Joint Task Force (PC)

JTF doesn't match the quality of its ideas

Realism in gaming is something of a double edged sword. On the one hand you want your explosions to billow and flame as convincingly as possible, and your ragdoll physics to really emote as enemies crash through plate glass windows, but on the other hand reality can be pretty dull. Sports and racing sims are one thing, but the new found fascination in making real-time strategy games with only real-world vehicles and units is pretty baffling. Why have robot exoskeletons and orc shamen when you can have three different kinds of humvee instead?

To be fair, there is more to JTF than real-world licenses from the likes of Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. It's even possible to ignore the creepy neocon plotting of the single-player campaign, which sounds like some sort of wet dream concocted by Donald Rumsfeld in one of his less liberal moments. It's basically a virtual tour of all the most unpleasant battlefields of the last two decades, including Bosnia, Somalia and Afghanistan. Thankfully the game avoids being actively offensive thanks to the hilariously cheesy (or, depending on how you feel about 'Allo 'Allo style foreign accents, hilariously bad) voiceovers. The way the narrator always sneers the name "UN" is particularly chortlesome.

 Advertisement

Despite what the script may have you believe, the game is far from unsophisticated. Sensibly, there's no resource gathering, which would seem ridiculous considering the realistic overtones, and instead you're able to order in additional units and vehicles by using money gained through completed objectives. Earning money on the battlefield doesn't make any real sense either, but the objective-based rewards is a sensible update of the command points system first seen in LucasArts' flawed Star Wars: Force Commander. JTF goes a step further though, by not even requiring you to construct buildings, but instead seize and hold them in combat instead of magically building them in seconds.

Another interesting new idea in the game, and one which really only makes sense in the realistic context of the game's setting, is the idea of collateral damage and media reputation. Pop too many caps in too many innocent asses and your funding and morale will hit rock bottom - go completely overboard and it's instant game over. It's a neat idea but in the end has little real impact for the simple fact that there are rarely many civilians around to kill anyway, whether purposefully or not.

... your elite Joint Task Force seems to be populated entirely by conscious objectors, because they need constant prodding from you to actually attack the enemy.

Where the game does triumph, though, is in the complex promotions ladder for troops. The longer they survive the more experience points they accrue, meaning they 'level up', just as in a role-playing game. Ultimately they can get promoted to 'hero' status, which then gives them a pleasingly wide range of specialist skills to learn depending on their specific role - from sniper to medic.

All this good work, though, is largely undone when you realise that the combat in the game really isn't as good as it could be, which is, as you might imagine, a bit of a problem. Conceptually it works exactly the same as Dune II from way back in 1992: you spot the enemy from your blimp-esque viewpoint, click on them and let your soldiers do their work. The problem is that your elite Joint Task Force seems to be populated entirely by conscious objectors, because they need constant prodding from you to actually attack the enemy - even when they're standing almost on top of them. They're just as lackadaisical about their own wellbeing, occasionally going prone but rarely doing anything sensible like taking cover while under fire.

You've got three different formations you can force your units into but it's a token gesture when it comes to offering up any real sense of strategy. The situation is only exacerbated by the uninspired level design which rarely involves any lateral thinking on your part, just moving your troops through a series of waypoints, wiping everything out along the way. Even given this innate simplicity the game struggles to entertain, since the enemy artificial intelligence is just as poor as your allies'.

Strong visuals don't make up for sloppy gameplay

As a result of this AI pratfalling the designers resort to constant ambushes which are largely impossible to anticipate and force you to crawl around the map at a snail's pace. This could have resulted in some Full Spectrum Warrior style ducking and diving between cover, but weirdly the only proper cover in the game is provided by unlikely rows of sandbags with giant arrows next to them - presumably laid out by the local populace to aid any wandering Special Forces units.

Add in a wretchedly awkward interface, that looks like it was ripped straight out of WarCraft II, and you've got a game with some pretty serious problems. Despite all this though, it's still not a complete failure. There's a generous number of multiplayer modes, which if you can find some reliable opponents helps to alleviate many of the AI problems. The graphics are also very good, with some good effects, detailed units and excellent use of the PhysX physics engine.

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. Decent mission design and a game setting that's something more than a rallying call for the Stop the War collation would be nice too.