Metascore
68

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 31
  2. Negative: 0 out of 31
  1. It boasts simplistic, pick-up-and-play mechanics that make this one an absolute blast for short or even long gaming spurts. It doesn’t skimp on depth despite its simplicity, either.
  2. Military actions will no longer be made from the other side of the ocean, but where it really matters. Responsibility will be put into the hands of the men who represent our great country.
  3. It’s rare that a strategy game should possess so many levels of complexity and that they should all be so rewarding...Variety is JTF’s strength and it flows to every corner of the game. [Nov 2006, p.122]
  4. With graphics almost fit for an FPS and lots of "shiny", plus real military hardware recreated in great detail, it's also a title to get the gaming enthusiasts rig warmed up as it draws them steadily into addiction.
  5. A decent enough, varied and often fun game that could and should have been more, but as it stands, while it strived for more ambitious goals, in the end it's just your typical RTS with killer looks and some nice, underdeveloped ideas.
  6. 80
    The game’s campaign mode is very engaging and fun, with a reliance of strategy the key factor in winning. While the other modes aren’t quite as enjoyable, they do enough to offer a different perspective to the game, especially the co-op mode.
  7. Has moments of greatness but is ultimately a disappointment. Most of the problems can be attributed to incompleteness: there are some serious scripting issues, the game crashes regularly and the vehicle AI is laughable. When everything works, the game is quite enjoyable. [Dec 2006]
  8. The ability to drive everything and anything combined with the detailed levels and highly flexible units makes it a very realistic experience for an RTS and it's not far off being the modern-warfare version of "Company of Heroes."
  9. Explosive fun with a conscience; refreshing and interesting stuff. [Nov 2006, p.92]
  10. I suspect that somewhere in Joint Task Force there's a 90% game dying to break out. But at the moment, it's pinned down under enemy fire. [Nov 2006, p.88]
  11. The enjoyment in Joint Task Force does not come out of adrenaline-laced combat or any sort of quick thrills; instead, it comes from the satisfaction of seeing a well-laid strategy work.
  12. Taking into consideration the awful unit micromanagement I can’t really recommend the single-player campaign, other than for those who are really interested in the storyline. For the rest of the RTS fans out there, the multiplayer will be the main course.
  13. With the superior "Company of Heroes" looming over the proceedings, JTF's lovely graphics, underused media twist and modern settings mask a solid but perhaps rather uninspired take on the genre. [Dec 2006, p.82]
  14. JTF was an experience bordering on mediocre that only managed to rise sporadically above my overall impression of it.
  15. Though eclipsed by "Company of Heroes," JTF is a tough but attractive military RTS. [Holiday 2006, p.74]
  16. It’s just a shame that the resource model aspect didn’t pan out quite as I’m sure the developer envisioned, while the handful of other little annoyances ensure that the gameplay never lives up to the excellent visuals.
  17. Joint Task Force delivers a distinctive and modern interpretation of real-time strategy, enjoyable in its own quirky way. It ain't perfect, but it proves fulfilling once you've taken a few learning curve lumps.
  18. Its presentation and slick detail are a credit to the developers, but the often laborious pace will put off those seeking more intensity in their RTS offerings.
  19. Just watch out for that evil installer. And don’t forget the hefty patch. And try not to lose patience with the micromanagement. Oh, and… did we mention you’d have more fun playing "Company of Heroes"?
  20. Joint Task Force's theme of modern military intervention to solve the world's ills seems fitting, as it shows how good ideas can get bogged down in reality.
  21. As far as my ears went, I think the jarringly bad voice acting, especially with units that are talking regularly, is what really killed me.
  22. They’ve built a good RTS engine with several noteworthy features, and then ruined the single-player game with a lackluster control scheme, pathfinding issues, and a positively moronic enemy AI. But if you go multiplayer, get away from most of that, and find yourself a competent adversary, then I’m pretty happy with JTF.
  23. 65
    Playing through the missions is an experience filled with spectacular highs stunted by lows which unstoppably avert your attention from a title that, by rights, deserves to have turned out better than it has.
  24. The missions are beautifully detailed, but characterless. The acting is just a few inflections the wrong side of ham. The units simply don't pack the punch you want from modern combat, and that lack of zing is pretty much found throughout the game.
  25. As interesting as some of its ideas are though, this seems doomed to having them all stolen by subsequent titles that can actually incorporate them into a game with some proper strategy and depth.
  26. 57
    Then there's the fact that many of the game's units get wiped out very quickly, usually forcing a reload if they were on the more expensive side. Add atrocious vehicle pathing to that equation and you'll find the result to be frequent frustration.
  27. Joint Task Force feels very much like a game that is not finished or complete.
  28. Joint Task Force isn't as bad as "Faces of War," but it's nowhere near the quality of "Company of Heroes."
  29. 50
    When considered as a game separate from its good ideas, JTF comes up as decidedly mediocre. I'm a believer in deeper and more meaningful games -- just not at the expense of gameplay.
  30. It doesn’t help that this has been a great year for real-time strategy. Three years ago, Joint Task Force would have stood out. [Dec. 2006, p.74]
  31. If Joint Task Force is remembered years from now, it will be because it has a really good theme, with some nice ideas, but overall bad execution. That is, unless people are far more distracted by the bad voice acting.
User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 17 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 10
  2. Negative: 3 out of 10
  1. Dec 12, 2010
    1
    I give this a 1 the single player is good for an old game how ever if you are wanting it for MULTIPLAYER there is none. The company no longerI give this a 1 the single player is good for an old game how ever if you are wanting it for MULTIPLAYER there is none. The company no longer exists if you try to get help from them the web site shuts down I thought it was a problem with my internet. When i determined that was not the case i contacted valve about the problem they said I had to contact the orignal company. That is how i found out there is no company its just false advertising if you want it for single player good for you multiplayer look some where else. Full Review »
  2. Roger
    Oct 9, 2007
    1
    This game needs an overhaul it its full of bugs in multiplayer mode. if the game worked it would be fun to play but the bugs keep you form This game needs an overhaul it its full of bugs in multiplayer mode. if the game worked it would be fun to play but the bugs keep you form enjoying the game. come on people fix your games or don't even release them to the public for sale. your wasting our money. Full Review »
  3. MattH.
    Sep 24, 2006
    9
    I think the reviewers are crazy, lazy, or bad at RTS games. I cannot believe the nonsense I am reading. It's at least as good as Act of I think the reviewers are crazy, lazy, or bad at RTS games. I cannot believe the nonsense I am reading. It's at least as good as Act of War, and certainly as good as Generals. Also, no review mentions you can play the single player campaign co-op with a friend. Full Review »