User Reviews (51 - 61 of 190)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

This is a fun game, but the MULTIPLAYER SERVERS DON'T WORK!

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 7
Date: December 13, 2005
Author: Amazon User

It looks great.. I can only imagine how it looks on full detail. It plays well too. Innovative game design with the cards, but I hope you don't plan on playing with other people!

ESO. The multiplayer server for this game is HORRIBLE. You can't create games. You can't join them, and by some leap of faith if you could. If someone disconnects, it freezes the game.

Go to http://agecommunity.com/ forums if you need proof from other user experiences.

I want to give it zero but I couldn't

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 9 / 14
Date: January 01, 2006
Author: Amazon User

-Graphic is not that great even compare to RON
- ALMOST NO UNITS VARIATION! Units variation is very important for RTS game.
-Only to imprerial age.
- Information is not clear. For example, hit point of units and building.
- Boring home city system. This is RTS game my friend, not another card/ board game.
I list it on ebay after 1 hour I installed this game.

Age of Empires for Idiots

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 14 / 27
Date: January 18, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Is it too much to ask that a sequel be better than the games that came before it?

Here is my theory: the game designers wanted to create a game that was more multi-player friendly. Therefore, they took the old version and stripped it down. Less units, less technology, fewer buildings, etc. Heck, I think the maps are even smaller.

What they created was AOE for Idiots. In fact, the game is so simplified that you really don't even need half of the advances they give you. Just collect resources, build a big army, and go smash someone. That's it.

You know...

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 8 / 12
Date: December 05, 2005
Author: Amazon User

This game has the atmosphere of AOE series for the most parts..it really is nice

The main theme really takes you to the time when you first played AOE...if you have lol

When I first downloaded the demo and ran this game I just couldn't help but to listen to the main theme over 20 times or so because it was just so touching...and the gameplay wasn't too shabby either

But something is lacking in the game and I don't feel like payin 50 bucks for this game ya know? I wonder why...

I really enjoyed AOE, it is still probably one of my favorite games of all time, and AOE2 was definitely one of the better games I've played...

AOM was a nice addition to my Ensemble Studios collection and I thought it had the best presentation compared to the other Ensemble products..good graphics, nice intro..blah blah

But strangely I don't have the urge to buy this game like I did when I played the demo of AOM

Maybe it's because the game betrayed the series and moved on to the battle for the newly found continent of America..

Maybe it's because the gameplay isn't as satisfying as the other games..

Sadly, I'm deciding to skip this game. I don't care how good the game physic is or how amazing the graphics is. What I care about is a game that I can play and feel like I didn't waste my time...since that is the case with me these days with most games.

Maybe the RTS genre is really dying like many people say..a new inspiration is needed for the game makers to make this genre great again..

With Westwood gone and Ensemble not as striking as they used to be(of course, it's my opinion), I'm going to give my one last hope for Blizzard to see if they can make Starcraft2 or Warcraft4 great...

Yah, and if you're reading this review peeps at Ensemble, yall should know that people still play Starcraft when the game doesn't have the realistic physic or 3D graphics...

A 7 year old game with 2D graphics with only 256 colors supported still is the best RTS game to date.

Very Cool Game

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 7 / 10
Date: December 22, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Cool graphics and gameplay. I've mostly played the Empire Earth series of war RTS games, but with the disappointment of EE2, I thought that this game was a better alternative.

After downloading the new updates from within the game, I've had no issues with any part of the game. Graphics are really defined and crystal clear.

I'm playing on a Athlon 3400+ (FSB 1600 BUS) system, with 1GB of SDRAM and an AGP video card by nVidia (6800 GT)256DDR video RAM and 500MHZ GPU video processor speed with a 17 inch LCD high resolution monitor at 75hz and 3.5ms. Resolution set at 1024x 768. No freezes and no lockups.

Needs Updated!

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 7 / 10
Date: January 04, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I like a of em games so don't take this the wrong way. The game is beautiful if you have a video card that can handle the graphics and lots of ram..........and the story line is great which is lacking in other RTS games like R of N and Empire Earth series.

So why does it need updated? Well, look at the year (it's 2005-2006) and RTS games are exactly the same. Sure there have been some advancements such as Ragdoll physics, storyline inplamented in, more/different units and a different time period but where's the change? Where's the intovation? There is none. This is the exact same game as it was back in 1997 when the first a of em came out.

I know they didn't want to risk losing long time fans of the series including me by changing the gameplay but they could of at least made a few changes to it. I really hate resource gathering because it takes away and distracts you from the core gameplay which is fighting battles and saving people's lives so I'm not impressed with this game but it's an adverage RTS if you include the updated graphical effects which is not what makes great gameplay. I'm sorry. If I want graphics I can just fire up Earth 2160 or something to that effect.

All in all, the same hum-drum RTS gameplay, resource gathering and base building as in everyother RTS now days. No new changes except in the graphics, physics and storyline.

Maybe they'll get it right in the next release? Maybe not?

Stinker

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 11 / 20
Date: February 16, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Well to say I was disappointed is quite understating what I felt about for this game. I was expecting Age of Empires 3 not Empire Earth without the bombers. The game has none of the feeling of its predecessors, it has small cramped maps not the sweeping expanses of AoE 1+2, the AI is retarded, there is little logic in advancement, the battle tactics non existent, you can't even set formations. No surprises at all if you have played Empire Earth. In fact EE (which is a really poor game in itself) is much more engrossing than this simplistic, albeit very pretty, direct port of Empire Earth. My kids, whose pocket money was spent on this wasted effort, were even more disappointed than I was.

It is not Age of Empires 3, it has neither the feel, game play nor charm of the Age of Empires games series and I look forward to Microsoft & Ensemble Studios actually bringing out the proper Age of Empires 3.

"Age of Empires III" Should Have Been Like "Rise Of Nations" In Gameplay

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 9 / 15
Date: January 04, 2006
Author: Amazon User

First of all, this Age of Empires III game has a lot of potential and promise because it belong in the Age of Empires series. The other Age of Empires games were great. This game could of been a great strategy game. It's not even close. What a shame.

Two good strategy games for the same time period is "Rise of Nations" and "Empire Earth 2". Visually, Age of Empires III has better graphics than the other two games. Gameplay wise, the other two games are whole lot better. The developer, Ensemble Studios, really screwed up on this game. Ensemble Studios concentrated way too much on the graphics for Age of Empires III and forgot about gameplay.

Here are some examples of what I mean. First, when you play in Skirmish Mode in Age of Empires III, you can't just stay in one Age like you can in Rise of Nations. Your force to play through different Ages whether you like it or not. Second, you can't upgrade units like you can in Rise of Nations. Your units always stay the same and look the same. Third, your explorer in the game can't just explore on his own on any map like in Rise of Nations. Fourth, there is no World map so there is no countries or territories to conquer like in Rise of Nations. There is no strategy at all. Fifth, you can't make any of your units or enemy units be in agressive or defensive stances like you can in Rise of Nations. Sixth, you can't put units on top of walls to defend forts which is really disappointing. In fact, your units on the ground can shoot through walls at the enemy and actually hit and kill enemy units on the other side of the wall. I don't understand how they can do that. Seventh, can somebody explain to me how does a train in the game that appears out of thin air starts out on one end of railroad tracks and moves along the railroad tracks and the train goes to the other end of the railroad tracks and just disappears into thin air? What happen to the train?

How this game ever made it through the Beta Stage, before it was put up for sale to the public, with all these bugs in it I'll never know. This game is way overrated and way overpriced. Don't buy into all the hype about this game. Save your money until the game comes down in price and hits the bargain bin.

WARNING!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 6 / 8
Date: January 03, 2006
Author: Amazon User

MAKE SURE you have a monster video card (64MB) that can handle hardware transformation and lighting before you buy this game! Most people's computers aren't able to run this game properly because they don't have the required video card. Game then pauses up and drains your CPU quickly, especially during battles. Useless unless you're PC is an ultimate gaming machine.

One of the Best RTS Games Ever

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 6 / 8
Date: July 31, 2006
Author: Amazon User

The fact is I'm not a fan of RTS games (Neither am I a fan of Micro$oft), because I'm simply bad at them and hardly do I like the way how RTS games are played. I bought AoE3 just due to those amazingly beautiful screenshots.

After I tried the tutorial part, I realized I had been completely addicted to this great game. From the graphics to the game scores, they are nearly flawless. The story line in the singleplayer is brilliant. The objects and the effects in the game are extremely detailed. Some brand new RTS features are introduced, such as home city shipments, customizable city, unlockable shipment cards, and new weapon/soldier classes, etc. The difficulty level of Easy mode does allow some RTS noobs like me to enjoy the gameplay alot more. When I watch dozens of soldiers fighting against the enemies, it really gives me a realistic view of the battlefield set back in the 18th or 19th century.

My computer spec is not great for gaming (P4 2.6, 1G RAM, 6600GT 128MB), but the game runs pretty smoothly on this machine with all the highest settings in 1024x768 (except for AA which is off). I get a bit of lag, when the population reaches the maximum of 200 and over half of my soldiers are fighting on the screen. But I think the lag is really slight enough to be ignored as long as one is not too picky about it. After all it's not an FPS game in which lag (either low fps or network lag) kills.

Lastly, the graphics are not as good as the screenshots posted on the official website - It's true (maybe they look better when AA is on?). But those are some sort of commercials. I didn't actually expect that the real in-game graphics would equal to those in the screenshots. (Not to mention that the actual graphics are still pretty impressive.) However, on the other hand, honestly I don't recall any game that can be considered to be "qualified" in this regard. Half-Life Source? Far Cry? Battlefield 2? You name it.

Review Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next 

Actions