Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 23
  2. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. 82
    The multiple teams, added tanks, verticality, precision fire, the stepped-up AI, and the much-needed multiplayer modes are all smart, value-added features. The game doesn't, however, advance much once you get going.
  2. The game provides enough shots of adrenaline to pump up your heart after those “barely-won-battles” which makes it worthwhile.
  3. Pandemic did everything they were supposed to do with a sequel, and Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers is a great game and a great follow-up to the original.
  4. If you like your tactical action with a fat slice of strategy, this sequel's a winner. [Jun 2006, p.76]
  5. The strategy elements and the point-and-click system bog the action down in this game.
  6. With patience, it can be an engrossing experience, as you tentatively eke your way through a foreign town, with deadly threats lurking round every corner. It's dramatic, it's tense, it's infuriating, but is it fun? No. It's not fun, it's war.
  7. Ten Hammers maintains a great presentation and adds some minor control tweaks, but overall you're left with a strategy experience that feels very familiar if you played the first game.
  8. The Full Spectrum Warrior series has given inspiration to "Brothers in Arms" and 360's "Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter", but is still lacking some of its own. [Apr 2006, p.116]
  9. It’s on Live, though, that Ten Hammers truly explodes into life, the absolute requirement for tactics creating jumpy matches that outgun anything so far on Xbox or its baby brother. [Apr 2006, p.92]
  10. A cerebral and unusual war game with issues that don’t, in the end, detract from its effectiveness. [Apr 2006, p.122]
  11. Realism in games isn't necessarily a good thing, as most players tend to be trying to get away from realism and into a fictional world.
  12. More expansion pack than full game, without the same level of challenge. [June 2006, p.89]
  13. 70
    What we actually have, though, is something more in line with what the original should have been that ends up being less compelling for its lateness.
  14. Unfortunately though, some key design decisions mixed with gameplay that, whilst solid, is very repetitive produces an experience that the casual gamer will probably struggle to fall in love with.
  15. The strategy play can sometimes feel mechanical, but budding tacticians will undoubtedly love it.
  16. The rigidly linear levels with obvious trigger points, the failure to evolve the basic gameplay and the newly random nature of the effectiveness of cover all conspire to devalue what was a novel and rather fun original.
  17. But right from the word go it takes a backward step by trying too hard to (ulp) be authentic and realistic, introducing some shonky control elements that never quite work and almost completely overlooking the fun aspect that was there in spades last time around.
  18. Hobbling a good game with awful controls is a crime and in this respect I judge Pandemic guilty as charged.
  19. While the tactical combat is still the best around, more casual gamers hoping for a military action fix may find it too frustrating, too inconsistent and too cold for their liking.
  20. Any way you cut it, Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers is one rigid, uncompromising design with a high frustration factor. [July 2006, p.60]
  21. Although Ten Hammers has some nice touches, it is nowhere near the gameit could and should have been. This is a case of great original, poor sequel syndrome, I’m afraid.
  22. The original game was used as a training tool for real soldiers. God help the US if this is what they actually have to deal with. [June 2006, p.68]
  23. 50
    Some players will be creeped out playing soldier in a whitewashed mirror-universe version of an ugly war that's still in the headlines. The score is not being docked for it, but it's something that needs to be mentioned.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 15 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 6
  2. Negative: 2 out of 6
  1. EricEdmond
    Mar 25, 2008
    The user interface on this one was way too complex. They gave up on the simplicity and usability from the first one. I haven't bothered to play past the first mission because the interface won't do what I want and end up getting myself killed everytime. Why bother? I wouldn't recommend this game to anyone. Full Review »
  2. MattK.
    Nov 12, 2007
    What a step down from the original. The new interface was horrible, and obviously made for a console, not a PC. The dialog was annoying and the plot was... well, it wasn't. Very sad as I loved the original. Full Review »
  3. Apr 16, 2014
    I bought this game, from discount box, price was 5-10€ cant remember, I guessed this is worth of trying, even I havent ever heard about this game series. Game is great realtime tactics, controls are smooth. AI is bit of **** Playable characters are bad shooters sometimes, and sometimes they are also blind. For casual player bit of "strange" and if you are not interestet about realtime war tactics, its hard to love. But for real type of player this is perfect Full Review »