1. JohnA.

   10

   I think it is a shame to see low votes from people who either lack the system specifications to play the game or don't understand that "history simulation" means that it will be different from history (often excessively so) based on how one plays the game. The game play is rich and addictive, with fantastic depth. The graphics are well above par for a game like this, and the replay-ability, especially in light of the game's open ended modification system and active player community. Multiplayer support is not really up to snuff right now for their metaserver, but LAN etc multiplayer seems to work fine. Seeing as that will undoubtedly be fixed in upcoming patches, I could hardly let it overpower an otherwise pristine review of probably the only game I will play until the release of Spore.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     7 of 7 users said yes
2. orctowngrot

   5

   This game is an impressive, yet ultimately FUTILE machine that ticks away with more systems, more statistics and more mechanisms than just about anything else ever. It may even be a work of genius in terms of programming. But it is definitely not genius as game design. The core proplem is that the 'game' (the sim) is as BORING as hell. You cannot do 'anything you want' at all. You are stuck in a cage playing with the dire mechanical limits The code certainly supports a LOT of activity under the hood. But when you have played the game long enough, learned how it all works, and become comfortable with the controls of the machine, you discover that the mass of wheels, levers and gizmos don't all add up to an enjoyable gaming experience. Europa Universalis, should really have been called Europa, Out-of-Your-Anus. It's one of the most elaborate terd machines ever made. The in-game scripts, the technology trees, the economy, the diplomacy, the military dimensions and the battles are all, finally JOYLESS, SOULESS mechanisms. They are not really fun, and they do not actually end up producing much that serves as an effective history simulation either. Its a bit too generous to say that EU (1,2 or 3) is over ambitious. It's more a case of a massively confused and confusing pile of code that was made with total indifference to the experience of the gamer who is supposed to PLAY it. EU intimidates, it does not liberate. The core design value at work here is the pretentiousness of the designers, with a nice twist of indifference to gaming in general. Most games merely use code to have us kill imagined enemies! How inferior! EU is beyond THAT. It allows you to explore the complexity of medieval and post-medieval Europe. IF ONLY. They take great pride in the research the game obviously required to make. Yet they haven't addressed the far more vital issue of gameplay. It looks and feels like a game for the history nerds by the history nerds. Lacking is anything that could be called competent modern GAME design. Why bother to make a game at all? Maybe Paradox should be making educational software rather than 'entertainment'. Medievel Total war 2 and Rome Total War were games that also took a lot of research and historical study and transformed it into games. Both of those take themselves far less seriously as sims, and reduce history to a relatively shallow military dimension. Yet both are far better games. The research that went into EU is impressive. Sadly in terms of getting a good game, it is also mostly counter-productive. A game for the nerds by the nerds. You don't have to play EU for a week to find out if its not for you. If you don't feel intrigued from the first impression, be warned. For 99.9% of humanity, this is NOT the game for you. I hated it in 1990 and I still hate it now. Sadly Paradox used this engine as the basis for repeating the same failed experiment in obnoxious game design over and over and OVER again. Play this game, and you can discover the design fault at the heart of all Paradox games. A final very important point must be made: EVERYONE WHO GAVE EUROPA UNIVERSALIS, 1,2,3 a review score above 5/10 is GUILTY, of over-generosity of the worst sort. its because gamers have failed to be critical, serious or aggressive enough in identifying the serious gameplay faults of this IP that Paradox has been encouraged to built so many facking horrible games, based on the same flawed recipe every time. Paradox 'fans' are the principle idiots and the prime reason there have been so FEW good strategy games while there are any number of amazing games being developed in every other genre. CRITICS BE CRITICAL. REVIEWERS be HARSH. This game fails. to call it a success guarantees more of the same.Timothy Rawlins. timtimjp@yahoo.com… Expand

   • Helpful?

     0 of 0 users said yes
3. ForceMagic

   0

   I love historical games and I really like simulation/strategic games too. Looks like everything is in place to have a great game play experience. Unfortunately, it wasn't the case, I pick up Aztec for my first game and it was horrible. I read a lot of stuff on the internet in order to have an idea what to do to get out of this stupid tribal political system. I had to westernize, which I haven't been able to do after seven attempts and 37.4 hours of play time. And what is this annoying behavior of those "riots army" who flee when I WON?!? They run everywhere and I have to play cat and mouse all over my territory to fight over and over again until they finally get all killed. Ridiculous, it's as if they had not even tried to play their own game.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     1 of 2 users said yes

See all 31 User Reviews