It hasn't crashed or glitched on me yet, and it runs surprisingly well on my system with maxed settings (which look great).

    My expectations were definitely lowered by the game's price tag, and I hadn't heard any press about it. I was very impressed by the game and somewhat surprised at the cool reception it's received from critics. I suppose it's simply not a game you can play lightly, without thinking about every move you make. The single-player missions are like puzzles, and the tools you're given to work with sometimes feel woefully inadequate, and cunning tactics and innovative thinking will win sooner than brute force will. Due to the level of detail in control, I think this game would be very difficult to play with a large army.    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »