| | |  | All Games | Home » » » Age of Empires III | | | | | | | Description: | | MODEL- MS-CD04328WI VENDOR- MICROSOFT CORPORATION FEATURES- Microsoft Age of Empires III PC This newest version of the Age of Empires Age of Empires III places you in the age of exploration and conquest-- roughly 1500 | | | Features: | |
• Start out playing as the British and begin with a solid economy, or lead the French into an easy alliance with Native Americans - 8 total civilizations to choose from
• Work with Native Americans to your tactical advantage, for the first time ever
• Develop your own Home City, and customize it make it wealthier and more powerful as you take over Europe
• Explore the New World and create colonies while seeking out new resources and making alliances with the Native Americans
• Recover buried treasure from the Caribbean, hunt bison on the Great Plains, compete for trade routes and fortify the coast of New England
| | | Product Details: | | | Product Length:
| 8.0 inches | | Product Width:
| 6.5 inches | | Product Height:
| 2.0 inches | | Product Weight:
| 0.5 pounds | | Package Length:
| 7.5 inches | | Package Width:
| 5.5 inches | | Package Height:
| 1.2 inches | | Package Weight:
| 0.7 pounds | | Release Date:
| October 18, 2005 | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 263 reviews |
| | | Game Information: | | | Platform:
| Windows XP | | Media:
| CD-ROM | | Item Quantity:
| 1 |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 263 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
327 of 351 found the following review helpful:
 A successful installment in the Age of Empires SagaOct 18, 2005
By JD
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.
161 of 184 found the following review helpful:
Lackluster, but not without potentialOct 20, 2005
By Pecos Bill
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.
22 of 23 found the following review helpful:
 Good enough, but I expected more after six yearsNov 15, 2005
By chefdevergue
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.
94 of 112 found the following review helpful:
Age of Ennui?Oct 21, 2005
By Matt Cameron
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.
28 of 31 found the following review helpful:
 What a Disappointment!Nov 05, 2005
By Dal Birch
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...
See all 263 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
