Act of Aggression

62%
Game Brain Score Based on 2,754 reviews
  • story
  • gameplay
  • graphics
Act of Aggression Game Cover
Starting at $4.80Buy now
Get on Steam

Act of Aggression - Reboot Edition is a real-time strategy game set in a techno-thriller World War III scenario. The game offers a full overhaul of the original, including a new resource system, playable builder units, and improved mechanics for smoother gameplay. Command one of three global superpowers, each with access to advanced military weaponry, and engage in intense battles in volatile conflict zones.

  • PC
  • Windows
Genres & TagsPlay Modes

Reviews

62%
Audience ScoreBased on 2,754 reviews
gameplay154 positive mentions
story68 negative mentions
  • Great graphics and unit designs that evoke nostalgia for classic RTS games like Command & Conquer.
  • Unique factions with distinct play styles, offering a variety of strategies and gameplay experiences.
  • The game has a solid foundation for multiplayer and skirmish modes, providing enjoyable gameplay for RTS fans.
  • The campaign lacks depth and is poorly designed, with frustrating difficulty spikes and unengaging storytelling.
  • The AI can be unbalanced, often overwhelming players with unit spam and lacking strategic depth.
  • The game suffers from technical issues, including crashes and poor pathfinding, which detract from the overall experience.
  • story556 mentions

    The story in the game has received overwhelmingly negative feedback, with many players describing it as clichéd, poorly executed, and lacking depth. Critics point to weak voice acting, disjointed mission narratives, and a failure to provide adequate context for objectives, leading to a frustrating gameplay experience. While some missions offer creative challenges, the overall campaign is seen as tedious and unengaging, often feeling like a mere series of tasks rather than a cohesive narrative.

    • “The story, as far as RTS games go, I don't know much about what people can do with story, but I had fun except for 1 or 2 missions.”
    • “The techno-thriller story told from both sides is quite nuanced and cool, but it is presented very sloppily with lackluster cutscenes and things happening without much explanation.”
    • “The campaign/story is alright, serves the purpose if you leave your expectations far enough behind.”
    • “The story is awful.”
    • “The campaign is the weakest point with a lackluster story that just brings down the whole game.”
    • “The story is pretty bare-bones, voice actors phone in the lines and all-in-all the presentation always feels stale, even fresh out of the box.”
  • gameplay552 mentions

    The gameplay of the game has received mixed reviews, with some praising its variety, base-building mechanics, and unique factions, while others criticize its complexity, balance issues, and lack of polish. Many players find the mechanics reminiscent of classic RTS titles like Command & Conquer, but feel that the execution falls short due to clunky controls and a convoluted resource system. Overall, while there are enjoyable elements, the gameplay experience can be hindered by technical issues and a steep learning curve.

    • “The gameplay is great with cool base building, resource management, and unique factions.”
    • “Fans of the RTS genre will find the gameplay familiar, but with refreshing innovations that make AOA stand out from the rest of the pack.”
    • “The gameplay is fluid and you need to respond fast to ever-changing situations in battles.”
    • “Honestly, the story is about the level of Supreme Commander's, but the gameplay is just so bad that it sucks any fun out of the game.”
    • “The mechanics on how to put buildings on your base sucked; this game has been stuck between being a wargame and a traditional RTS game, which in the end ruins the interesting mechanics they want to implement.”
    • “The gameplay is frantic and the amount of micromanagement needed to play is really a turn-off.”
  • graphics414 mentions

    The graphics of the game receive mixed reviews, with many praising their modern aesthetic and detail, especially for a title released in 2015. While some players appreciate the vibrant visuals and smooth performance on lower-end systems, others criticize the dated animations and lack of contextual detail, leading to a perception of lifelessness. Overall, the graphics are generally considered good, but not groundbreaking, with some players noting that they fall short compared to other contemporary titles.

    • “The graphics are beautiful and look modern even though this game came out in 2015.”
    • “Absolutely amazing graphics, dynamic gameplay, and a good campaign.”
    • “As far as quality goes, this is coming from the company that made Wargame: Red Dragon, and I would expect nothing less than stunning visuals, well-detailed models, good texture work, etc. My expectations were met with a game with amazing graphics.”
    • “Graphics and animations are laughable and are surpassed by the likes of Runescape.”
    • “I've tried to play this game many times, but each time the visuals force me to quickly abandon.”
    • “So I re-ran the game on a powerful setup: Xeon processor, GTX 1080, professional, wide color 4K screen (LG Ultrafine), settings set to the max. Visuals were as mediocre and didn't even look anything close to 4K, not even full HD.”
  • music190 mentions

    The music in the game has received mixed reviews, with many players finding it forgettable and lacking the iconic quality of classic RTS soundtracks like those from Command & Conquer. While some appreciate the catchy elements and fitting action, others criticize it as generic, repetitive, and poorly integrated with the gameplay, leading to a desire for more diverse and engaging tracks. Overall, the soundtrack is seen as a significant drawback, with many opting to mute it in favor of their own music.

    • “Awesome soundtrack (C&C style)!”
    • “The soundtrack may not be iconic, but it does fit the action and keeps you going, while the game also has several screen shaking effects for heavy weapons.”
    • “The soundtrack is pretty cool.”
    • “Act of aggression takes the sound design in particular to poverty-level with muted voices that sound like they were generated by a text-to-speech program and the music screams royalty-free music whose tone doesn't fit the game one bit.”
    • “The soundtrack leaves something to be desired.”
    • “The music is absolutely terrible (the worst in-game score I have ever heard).”
  • optimization46 mentions

    The optimization of the game has received mixed reviews, with some players reporting smooth performance on high settings, while others experience significant frame rate issues and poor graphics optimization, particularly on lower-end machines. Many users express frustration over the game's demanding requirements and lack of polish, leading to a consensus that it is not well-optimized overall. Multiplayer performance is noted as surprisingly stable, but the general sentiment leans towards disappointment in the game's optimization.

    • “The game runs well on nearly max graphics, so I don't really know what the optimization brigade is screeching about.”
    • “A very well optimized PC game with beautiful detailed graphics.”
    • “Multiplayer is in fact surprisingly optimized; I'm still using my mobile broadband and have no issues playing with anyone. I rarely see a disconnect or a network crash even though I've played with people across the world, and that is truly rare in this day and age.”
    • “Now it's just an unpolished, unoptimized mess, and if you're one of many that can't even run it, you're probably the lucky one.”
    • “Firstly, optimization is utterly crap; everything on highest settings + 4K resolution = about 30 fps. This isn't good; I should be able to play above 60 fps easily considering the game shouldn't be this demanding.”
    • “It's so poorly optimized I have to play on the lowest graphic settings, which makes it look like 'Rise of Nations' on its lowest graphic settings.”
  • grinding26 mentions

    Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be a significant drawback, with many describing the campaign as tedious and time-consuming, often taking hours to complete a single mission. The resource gathering and base-building mechanics are criticized for being overly complicated and slow, leading to frustration during gameplay. While some enjoy the strategic elements and multiplayer fun, the repetitive nature of skirmishes and limited map variety contribute to a sense of monotony.

    • “The campaign is near impossible to beat and very tedious (takes hours to complete a single mission).”
    • “Worrying about which resource is needed to build rather identical units from bland, nondistinctive buildings gets tedious, then old, then frustrating.”
    • “Resource gathering is slow and tedious, and 90% of the time, even if you have 4 oil factories and 2 banks.”
  • stability26 mentions

    The stability of the game has received mixed reviews, with many players reporting significant bugs, crashes, and freezes, particularly in multiplayer modes. While a few users noted a solid engine with rare crashes, the overall consensus leans towards the game being released in an unfinished state, leading to frustration and refunds from some players.

    • “Not buggy, solid engine, crashes are rare.”
    • “Not buggy, solid engine, crashes are rare.”
    • “Extremely buggy, I've reached a point in the game where I can't move forward and restarting missions results in a core dump.”
    • “Lots of potential but in the current state stay clear; lots of glitches, lots of crashes, another example of a game released before it's ready for launch.”
    • “I bought and refunded within the hour; I couldn't get the game to run, had repeated startup crashes, but even the 10 minutes of gameplay I did get, I was finding glitches.”
  • replayability20 mentions
    • “Even the single player campaigns have a good level of learning and that addictive 'I can do that better and more efficiently if I just...' replay value.”
    • “For those willing to sink in lots of hours, you will find tremendous replayability and depth; otherwise, you might get frustrated and walk away before you get to the big payoff.”
    • “Replayability: 8/10”
    • “It was fun for a few hours, but there is really no replayability.”
    • “The replayability factor of this game is not very high unless this is the only PC game you own; in that case, you would likely give up your PC out of boredom.”
    • “Overall a pretty solid game that does not crash often, but the lack of innovation and strategic/tactical depth gives it a somewhat limited replay value.”
  • humor16 mentions

    The humor in the game is described as politically incorrect and often absurd, with moments like tanks causing mini-nuke explosions when destroyed near buildings providing both laughter and frustration. While playing with friends enhances the comedic experience, some aspects, such as the excited sounds of recon helicopters, can become grating over time. Overall, the game is seen as hilarious, particularly in multiplayer, but could benefit from more structured humor akin to that found in Command and Conquer.

    • “Good RTS and one that is hilarious.”
    • “With that being said, playing skirmish can become very tedious after some time, while playing with friends is extremely funny!”
    • “The 3 armies have different paths to go, which makes it really funny to actually go 'random' where most games just have different names and troops.”
  • atmosphere10 mentions

    The atmosphere of the game is a mixed bag; while some players appreciate the familiar feel and music reminiscent of "Act of War," others criticize it for lacking the engaging style and depth that made the original game compelling. The overall sentiment suggests that the atmosphere is present but not as impactful or immersive as expected, particularly due to a weak story.

    • “So, the atmosphere is set, and it's a plus.”
    • “- familiar feel / atmosphere”
    • “The atmosphere is set, and it's a plus.”
    • “I loved the music from AOW, which very much added to the atmosphere.”
  • monetization4 mentions

    Reviews indicate that the monetization strategy is perceived as insufficient, leading to accusations of the game being a "cash grab" rather than a promising start to a new franchise.

    • “Lump this under 'cash grab', and not the beginnings of a cool franchise.”
  • emotional4 mentions

    Players express a deep emotional connection to the game, particularly appreciating the variety of units and upgrades that resonate with seasoned strategy gamers. However, some users feel frustrated by balance issues, which detracts from their overall enjoyment and willingness to continue playing.

    • “There are a lot of units and upgrades to choose from, which altogether touches the heart of an old seasoned strategy gamer like me. I can only recommend this game.”
Positive mentions (%)Positive
Neutral mentions (%)Neutral
Negative mentions (%)Negative

Buy Act of Aggression

Play time

18hMedian play time
36hAverage play time
6-117hSpent by most gamers
*Based on 18 analyzed playthroughs

Videos

Similar Games