User Reviews (1 - 11 of 14)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

How to get around the "please insert original disc" message.

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: July 12, 2008
Author: Amazon User

The game is great, but the copy protection is annoying. Ubisoft offers no web-based support for this game, but BlueByte forums.

1)Install game.
2)Install patches.
3)DVD is only for installation; Remove it.
4)Click the desktop icon for the game.
5)Choose the button that says "activation."
6)Enter your key, at the back of the manual book.
7)Download the text file from the website that opens.
8)Open it & copy everything.
9)Paste everything into the box that wants the rediculously long activation code.
10)Play without & disc, enjoy the fruis of your labor.

I CCB )combat city builders) recommend the Age of Ampires & the Anno series (aka 1503/1703 AD).

I'm going to settle this right now...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: July 17, 2008
Author: Amazon User

A farmer walks out during the warm season and collects his wheat, which he in turn takes back into town. There, a baker turns the wheat into bread, which will be bought and consumed by an iron minor. The iron minor brings iron ore into town which a blacksmith will pick up, and turn into swords, which will be used by your fighting men paid for by the taxes of everyone on this chain.

It's the social chains like this that make Settler RoE a unique game. And this is essentially what settlers is all about; building up these chains as best you can. The game has a good campaign as well; every mission is different while the basic principal remains the same: keep your people fed, clothed, clean, and happy. Basically, it's sort of like civilization, but focusing on one town.
As a bonus, once the campaign is over, you can play any number of "free-settlement" maps, were your goal is to build the best city possible, while others have a specific goal (How long can you hold out under a barons taxation before revolting?) . Also, a downloadable map-builder and bonus maps should create some interesting opportunities for replay ability.

However, it does tend to get a bit repetitive. This game aimed to rival a lot of other games... but came up short towards all of them, thus dropping it all over. After your thirtieth near-identical city, you'll be asking "What now?" Combat was also somewhat disappointing: Swordsmen or archers, and couple that with some siege equipment, those are you're only choices. That in conjunction with some technical errors put another nail into the coffin of Blue Byte, although not quite sealing it. Settlers RoE could have been better, but it feels more like an attempt to bring back the dead.

If you can find it for cheap, than this game is worth your money.

Good Game

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: July 24, 2008
Author: Amazon User

I thought this was a very well-made game by ubisoft. The amount of detail in all the aspects were really quite cool. One should get it and try it oneself. Enjoy.

Consider this a PREview

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 7 / 41
Date: July 30, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Obviously I'm uncomfortable rating a game that isn't out and that I have not played. I have, however, spent a lot of time with older Settlers games, the very old ones, Settlers (which was released in the US as "Serf City") and The Settlers II. These original games were much less about combat and more about building up a city. It felt like placing little toy men and castles, only they were alive. They went about their lives, woodcutters chopping wood for the haulers to take to the sawmill for the millman to turn into lumber for the builders to make a bakery for the baker to...

You get the idea.

Now imagine that in incredibly detailed, beautiful 3D graphics. 3D, polygonal graphics have finally come of age, after the jagged, stupid looking (in my opinion) 3D of the PlayStation era, and just looking at screenshots, I can feel myself being drawn into this little world. In many ways, this is more of a simulation than a strategy game.

After Settlers II, the series tended to become more combat oriented. This was a mistake, in my opinion, and the games suffered critical disclaim and generally poor reviews.

I am sincerely hoping this is a return to the roots of the series and that it's successful on all fronts. I'm quite looking forward to playing it. In the words of the producer, "This is no longer a game about combat; it's about building," and in the words of a British game journalist, (paraphrase) "It feels like the perfect game for a relaxing Sunday afternoon with a glass of merlot. While other games seem anxious and frantic, this one seems peaceful."

That's what I want to hear, as I'm quite tired of frantic, difficult strategy games, and this kind of world creation, and watching my world operate, while still existing in a goal-oriented environment, is exactly what I want and what I'm looking forward to.

I am (perhaps erroneously) basing my review scores on my rather high expectations for the game, so please keep that in mind. Again, this is a preview. I have no played the game, nor has it been released at time of writing.

Spend your money on Civ IV

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 9
Date: December 30, 2007
Author: Amazon User

The Settlers: Rise of an Empire is easily one the worst games I've ever played. The graphics are nice, but that's all I can say good about it. The game play is horribly boring, and the "strategy" element is non-existent and the game is riddled with bugs and bad design choices (even with the latest patch). The military aspect should not even have been included or they should have done a much better job of designing it before releasing it.
There is absolutely NO challenge in this game. If you are a fan of 4X games or even RTS games, you will always beat the computer after about two games without even really trying. This game is terrible. Save your hard-earned money and buy something else. The only reason I gave it 2 stars was for the graphics.

Shallow and a Computer Killer

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 8
Date: December 23, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I have not played any other Settler games but jumped on this one as it looked very promising.
This game has proved to be boring and repetitious, every scenario starts the same and you have to sit around and wait for goods to pile up in the storehouse before you can get on with the task at hand.
By contrast, in the Stronghold games (Firefly) for instance the missions start with varying degrees of money or resouces, often against your favour which means you have have to rely on your smarts to win.
Not so with Settlers. But the absolute worst aspect of this game is the fact that it is very unfriendly towards your system, especially if you have an Nvidia graphics cards. I run a GeForce 7500 LE with 512mb and the latest forceware,(and the latest game patch)the game will shut down the computer after max 10 minutes gameplay. Go to the Ubisoft Settlers forum and you will see page after page of complaints regarding this issue. One guy claims the game actually broke his graphics card!
The game was obviously put on the market WAY too soon, it is not nearly developed enough. It is as if Ubisoft is using the consumer as beta-testers. I'm sure this has been done before but that doesn't make it any better. Bad business.

Simpler than Stronghold 2

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: April 06, 2008
Author: Amazon User

I thought this game was a bit too simple for my tastes.

To prove my point I did a comparison to one of my favorite castle building games, Stronghold 2, by listing items and canceling out the items that were the same in both games. As it came out, the Settlers had about 20 items that were not found in Stronghold, and Stronghold 2 had 70+ not found in Settlers, spread out between castle structures, military units (not as much of the total as you would think), and economic buildings. The Settlers seems like it should be for children when compared with this game.

The worst difference is in defense building. In Stronghold 2 you can build a wide variety of gates and towers and any thickness of two types of wall you like, but in Settlers 6 you can build only one type of tower and one type of gate for each type of wall, and the walls are uniform and thin.

In Stronghold, as well, you can actually look inside your buildings and see your people working. In the Settlers they work outside their buildings and often get their tasks done in fewer steps. One example of the latter is bread making in Stronghold 2, which involves going through a mill for flour instead of just sending grain straight to the bakery (however Stronghold Legends does not have mills either). I just found it more entertaining, perhaps, that in Stronghold 2 tax collecting is carried out in a separate building instead of the castle, and carts have to be dispatched from posts instead of the central storehouse. It's things like this - attention to detail - that really make a game more complex, lifelike, and entertaining. When you need less structures and people to carry out your economy and defense, the game is more boring and less like real castle life.

There are a few unique perks in the Settlers, like upgradeable buildings, the seasons, different environments and castle styles, and troops gathered into battalions, but not enough to even get close to the complexity of Stronghold 2. Even Stronghold Legends, which is stripped down to accommodate a greater military aspect, seems more entertaining than this game, even for those who prefer castle building to fighting.

Also, the Settlers seems to give everybody graphics problems; I almost had to return my copy but discovered just in time that the game started out on zero brightness, etc., so that I had to change those values to get started. The graphics I found to be detailed and complex but they didn't work well on my machine.

This game is also fairly easy, as I was unable to fully complete the Stronghold 2 campaign but the Settlers 6 campaign, though arduous, was a breeze.

Overall, Stronghold 2 beats this game in almost every aspect, but if you want a game that is simpler, easier, and less militaristic, it could be a very good buy (or if you just got sick of Stronghold after playing it too much).

Pass!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: April 06, 2008
Author: Amazon User

RTS fans and/or Parents looking for a game for their child:

My Background: I'm an Veteran about these RTS games. Blizzard's Warcraft/Starcraft Franchises, the CaveDog TA franchises, the Command and Conquer Franchises, are all familiar to me, as well as lesser known titles ranging from the mediocre depths of KK&D to the sophisticated heights of Homeworld. I've been playing them since I was a kid, though I'm rooted most firmly in Sid Mier's Civilization series. I care about both game play and Historicism, depending on what the game is trying to accomplish.

About this Settler's Game:

Its remarkable to me how the problems first clearly identified from the original settler's games, over a decade later, remain the biggest obstacles to the franchise today. The game LITERALLY has a half-life of about 2 hours: After two hours, the game is half as fun as it was in the beginning. After another two hours, its a quarter as fun as it was in the beginning. After six hours of play (since the game is quite dull 90% of the time, 6 hours of game play might happen over several days of play), you'll distinctly feel regret over not having chosen another title.

What ARE the problems?

1)Well, the fundamental game mechanics: there's an initial resource grab and then the 'Empires' stagnate into tedious... well impotence to DO anything. Theres little or NO incentive to actually 'win' the game.... You'd just rather start over again, trying to recapture those initial 'fun moments.'

2)The Concept of the game feels truly confused. Firstly, its a city builder, not an Empire Builder- just like the previous installments of the franchise. The complexity of early versions was dropped, which would have made sense if it was a trade-off for Scale of Game Play- but like I said, its a City Builder, not an Empire Builder. So simplifying the facets of the city's inter-dependencies accomplishes nothing but making the City you build lack variety and interest. Secondly, the economic aspect of the game is of dubious importance: EVENTUALLY you'll get whatever it is you're looking to get, regardless of how poorly you 'manage' the economy. The military aspect is equally dubious: the enemy never threatens you unless you provoke it, and even once provoked, its impossible, regardless of how poorly you manage your defenses, to actually loose the game, because the enemy seems as equally uninterested in winning as you will be. There are NO historic aspects to the game, and little-to-none of the historicism you'd want if you're buying the game for a 10-and-under player. (Over 10 need not apply in the first place)

3)The Game lacks ergo dynamics. Sophistication isn't necessarily important for entertainment, but the simplicity of the military and economics is hampered by a surprisingly and unnecessarily complicated feel to actually doing what you want to do. The War Mechanics is truly disgraceful and not worth detailing- the siege equipment, particularly, is unnecessary and unwieldy and stupid.

OK, so what to do with your Money?

1)If you want a City-Builder, get something like Sim City.
2)If you want an Empire-Builder, a City-Builder, which also has Strategy AND a dose of Historical value, get Civ4
3)If you want a basic straight-up base-oriented RTS game, get something like 'Starcraft2' (out soon) or 'Supreme Commander' (if you have a 3,000 dollar system) or 'C&C3' or 'Universe at War' or something.
4)If you want a non-Base oriented strategy RTS game, I actually recommend Sins of a Solar Empire, which is simple but sophisticated simultaneously.
5)If you want a Game leaning heavily of Strategy and Historicism, with only a dash of Empire-management, I recommend a TOTAL WAR franchise game, like Empire Total War (out at end of year), or Medieval 2 total war. Medieval 2 will require maybe a 2,000 dollar system.

Good luck, and don't fall prey to nostalgia for Settlers 2 Gold: Everyone has come a LONG way since 1997... everyone except the Settlers Franchise, which might have actually regressed.

Mind-numbing lack of depth and too much handholding

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 15 / 43
Date: October 18, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I have never played any of the other Settlers games, and this one piqued my interest when I first heard about it. I've been flirting with the idea of picking it up for the past several weeks, and I finally did.

I am extremely disappointed.

First of all - I thought the demo's tutorial was a one-time thing. No - your very first mission in the real game requires you to complete the same tutorial with no option to skip it. After this - you figure the tutorials are over... WRONG!

Your hand is held constantly through each mission, and they basically walk you through exactly what to do. There is no challenge to this. What is worse - you begin each mission in the same position... having to rebuild the same exact buildings... having to watch your gold/stone/wood/food crawl up to the same exact level... having to do the same exact upgrades... and then - just as you hit the fun part and your settlement starts rolling along...

New mission. Repeat everything again.

Though it looks pretty at first, and you might not mind building up a settlement the first time - having to do it over and over and over and over with no variety and crappy voice actors hand holding you through every step and forcing you to click through their dialogue is not fun.

This game has potential... but ultimately it is completely lacking in complexity and most importantly fun. I uninstalled it after 15 minutes and it is going on the shelf to collect dust now. When it says "Ages 10+" on the box - just read: Age 10 or below.

Strong city-building sim, but lacks anything resembling a challenge.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 3
Date: June 09, 2008
Author: Amazon User

Alright. Let's see here.

This was hyped to me as "Like Stronghold 2, except with more focus on city life than combat."

That was a pretty fair comparison. In Settlers, your main object of any mission is to build up a city infrastructure and promote your knight to new ranks in order to gain access to better buildings.

It's a beautiful game to play. When you really get a city rolling, you'll be entertained merely by zooming in and watching your settlers go about their business. The cities themselves feel alive and are nicely detailed. You really will feel as if you're lording over a medieval settlement.

Resources are scattered around the maps, which are divided into regions. You can't build in a region unless you've claimed it by setting up an outpost. Through this system you can slowly expand the territory you control and gain new trade partners or plots of land. In some maps expansion is a necessity, just to gain the space you need for the farms to feed and clothe your settlers.

I should remark again on the prettiness of the game. The seasons cycle, the peasants talk in the streets and hold festivals when you promote your knight, and mutter when there's not enough food or they're cold.

It's definitely a fun simulation game to play, but there aren't many deep details to delve into. It's fairly superficial. This won't bother you much, though. You'll be having too much fun watching the settlers go about their lives.

Now a few negatives.

I mentioned before that the focus wasn't on combat. Well, I just mentioned it a second time--it really needs to be discussed. For starters, there is a grand total of two basic military units: swordsmen and archers. That's it. There are also spies, mercenaries, and siege equipment, but you'll almost never use them. It's pretty much those two lonesome unit types. You'll never build a large army, either. Four squads--two archers and two swordsmen--are enough to completely dominate most enemies in the campaign. There are a couple of occasions (mission-specific) where you will have to build a single battering ram and only use it once--then you can leave it to rot if you want.

The only other real negative is the difficulty.

Namely, there ISN'T any. Difficulty, that is.

You can beat this game blindfolded and with the speakers muted. It's really that easy. You'd almost have to try harder to lose the levels than to win. For most of them, it's just a matter of time before you achieve victory--in 75% of missions, there's nothing to challenge you. Nothing at all. No enemies will attack you. No natural disasters will damage your town. The very biggest threat in the entire game is wolves, who will occasionally attack a lone settler.

Despite the flaws, this is a very fun game. If you can find it with a cheap price tag, it's worth picking up. You will spend several hours building up cities and enjoy every moment of it.

Eventually, though, you'll eject the disk--because you will have built every building, promoted your knight to the top of the tree, and have not a single challenge to overcome.

Review Page: 1 2 Next 

Actions