User Reviews (1 - 11 of 190)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

A successful installment in the Age of Empires Saga

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 293 / 322
Date: October 18, 2005
Author: Amazon User

When I sat down with Age of Empires 3 I was hoping for a little more - something new and refreshingly different (ala the Lord of the Rings RTS for example). There is a new feature, the Home City. The rest of Age of Empires 3 is the same as the previous games at heart, with some new makeup and some new units. Don't get me wrong, this new Age of Empires installment is fun and just as addictive as its predecessors, but also feels tired at the same time. If you still enjoy the previous Age of Empires games, you will likely enjoy this one equally.

It has been some time since I played the previous Age of Empires 2 but I remembered a simple, relatively clean interface. In Age of Empires 3 I was a little taken aback by the clutter of information, and juggling Home City shipments (and Deck Building) with what was happening on screen requires a lot of micro-management.

This new installment has some great civilizations and in this regard, the units are new and refreshing. In an Age of exploration and the shift from archeic weapons to gunpowder, you have a variety of new units, and a few units that are unique to each civilization to help set them apart. In addition each civilization has its own unique advantages (and disadvantages) that set it apart from the rest. This is primarily done via a new feature: the Home City and the shipments you are allowed to send from it. I liked the idea of the Home City, but wasn't overly impressed with some aspects of its implementation.

The new units are fun and consist of both modern (for the period) and archeic units giving you some flexibility in what you want to field - however don't expect their power to be equal. The cannon physics are really well done, you can track cannon balls throughout their flight and watch the havoc they bestow upon enemy buildings (which now fall apart in peices instead of as a whole) or the holes they punch in rows of infantry. The charachter animations on most units are really well done, and occasionally you will see them adjust their weapons for long range of short range combat (they throw burning items at enemy buildings instead of firing their highly ineffective muskets). I beleive that musketeers can also fix bayonets to make them more effective at close range, although I didn't notice a signifigant difference, mine continued to fire their muskets regardless of the range of the enemy.

There is another new feature in Age of Empires 3 in the form of an Explorer. He is a powerful unit you can use to explore the map (although any unit can still do his job). The Explorer can take damage, and fall in battle, but doesn't die. He can be rescued and revived. The Explorer has the special ability to deal with treasure guardians in one shot, but a hardy group of soldiers can also take down the treasure guardians without too much difficulty. The Explorer can retreive treasure found on the map and can also build Trading Posts (settlers can build them as well) - this is how you interact with the Native Americans. Building a Trading Post near a Native American outpost forges an alliance with them and you are then allowed to train Native American warriors which are useful because they don't count against your population limit - but they do have a population limit of their own (15 seems to be the norm). In a bizarre twist, the Native Americans are not hostile to these new invaders unless they are allied with one of your enemy players - intersting.

In summation, I did enjoy trying out Age of Empires 3. My initial impression was that the civilizations and corrosponding diversity in units and Home City shipments helped add some variety to the Age of Empires format, but also meant more added juggling. Even with the new ability to zoom in and out a little, I still found it difficult at times to juggle my units. In combat, my nicely organized ranks merged into one wave of units that were impossible to divide up and thus made tactics difficult. You can assign numbers (via Ctl+#) to a group of units to help this, but I didn't find anyway to assign formations to the units (you could do this in Age of Empires 2). When left idle long enough - seeemed to take a long time - my units did auto-arrange themselves into formation, but didn't maintain that formation during attacks. I wish they would have borrowed a little from another RTS game that allows you to train units in groups that are then treated as one unit. This would have made Cavalry and Infantry units that much easier to manage, especially in large numbers. In addition, in that same RTS game you can assign different unit types to merge together and form a new formation of units that is again treated as one unit. This greatly simplifies training units and then moving them about the map and maintaining formations for attacks.

I do look forward to spending a lot more time with Age of Empires 3 as I'm sure there is a lot that I haven't noted in my initial observations. I think the game is true to its heritage and I think that Age of Empires fans will flock to this new installment. However, I don't think that Age of Empires 3 delivers enough new variety in either design or implementation to steal away the fans of other RTS games that are working to reinvent and revitalize the genre.

Lackluster, but not without potential

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 148 / 175
Date: October 21, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I agree with the other reviews citing this as being something of a letdown at first glance.

Edit for graphical update:
I originally found the graphics on this game to be lackluster. My system couldn't run it in remotely full detail and still be playable, so my game didn't look anything like the screenshots. So I did what any good gamer would do: bought a new system. Incredibly, even on a brand new fully speced out Alienware system with AMD 4000+ 64-bit processor, 2 gigs of RAM, and dual video cards (SLI, PCI Express) I *still* couldn't run the game in high resolution, high detail. It looks pretty but it chops when I try to scroll the screen. I think something is just plain broken with this game. Other games run awesome on the new system, but not this game.

Conclusion: you will never, ever play this game with it looking as good as it does on the screenshots. Yes, those are some mighty pretty trees but it's not going to be as pretty when you adjust down to Medium or Low quality textures because no reasonable computer system can have smooth gameplay with high resolution and high texture detail.

By comparison, LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth was quite attractive, even on my older computer. They aimed a bit lower but spent more time making lower settings look attractive and it paid off better in the end. I think the AOE3 team spent too much time perfecting high detail settings that most people can't use and not enough time on low/medium detail that most people will be forced to use.

Anyway, gameplay-wise, one bit of good news is the "home city" concept where you build your "decks". I'll disagree with another reviewer who suggested that AOE3 was designed for "spread sheet gamers" -- gamers who figure out how to win by calculating times and values on a spread sheet ahead of time rather than making tactical decisions on the fly.

Spread sheet gaming worked in AOE2 because you knew who and what you were facing. If you were the Spanish fighting the Goths, you knew exactly what you were up against. You knew every civilization advantage and weakness and could plan your strategy ahead of time accordingly.

In AOE3, this "deck building" concept amounts to a customization feature. When you see I'm the British, you still won't know exactly what to expect. Did I build my deck for lots of early, free troops? Did I build my deck for an early economy? How much effect did I add to my navy? You can't plan your spreadsheet if you don't have all the data, and you'll never know exactly what your enemy has in his deck.

I can also have multiple decks and I don't have to decide which I want to use until my first trip to the home city. Thus if I decide to wait, I can see your rush coming and pick my "counter rush" deck.

So in conclusion, while the gameplay itself is pretty much old-hat, very familiar from AOE2, I have hopes that this deck building system will give the game more longevity. The consistant winners won't be the spreadsheet readers, it will be the people who can quickly adjust their tactics on the fly based on what unpredictible thing the enemy is doing, as a result of this deck building system.

Hopefully, anyway. It's going to take a good bit of online gaming to find out how that really pans out.

Age of Ennui?

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 61 / 68
Date: October 21, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Ensemble gave the venerable AOE series a makeover, a tummy tuck, and some clip-on nails. All of which makes it great for a one-nighter, but doesn't leave me wanting to take it home to meet the parents.

Here are some things that I like:

1) There's a catchy Howard Shore-y orchestral soundtrack with lotsa gypsy violin and choral drama.
2) There's some tasty eye candy--including llamas, coffins, fancy new buildings, and cannons that actually make people fall over--textured so ridiculously well that my computer couldn't handle it after I'd built things up a bit in the field and I had to take it down a notch. Best RTS graphics ever, though. That was obviously where most of the work in this project went, and it's undeniably gorgeous.
3) There's a passable (if totally, cartoonishly ridiculous) multi-generational campaign. This really goes more into the "what I didn't like" side of things, but I should mention that I kind of grudgingly enjoyed it at the time.
4) Even after all the hype, I like "Home Cities." They're good for continually helping to cheerfully remind you that you are merely a capitalist tool beholden to soulless imperialist overlords. You've gotta love the nerdly RPG-ness of it all (not that I'm complaining, but since when does an RTS award *experience points*, anyway?), as well as the fact that your hard work moving clumps of poorly-organized troops around in some of the lushest 3D RTS graphics to date is summarily dumped into an account that goes toward purchasing sweetly anachronistic "cards." Plus there's that wonderful experience of having the simultaneous feeling that you're getting something for nothing ("13 musketeers from London? Sure, I'll sign for that!") and that you've somehow "earned" your booty by... well, doing whatever it is you do in this game to earn XP. Kill and break stuff, I guess.
5) Small thing, but I LOVE that the resource gatherers work all day and all night without ever having to physically deliver their goods back to the town center! This moves things along quicker and makes them much easier to manage. So thanks for that.

Some things that I don't like:

1) The campaign. I really do appreciate the attempt to create an entirely new work of interactive "historical" (well, kinda) fiction, but it really didn't seem to have much to do with anything. You have to at least appreciate the attempt, but it was disappointing to have such an otherwise potentially great game marred by this overserious, all-too-easy series of quests. This 3-part story arc would have been fine as some kind of secondary isn't-this-fun campaign, but I was surprised and disappointed when I realized that I'd just finished the solo game over the course of a couple of evenings without doing anything even remotely historical. Sure, I met George Washington and Simon Bolivar and helped build some railroads, but the thrust of the story is mostly taken up with finding the Fountain of Youth and/or stopping various stock villains from doing same. (Yes, even up to the Jacksonian era.)

2) The familiarity. I immediately slipped into this game like a comfortable suit. A comfortable suit that I'd been wearing for 10 YEARS! Isn't there *anything* different we can do with this genre? Sure, the Home Cities are fun, the native alliances can mix things up a bit, and everything's generally more detailed. But nothing really feels much different. By the third title in a series like this, I would expect an experience as different from AOE as Civilization III was from its grandfather. But maybe that's just me.

3) The subject matter. OK, sure, it's impossible to do a historically accurate game set in the colonial era without offending somebody, either by sins of comission OR omission. To take only two examples: We all know that the plantations you have to build to provide a solid economic base for your battles would *never* have been staffed by happy white "settlers," just as we know that establishing "trading posts" with native tribes wasn't quite as easy as sending a single white man over to the nearest village to throw up a handy wooden shack. Of course I wouldn't *want* to play a completely historically accurate game in which "settlers" were cheap, black, and periodically arrived on very uncomfortable ships before being worked to death. (Some parts of our history--slavery, the Trail of Tears, the Starr Report--are best left un-re-enacted.) But... but. I don't know. I guess it's just that this game portrays a wildly different version of American history that I very much wish were closer to the truth. (The closest we get to anything like history in American-Indian relations is when our heroine's elderly native companian observes that he has "learned not to trust American promises," although this is thrown in so obtusely at such an unexpected time that you might miss it if you're not really paying attention.) It might be better to sell this as some kind of counterfactual "allohistory." Really, the most fun you could ever possibly have with this game would be watching Noam Chomsky play it. (Actually, that would probably also be about as much fun as anyone could ever have with Noam Chomsky, doing anything. So it works out.)

4) The interface. It's just not what it should be, which makes the kind of nerdly micromanagement of troops that RTS players live for nearly impossible. Instead of expertly managing formations and putting together killer unit combos the way you can in, say, "Rise of Nations," you pretty much have to form whatever CTRL groups you can and throw everything you've got at the enemy all at once to see what sticks.

What this genre needs is the be-all, end-all, nail-in-the-coffin masterpiece that will conclusively demonstrate the full potential of the "Dune II"/"Command + Conquer" style RTS in such a way that no one will ever want to make one again. (The so-called "Mozart effect" in opera, or the "Beethoven effect" in symphonies--no significant works in those genres were written for a very long time after each composer's death.) AOE3 is entertaining enough (and very nice to look at) but it isn't that game.

The last "Age" game I'll buy.

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 34 / 39
Date: October 20, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Age of Empires III is a game I had waited eagerly to play for several years. Now it's finally here... but not at all what I expected from a Real-Time Strategy in 2005. It is a solid RTS title... it is also about four years behind the learning curve.

The game is stable on my PC (no crashes or lock-ups). The graphics are quite impressive, granted you have the very best equipment on the market. But the gameplay is stale, and I can best describe the tactical combat portion of the game as like... "driving a Winnebago-Camper through twisting snowy mountain roads with a 30ft boat in tow".

SINGLE PLAYER/MULIPLAYER:
This game was meant to be a predominately multiplayer-online RTS, with very small scale military battles, and games lasting around 20-30 mins. Great for the gamers who run, moderate or frequent the games cloistered community fansites, and have honed their economic build sequence for online play... a.k.a. - "spread-sheet gamers" (see EDIT below) . But AOE3 offers much less, in terms of actual gameplay, for the slower paced, deeper-thinking strategy gamer, or more importantly, the average gamer in general. In comparison, the previous "Age" games (Age of Mythology included) satisfied all three types of gamer.

Additionally, the single player campaign is no longer based around great battles or campaigns from history. Instead, much like Age of Mythology, you are put in the shoes of an innocent (and politically correct) by-stander to the campaigns events, who is pulled along against his or her will, through a sting of fictitious events, which occasionally has the fictional main characters crossing paths, or rubbing up against actual history. But for a "Historically Themed" RTS... there really is very little historical relevance to the single-player campaign.

EDIT:
"Spread-sheet" gaming in RTS's is not about knowing, it's about predicting. It is simply a logical subtractive process, by which it is posible to predict your opponents strategic options, provided you have collected the basic conditional variables in the pregame setup. The conditional variables are: map type, civilization and in AOE3, Home City level. Everything else on the "spread-sheet" is hard data which can be included or dismissed from the prediction, based on the known variables.

AOE2 had MANY more civilizations(like twenty with the expansion). AOE3 has a grand-total of only eight civs... 8 ! So while the individual spread-sheet page which outlines each civilizations strategic options, is slightly larger to accomodate the Home-City cards, the number of civs - and thus the total number of spread-sheet pages needed to make predictions, are fewer... by more than HALF!!

Once you know the variables: map being played, and more importantly, your opponents civilization choice and Home-City level, it is possible to quickly dismiss large portions of that civilizations spread-sheet page as "unavailible" or "unviable" strategic options.

Only when facing an opponent with a very high level Home City, does the ability to make "spread-sheet" predictions become at all complicated. This favors the "hardcore" multiplayer gamers who "spread-sheet" the game now, advance quickly in Home City level (opening up more varied, and more powerful Home-City cards)... then, those players can dominate. The "hardcore" players who run/moderate the fansites, and received the game before general release, have already created their spreadsheets and will use them to immediately dominate the online scene, and increase their Home City levels quickly. It will work out somewhat like an online RPG... there will be a small "in" crowd which quickly dominates, then there will be the more casual gamers... pwned... repeatedly.

yipee...

Outside of the graphics(which are just window dressing), the single, major innovation to this game IS the Home-City. AOE3 really was designed for the "hardcore", online multi-player style of gaming. This package does not offer any new dynamic content for the casual gamer, or especially the single-player gamer to enjoy, than the previous "Age" games had already provided.
-END EDIT

ECONOMY vs. COMBAT:
Nothing has changed in the basic Age of Empires formula... make villagers, collect resources, boom your economy, buy upgrades and destroy your enemy with some military. Nothing has changed that is, except the increased focus on the economic aspect of the game. They have added the "Home City" aspect, which, frankly adds little to the games overall enjoyment besides pulling you away from the battle-map for 2-3 seconds, every 3-4 minutes, to pick which small bonus you would like sent from your chosen European power.

The RTS genre is becoming heavily tactics based, and for good reason; the combat action is what keeps the average gamer coming back again and again. AOE3 on the other hand, has gone in the opposite direction... economy... period. Even the Home-City shipments of military units, are essentially an economic/production based function of the gamplay. Memorize your unit and structure build sequences, then hope your opponent (human or AI) can't click the mouse as fast you. Mean-while, the tactical combat portion of this game is unresponsive, lacks truly effective combat controls and is downright frustrating... even with the pre-release patch installed. The previous "Age" games just seemed to deliver tactical combat with much more efficiency and control than AOE3 has... regardless of the rest of the RTS genre.

THE GRAPHICS:
With more than about two dozen military units engaged on-screen, the frame-rate bogs down considerably on my PC --- [ Pentium4 - 7800GTX - 2G RAM... *Doom3 and Far Cry run great at highest settings*... but not AOE3 ]. I can choose to drop the Anti-Aliasing, Vertical Synchronization, and several other in-game graphics options just to get the game to run more smoothly, but then the game really does NOT look good... even by Real-Time Strategy standards. What kind of PC did they have in mind when they designed this game? Alternately... did they optimize the code at all??

THE SAD TRUTH:
The "Home City"... and very good graphics... that's about it. I really expected more from a "Premier" game developer like Ensemble Studios... especially with their "Marquee" title. With the technical and financial resources at Ensembles disposal, and given the 6 year hiatus from the "Empires" series, AOE3 should have been an all-around much better game... and to a much wider range of gameplay styles.

I'm sure it will ring up big numbers in retail this holiday season... but without some significant patching, for optimization and content, in the next two months... my copy will be in the "used" bin by January.

Brutal??...Yes. But it's business, not personal. I spent $50 (plus tax). Just business...

What a Disappointment!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 25 / 28
Date: November 06, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I've been waiting for Age of Empires 3 for several years. My wife and I are avid fans of AOE2 and we were really looking forward to Age of Empires 3 every since we heard about it a year ago. Unfortunately, Age of Empires 3 is half-baked and appears to have been rushed out the door for the Christmas shopping season. There are many flaws with this game and overal I give it a poor rating. It's unfortunate that Ensemble didn't listen to their customers or learn from their successess on earlier titles such as Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations and of course Age of Empires 2. It could have been great if they had spent the necessary time and effort working on it.

The major flaws include: The economy has been greatly simplified making the build-up simple and taking the fun out of trying to maximize resources. Combat is simplistic and boring. Formations are useless because the moment a battle starts the fighting units immediently abandon them like an untrained army. AOE2's combat was MUCH better. The panning and zooming need serious work. They make you dizzy and hinder game play. There are only three difficulty settings (Easy, Moderate and Hard). Almost 2/3rds of the screen is taken up with controls leaving a smaller area to view the action than similar games. Changing to a higher resolution improves the sharpness of the graphics, but doesn't change the amount of screen taken up by controls. It feels like peering through a small porthole to see the action. The game is jerky / buggy on my 3Ghz Pentium 4. The programmers appear to have only had time to take care of the serious errors, and left the minor ones in to annoy customers.

The ONLY good part of this game is the graphics. They have been updated to match similar games on the market today. I recommend you wait until this game falls below $20 before buying it. I wish I could get my money back...

Good enough, but I expected more after six years

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 18 / 19
Date: November 16, 2005
Author: Amazon User

If you have never played any of the Age of Empires games before, then AOE 3 will probably seem pretty nifty. Judged strictly on its own merits, there isn't particularly anything wrong with the game in and of itself. However, there isn't much here that we haven't seen before. We waited six years, and this is the best they could do, apparently.

The graphics are very nice. However, is that enough to sustain one's interest. As other reviewers have noted, the combat quickly disintegrates into a disorganized slugfest, which really makes no sense to me. "Rise of Nations" certainly managed to provide combat sequences that were reasonably organized. It is frustrating to spend money on what are presumably well-trained troops, only to see them break ranks at the first hint of combat. The naval combat is a joke --- two ships firing broadsides at each other, with no attempts at maneuver. Anyone who has played "Port Royale" will know that one can expect better than this.

The focus on colonization, combined with conquest, reminds me of Sid Meier's old "Colonization" game, with a little "Europa Universalis" thrown in. The game handles it reasonably well, I suppose, although the "treasures" guarded by cougars, bears & desperados strikes me as a bit cartoonish. I can't say that I totally understand the purpose of the Victory Points that are awarded for successfully completing certain tasks, other than to open up new cards for your deck.

The deck at the Home City is an interesting new twist. As other reviewers have noted, this throws a monkey wrench into the "spread-sheet" approach to multi-player gaming. I mostly play solo, but I assume that the AI has similar access to decks, so that you cannot automatically assume that you know the true nature of your opponents.

I do miss the bigger maps, which allow for sprawling contests to unfold over several hours. The smaller map pretty much forces your hand --- you will be engaging your opponent sooner rather than later. This seems to be something borrowed from the condensed scenarios one sees in "Rise of Nations." It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but a gigantic map can be lots of fun to explore, if nothing else.

I don't have a brand new system, but the game loaded and runs more or less without problems. The system does freeze when certain naval combat scenes take place. Otherwise, there seem to be no issues.

Perhaps patches will improve the nature of the game. It is good enough, but I am just as likely to play AOK as this new version. It is essentially more of what was already a good game. Does this truly represent a real improvement in the franchise? That remains to be seen.

**CAUTION: Please Read Prior to Purchase

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 18 / 21
Date: November 15, 2005
Author: Amazon User

First, I would like to point out that I was never able to actually play this game, thereby accounting for my rather poor rating.

That being said, PLEASE do yourself a favor if you're thinking of purchasing this game - download the demo from [...].

----------------------------------------

Upon purchasing this game and downloading the update, (1.01 as of the time of this review), I came home to a rather horrific surprise. My computer wouldn't even install the game DESPITE meeting the minimum system requirements.

When I attempted to install the game, I received an error stating that my CPU does not support SSE Technology and thus the installation aborts. Unless I'm going to pony up money for a new/ adaptable Processor, there is no way I can play now. Also, the retailer I purchased this game from does not allow returns on opened software/ PC Games. (Can you blame them?)

Upon further review, I searched AOE3's website and, under "System Requirements," still did not see ANYTHING CLEARLY STATING "SSE" INSTRUCTION SET REQUIRED.

I am out some serious cash-money. I'm frustrated and will honestly never purchase a game from Ensemble Studios again. Microsoft/ Ensemble Studios should address this issue as it appears to be fairly common. Just search Google for
Age+of+Empires+3+SSE
and you'll see.

----------------------------------------

In conclusion, please be advised and do not make the same mistake I did. Take the time to download the demo FIRST just to see if your CPU will handle the game.

*NOTE: Minimum Requirements per AOE3 Website >> My Computer
CPU: 1.4GHz >> 1.8GHz AMD Athlon XP
RAM: 256MB >> 512MB
Video: 64MB >> 128MB ATI Radeon
O/S: Windows XP >> Windows XP Professional, SP2

Again, please be advised and good luck with your purchase. As for downloading the Demo, it'll be time-consuming even with Broadband. However, if it saves you $45.....

Good Luck.

Groundskeeper Willie, bugs, Braveheart and computer freeze. Awful

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 19 / 23
Date: December 18, 2005
Author: Amazon User

It is indeed tricky to review a game I no longer own. I resold/"returned" Age of Empires III to Amazon, so I have no doubt someone is eagerly installing my bought software right now. Whether they enjoy it depends on several things a prospective buyer should know...

A) The campaign is wretched. So many of the early segments come down to 'busy work' - send your sorry hero Mr. Black and his army from the south side of your computer screen to the north. I played about 6 half-hearted chapters until...

B) The game clammed up. I have a recent Windows XP bundled package with Pentium 4 etc, and man does this game bug up. In especial, there seems to be something about boats, naval battles, any time you see boats the game grinds to a digital crawl. My computer started to freeze up and I moved my characters as far away from any boats as possible - then the game usually sped up. Until....

C) The game refused to save any progress I had made in the 6th? chapter, where the charmless Mr. Black wanders around an island trying to "make a name for myself so I can impress Lizzie". (Yes, the campaign is just that eagerly dumb.) I played this chapter a lot, as I never was able to get my computer/software to remember that I SHOULD be busy trying to destroy the mythic Fountain of Youth with a big cannon because the game kept calling in sick. The whole time I was erm, marauding, I had certain objections for trying to destroy the Fountain of Youth with a big cannon because...

D) good RTS games have accurate history - it adds drama, fun, and simple connect-the-dots education. The campaign and history in 'Age of Empires III' is woeful dull rubbish. It seems to be a shallow cross between "Braveheart", "the De Vinci Code" and an over-excited programmer's mind. The hero, a Mr. Black, sounds like Groundskeeper Willie from 'The Simpsons'. If you can imagine Groundskeeper Willie crying "we've got te fray those settlaz", then you heard what I heard. Ensemble Studios - the maker of this and 'Age of Mythology' have a real track record for bad voice-overs, but they have usually created a compelling reactive 'plot'. This game had neither - and then it just stopped working.

Beyond the campaign...

Of course, gamers know that you can have an absolute blast with a great game, and you don't need any campaign. But the problems continue...

A) The map sizes are indeed too small. They are no better than "Age of Mythology", and no worse. They sure are small though. And while the concept of an modern train to carry supplies seems 'new' and cool, why can't the enemy build a wall over the tracks to block that train? And if you place your troops on the tracks, how come they don't get run over every time the train races past? Questions, dumb questions....

B) In the flawed but evocative "Age of Mythology', a fast computer could allow a player to fight 7 or 8 computer opponents, with up to 200 characters/monsters/dragons/trolls/units each. In this game, the computer crashes if you have more than 3 'players' in any game. I do not game online - but I can only imagine the mess THEY are encountering.

C) You create a vast army and give them marching orders. As soon as the first shot is fired, the army scatters - refuses to shoot/attack anyone in particular. Sometimes when you create new units in a building under attack, they just stand there and die as the battle unfolds. Beyond frustration...

D) Another reviewer said that he saved non-campaign games and found that they were always on pause, with no way to get back to game. This happened to me many times. All that hard work - YARGH!

In conclusion, although I enjoyed some features (home city seems possibly a good idea), and the graphics are nothing to be snuffed at, I had to return my copy to Amazon because the technical bugs were everywhere, and I did not find the campaign interesting enough to soldier through the computer screw-ups. I waited over a year in anticipation for this, and I am beyond dissapointed. I would instead recommend "Age of Mythology w/ Titans Expansion" or "Rise of Nations". (I'll never be a total fan of 'Rise' as I can't figure out why you're allowed to build a city, a nuclear silo, but not a basic freakin' wall. Still, it's compelling, and it isn't buggy...) I suggest that Ensemble Studios broaden horizons, and set a new "Age of Empires" in Africa - with a script to match.

Buggy, Buggy, Buggy! Unplayable

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 14 / 15
Date: December 01, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Be warned before you purchase this game as there numerous bugs and technical issues. A huge majority of the playerbase have had technical issues you can read about at the AoE3 official website forums. There is a patch expected, but it has not yet been released. The game is plagued with lock ups, sound issues, mouse freezing, online gaming troubles, and even installation troubles. It was poorly tested and seems to have been released to make the Christmas rush, not because it was finished.

I can't comment too much on the gameplay itself, as I've only been able to play about 10 minutes before it locks up. I stroungly recommend waiting for the patches and feedback from players saying it's working fine before purchasing this game. WAIT UNTIL THEY FIX THE BUGS BEFORE PURCHASING!

Pros & Cons

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 18 / 22
Date: February 16, 2006
Author: Amazon User

For the most part this game is good. Based on few, but serious cons, I recommend it for purchase, but not until it reaches a less than $30 price point. If Microsoft fixes the pause & speed cons with a patch, then it is worth the full $50 price tag. Here is my review:

Pros:

* Great game play (like all AoE products)
* Very addictive - you will spend hours and hours on it
* Excellent single player story based scenarios
* Beautiful graphics
* Well designed interface
* Nice tech tree span
* Home city is a cool concept

Major Cons:

1. No command giving in "pause" mode - this one really bugs me. I get the whole, "it is an RTS, meaning Real Time Strategy" game, argument (i.e. you can't pause "real time" to give orders), and I agree the game should operate this way in any multi-player game. But when I am playing alone, shouldn't I have the ability to play the way I want to play? Not the way some geeky programmer has determined is the way I should play (in his sad control freek world)?
2. No ability to change the game speed mid-game - you set it at the beginning but then cannot modify it during game play ... why?? Again, I get the RTS game argument and agree it should play that way in multi-player, but when I am playing alone, shouldn't I be able to modify how I want to play? The end result is you are completely rushed during certain parts of the game and have to ignore battles (and your troops get demolished) or ignore your infrastructure development (and fall behind) .. note: the computer can do both at the same time. The end result is you set the game on "slow" and end up sitting around watching during resource gather times. Just plain stupid.
3. Limited customization in the single battle mode - I can't set different population limits, and have to choose from pre-designed maps. Limited options for adjusting the map size, type, resource level, etc... The full, and easy customization is what made AoE II so great with unlimited hours of single player fun!
4. Poor instruction manual - you are pretty much on your own to figure it out. It is amazing how little useful information the 120 page manual provides.

Minor Cons:

1. What happend to patrol mode? I can't seem to figure out how to do it
2. The camera is supposed to be able to rotate, but I can't get it to
3. Does garrisoning people in towers make a difference? The mannual doesn't say, and I can't tell from game play.
4. Most things are "un-lockable" so at first glance it appears that most civilizations are pretty much the same
5. You can rarely get enough wood - the maps don't have enough trees
6. Wood choppers get "lost" occasionally and forget to keep working
7. Mounted troops are costly, die easy, and don't seem to do much very well ... maybe I am just not using them right

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions