• Publisher: Midway
  • Release Date: Nov 16, 2005

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 31
  2. Negative: 0 out of 31
Buy On
  1. Earth 2160 features interesting gameplay and beautiful graphics, but it's dragged down by its badly paced and terribly told campaign.
  2. PC Format
    It's the sci-fi game for RTS fans who found "Dawn of War" a little too streamlined. A game by fans for fans, but few others. [Sept 2005, p.90]
  3. A space war that's heavy on cliché, with a side order of weird aliens. Earth 2160 is an accomplished but dull RTS sequel. [PC Gamer UK]
  4. Earth 2160 is pretty much a game by RTS experts for RTS experts. This game is not novice friendly by any stretch of the imagination.
  5. An extremely robust and well-featured RTS with hours of play stretched out waiting to be dived into. The fact that the usual selling point of such titles – the campaign mode – is rather disappointing interferes with how the game will ultimately be received.
  6. No matter how good it is - and in Skirmish mode, it really is pretty good - it's a bit saddening. The future never seemed so far away.
  7. Pelaaja (Finland)
    Earth 2160 is a visually impressive and competent RTS game with lot of interesting game play elements. It doesn’t revolutionise the genre and playing it is feels the same as playing other games in the genre. Still, the whole package is slick, well rounded and plays well. If you’re looking for an deep sci-fi RTS game with a long quest, you could choose worse. [Sept 2005, p.74]
  8. 70
    Most of the attraction was the aliens, though it was difficult to restrain the urge to lift them out of the genre-bound confines of Earth 2160 and into the groundbreaking RTS they deserve.
  9. There is not a whole lot of good things I can say about the storyline in this game. Frankly I just wanted the characters to stop talking so I could try and enjoy the game.
  10. Game Informer
    If you're a genre dabbler, there are a good dozen or so similar games released over the last several years that deserve your attention far more than this entirely average title. [Feb 2006, p.110]
  11. Aficionados of the real-time strategy genre might want to buy Earth 2160 even though there are almost too many options to consider when it comes to vehicle design and the lackluster campaigns could have benefited from a lot more attention.
  12. Certainly, Earth 2160 is a long game, but tedium does set in and it’s difficult to escape the feeling that you’ve played this sort of title before.
  13. Earth 2160 is a fun RTS entry for the PC library, albeit an unnecessarily long and poorly constructed campaign mode.
  14. 60
    It's a real shame that Earth 2160 is so hostile to new players, because it features a powerful graphics engine, a deep and rewarding game design, and potentially limitless replayability with all its flexibility.
  15. 60
    If getting the mechanics right is enough for you, there is more than enough here to keep you busy for quite a while.
  16. Computer Games Magazine
    It never goes beyond being just another real-time strategy game. [Feb 2006, p.63]
  17. "Starcraft," sans that pesky "fun" thing. [Jan 2005, p.90]
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 98 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 62 out of 98
  2. Negative: 17 out of 98
  1. MattK.
    Jun 2, 2006
    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. Dec 23, 2011
    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 »
  3. AshC.
    Jun 5, 2006
    Steam version. Great game - really good RTS with loads of great touches. If you like "Warcraft" type games, you will love this (and I mean Steam version. Great game - really good RTS with loads of great touches. If you like "Warcraft" type games, you will love this (and I mean LOVE it)... ...if you can play it. The problem (at least on Steam) lies with the authentication process. Half the time you won't be able to play - not even in single player - because it says it can't authenticate you, or that there has been a hardware change on your machine since you last played and you need to re-register. If they could get this sorted out, I would give the game 8 or maybe even 9. Full Review »