Age of Empires III Review

By Oliver Clare Published 24 October, 2005

New World, old gameplay.

Version tested: PC

There's something rather childish, cynical even, about Age of Empires III. Playing it I'm reminded of a girl at school that started giving me presents (chocolate mainly) on a daily basis. She was, I guess, trying to win my affection. Being confused (it was the first time I'd ever been actively pursued) and being greedy I took the bars for a couple of weeks before guiltily asking her to stop. Right now I feel like I want to say to AoE3 "Stop with the gifts! To win my heart you don't need to sprinkle every map with silly treasure troves. You don't need to let me flick to a 'home city' screen every few minutes so that I can select a free unit or resource windfall. I'm not some spoilt toddler that needs to be bribed with endless sweeties."

Somewhere along the line Ensemble seem to have lost sight of what's important in a real-time strategy game. AoE3 looks and sounds fantastic yet its economics are dull, its factions are bland, and its combat is crude and fiddly. Without the addition of that novel home city concept (more on which in a second) this would be a startlingly unoriginal creation.

Before I flesh-out those comments, pushing the critical bowie knife even deeper, here's some background and some basics. This is the fourth episode of one of the biggest strategy franchises around. Taking-up where Age of Kings - the second episode - left-off and ending where AoE4 will one day doubtless begin, it plunders the period between 1500 and 1850 for it's unit type and tech inspirations. The stage is the New World, the playable powers - eight squabbling European states supported by various indigenous tribes. Skirmish and multiplay fit the traditional 'gather, build, battle' pattern to a tee while the twenty-four episode sequential campaign, though well-written and imaginatively framed, offers exactly the same kind of challenges that RTS campaigns have been offering for years. Destroy that town, hit that resource threshold, hold-out for this many minutes... perhaps if there was a choice of hoops occasionally or they were little less obvious, then jumping through them would be more fun.

'Age of Empires III' Screenshot 1

Buccaneers feature heavily in the first third of the campaign.

The closest thing to freshness here is that home city concept. Where other RTS developers all seem to be turning to strat maps to enrich their offerings Ensemble bravely try something quite different. In AoE3, whenever your troops slay or demolish, or your peons gather or construct, the activity generates RPG-style experience points for your home city - an attractive 3D diorama always just a key press away. The point of regularly returning to Istanbul, Lisbon, St Petersburg or wherever is, oddly enough, not to visit your Mum and get your laundry done, it’s to order shipments of new units, resources, and upgrades. Paid for with those XP points, deliveries take next to no time to cross the Atlantic to your settlement, and are never lost to pirates or stormy seas.

So the home city is just an awkward version of a standard market or barracks building then? No, it is slightly more interesting than that. Periodically your city levels-up and you get to choose new shipment types (called ‘cards‘). Because the cards are arranged in tech-tree fashion and cities are persistent - even in MP and skirmish modes - a choice you make on Monday has an effect in the game you play on Tuesday. Put simply, the more you play, the more shipment choices you get.

'Age of Empires III' Screenshot 2

Age of Mythology’s auto-formation feature has been included.

The positives with this system are fairly obvious. There’s a gratifying sense of progress whether you're romping through the campaign, sparring with the solid if predictable AI, or battling online. One of the negatives is that it discourages cultural infidelity. The player that diligently switches faction every game will get nowhere. Much better to stick with one power and watch them blossom over several weeks.

Staying monogamous has another advantage too. As cities level-up you don’t only get new cards, you get credits to spend on urban enhancements like flags, market stalls, and street performers. A bit like the Civ3 palace system these extras are just for show, another manifestation of that distracting ‘free gift’ culture decried in the first paragraph.

Ripping into AoE3 for its lack of realism would be unfair (it’s not pitched as a historical recreation after all) but personally I’d like to have seen a tad more engagement with the subject matter. As any Cossacks 2 player will tell you, combat during the Colonial era was all about formations, fear and flintlock reload times. Ensemble’s interpretation is all but identical to its interpretation of medieval warfare. Invariably scraps turn into chaotic scrums where the winner is the fellow with the biggest and buffest force, or the one that can replenish their side of the swarm most efficiently. Forget flanking, forget terrain, forget friendly fire, standard bearers and drummer boys. It’s a similar story on water. The new navy units are gorgeous but the way they move, attack and take damage would baffle Nelson.

'Age of Empires III' Screenshot 3

If you’re partial to gunpowder The Turks are the civ to play.

Economics have undergone some streamlining since AoK. Resource types are down to three (no more stone) and peons no longer have to trudge to drop-off structures with their wood, meat or gold. Sensible steps but ones that underline just how stylised and generic this game‘s version of colonial history is. For the real settlers there were, of course, no gold mines, no markets where supply shortages could be instantly rectified. The game’s portrayal of the Amerindians is particularly bizarre. Never hostile, they function essentially as cheap mercenaries and experience generation devices. By building a trading post at a camp and surrendering some food you can supplement your armies with braves whenever the need arises. A unit that often ends-up constructing the posts is the new Explorer. Like a Warcraft or Age Of Mythology hero, he’s a one-off who, if slain can be automatically resurrected by nearby friendlies. When he’s isn’t waiting for reanimation he’s generally (if you’ve got any sense) dashing round the map dispersing the fog of war and grabbing the ridiculous number of treasure caches. Gold wagons surrounded by wild animals, xp-bestowing artifacts guarded by outlaws, indians dangling from bear-patrolled trees... wherever you wander on most of the region-themed maps there’s usually some tantalising prize waiting to be collected.

These hand-outs are symptomatic of the stagnation at the heart of Age of Empires 3. Even with the new home cities, gameplay feels tired and characterless. Bombarding players with shiny baubles and inconsequential gifts can’t hide that.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Oliver.

About Oliver Clare

Read more articles from Oliver by visiting the Oliver Clare archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (60) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • apolloscollapse #1 6 years ago

    I played the demo as was purely disappointed, I hate the interface too, it takes up a third of the screen WTF?

  • NonnyMouse #2 6 years ago

    Age of Kings was so awesome - somehow, the atmosphere was just right.
    I keep playing Bliz strategy games but somehow Age of Mythology, and this one,
    didn't grab me. Somehow it just doesn't feel like progress...

  • zErOb_cOOl #3 6 years ago

    Hmmm, its a classic case of

    1. fiddling with something that doesn't need fixing
    2. giving a game commercial bling and whistles when it isn't needed.

    I know graphical improvements are simply logical next-step in game design, but as apollo said, the options interface is far too big for a start.
    Edited by 1 at 24/10/05 @ 11:46

  • Angrydarren #4 6 years ago

    Ummm......As a lapsed RTS fan I was mulling over going for the new - AOE3 - or trying Rome: TW. Seems as though AOE3 is "RTS For Dummies". Would Rome be a better option? I always thought that either were "historical" (fantasy and Sci Fi hold little appeal) but it seems as though AOE 3 is a bit Hollywood.
    Edited by 1 at 24/10/05 @ 11:50

  • Bezzy #5 6 years ago

    Figured I'd give the AO franchise a chance. Tried the demo. Found the game pretty repelling if you're not well versed in RTS conventions from the start.

    Then again, the mission they chose was fairly far on in the campaign.
    Edited by 1 at 24/10/05 @ 11:51

  • Lauper #6 6 years ago

    The interface was changed from the oversized version in the demo to a much-reduced version in the final release of the game.

  • Xerx3s #7 6 years ago

    Good review. Would have given the same score. Somehow i think that the step from 2d to 3d has spoiled the gameplay. AoM had the same thing. Once you get over the graphics, it just doesnt grab you by the balls like AoK. Ahh well, back to playing fantastic MP games in AoK then ^_^.

    "Figured I'd give the AO franchise a chance. Tried the demo. Found the game pretty repelling if you're not well versed in RTS conventions from the start. "

    Try AoK in MP, the experience is something worth having. Especially if you get the hang of it.

  • MoFo #8 6 years ago

    I'd rate the game a 5/10. I keep trying to force myself to play it, telling myself, "AOE 2 was such a great game so this must be good, I'm just not giving it enough time". It doesn't work though. It's a classic case of "If it looks good, people will buy it". Many other RTS games have surpassed what is on offer here. AOE has conceeded its crown as the RTS king.

  • Eldritch #9 6 years ago

    Couldn't bear the demo. "What am I supposed to DO here?!" I didn't get the interface (and I got the one in Disciples 2, mind you!). Disappointing. Felt like an EA update.

  • UncleLou #10 6 years ago

    Well, I loved the demo, but then I am a hopeless AoE fanboy. It's the only RTS game that gives me that feeling I last had when I played with my Playmobil toys 25 years ago - and it's still the one of the very few RTS series that let's you build proper bases, with tons of different buildings, walls, etc. etc.

  • UncleLou #11 6 years ago

    Figured I'd give the AO franchise a chance. Tried the demo. Found the game pretty repelling if you're not well versed in RTS conventions from the start.


    Well, if it's not too late for you now, there's a new demo out with a tutorial.

  • Stickman #12 6 years ago

    Angrydarren: Get Rome, no question. You can pick it up for next to nowt these days.

    I'm very disappointed with AoE. It's a franchise that seems to have not advanecd at all since the nineties. Dull.

  • Eldritch #13 6 years ago

    "It's the only RTS game that gives me that feeling I last had when I played with my Playmobil toys 25 years ago"

    Ah, those were the days! But I sold it all for my C64! The horror! The regrets!

    The last RTS that reminded me of my Playmobil days was "The Settlers III". But look at that series now...

  • urban #14 6 years ago

    i would have given it a 5, i found it extremely poor.

    your last paragraph is bang on.

    its crud :)

  • glaeken #15 6 years ago

    I really don't get what everyone is seeing when they say how great the graphics are in this. I tried the demo but I must be missing something as it just looks standard for this sort of game. This is on 6800GT as well so I would expect to see all the bells and whistles.

    On the Rome total war question just get it. It's a great game with months of game play. It is a little more hardcore than an AOE I would say though.

  • Bezzy #16 6 years ago

    "It's the only RTS game that gives me that feeling I last had when I played with my Playmobil toys 25 years ago"

    That explains it. I was more of a Lego kinda guy.

    Playnobil was too set-piece and scripted for my liking. Lego was modular and creative, and Object Oriented and had lots of systemic emergence.

    Then again, recently Lego keeps inventing pieces that can only be used in like, 1 or 2 ways. wtg, HACKS.

  • evak #17 6 years ago

    I really like AOE3, so long as you don't mind a slightly old school RTS and like the eye candy and physics it's cool. Just don't expect the gameplay to have evoved into the next greates thing.

    For me it was fun, and I prefer the 3D to 2D, which is reallly well done, Just it's not practical to play zoomed in, which kind of defeats it a bit.

    I'd probably give it an 8.

  • paralipsis #18 6 years ago

    I prefer my strategy turn-based rather than real-time, so a 7/10 review is enough for me to say no thanks.

  • UncleLou #19 6 years ago

    Playnobil was too set-piece and scripted for my liking. Lego was modular and creative, and Object Oriented and had lots of systemic emergence.


    All the Lego Kids ever did was try to build the Playmobil stuff, only that it looked crap. :p Anyway, Playmobil wasn't scripted, it was all about making your own stories, man! But then I became a humanist, while all the Lego Kids became natural scientists. ;)

  • Furbs #20 6 years ago

    I had Duplo and Sticklebricks. Where do I fit in?

  • Bezzy #21 6 years ago

    You guys became big during the internet boom of the late nineties.

  • age3 #22 6 years ago

    "its economics are dull"
    Where is the justification for such an absurd comment? There is an amazing strategic depth in the economics, which can be described as anything but dull.

    "and its combat is crude and fiddly."
    If by 'crude and fiddly', you mean it requires micromanagement to be entirely effective (like all good RTS games), then you're right, and this is not a negative.

    "Without the addition of that novel home city concept (more on which in a second) this would be a startlingly unoriginal creation."
    Halo 2, without... well, it simply is startingly unoriginal. halflife 2, with out the grav gun, is startingly unoriginal. All RTS games without a specific feature are startingly unoriginal. What were you expecting? This is an RTS Age game. Expect an RTS Age game, not something else.

    "Paid for with those XP points, deliveries take next to no time to cross the Atlantic to your settlement, and are never lost to pirates or stormy seas."
    Why does this sound negative to me? Let's see, I pay 1000 coin for 10 Highlander mercenaries to come from London. I do not expect them to be drowned in the Atlantic. I expect them to come for when I need them, not 30 minutes later. This is a game. It's also worth mentioning that Earthquakes don't hit the West Coast, or that there are no sign of massive hurricanes destroying everything you've build in the Caribbean.

    "The positives with this system are fairly obvious. There’s a gratifying sense of progress whether you're romping through the campaign, sparring with the solid if predictable AI, or battling online."
    Why not mentiont he assortment of decks you can create to adapt to each map and the opponents' civ choice? That seems a big plus to me.

    "One of the negatives is that it discourages cultural infidelity. The player that diligently switches faction every game will get nowhere. Much better to stick with one power and watch them blossom over several weeks."
    Like in World of Warcraft, where people stick as one character (A Home City is a character) and don't change every 20-odd minutes (20 minutes being the standard time for an AOE3 game online).
    But this is a negative?

    "A bit like the Civ3 palace system these extras are just for show, another manifestation of that distracting ‘free gift’ culture decried in the first paragraph."
    You've turned it into a negative again! The City customisations are little extras to keep your character, or city, more unique to you. Decks and cards and the strategies around them are what is important.

    "Ripping into AoE3 for its lack of realism would be unfair"
    So why, do tell, do you spend the next two paragraphs doing just that? I could 'rip' into all your comments about the historical inaccuracies, but that would be unfair on you.

    "combat during the Colonial era was all about formations, fear and flintlock reload times."
    It's rather odd, to be honest, but formations have always been important. Not just the Colonial era.

    "Invariably scraps turn into chaotic scrums where the winner is the fellow with the biggest and buffest force, or the one that can replenish their side of the swarm most efficiently."
    Incorrect. Perhaps you didn't play enough online? Ignoring AOE3's biggest strength is not nice. However, counters are incredibly important. Pitting musketeers against longbows equals doom, regardless of your musketeer numbers. If you fail to grasp the fundamental combat strategy of Age3, then I wonder why you choose to review it.

    "For the real settlers there were, of course, no gold mines, no markets where supply shortages could be instantly rectified."
    Real settlers did not spawn for 100 pieces of food at a 'Town Center' across America, either. Oh noes.

    "and grabbing the ridiculous number of treasure caches."
    Sounds like another negative. Tsk. Most of these 'treasure caches', are really just environmental features, such as a fallen tree with berries on it, or a captured settler who you can rescue. There are hardly hundreds of large treasure chests full of gold, which you would have you readers believe.

    " gameplay feels tired and characterless"
    I believe the absolute opposite to this opinion.
    Nice review, though it is unfortunate that your reasoning is flawed, biased and inaccurate.

    It is even more unfortunate that you have completely ignored online play (something I regard as plain stupid) and not mentioned many of the brilliant features of the game. And what about the all the game modes? Supermacy, Deathmatch, etc? What about the scenario editor? It is, afterall, an integral part of the game. Why pretend it doesn't exist?
    "its factions are bland"
    This, as your ENTIRE explanation for the 8-very-different civilisations is plain unfair. So many of your comments are.
    But then, who said reviews had to objective?
    Edited by 1 at 25/10/05 @ 01:49

  • Envinyatar #23 6 years ago

    Not much of an "Age of" fanboy like the previous poster. I purchased the game, and like the reviewer (I agree with many of the comments) I too was quite disappointed. I beat the single player campaign in 14 or so hours at the difficulty of hard (thinking I would go back and do it as expert later - but after doing it once, I had no intrest at all in doing it again). Multiplayer mode is its only halfway redeeming quality, but nothing that stands out to me as 'special' than any other RTS multiplayer. I also checked the modding scene and there is no ability to modify models/animations.

    I'm totally miffed with the 'advanced' formations they give, which are a step backwards from AoK and AoM. So frustrating. This review's comments are spot on. They should have seperated the formations from the stances. They didn't even include behaviors (patrol, defend a specific unit/bulding, follow).

    Oh well, AoEIII is one less thing I'll be wasting my time on during the holidays till BfME II is released - so I guess thats a good thing ;)

    $50 I spent... I should have waited till it was $30.

  • T4RG4 #24 6 years ago

    We so knew this would be average from the demo... In fact, I think the score was very flattering... I would have scored 6/10 even though I would have given 5/10 based on anger at the designers for doing such a poor job (they HAD a standard to keep up).

  • Furbs #25 6 years ago

    So what part did you play in the development of the game age3? Based on almost every comment I've read on the various forums I frequent, if anything this review is generous.

  • UncleLou #26 6 years ago

    Now now, let's stick to the facts, Furbs! Well, actually, you probably did, but anyway ;) The Age of... series has always attracted a large group of haters who couldn't cope with the comparatively complex tech tree and economy model, and I can't quite help it, but many people completely slagging it off now seem to come from the group that has never liked the series. If you look at the places that count - like the Heaven site - you'll notice people aren't unhappy with the game at all.
    Edited by 1 at 25/10/05 @ 09:33

  • Furbs #27 6 years ago

    7 out of 10 is hardly slagging off though - its nearly as good as Halo :p
    Most of the points age3 makes seem to have no validity (And I say that as a huge AoE2 fan). The combat is crude, the tech tree isnt as indepth as it used to be and all this is a graphical makeover (which is fair enough but means a 7/8 at best).

  • UncleLou #28 6 years ago

    Oh, I didn't refer to the review, I more meant the people crawling out of the woodwork everywhere shouting "HAHA, AOE3 sux". :)

    And I think age3 make some very valid points, actually.

  • MoFo #29 6 years ago

    uncleLou, I certainly dont recall any other AOE game receiving so much negative feedback and reviews. A fair few hardcore RTS and previous AOE gamers I know feel this one is somewhat of a let down. You also saying that game reviewers are AOE haters too? Check out gamerankings.com this is easily the lowest ranking AOE game to date (excluding AOE 1 on the macintosh for some bizarre reason), so I'd hardly say it's only the AOE haters commenting.

    I'd personally much rather play RoN or Stronghold2 over AOEIII.

  • UncleLou #30 6 years ago

    Well, yes, some of the reviews are incredibly clueless, actually (the ones comparing it to Dawn of War, for example), but you're right, there are also a lot of disappointed fans. I shouldn't comment anyhow, I've so far only played the demo. Wait for me bitching in this thread what a pile of crap it is in a week or so (I hope not). ;)

    What I don't understand is why people bemoan the lack of innovation, or rather why the lack drags down the score to so comparatively low levels. I mean, take Rome, easily my favourite game of last year, but in the end, it wasn't much more than a graphical update to Medieval or even Shogun, too, for example. For some reason, Ensemblestudios seem to get punished a lot more for the lack of innovation in the reviews than others.

  • Furbs #31 6 years ago

    I agree Lou, innovation is overrated, but see EG's Tiger Woods review for a perfect example of a minor update to improve an already great game shouldnt mean it gets the same or better score.
    Fact is, if you like AoE2, you'll love this and the score wont matter, but if you're new to the series, there are arguably games that are just as good, only cheaper (RoN, AoE2).

  • MoFo #32 6 years ago

    Gahhhh Furbs. I love AOe2 and AOE3 sucks. It's not a given by any means. I feel hard done by and dissapointed by AOE3 and I'm angry. Grrrr.

  • Furbs #33 6 years ago

    Oh. Hehehe.
    Isnt it pretty much the same though, just with updated graphics and the Home City bit? I'd imagine the game mechanics are the same.

  • UncleLou #34 6 years ago

    Yes, is it actually worse than AoK, or would you just say that the gameplay has just aged badly?

  • MoFo #35 6 years ago

    Think that may be the main reason Mr Lou. As per my first comment in this thread, it feels as though other games have surpassed AOE and it doesn't feel as though ensemble have made any real effort to get back on top.

  • UncleLou #36 6 years ago

    Cheers, MoFo, I am, um, looking forward to seeing how disappointed I will be. ;)

  • Stickman #37 6 years ago

    Man! That age3 guy really went to town didn't he?! Seems to be one or two decent points he's made, but the rest comes across as pompous babbling.

    I thought it was a good review, having played the demo I felt much the same sense of 'been here, done this', and nearly everything mentioned in the review gets a mention in other reviews from other sources.

    So what's with the spittle-flecked rage then age? Seeing as you've spent about 20 inches belittling someone else's opinions, why not spend another aeon telling us why AoE III is teh w1nn3r?

    I played the original AoE to death, loved AoK, tolerated AoM, but now it's just all a bit samey wouldn't you say?

  • age3 #38 6 years ago

    When I first read this review, I thought that the reviewer had just waited to see what the general feeling was, and then jumped on the 'reviewer bandwagon', such is the flimsiness of his arguments.

    It's simple: AOE3 is a great game, with a great style and system.

    Some people just don't LIKE that style, and would prefer something different. I don't see why AOE3 should be forced to change when the system is amazing.
    Just look at the sales of previous Age games to do that.

    "why not spend another aeon telling us why AoE III is teh w1nn3r? "
    No. I was pointing out the folly of the reviewer, earlier. I really can't be bothered to try and persuade you people it is a good game, because the very act would be in vain.
    Just look at comments like these: " I love AOe2 and AOE3 sucks. It's not a given by any means."
    What can I do with them? There seems to be no logical reasoning behind it all.

    Most of the AOK fans love AOE3.


    It's just that people don't like the style. I don't like the style of Halo 2, or most FPSs. Would rate them 5-6/10? No, of course not. I can still see how other people enjoy the game.

    I'd say the gamespy review knows what it is talking about, not taking into account their rating, which even I would have so high.

  • Furbs #39 6 years ago

    You're talking bollocks though. Its obvious your are a blinkered fanboy (even though some of your points seem fair enough). Are you saying all the people who have reviewed the game, all the people who have commented on forums dont like RTS's? Lou, Stickman, MoFo and myself are all fans of the AoE series (or else we wouldnt be reading the comments) and yet none of us think it has lived up to the previous incarnations, or rather, bettered it. You seem to be the only person saying it is, so its hardly supporting your "most AoK fans think its better" view. Most people here arent saying its rubbish, just that it brings nothing new to the franchise, which given its been nearly 5 years since AoK is a little disappointing.

  • Talha #40 6 years ago

    The general feeling of the game is that there are quantum leaps in some aspects while backward steps in others. The major leap is of course the graphics and I have no reservations in saying that other RTS's better catch up with this. However, the game is surprisingly rough around the edges. The interface is pure horror, with cheap surfaces and horrid fonts. I saw it in the demo and thought that this was half finished, but incredibly it carried through to the final game. Then there is the gameplay which is THE SAME as in previous games.

    I liked Age of Mythology WAY better.

  • MoFo #41 6 years ago

    What can I do with them? There seems to be no logical reasoning behind it all.


    YOU can't do anything age3. The only thing that would make me think aoe3 doesn't suck is if the developers had made a decent non-sucking game!

  • Realn #42 6 years ago

    Whoa..... AoE3 ROX and a lot of my friends like it. I am SO surprised by reading this. Obviously, though, there are a lot of points that this reviewer made that are simply inaccurate and quite dumb.

    I love this game, so obviously I will be biased, but I must say, WHOA!

    The best feature of AoE2 I think was the strategy and the formation of strategy. Right? Well, if you really think about it now AoE1 and AoE2 had a really bland feeling, but AoE3 is AMAZING with the fact that there is so many realistic and FUN ways to play this. You can be the British, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Russians and even the Ottomans. And they all play very differently-many different units and buildings. With the Home City, too, you can customize each civilization to your own type of city by sending over various different types of shipments to support your colony. To me, to develop this ability and still have it all work out is to say beyond initiative, but revolutionary. Because of it, there are SO many possible strategies. Plus there is so many perks and bonuses that is blinds me why you wouldn't even enjoy this game one bit.

    I think the reviewer is a downer! This review is obviously really dumbfounded and doesn't know how to play properly. If you don't like it, that's understandable! :p Not everyone can like a certain game or game-style. However, with many of these comments are just SO inaccurate and inappropriate.

    FIRST

    AoE3 is NOT for the dummies. I for one think that to play well in this game you have to be actually quite smart, think at a complex level, and able to perfect your strategy.

    SECOND

    No Progress?!?! You got to be kidding, AoE2/AoE1 was 15~ civilizations with suddle differences. AoM/AoM:TT was 3/4 civilizations (with 3 subtpypes) with huge totally different attributes. Now, AoE3 is 8 highly unique but similar civilizations plus with the ability to change and alter your civilization to you liking. Some share units, like most are able to build musketeers, but all play in a very different way economically and militaristically!

    THIRD

    RTS conventions = Not you. Ok... but let me just say this, a lot of my friends are not big "Age of" junkies, but they all love this game (campaign). This game also offers a unique campaign that takes you historically colonizing and traveling the New World. With the graphics of Halo 2, it only makes it that more entertaining. Your 14~ hours won't be wasted. My friends like and are still in the process of playing it. (Sorry, they all don't have 14 hours of free time to play it nor do they want to all at once.). It's HUGE and outranks any game as every Age of game has.

    FOURTH

    AoE isn't Hollywood. LOL that's funny, you think a historical setting with various complex strategies with detailed and versified maps makes this game a Hollywood for dummies? No! ES likes to think of AoE as the game that's "always sunny" and rather is, but that doesn't mean it has the negative attributes of Hollywood. I would think a lot of the AO fans would be against Hollywood. =/

    LASTLY

    "Many other RTS games have surpassed what is on offer here. AOE has conceeded its crown as the RTS king. " No. AoE3 offers WAY more in the enjoyable style of strategy. Other RTS's aren't really like this, and only fictionalize this with played-out tactics and over-powered heroes. Trust me, I've tried Wc3, RoN and TW, and they all don't match up. The one that comes closest is RoN , but their multiplier wasn't finalized and a lot of their features weren't developed well (technically).

    And AGAIN, if you guys missed it: "The interface was changed from the oversized version in the demo to a much-reduced version in the final release of the game." The mini-interface takes up to around 1/8 to 1/4 of the screen. ES isn't perfect, but I think they are the closest to it and update their game to it's fullest potential. You should update yours, too.

  • Furbs #43 6 years ago

    Wow, two first time posters (based on user id) post lengthy defences of the game and insult the reviewer. Spot the similarities?
    Is this the latest attempt in MS's viral marketing?

  • age3 #44 6 years ago

    Maybe we guests to the site who wouldn't normally register, but felt compelled to defend the bashing of a brilliant game.
    I've let it drop before, when EuroGamer has posted inaccurate reviews with some of the facts of the game plain wrong, yet those 'facts' seeming to be half the basis for the score, but this is really unfair on Age3.

  • Furbs #45 6 years ago

    How is 7 "a bashing"?

  • Realn #46 6 years ago

    Not to start pointing any figures or anything, but I (and always have) thought Euro Gamer had downers for reviewers, and never had a reason to register here.

    I definately was complelled to reply after this review...

  • Furbs #47 6 years ago

    So umm, why stick around? I dont bother with IGN/Gamespot as I have no faith in their reviews.

  • MoFo #48 6 years ago

    AoE3 offers WAY more in the enjoyable style of strategy

    Nah, for a start I much prefered RoN's and RTW's campaign style which both let you choose which territory you wanted to attack as opposed to the rigid story approach that AoE offers. This offers infintely more strategic relvance to a game over what AOE does.

    Both RoN and RTW do a far better job at handling unit formations and preventing combat turning in to a mass brawl of the-bigger-army-wins. I say "better", not "perfect".

    The whole Home City thing sucks. I enjoy trying to make my population grow from what resources are available in the map rather than just getting presents delivered at regular intervals. Sorry but I really fail to see the fun in that. This plus the warping back to your home city and virtually immediate deliveries of goods kinda break up the imersion factor in the game for me.

    Furthermore, please don't patronise me with the whole friendly native american indians thing. Sure the poor guys were hard done by historically but really does that mean we have to give up a good opportunity for enjoyable gameplay. The game should have included the odd daring raid on your settlement by the native folks or perhaps an aggresive settler might choose to pillage a local settlement...but oh no not here mr goody goody gamer. We want to set the world to rights and pretend non of that ever happened.

    Yep, this game could have been vastly better than what is on offer with really not that much degree of imagination. I'm not a AOE hater. I really did love the previous games and I am genuinely dissapointed that more hasn't come of this offering. Hopefully Civ 4 will fulfill my strategy gaming glut - well when I get bored of space rangers that is.

  • Furbs #49 6 years ago

    Nothing wrong in that per se, but its a bit silly to bother continuing to include review sites you believe to be untrustworthy to base an opinion, however minor an influence it is.

    Oh, he deleted.
    Edited by 1 at 26/10/05 @ 15:10

  • Furbs #50 6 years ago

    We're always watching... ;P

  • Realn #51 6 years ago

    Quote me on strategy and the comment about the campaign, tactics, and then NA. (?) Where do you mention RoN > AoE3 in Strategy? You don't, because it doesn't exist. :p lol

    RoN is a decent game. I semi-agree with your points, so I won't argue there. However, your pet peeve with the NA in AoE3 is rather silly. The NA can still raid other players town, but controlled by a person. I think that is a pretty good way to implement them...

    Sorry to delete. It was only towards you. When do you guys stop responding? lol

  • MoFo #52 6 years ago

    I wasn't quoting you on the NA thing. When I said "Don't patronise me with....blah blah" I meant as in "the developer"

  • Stickman #53 6 years ago

    It would be nice if you could back up your comments about the game that 'ROX' (sigh), with actual arguments though, rather than the fact that you happen to like it.

    Honestly, without wanting to upset you in any way, if you think AoE 3 is revolutionary, you really haven't played many games.

    "AoE3 is NOT for the dummies. I for one think that to play well in this game you have to be actually quite smart, think at a complex level, and able to perfect your strategy. "

    OK, that's just insane. Collect, build, make units, kill enemy. Not complex.

    "No Progress?!?! You got to be kidding, AoE2/AoE1 was 15~ civilizations with suddle differences. AoM/AoM:TT was 3/4 civilizations (with 3 subtpypes) with huge totally different attributes. Now, AoE3 is 8 highly unique but similar civilizations plus with the ability to change and alter your civilization to you liking. Some share units, like most are able to build musketeers, but all play in a very different way economically and militaristically! "

    So it's gone from 15 civs to 8 civs. Yet progressed. 'Highly unique but similar..' is one of the bizzarest sentences I've seen. Again, it goes back to your gaming life though. Civs in AoE simply don't play in a very different way to each other. Believe me.


    "RTS conventions = Not you. Ok... but let me just say this, a lot of my friends are not big "Age of" junkies, but they all love this game (campaign). This game also offers a unique campaign that takes you historically colonizing and traveling the New World. With the graphics of Halo 2, it only makes it that more entertaining. Your 14~ hours won't be wasted. My friends like and are still in the process of playing it. (Sorry, they all don't have 14 hours of free time to play it nor do they want to all at once.). It's HUGE and outranks any game as every Age of game has."

    Graphics of Halo 2? What? 14 hours is not a big game either. Seriously. Try a R:TW campaign. Then play it again because it won't be exactly the same every single time you play it. Telling us what the campaign entails is not an argument as to why this is a good game either, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in this bit, but moving on...

    "AoE isn't Hollywood. LOL that's funny, you think a historical setting with various complex strategies with detailed and versified maps makes this game a Hollywood for dummies? No! ES likes to think of AoE as the game that's "always sunny" and rather is, but that doesn't mean it has the negative attributes of Hollywood. I would think a lot of the AO fans would be against Hollywood. =/ "

    Sorry, you've lost me. :?

    ""Many other RTS games have surpassed what is on offer here. AOE has conceeded its crown as the RTS king. " No. AoE3 offers WAY more in the enjoyable style of strategy. Other RTS's aren't really like this, and only fictionalize this with played-out tactics and over-powered heroes. Trust me, I've tried Wc3, RoN and TW, and they all don't match up. The one that comes closest is RoN , but their multiplier wasn't finalized and a lot of their features weren't developed well (technically). "

    Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. You've obviously not really played many games at all.

    I'm happy you like AoE, really, it's nice you have something that pleases you so much, but the review is written by someone who has a much broader base of knowledge about gaming than you, and therefore can compare and contrast against other benchmarks of the genre.

    It's obviously a pointless excercise arguing though, as we'll never agree.

    But you're wrong. ;)

  • age3 #54 6 years ago

    Just to chime in once more, my original critique of the reviewer still entirely stands.

    However, I will say that I would also have preferred proper, 'correct' formations, which were once in the game, but were removed because they lost the 'AOE feel'.
    A silly reason, if you ask me, but I won't hold the formation thing against ES that much.

    These 'free presents at regular intervals' are paid for with experience which you collect by being and by expanding your colony. Experience is, essentially, the final resource.

    The campaign is not very good, at all. The voices are rubbish, the cinematics are terrible.
    However, the campaign is a side feature - it's the skirmish mode that is the main bulk of the game. Just because AOE3's side feature has the same name as RTW's main feature does not mean they should be so unjustly compared.

    I agree with peoples' NA points. I would like to see computer-controlled Native Americans raiding you, attacking you. Essentially, I would like to see proper interaction and diplomacy with the native Americans, more than just building a Trading Post and being able to train their troops.

    Nevertheless, the Eurogamer review of the game is poor.

  • Stickman #55 6 years ago

    Like I said, it's pointless to debate any more. 7 out of 10 means that many will actively love this game as has been proved in this comments section. It also shows that some won't be as enamoured. Seems a fair score.

  • DWJE_216 #56 6 years ago

    It sounds like a great continuation of great series, I will certainly go out and buy it on the 4th November.

  • System_Shock #57 6 years ago

    Just been playing it a bit this weekend. Not deep, but certainly good fun...

    Losing my ships is a Hurracane during the campaign made me think that they must have discussed pulling the game in case they upset someone... then I saw the name of the female pirates ship... Paris Burning!

    What a prediction...

  • HumanJHawkins #58 6 years ago

    Some advice please: To me, the Age series is like Chess. I would never criticise it for failing to change. The only things I wanted from AOE III were:
    - For it NOT to change much!
    - Better graphics (Yes!)
    - Add all of the conveniences of AOM and RON (such as the ability to queue advancements... More logical location of advancements like clicking on the tower to advance to better towers, etc.)
    - Better performance... AOE II bogged way down in long games and often threw networked players out because of this)
    - Bigger armies... I hated the artificial population cap.

    It sounds like I am out of luck on most of these points, no? It sounds like they have messed up some of the things I liked and failed to deliver others I hoped for.

    So, what game would people recommend? Some of the things I liked about AOE II w/ the expansion and didn't want to see change were:
    - Build a base anywhere, not just at preset locations
    - Walls
    - Lots of choices of civilizations to play
    - lots of different units
    - Low learning curve... It is fun right off the bat because you can play okay with just a brute force stratagy. But there are a lot of other stratagies one can learn as the want to.

    Thanks in advance for any advice.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/05 @ 01:28

  • jadeia #59 6 years ago

    Very disappointed with this one. I bought the special edition box set (size of a small TV) and thought this would be one of those games I'd always come back too - a real keeper like Neverwinter Nights or AoE II ...

    It's an abysmal game that treats you like a 10 year old. I really feel old playing this game, and keep telling myself it must be good because AOE 2 was brilliant...

    Really really bad. 4/10

  • Mordaan #60 4 years ago

    I hardcore played/loved AOE/ROR original

    AOE II sucks
    AOE III sucks

    Those who hardcore played AOE II will say

    AOE III sucks

    That's life.

    Now if you all loved AOE the original, you could not enjoy AOE II and III.
    For the record, the design team in AOE feuded and separated in two: AOE II and Empire Earth