User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 382 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 40 out of 382

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 8, 2012
    4
    AOE 3 was a disappointment. It's predecessor was a brilliant, fun strategy game. There were lots of unique civs to pick, historic campaigns to play, and a simple, easy, but flexible map editor. AOE 3 has only a handful of civs, and you have to buy the expansion pack to use any native american civs. There are 3 long campaigns each with 5 minute missions in the place of a ton of short campaigns and a few individual missions. The first campaign was just silly. Magic. No kidding, magic. In the first campaign you have to find the fountain of youth and destroy it to keep a secret organization from using it's powers for evil or something. It sounds like some sort of bad sci fi. Another thing that irritated me when I played was that everything is so... big. The inability to zoom out combined with the fact that every soldier in my army is half an inch tall means that there is very little room on the screen. Not only that, but the maps are very small too. I found myself quickly running out of room to build, and, when I just started and was playing on the easier levels, found myself accidentally destroying an enemy because my guards went rouge. That's another problem. AOE 1 had that command list where you could pick formations, and set units to patrol, guard, escort, or just not attack anything. That's all gone in AOE III. If you want to guard your base with troops, you have to constantly pull them back to keep them from following a trail of retreating enemies back to their home base. In this version, instead of just reducing troop training time, troops train in squads up to 5. Personally, I have no objection to this change though, it saved me one time because I had to train soldiers while under attack, and if they had been coming out 1 by 1 they'd have been slaughtered. And then there's the realism. I'm sorry, but if your unprotected fleeing screaming villager can take over 15 BULLETS TO KILL, there is something seriously wrong. Bullets are incredibly underpowered in this game. Even after buying a special upgrade that gives me massive bonus damage versus villagers, it still took way more bullets than it realistically should have. A game where bow and arrow > gun is one where the laws or reality are warped. There are 2 things in AOE III that keep me from giving it a 2 or 3. The first one is the home city option. Though it isn't exactly "Age of Empires" style, it did a nice job of motivating me to keep playing. After all, I can't just stop with a level 9 home city, I have to go to 10. And after that, why not 15? or 50? Another thing that was fairly well done was the graphics. I don't mean the troops. They all look like a mess of colored triangles. And the buildings just look like buildings. Nice, but nothing to write home about. I'm referring to the thrill I get from positioning 16 cannons in a circle around his town center and firing, watching pieces of it fly 50 feet into the air and land in a shattered heap on top of the mess that used to be a colony. The physics in the game, though also somewhat unrealistic, (Houses appear to weigh nothing, a 20 foot long chunk that must weigh at least 1 ton can be blasted straight up into the air and come back down as if it were a lego brick) are very fun and visually interesting. All in all, this is an okay game, but if you are expecting Age of Empires III, you won't get it. This is just another rts. Expand
  2. Nov 23, 2012
    10
    This is, in a few words, the best RTS among ''classical rts''. A game with an interesting, but not complex economy; a base to build and defend, your homecity to level up...Then i have to say i love mechanics like rock-paper-scissor in battles (i.e. cannons>pikes>horses>archers ...), and DECKS to build are a good way to break monotony even with the same ''nation'' used over and over.
    With
    AoE3 i started playing online in a more ''serious'' way, if is it possible to say that ;) Expand
  3. Dec 22, 2011
    5
    Really not all to great. Not deserving of the title AOE:III. Age of Empires ii and even i were much much better. Online play wouldn't even work for me. Don't waste your money on this- get age of mythology if you want a 3d aoe type game.
  4. Mar 7, 2013
    9
    The realistic graphics is the first thing a player notice in the game. But as the game goes on, you find yourself trapped in the huge number of different tasks your must complete in order to grow your village, collect as many resources as you can and build a considerable defense so you don't get caught off guard, and eventually attack. This is the definition of RTS and this game has the best of it. You don't get bored, because you don't stop commanding your citizens for a second, and you don't get tired of doing the same thing over and over. Different nations allow different tactics, units, buildings keeps you playing and the language npc's speak can be fun. Also the campaign is very interesting, although it's not the best I've seen. Expand
  5. Jan 13, 2013
    9
    Really Enjoyed the second game in this series, and I love this game even more, the campaign left more to be desired, and was too short in my opinion, in comparison to the other games in the series, but new features such as a home city add a new layer of strategy to the game which makes it a lot more enjoyable and easier to get involved with.
  6. Mar 25, 2013
    9
    This was the game I grew up with. I had lots of fun playing this for hours and hours. Great game, Great campaign, almost great everything. The multiplayer was very fun, but I would often find lot of issues with the connection and the horrible lag. I also later discovered that when I played Age of Empires 2, it had a much better feel then Age of Empires 3. I felt something was stripped off of Age of Empires 3, that should of not been stripped off. Overall great game and I wish more people would play the Age of Empires franchise. Expand
  7. Sep 3, 2010
    10
    Fantastic, the definitive RPG that hasn't been beat since. With all the little quirks that just make a game come to life.. such as the settlers happy responses to your every will and command, to sending your soldiers into battle, really makes you feel like you're in the Age of these Empires and you are god.. what more could you want from a game? Must Play.
  8. Oct 6, 2010
    5
    I thought this was going to be just asgood as Age of Empires II, but I was so wrong. Age of Empres II had more civilizations, better gameplay, and overall, a much better game than this!
  9. Sep 24, 2010
    2
    Horrible game. It might have looked good, but it was repetitive, boring drivel. The stroy was decent but the voice acting totally tore the whole game apart. Skirmish was never different, not like games such as Dawn of War 40K or Starcraft, which had at least a little bit of difference in their skirmishes. I found it utterly atrocious.
  10. Jan 23, 2011
    9
    It's a shame that Microsoft disbanded Ensemble Studios, they created a great game. The graphics are amazing, especially being a 6 year old game. The single-player campaign was decent, it was somewhat interesting but their were some awkward cut-scenes. What makes this game so addicting is its multiplayer. Yes, the game is slowly dying, like all old games do, but their are fan patches and many other options. You shouldn't have a problem finding a game online. Overall, well worth your money. Expand
  11. Jun 6, 2011
    8
    Awesome! I havent played aoe 2, and when i find it i will : ), but this is one of my favorite games. while living with several annoying people i managed to play this game so much, that i overheated my computer and crashed my hard drive. i bought a new one, and appearently my computer isnt compatable anymore.. anyways i loved it so much i gave it to a friend for his b-day(and $20)... back to the game, the single player is the biggest cob job i have ever seen, but the multiplayer is very addicting. this is almost like suited up stronghold 2 with other players. there are several strategies to win and overall, i would reccomend this to anyone who has the time to play a 2 hour long game of eco-based warfare. Expand
  12. Apr 6, 2013
    5
    I could not stand this game. Age of Empires 2 was amazing and Deserves a 10/10, but AOE 3 was just boring. First of all, I do not find the time period interesting at all... Civ Colonization is a much better representation of this. Idk I want to like this game because it's "Age of Empires", but I just didn't like it.
  13. Nov 27, 2011
    9
    This game is awesome. It has nice graphics. It's great for LAN games. And it has excellent game play. I couldn't ask for more in an rts. And the home city system is awesome. It makes each game feel like you're building a colony.
  14. Jun 27, 2013
    0
    Absolute worst multiplayer system/support I have ever seen for a game. 3/4 of the time you can't join a game due to a connection issue, either with friends or strangers. Unless you want to play single player only, AVOID.
  15. Jan 11, 2013
    2
    Ugh, the graphics even for the time (not even that long ago) were appalling and it hurt my eyes, it takes forever to install, has plenty of bugs and data seems to get corrupted easily, which caused me to re-install a few times (my computer was perfectly fine). Now the single-player is just dreadful, the game-play is 100% dull and the missions have no depth whatsoever, what's more is the way you usually go from one mission to another without an established connection and sometimes no explanation of what is going on is just laughable. I remember I didn't even know what I was doing in one of the missions and I had pretty much no fun with the single-player. I believe a game which is - vastly - inferior to it's predecessor in pretty much every way (even the multi-player - just look at the other negative reviews) deserves a terrible score innately. Expand
  16. Apr 4, 2012
    7
    A good, not great, RTS game. The single player is pretty bad and not too complex, but playing with or against friends is a lot of fun. Well worth the price if you know people to play it with.
  17. May 16, 2012
    8
    It is a little disappointed, but still it delivers fun, and It is great. It is good looking, and haves some great units. The graphics are really good, and the new Home City system is a blast! But it isn't good as the sequel of the original game, Age of Empires 2. And you really want to know what disappointments it haves? It is with a poor campaign and with a not changed gameplay from the first. (8.5) Expand
  18. May 24, 2012
    10
    The concept of the game isn't new at all. Sure, the graphics aren't that bad, but the biggest disappointment I felt came from the reduced unit and nation diversities, that can't be satisfied even though you bought the whole expansions pack.
  19. Jan 13, 2013
    8
    A very satisfactory gaming experience. Good plot, awesome characters, exciting gameplay, and a very intricate level editor. The multiplayer is fun and engaging, and the maps are creative. A real winner.
  20. Jan 3, 2013
    5
    I shouldn't complain about graphics in the context of its release date, so i wont. But the looks do detract a little from what's required of you and how the game mechanics actually work. AoE had a square grid system that was easily translated into tactical options by the player, 1 square could have 1 tree or 1 stone block or a building, etc. and said objects would inform the player where enemies could move/move around or get through them by destroying them. This system is defunct as units can move through trees, although the proximity of trees that will block units appears arbitrary and the way units move through forested areas insinuates a cover mechanic that doesn't exist. This could have been an excellent aspect of the game that was completely forgone. It all leads to one conclusion that the games combat has not evolved. The macro aspect is emphasised by units being built in 5's, it feels so daft you can just multi-select your structures and set a waypoint at the enemy base and be done with it. That's essentially what the game is, 2 bases throwing units blindly at each other.

    This game is all about macro and economy, which is an odd focus for an RTS when requisition mechanics have always been the most boring aspect of strategy games and how macro dilutes any sense of strategy. Micro plays so little in combat that as long as you match up a bunch of varying units your army is safe, or you can be a bastard and just mass cavalry which is good against everything except pikemen; who can be out maneuvered an kited anyway. The deciding factor is often who can amass the largest army or replenish a dying one fastest. A last note on this matter of micro, units have a habit of freezing up when given orders in quick succession as they'll constantly want to change formation. This is the single most annoying thing about this game as it costs significant time and makes your units vulnerable to being sniped as they dawdle in battles.

    The home city mechanic gets in the way of gameplay. That's all about i can say on this innovation, sadly. You're in the middle of a heated skirmish and you're constantly prompted to visit your home town to select a bunch of stuff that contributes almost no significance to the round. This mechanic seems to only exist to keep players playing to grind and level for pointless rewards. A sad turn for a classic genre defining RTS game.

    The battles and skirmishes aren't interesting, the units aren't defined enough, too much focus on macro and subsequent battles of attrition over tactical decision making. Only recommend buying this game in a sale and playing the campaign if you must play it at all. The multiplayer is tiresome and un-interesting. It will disappoint die hard AoE fans.
    Expand
  21. Sep 13, 2013
    8
    First of all, I want to give Ensemble Studios my thanks for creating one of the most iconic and widely-cherished RTS series of all time. Second of all, I want to say I think this game has been pretty harshly treated in the user reviews. The main reason for this overcritical attitude is the large number of gameplay innovations and evolutions introduced by Ensemble in what was one of their last games.
    I think the deviations in formula were a risky move but they definitely helped revitalize the series AoE II is still a solid game, but it epitomizes the style of pre-2000 RTS games. Ensemble needed to make some real changes or it was possible the series would become stale and outdated only its third full release. A couple of of these changes were definitely questionable (I'll mention them throughout the rest of this review) and they stop AoE III from being a 9/10 game but most of them are welcome additions in my eyes.
    Graphically, Age of Empires III is gorgeous. The unit models haven't improved a huge amount from Age of Mythology, but the textures are more vivid and crisp than ever. Damage animations on buildings look great, with realistic-looking explosions and chunks of debris adding to the chaos of battle. Overall the art-style is both rugged and colourful and it looks beautiful across the board I just wish I could zoom out further! Thankfully there is a great mod that lessens the restrictions on zooming but I don't get why Ensemble chose to lock you into such a small field of view.
    The card system is interesting, and both allows for and encourages experimenting with dynamic strategies. There's more differences between factions than ever and the card system adds even more variety in strategies. There are many viable playstyles in AoE III turtling is always an option because of buildings like the plantation, which are an unlimited supply of coin (replacing gold stone has been removed completely which is a bit of a shame) and really great fortifications. Outposts are effective and the wall placement system is just fantastic even more refined than Age of Mythology's.
    At first I wasn't a fan of the circular maps as opposed to the square and rectangular maps Age fans are used to, but after a while it really only bothered me when it came to using the map editor.
    A more sticking criticism is the simplification of the skirmish/random map options. You can have a maximum of two teams that's it. Your only options are playing FFA or a two-team battle, and it's pretty baffling that there aren't more choices.
    All in all AoE comes close to topping AoM as my personal favourite game developed by Ensemble, but it doesn't quite manage it.
    RIP Ensemble Studios and RIP AoE IV and V.
    Expand
  22. Oct 5, 2013
    3
    This game really dissapointed me, even if the graphics were great, they completely changed the Age of Empires style. This looks like another type of game, with very few civilizations, lame campaign and bad mechanics. This is the reason why Microsoft decided to develop Halo Wars and then shut down Esemble Studios.
    A shame that this game sunk the AOE franchise.
  23. Mar 5, 2014
    6
    This is a good strategy game, but I have some problems with it: The online deathmatch is full of experts with level 100 and above, who are not kind to "noobs" (they judge you by the level you received (with one civilization of course)). The games can last a long time and after awhile it gets a bit booring.
    Nevertheless is Age of Empires III a good game to play with your friends and the
    campaign is also good. Expand
  24. Oct 23, 2013
    8
    Even though it feels familiar, it is a good sequel. Disappointingly, it doesn't revolutionize nothing, but it's a visual flare and a fun strategy game. It's a nice conclusion to an amazing trilogy.
    It follow relatively the same gameplay as it's predecessor, adding an interesting Home City system. With an awesome timeline, it kept me enjoyed with it's smoothness on overall making strategy
    and beautiful, just gorgeous visuals. It has you choosing the city and country you want to choose, making strategy and gathering resources with citizen and exploration. The flaw here is that it is rather too familiar to be anything revolutionary.
    However, the old AOE gameplay is fantastic and the visuals will blow you away. It's another great game of the series and it's remarkable. (Final Score: 8.77)
    Expand
  25. Mar 3, 2014
    5
    As an AoE II fan I loved how this game was graphically a huge step forward for the series. The game truly comes to life like it never did before. However, I have played this game only about 20 hours. Sometimes I ran the game again but everytime I quit before I even started a game. As soon as the thrill of playing what looks like a new prettier version of a good game wore off, it became a huge disappointment.
    The campaign is now mostly a fantasy story, while one of the reasons I enjoyed Age of Kings so much was because the scenarios were (based on) actual historical events. Also, there are only 3 storylines in the original game, where AoK had 5 (including 1 tutorial).
    Another great disappointment was the map creator. In Age of Kings this feature alone added a few hundred hours of gameplay to my total. AoE III threw overboard the simple interface in the map creator. As a result, the map creating is so incomprehensible it is virtually impossible to create a map (let alone a scenario) without googling how to do basic things every other minute. And even after searching the web for answers, when I tried to change the map size to bigger than the initial tiny, I got an error message. Because the campaign wasn't that great either, this serious flaw pretty much destroyed any replay value this game had left.
    I was unimpressed by the (lack of) variety and nations as well. Age of Kings and the Conquerors together offered 18 civilisations to play with, whili AoE III and its two expansions together gave 14. True, some strategic elements are improved. Nations have more unique units and technologies, and the naval part is improved a lot. However, I never really played any AoE game for the strategic experience, I play it for fun. And as I find naval warfare not nearly as interesting as knights, soldiers and suicide bombers, those improvements really didn't do it for me. The same goes for the time. AoE III is set in the early modern period in the Americas, just after they're discovered. I was kind of bummed when I found out, because I love medieval strategy with castles and knights and kings. But the game captures the atmosphere nicely.
    Age of Empires III also added a kind of trading card game as a new gameplay element. I do have mixed feelings about that. It really adds a new layer of strategy to the game, and it's quite fun leveling up and upgrading your cards. But I think this doesn't really belong in an AoE game. Because as I said before, I don't play Age of Empires because I want in-depth strategy, I play it because I want to play an easily accessible game with countless different options for different games and just as much options for messing around.
    Expand
  26. Feb 24, 2012
    9
    Great game really, different than othe AOE games, this game is based on building your colony in the new world with getting shipment from your home city, the system of home city is really great, building a deck and unlocking new shipment is very intersting and will keep you playing, there are a lot of ways to play for every nation in the game and they are vastly different, the skirmish mode is brilliant, maps and graphics are beautiful, the sound is very crisp and suitable, for such a game released in 2005, this game really lives on (graphics for example is better than the new rts SH3), go to multiplayer you will see a lt of people still playing, you wont find any new game like this style (Historic RTS) anymore so you just have this great game. Get the complete edition with the two expantions, and you will play it forever. Expand
  27. Sep 18, 2012
    8
    i used to be an AoE II player.now i play Aoe III quite often.i see the game was released in 2005.compared to other games in the same period,this game's the graphic was extremely outstanding.now people play games with a much stricker attitude since more games are available.
    some sections was cut in this game:theres no more the US,USSR,Spain (they do exist in mods though),etc.and there are
    no more airplanes no more more weapons. Expand
  28. Aug 13, 2012
    8
    Technically is amazing, and it haves a great campaign. Let's not forget about one of the most exiting parts, Skirmish. It's really addictive to level up and upgrade your city. And the Home City option is really good, but the gameplay seems exactly the same, so that's why It's not amazing. But still with the great story and worth adds, this game is a must buy. 87 out of 100
  29. Apr 12, 2013
    7
    this game is good only in graphic. gameplay is overly simplified and many flaws in execution of strategy really ruins the game. it tries to give players impression that gameplays are diversified and interesting but all come down to whoever is fast at making unit and economy wins the game in most cases.
    also micro rarely matters which sucks cuz strategy game is meant to give skilled people
    edgy to win game
    controls are clunky and expect lots of lag when u play online( this is 7 years old game)
    community is nasty and when u lose in teamgame everyone calls out each other
    in a word, go buy recent rts like sc2:hots
    Expand
  30. Nov 3, 2012
    8
    I had a lot of fun playing this, With a total game play of 25 Hours to play the Complete Edition.
    The only issue i really had is that it did get quite repetitive after a while.

    The details are still pretty good for a older game, The story was fun to for me at least.
    I did get this game on sale though, I'm not sure if i would spend the full price on it. (37 Euro).
  31. Jun 17, 2013
    10
    un excelente juego con varias cosas por destacar entre estas la originalidad y hermosos mapas con cosas grandes por descubrir dentro de el, un buen tema musical.
    Lo que lamento es el pixelado pero no es algo tan grave para bajarle calificacion
  32. Sep 2, 2013
    10
    EXCELENCIA Y PERFECCIÓN, esta gran combinación es mi favorita, en especial si se habla de un videojuego, si se habla de AGE OF EMPIRES, con esta tercera entrega el juego logra mejorar en varios aspectos, logra entretener y lo mas importante divertir al jugador, muy original y logra mostrar la capacidad que tiene MICROSOFT de impresionar.
  33. Aug 4, 2013
    9
    Odlična grafika, odlične misije, pravo osvježenje poslije AoE2............................................................................................
  34. Jan 7, 2014
    8
    Played it for days but the game isn't so attractive. Age of 2 and 1 was more attractive because these two games chosen more interesting topics like Medieval and Civilizations of First Age.
  35. Jan 27, 2014
    7
    I am going to start off by saying that I am a big fan of the Total War series and I like it better then age of empires so I am biased against this series. I had a lot of fun with this game but then I found the Total War series. Total War trumps this game in all ways except the AI is better in age of empire. If you want fun game get this but if you want a vary fun game get one Total war games.
  36. Aug 8, 2014
    8
    The game is good for strategy game. The storyline history is the purpose of game. However the game is not very popular. Although the gameplay and graphic is good.
  37. Jan 29, 2014
    10
    Age of Empires III was such an amazing game, with fantastic graphics and a lot of new and cool features! And I know Age of Empires IV would be even better, I'll never stop believing!
  38. Feb 15, 2014
    10
    best game ever. you can't compare it with aoe2, another world. i need the 150 words aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
  39. Feb 26, 2014
    9
    Top RTS: Red Alert, Star Craft 1, Age of Empires 3

    I know there are a lot of AOE2 fans out there who hate on this game....it is all misplaced hate.
    Villagers are still "weak points" that can be exploited and must be micro controlled. removing the Camp aspect of the game streamlines the whole system. The whole game is pushing you to pressure your enemy early and often in order disrupt
    their flows. It does make map control slightly less relevant, but it also means that troop positioning, flanks and tactical withdrawal makes a whole lot more sense. Establish forward troop production bases and enclaves.

    AoEIII is a streamlined, highly flexible RTS that can punish or reward tactics.
    Like all RTS it has "cookie cutter" flavor of the month builds and some empires are less balanced, but you should really enjoy most any game you play of AOEIII.

    Single player is weak, this is an online game to play with and against friends/foes.

    AI is very good overall.
    Expand
  40. Apr 14, 2014
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This Game according to me.................is ONE OF THE GREATEST GAMES EVER, I have tried AoE2 (this is technically a venn diagram of the 2) and it is a mess, 1-Villagers must return to homebase or whatever building just to return resouces I mean, 1 second your villager is carrying resources, the next he gets creamed leaving you with a dead colony. Also for those ofyou who think the campaigns are lame, but atleast it combines a little myth, I mean it doesn't mean it's completely magic, in AoE2 you've got several short campaigns, with what? No interrelation Now I really don't have time to write all of this but here's a comparison of the 2
    AoE3/AoE2
    3d/2d
    Guns/All Swords
    Fast by 5 training/Slow by 1 training
    Special Effects/No Obvious Special Effects
    Fast Resource Collection/Slow Resource Collection
    Home Cities and Cards/No Cards nor Home Cities
    Good Skirmish Mode/Horrible Skirmish mode
    Expand
  41. Jun 30, 2014
    8
    This is a really fun to play RTS, which was the most gorgeous at the time it came out and the water graphics today still surprise me for being made in 2005. The map design for random maps are decent, some are a little too low on food and sparse on trees so you feel like you are screwed if you spawn in certain locations. I'm reviewing basically the online portion, but I had played the campaign before and it was quite memorable with nice cutscenes as well. Other than French, all of the civilizations you get to choose from are quite even. I can play with Dutch, English or Russians and do just as good with different techniques. The unit design is good and the formations are quite easy to set up. I also like how you can toggle the amount of exp each player has online and if there are idle villagers. I wish that you had the ability to swap a medium/hard AI if someone dropped out of an online game because it happens a lot due to people with bad internet aswell.

    If you are looking for a really solid classic style RTS, that has updated the farms/mills and ability to not have your villagers run back to a storehouse or town center every time to drop stuff off, ala warcraft 3 and AOE 2, then you are in for a real treat. There are so many types of home city drop offs for each city, so you will be choosing new decks frequently for each map or type of opponent you are facing. The ability to change things in your home city is quite cool too. I'd give this game an 8.5/10 for graphics, gameplay and replayability but I can't so I'll give it an 8/10. Don't think it deserves a 9.
    Expand
  42. Jul 19, 2014
    7
    AOE3... Un jeu vraiment pas mal même si les graphiques son assez vieux ( mais quand même potable ) . Pour moi sa reste un des meilleurs age of empire . Avec différent empire qui ont vraiment chacun leur propre avantage et leur défaut .
  43. Aug 2, 2014
    8
    "Age of Empires III" lacks its predecessors' diversity in playable cultures and origins, but is a huge improvement on graphics and gameplay. It is playable even today. Its campaigns are exciting, too, but lacks "Age of Mythology"'s epic feel. A worthy addition to the series, though.
  44. Aug 12, 2014
    5
    In compare with Age of Empires II is a really bad successor. AoE3 is boring, slow and not attractive story line and time. To conservative game, nothing new.
    Not recommended.
  45. Aug 20, 2014
    7
    It's hard finding good strategy games. I started playing AoE in the first place (v1 back then), because Dungeon Keeper didn't continue after DKII. AoE3 doesn't really offer any strategy upgrade to AoE2 which I might well revert to. As I write multiplayer online for AoEIII has already been taken down. So as futile as it might be to talk about what I'd like to see in AoE4, here would be my fundamental wish for improvement: Quit the micromanagement - can you really imagine Napoleon personally checking the walls and actioning repairs?? Or directing a settler who became idle when exhausting a llama (note this correct spelling by the way lol we don't want to farm tibetan monks for food!) because they are too dumb to farm a sheep instead which is in front of their face. It needs delegation - I suggest new units like repair managers and farming managers be introduced to take care of such things. Or is it because Microsoft itself is actually run without an organisation structure? ;) Expand
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 52 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 52
  2. Negative: 0 out of 52
  1. Those looking for a complex and interesting real-time strategy game with fantastic good looks and some historical flavor will find just what they want in Age of Empires III.
  2. 70
    Age of Empires III takes the conservative approach to the conundrum of how to craft a new experience that remains faithful to the original. While that ensures fans will immediately feel at home with an old friend, it's questionable whether it sets another standard, or merely follows its own.
  3. Age of Empires III would be a damn fine RTS if it came out five years ago. Instead, it's some impressive modern technology and bold gameplay ideas unfortunately saddled by an outdated take on the genre.