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. 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.
  2. 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]
  3. JTF was an experience bordering on mediocre that only managed to rise sporadically above my overall impression of it.
  4. Though eclipsed by "Company of Heroes," JTF is a tough but attractive military RTS. [Holiday 2006, p.74]
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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"?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Joint Task Force feels very much like a game that is not finished or complete.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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]
  20. Joint Task Force isn't as bad as "Faces of War," but it's nowhere near the quality of "Company of Heroes."
User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 20 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 11
  2. Negative: 3 out of 11
  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 »