Age of Empires III Reviews at IGN and Gamespot

[Abash Alarmist]

Looks like the team over at Ensemble Studios has once again pulled through with an amazing game. The first reviews for Age of Empires III(AOE3) have been trickling through the grape vines of IGN and Gamespot. Firstly, IGN praises it with an 8.8 (http://pc.ign.com/articles/658/658624p1.html), noting its graphics, gameplay, and multiplayer as its strong points. Gamespot then stupifies peoples mind with an agonizingly low 8.2 (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ageofempiresiii/review.html?page=0). While citing the same praises and criticisms, both numbers are suprisingly different.

Here are some snippets from the reviews for the lazy ones amongst us.

It should be known by now that I've been a fan of the Age games from way back. There's just something about the historical nature of the games that appeals to me. To be fair, I think elves and space marines are neat too, but I think it's more exciting to explore the what ifs of real, historical situations. Though not quite as faithful to "reality" as some strategy games, the first two Age games offered us exciting sojourns into the worlds of "capital A" Ancient and Medieval strategy. The third title, Age of Mythology, proved that the mechanics were just as solid even if the historical inspiration was a little loose.
Age of Empires III has some very big shoes to fill, and on top of that, the real-time strategy market has grown hugely competitive due in no small part to Ensemble Studios' previous accomplishments. This latest game offers a lot of what made Age II so great, and it's got plenty of depth and lasting appeal, despite how most matches tend to begin and ultimately pan out similarly. Age III does seem surprisingly rough around the edges in some respects, and those expecting the game to revolutionize or even refresh this style of gaming may come away disappointed that their high expectations weren't met. But 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.
My one question to gamespot is how does a game that does what it does best get an 8.2, while the same score is given to incomparable Black and White 2? I say that we excommunicate Gamespot (and IGN for that matter) out of the gaming community elite.

[AspectVoid]

My one question to gamespot is how does a game that does what it does best get an 8.2, while the same score is given to incomparable Black and White 2? I say that we excommunicate Gamespot (and IGN for that matter) out of the gaming community elite.


I got a better idea. Lets excommunicate you out of the gaming industry as you apparently can't understand that different people have different tastes and opinions. You should also be kicked out since you apparently are unable to understand that whether a score is an 8.2 or an 8.9 it still equals a "Great" game according to Gamespot.

Seriously, though, all a review is is an OPINION! That's it, end of story. Nothing else. If you disagree, that's your choice. Me, I disagree with plenty of peoples opinions about games. I still don't know how the Halo games keep getting such high scores when they're average FPS games. It makes no sense to me, but a lot of people think they're among the best games ever. I don't go bitching and moaning about it though. Well, except for when people like you start bitching about game scores.

[Deadend]

This is why we need to do away with scores.
Yes it's a convient way of giving the game a realtive standing, but then everyone gets all pissy when reviews say A > B, when the person thinks B > A.

[AspectVoid]

Yeah, Deadend, I've thought that for a long time. I tend to ignore most numbers, stars, whatever, and just read the review. There have been any number of times where the review score has nothing in common with what was written about the game.

[H.Bogard]

My one question to gamespot is how does a game that does what it does best get an 8.2, while the same score is given to incomparable Black and White 2? I say that we excommunicate Gamespot (and IGN for that matter) out of the gaming community elite.


try living with brothers in arms getting a 9.3

[Kelegacy]

an 8.2 is still a good score. Apparently it is more of the same (even though it's still fun) that we saw in the first two incarnations. Graphical updates don't necessarily mean a better score. Also, like the reviewer said, there is a lot of serious competition in the RTS genre currently, and it's very hard to stand out, even with a popular name brand. Sequels doing the same stuff with better graphics should get lower scores. Look at Serious Sam 2, for example. Gamespot didnt award them for doing the exact same thing with their sequel, and they shouldn't.

[Thenetcase]

Scores mean absolutely nothing. Big companies like EA will pay a reviewer or the actual site he's employed by to give their game a good score.
How do I know? When I used to write reviews, I would have game companies all the time trying to bribe me. Granted, Microsoft NEVER did it, but EA did it every single time. Whether it was threatening to make me return the game (at my expense-- or the site's expense, rather) or flat-out offering me "Rewards" (like money or more games that were my personal property).
I think that it's a really disgusting cut-throat world behind the scenes. Gaming sites need to grow some balls and resist it.

-TNC-

[EvilBob46]

Greg Kasavin did the GameSpot review and he is generally right (if a bit strict in handing out good review scores). He's also certainly not "corrupt" as he frequently goes in-depth on his reviews in his Journal.

Also, an 8.8 from IGN is not that good of a score. Any decent game can get that, and it is equivalent to an 8.2-8.5 from Gamespot. Either way, the game is not amazing like the thread poster says it is. Also, funny how Gamespot "stupifies" peoples' minds. The irony.

[The Iron Weasel]

try living with brothers in arms getting a 9.3

Brothers In Arms got a well deserved 9.2, it had evolutinary gameplay, had great multiplayer, graphics, and was historically accurate. And its been said before its an opinion. Also in the demo i personally thought, Age Of Empires III felt a little dated, and a little like a step in the wrong direction.

[Kelegacy]

Greg Kasavin did the GameSpot review and he is generally right (if a bit strict in handing out good review scores). He's also certainly not "corrupt" as he frequently goes in-depth on his reviews in his Journal.

Also, an 8.8 from IGN is not that good of a score. Any decent game can get that, and it is equivalent to an 8.2-8.5 from Gamespot. Either way, the game is not amazing like the thread poster says it is. Also, funny how Gamespot "stupifies" peoples' minds. The irony.

Of all the Gamespot editors, I respect Gerstmann and Kasavin the most. Maybe because they are the veterans of the site and have nailed reviews pretty consistently over the years. The other editors do a good job as well, as the site seems to be devoid of that crap that EGM loves to dish out.

Having 3 people review a game in EGM might sound like a good idea, but when one person gives it a 5.4, another a 7.9 and the last a 9.2, what the fuck is that telling us? That you might like, hate, or love the game? Jesus. And the space they use to review might be 100 words total. Not enough for a reader to form a solid opinion.

[NoName]

Seriously, though, all a review is is an OPINION! That's it, end of story. Nothing else. If you disagree, that's your choice. Me, I disagree with plenty of peoples opinions about games. I still don't know how the Halo games keep getting such high scores when they're average FPS games. It makes no sense to me, but a lot of people think they're among the best games ever. I don't go bitching and moaning about it though. Well, except for when people like you start bitching about game scores.
Well since you already said it I suppose there's no reason to go repeating you...

[Draft]

Game reviews are a joke and always have been. They're good for fellating fanboy ego and stoking the flames of internet "debate", and not much else.

[Hieremias]

This is why we need to do away with scores.
Yes it's a convient way of giving the game a realtive standing, but then everyone gets all pissy when reviews say A > B, when the person thinks B > A.

Why do we need to do away with scores? I find them handy. Mind you, I'm not stupid enough to think an 8.2 is a bad thing, nor am I stupid enough to think there's such a massive gulf between 8.2 and 8.8. But when glancing at a review and I see a 5.5, well, I probably don't need to read the whole thing.

Don't do away with something useful just because a few people are too stupid to figure it out.

[baz]

I was completely underwhelmed with the Age of Empires III demo. It could just be that it is only a good game, not a great one.

[dark_inchworm]

"Oh my god! Gamespot criticized the works of my favorite developer! Gamespot obviously sucks and knows nothing about good taste!"

[ChaosDent]

Wow, a 6% difference changes a review score from praise to agonizingly low, who'd have thunk. This is why review scores should not be based on a percentile, even the reviewer can't sit down and say, "the difference between these two similarly great games is clearly 3%." I think a 4 star system, as is used for movies, restaurants and hotels is ideal--and no cheating with half stars Gamespy! Just enough to say Bad, Average, Good, Great... what else do you need?

Anyway, these scores don't seem unfair to me, judging by the demo. There were enough bad interface decisions made, and interface innovations from other games ignored, to make the game far less playable than it should have been, interface alone would keep AoEIII from "Editors Choice" territority for me. I played enough of the demo to understand the game, then I went back to Rise of Nations.

[tvgm2]

Looks like the team over at Ensemble Studios has once again pulled through with an amazing game. The first reviews for Age of Empires III(AOE3) have been trickling through the grape vines of IGN and Gamespot. Firstly, IGN praises it with an 8.8 (http://pc.ign.com/articles/658/658624p1.html), noting its graphics, gameplay, and multiplayer as its strong points. Gamespot then stupifies peoples mind with an agonizingly low 8.2 (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ageofempiresiii/review.html?page=0). While citing the same praises and criticisms, both numbers are suprisingly different.


My one question to gamespot is how does a game that does what it does best get an 8.2, while the same score is given to incomparable Black and White 2? I say that we excommunicate Gamespot (and IGN for that matter) out of the gaming community elite.


Why. Why were you allowed to post this. If you wanted to complain about a .6 review score gap, take it to GameFAQs, or e-mail the "stupifying" Greg Kasavin. I think it's greg@gamespot.com.

If you took off the .2 and .8 you'd have the same score.

[Chagrinful]

Yea AOE3 demo was underwhelming for me too, it just didn't have the feel of AOE2 which I really missed it felt like a cheap 3d rts not a great one from a company that made a classic in the past. Hell AOM felt more like a AOE2 sequel than this!

Also someone said review scores and actual words in the review often are incongruent, thats very true especially when it comes to Gayspy, fuck they're in the habit of giving anything that uses their ingame browser a 5, then you look at "the bad" and they list off huge glaring problems that don't show, if something has a 5 then it should be nigh flawless, not have huge problems.

[megaman]

try living with brothers in arms getting a 9.3

and advent rising gettin a 5. sumthing...

and fukspy givin gothic2 a 2 out of 5...

[tenchiker]

Rogue , you sir are an idiot. The difference between an 8.2 and an 8.8 is negligible. Either way AoE3 sucks and is buggy as hell.

[Darkholmme]

A friend of mine grabbed a pirated copy of the game, and I was over at his house to see it. I'm actually really impressed with the changes that they made to the system overall. The finished game feels light years ahead of the demo, especially in terms of ship combat, resource gathering, and combat (artillery has some great animation when striking a person!). The hometown is a great trwist on the Age of Mythology god power scheme, and that only gets better with the ability to customize what powers you get. I'm definitely picking it up come the 18th, you'll see me online leading the Russian Strelet hordes.

[zeeeg]

The AOE3 demo bored me out of my mind. B&W2 on the other hand, entertained me for at least 10 hours. I agree, these two games are incomparable!

[stomper1080]

My one question to gamespot is how does a game that does what it does best get an 8.2, while the same score is given to incomparable Black and White 2? I say that we excommunicate Gamespot (and IGN for that matter) out of the gaming community elite.

I tend to think that the ratings they give are for the genre, so black and white 2 and Age of Empires III aren't really comparable. I mean, Black and White 2 can't really be classified as an RTS can it?

[IndependentGMR]

How is 8.2 agonizingly low?

[Kefkataran]

8.8 and 8.2 are "surprisingly different"? 8.2 is "agonizingly low"? What the fuck?

[DigiWiz]

It's funny that games are rated lower than they should these days because they don't 'revolutionize the genre'.

[RMan]

Yea, I think the guy was trying too hard to make something of the score difference, perhaps he really likes the game. I'm glad the reviews were posted though, I was mildly interested in the game (although much more interested in Civ4). It does seem like a bunch of reviews scores are posted here, perhaps it'd be good to have a weekly review post like the movie box office income things. Likely harder to organize, but it's a thought.

[Thenetcase]

I don't know if the game sucks or not. The demo wasn't that bad, but it was only 80% of the gameplay (the developers flatout said that, you ignorant, illiterate morons).

The thing that I don't get is why people get all worked up about a game not revolutionizing the genre. A SEQUEL is NOT SUPPOSED TO revolutionize anything. If it does, they are taking a HUGE gamble that it'll fall FLAT. With a sequel you add some great things (home cities and awesome physics, for example) and leave the overall feel of the game in tact (which they did a remarkable job of).

So what's the problem? Are you a bunch of sequel haters? Get a fricking life, people!

-TNC-

[Kefkataran]

It's funny that games are rated lower than they should

That seems pretty relative to opinion. I think most people would argue that games, in general, are given higher scores these days, especially in comparison to reviews in other mediums.

The demo wasn't that bad, but it was only 80% of the gameplay (the developers flatout said that, you ignorant, illiterate morons).

Keeping in mind that I didn't play the demo or judge the game based on it, that seems like a stupid move from the devs. I mean just cause they say it's only 80% doesn't mean it is, and it certainly doesn't mean people will listen to them.

The thing that I don't get is why people get all worked up about a game not revolutionizing the genre.

Well, an 8.2 is hardly getting all worked up about it, but I'll assume you're referring to some of the people in this thread.

So what's the problem? Are you a bunch of sequel haters? Get a fricking life, people!

You seem a bit hostile.

[Zulu107]

Thats why I always say....see for yourself if you like it. No one can tell you what you like, only you can truely know....and you are your own critic and you be the judge. :D

[Heretic Machine]

Blah, blah, blah... Reviews are teh suck!

Blah, blah, blah... Kasavian pwns!

Blah, blah, blah... OP is a dumbass!

Blah, blah, blah...

Whole thread summed up for anyone coming in late.

[outontheporch]

the game isn't that tight.

[woodentaco]

OK, there's a lot of hatin on the reviewing industry, but I think they at least have an important role. A really bad game can be a painful loss of $50, and reviews can help stop that. They're excellent when used aprosimately. The problems only emerge when you decide that "X game got a 9.0, while Y game got a 9.5. I guess Y game is better."
This situation isn't particularly welcoming to reviewers. However, when "X game got a 5.5, and Y game got a 9.0," you can safely determine that X is probably better.

So I'm not entirely sure that we should do away with review entirely. I think a that a simple system down to 5 stars, without half stars, is probably the most effective.


Its also worth noting that precise numbers are used by major publishing companies to determine how much money to give a developer. There was an excellent article in Computer Games Magazine on this... GameRankings is absurd, but it's actually used to determine payrolls.

[Deadend]

Games have been stedialy getting better in a technical sense for a long time now, not just graphically, but in general. Games have fewer mistakes and things that used to raise scores are now expected.

AOE 3 meets expectations, but is not a OMG! game. If every game that happend to be good, but lacked the spark of greatness got a 8.5+, then reviews would be off.

Hell, I wish Gamespot would grade a bit harsher on the large companies.
There needs to be a curve, and an average. You ever notice that alot of games seem to get fairly high scores? Does that mean they are all good games? or are they simply being given points for meeting requirements of a game?

Movies are not given high scores for simply meeting all the requirements of being a movie, they get their score from quality and influence on the reviewer.

In short, quit your bitching.

[Kefkataran]

Whole thread summed up for anyone coming in late.

You're a sweetheart, Perigon. Now if you could only do that for every thread...

Wait! If you copied/pasted what you wrote for this one, that WOULD sum up almost every thread!

[lpmiller]

it's a great game, and already available at my local best buy

[Abash Alarmist]

*sigh*

After reading what I posted, I realize that I got bit by the FANBOY bug. As I sit here and think about it, the AOE3 demo wasn't really all that stellar. I was just so damn excited for a new Age game that I just put my common sense onto the side. Hmm, from the sounds of it, Ensemble actually did drop the ball on this one. There have been more reviews by 1UP and Yahoo Games basically aligning themselves with the rest of Gamespot and IGN. Going to go and cancel my preorder today.

Any recommendations for a game that doesn't suck and comes out soon? I am thinking maybe of picking up Shadows of Colossus, sounds awesome.

[Kelegacy]

Thats why I always say....see for yourself if you like it. No one can tell you what you like, only you can truely know....and you are your own critic and you be the judge. :D

Yeah but then you have to waste your money on a sucky game many times. I take reviews to heart, but I don't live by them. If I was to form my own opinion about games, I would have to buy or rent them. Renting is much safer, but if I don't believe the reviewer's score on Spongebob Squarepants Super Adventure and go out and buy it and THEN find out it sucks, I'm out 50 bucks. And I call myself dumb.

Don't just look at the scores. Read the actual review. That's how you find out if you'll like the game or not. The numbers are just there for the lazy readers among us. The rest is for the people who actually care to find out what the game is all about.

[Mason]

This is idiocy. An 8.2 from Gamespot means it was a well-executed game, good in every way, but not a break-out innovative title. And that's the impression I got from the AoE3 demo.

The traditional RTS is played out. Wrapping the exact same resource and combat systems in a different graphical presentation is a dead end street. AoE3 makes baby steps in the right direction with the streamlining of resources and the colony system, but it doesn't go far enough beyond the realm of the traditional RTS. While it is no doubt a good game, this keeps it from being an important game.

And when it comes to combat, the demo made it feel very, very simple. Oldies like Rise of Nations or WC3 seem to have a lot more to offer here. There's no single "right" direction to take RTS games, but still, you have to take it in some direction.

[Mason]

*sigh*

After reading what I posted, I realize that I got bit by the FANBOY bug. As I sit here and think about it, the AOE3 demo wasn't really all that stellar. I was just so damn excited for a new Age game that I just put my common sense onto the side. Hmm, from the sounds of it, Ensemble actually did drop the ball on this one. There have been more reviews by 1UP and Yahoo Games basically aligning themselves with the rest of Gamespot and IGN. Going to go and cancel my preorder today.

Any recommendations for a game that doesn't suck and comes out soon? I am thinking maybe of picking up Shadows of Colossus, sounds awesome.

Well it isn't that bad. Anyone who loves the AoE series will like AoE3, I bet. But Ensemble has always followed the curve on the development of the RTS genre, so its shortcomings are really no surprise (I found AoM painfully backwards for its time). Try some of the Kohan games if you're more interested in a different take on the RTS, they should be pretty inexpensive by now.

[Borgboy]

I think a lot of you are missing it....The Home City feature in AoEIII is a new, different direction. "Revolutionary" or "innovative" is debatable, but I think it really has the potential to be that way. The demo, from my understanding, doesn't even begin to really touch how Home Cities affect the game. Then there are the natives, and trade routes. And the graphics/physics...Yes the game is "prettier", but as far as I know, it's the first RTS to go all out on the FPS-style graphics, physics, and options. You may not like the game, but I don't think it's fair to say all they did is make the graphics pretty, there is a ton of new, potentially revolutionary (very fun) things in the game (which you can't really know if they will be or not, until the full game is out for a bit.)

As for the interface and bugs in the demo, they've re-done the interface for the final version (and it's much slicker). The bugs, they admit, were a mistake on their part, but they have taken the reports from the demo, and fixed a ton of bugs in the final version because of it. Yeah the presentation of the demo would have been much better without the bugs, and it was kind of like a pseudo beta, but people make mistakes. I think you guys are being a little harsh.

Although, you have the right to that opinion, and I respect it; even though I think you haven't given Ensemble a fair shake, especially based on their past performance, which has been stellar...But that's my opinion, which I am entitled to just as you are yours. :)

[Liquidize105]

Don't use the word innovative lightly, and especially revolutionary.

I think every AOE fan should have a go at #3, the colonial era's pretty interesting; that and Ensemble should release another demo from the final build.

I've never been a fan of the AOE series, I've always been a SC guy. Because AOE is slow, I knew what I was in for when I dled the demo. Successful franchises are less likely to innovate in any groundbreaking ways, which is precisely why a sequel is called sequel. Graphics upgrade is a no-brainer in this day and age - everybody does it.

[mister_slim]

Here's everyone's homework: Go to gamerankings and filter to just the Edge scores, then sort by negative differential to the GR aggregiate. Then complain. Killer7, by the way, has a massive positive differential.

[Thenetcase]

Revolutionary would be... The first game that actually implements a REAL-LIFELIKE physics engine where virtually EVERYTHING in the game is destroyable given enough force (just like "real life"). ;) But alas, that would require the physix's cards and those are too darn expensive right now. ;)

-TNC-

[Hieremias]

*sigh*

Any recommendations for a game that doesn't suck and comes out soon? I am thinking maybe of picking up Shadows of Colossus, sounds awesome.


Dunno about its quality yet, but X3: Reunion comes out real soon, and that's very high on my anticipation list. Comes out the same day as FEAR. Now FEAR might be good, but it's only a shooter and will give me maybe 10 hours of entertainment. X3, if it's anything like X2, will have me playing for weeks. At least until Oblivion comes out.

Just promise me this: if Gamespot gives X3 and 8.2 score, don't go batshit on me. I'll gladly pick it up at that rating.

[GrinR]

Scores mean absolutely nothing. Big companies like EA will pay a reviewer or the actual site he's employed by to give their game a good score.
How do I know? When I used to write reviews, I would have game companies all the time trying to bribe me. Granted, Microsoft NEVER did it, but EA did it every single time. Whether it was threatening to make me return the game (at my expense-- or the site's expense, rather) or flat-out offering me "Rewards" (like money or more games that were my personal property).
I think that it's a really disgusting cut-throat world behind the scenes. Gaming sites need to grow some balls and resist it.
-TNC-

Um, I wasn't in the biz that long, but this testimonial sounds like grade-A bullshit to me. Unless you were part of some kind of low-tier website, Publishers don't bribe reviewers outright ever. There's no need to. There are plenty of game reviewers to go around, most of whom are drooling for the chance to get on the coveted gold-list (games get mailed to you automatically when they come out). Bribe with money? Sounds more like a bitter fanboi wailing from the sidelines than anyone who actually wrote for any publication of worth.

[dark_inchworm]

However, when "X game got a 5.5, and Y game got a 9.0," you can safely determine that X is probably better.

You've got some weird standards, my friend.

[omnithrope]

The AOE3 demo bored me out of my mind. B&W2 on the other hand, entertained me for at least 10 hours. I agree, these two games are incomparable!

I don't know if you noticed, but one was a demo, and one was a full version.
I mean, can you really expect to get 10 hours from a demo?

And, only 10 hours? You paid $50-60 for 10 hours of gameplay and that's good?

[AversionFX]

The demo felt a little too much like other games with the "hero" aspect, which I wasn't entirely interested in. It was enjoyable, but didn't really live up to the expectations I built from reading previews, etc.

It just made me that much more anxious for RON2.

[AversionFX]

I don't know if you noticed, but one was a demo, and one was a full version.
I mean, can you really expect to get 10 hours from a demo?

And, only 10 hours? You paid $50-60 for 10 hours of gameplay and that's good?

People paid the same for Max Payne 2 and got even less gameplay time :P

[Abash Alarmist]

But that game was good.

[Shifteh]

'Greg Kasavin did the GameSpot review and he is generally right (if a bit strict in handing out good review scores)"

And It's about fucking time.

When I saw a 98% for Half-Life 2, I was completely dumbfounded. This magazine (PC Gamer) is trying to tell me it is, essentially perfect. It is only 2% off being the best possible rating, ever. As in, nothing could surpass it, only match it.

What the fuck is that?

I don't care if you like games I don't, or hate ones I do, but at least give a grade/mark/etc that has meaning.

Think about it guys, those two scores (8.2 and 8.8) aren't even a difference in grades in many schools. And really, it sounds like one was an old fan (8.8) and one is a guy tired of the same games. That's all it looks like to me.

[Shifteh]

Um, I wasn't in the biz that long, but this testimonial sounds like grade-A bullshit to me. Unless you were part of some kind of low-tier website, Publishers don't bribe reviewers outright ever. There's no need to. There are plenty of game reviewers to go around, most of whom are drooling for the chance to get on the coveted gold-list (games get mailed to you automatically when they come out). Bribe with money? Sounds more like a bitter fanboi wailing from the sidelines than anyone who actually wrote for any publication of worth.

Have to say, I was thinking the same thing.

Why the fuck would EA care enough to bribe someone? They make almost all of their money of sequels, and the vast majority of people who buy those don't even read the reviews ahead of time.

[Kefkataran]

When I saw a 98% for Half-Life 2, I was completely dumbfounded. This magazine (PC Gamer) is trying to tell me it is, essentially perfect. It is only 2% off being the best possible rating, ever. As in, nothing could surpass it, only match it.

I'm willing to say that about Half-Life 2. For as much as you're trying to say you don't care whether or not people agree with you on how great a game is, obviously you do. That score DOES have meaning, and it's the very meaning you said here. That's the reviewer's opinion on it.

[mkelehan]

8.2 is really good, considering that 5 is the median, unlike many other sites who will give a completely mediocre game a 7.

[The Iron Weasel]

People paid the same for Max Payne 2 and got even less gameplay time :P

But max payne 2 raped the shit out of most games.

[zeeeg]

I don't know if you noticed, but one was a demo, and one was a full version.
I mean, can you really expect to get 10 hours from a demo?

And, only 10 hours? You paid $50-60 for 10 hours of gameplay and that's good?

I don't know if you noticed, but one was fun, and one was boring. A boring demo means a boring game, unless they really botched the demo. And if that's the case, too bad for them. If they release a new demo I'll give it a second shot I guess.
Also while I'm whining I have to say I don't see what people are talking about with the graphics. With the camera being isometric and static except for zooming, it's not too exciting to look at. It basically looks like aoe2, with hi-res art and smoother animations. (except for the water, the water is nice) You can't rotate the camera, so why even bother with a full 3d engine. Although I guess I could say why even bother making this game at all, since the entire thing feels like aoe2. Is the home city idea really good enough to fuel a sequel? Personally I don't think so.


And I'm not done playing B&W2, just that I've played it around 10 hours and I'm kinda burnt out on it. I'm quite sure that I'll get back to it in a few weeks.

[AversionFX]

But max payne 2 raped the shit out of most games.

I'll agree to that. The action in MP2 is simply white knuckle. It's got an intense story. But it's pretty much, "Wow, this game is awesome! ... credits? what the hell?"

I mean, if I'm going to pay $49.99 + tax, I want to be playing that game for at least 2 months. Cue Battlefield 2.

$49.99 + tax for less than 10 hours of gameplay is tantamount to highway robbery, and nobody can ever say that it isn't. Good game or not, $55 for less than a day of gameplay is sheer burglary.

But, why are we talking about MP2 in an AOE3 thread?

[Mason]

I think a lot of you are missing it....The Home City feature in AoEIII is a new, different direction. "Revolutionary" or "innovative" is debatable, but I think it really has the potential to be that way. The demo, from my understanding, doesn't even begin to really touch how Home Cities affect the game. Then there are the natives, and trade routes. And the graphics/physics...Yes the game is "prettier", but as far as I know, it's the first RTS to go all out on the FPS-style graphics, physics, and options. You may not like the game, but I don't think it's fair to say all they did is make the graphics pretty, there is a ton of new, potentially revolutionary (very fun) things in the game (which you can't really know if they will be or not, until the full game is out for a bit.)

Home City only adds a slight bonus to your economy in a very complex way. It's interesting so far as it goes, but it isn't enough for the rest of the game to ride upon (and everything else you cite is purely aesthetic). This is no time to whip out "revolutionary".

Kohan, Sacrifice, Rise of Nations, Natural Selection (yeah it counts)...lots of games have done a lot more with the RTS genre.

[Mason]

I'll agree to that. The action in MP2 is simply white knuckle. It's got an intense story. But it's pretty much, "Wow, this game is awesome! ... credits? what the hell?"

I mean, if I'm going to pay $49.99 + tax, I want to be playing that game for at least 2 months. Cue Battlefield 2.

$49.99 + tax for less than 10 hours of gameplay is tantamount to highway robbery, and nobody can ever say that it isn't. Good game or not, $55 for less than a day of gameplay is sheer burglary.

But, why are we talking about MP2 in an AOE3 thread?

1) Read reviews about games.
2) Decide how much money that game is worth to you.
3) Wait to buy it until someone will sell it to you for that amount.

Unless I missed the bit where guns were aligned perpendicular to temples.

[AversionFX]

You're missing the point. A review will say what I already know. The game is great fun, it's got insane action. That merits buying, no?

When I buy a game, I want the amount of playtime the game offers to be congruent with how much I pay.

I don't care how great a game is, if it doesn't offer a lot of playtime to cover for that cost, then it's dead to me.

A game play Battlefield 2, or Dungeon Siege II, I could easily fork over 55$ for those, because I can play them for weeks.

Max Payne 2, it was a brief playthrough, and then absolutely no reason to ever look at it again. So, basically, MP2 plays consumers like bitches.

[Kefkataran]

Good game or not, $55 for less than a day of gameplay is sheer burglary.

Keeping in mind what Mason's intelligent post above mine said as well, it also depends in large part on replay value, which can be a very relative thing. Some people are going to buy that 10-hour game for 50 bucks and replay it over and over and over and definitely get their worth out of it.

Me, I'd buy the 10-hour game for 50 bucks just because I'd love having a game I know I'll actually finish. :\

[AversionFX]

Replay value is good, but MP2 had 0 of it. Sure, I could play it on the hardest difficulty, but what's the point in that?

"You survived the iron maiden (after 62 tries)! CONGRATULATIONS! Here, as a treat, we'll give you the exact same ending and lack of satisfaction as the Normal difficulty!"

No thanks.

edit: On the topic of replay value. A good example of replay value, MGS3. I played that game three times. That is the quintessential of "getting your money's worth."

[zeeeg]

I played Max Payne 2 three or four times through. If the gameplay is good, it's replayable.

[Kefkataran]

A good example of replay value, MGS3. I played that game three times. That is the quintessential of "getting your money's worth."

To some. Different people have different judgement bases for what makes a game worthwhile for their money. Now I only played through MGS3 once (Although I'm sure I will many more times in the future), and I still consider it totally worth it. MGS2 I've probably played through three or four times. But these are big extremes for me. 80% of my games I never finish and a good 15-18% of I only finish once. That's the curse of having too many damned games to play while you're in college, I guess. Heh.

[PwnMastaMark]

It deserves at least a 9.0 due to the fact that this game and all that it followed was great ... the pc's best game is indeed the original in my opinion.

[Kefkataran]

I think I speak for 9/10ths of the community when I say what the hell is PwnMastaMark still doing here?

[The Iron Weasel]

I think I speak for 9/10ths of the community when I say what the hell is PwnMastaMark still doing here?

I'll give him credit for his Futurama quote in his sig, but thats ALL!

[Kelegacy]

I think I speak for 9/10ths of the community when I say what the hell is PwnMastaMark still doing here?

Sometimes I have to wonder if people make multiple accounts just to be idiots in disguise. People cant actually be that retarded, can they? Even if you're very young? Then again, people actually give ratings to games that arent out yet on 1up and EB, and buy games strictly because of movie licenses. So yes, people can be that retarded.

I think the percentage of in-the-know gamers who have a brain is ridiculously low. Most gaming communities like EvAv riddled with retards (us aside) and I fear they are what make us look bad in the media. Parents should take videogames from these children or abort them, before it's too late.

[AversionFX]

I played Max Payne 2 three or four times through. If the gameplay is good, it's replayable.

Meh, I suppose. When I think replay value, I think of, "There's something different to do in the game once you've finished." Something like Deus Ex had it, because there were different ways to do anything, meaning you could play it once, and then go back and play it a completely different way. How many different ways can Max Payne 2 be played?

[The Iron Weasel]

Meh, I suppose. When I think replay value, I think of, "There's something different to do in the game once you've finished." Something like Deus Ex had it, because there were different ways to do anything, meaning you could play it once, and then go back and play it a completely different way. How many different ways can Max Payne 2 be played?

I dunno i personally can play that game OVER and OVER and OVER. I just don't get tired of it.

[Hieremias]

I've also played Max Payne 2 several times. No you can't play different ways, but it's still fun. My favourite movies are always the same each time I watch them, but they're still enjoyable on the second, third, or fourth run through.

[DuvalMagic]

I love Evil Avatar, but this post is hypocritical.

This post complains that another (credible) review site has gone too low with scores of 82% and 88% for Age 3.

Just two posts earlier, Evil Avatar gives another game that is scoring high everywhere else a 70%.

That score is a solid EIGHTEEN (18!) points below the average score the game is earning according to game rankings (*average* = the middle ground).

I've made a lot of games. I've never had any problems with the random, wrong score. Even olympics scoring throws out the highs and the lows when they tabulate just to be fair...

But seeing this hypocracy prompted me to post since the thing I love about Evil Avatar is that (most of the time), the site's style and attitude is about not being hypocritical.

I know there are different people posting on Evil Avatar, but reviews should be considered by your peanut gallery before they're posted, right?

The problem with the Earned in Blood review is that it's not credible with it's criticism. For example: The review doesn't give any credit for the innovative new cooperative mode - it's as if the reviewer didn't even play it. The review claims "lack of innovation" as one of the weaknesses, yet the reviewer likely didn't even play (and certainly didn't comment on) the most innovative new mode. BiA is the first game of its type to offer authentic squad command and control using authentic fire and move tactics. Earned in Blood is now the first game of its type to bring cooperative game play to market in a way that actually works over the internet (even Halo 2 didn't manage to get their coop working over the internet). And Earned in Blood does so keeping the innovative squad command hallmark system perfectly intact. Also, the new cooperative mode (innovatively) offers several ways to play (from tour of duty style to timed objective or last-stand style). And it, innovatively, offers two unique campaigns: One from the point of view of the American soldiers and one from the point of view of German squad leaders. When have you ever played from the German point of view?

All of that is new to Earned in Blood, new to the entire genre and in addition to the story mode and multiplayer modes offered in the game.

The other criticism for the game is about sound normalization. Every other review I've read has applauded the audio design and direction in Earned in Blood. I personally think it is amazing and the production value of the audio is, frankly, as good as it gets in this business. Yet, the reviewer knocks the game for normalizing the levels of dialogue vs. gun fire *correctly* (as compared to most games where a person talking in a normal voice from 15 feet away is as loud as a rifle I'm firing from first person - anyone who's ever fired a real weapon can tell you that we were very forgiving with normalization). Remember, the game claims "authenticity" as one of its hallmarks. How can one ding the game for being innovative with respect to normalization of gunfire volume vs. dialogue volume.

And, with these two problems, Evil Avatar praises the game for doing what it does well, yet scores it a 70%. And just two posts later complains about another site giving another game a low 80's score for the same thing.

I know that Evil Avatar doesn't usually do reviews, but to see a post that criticizes a possible minor mistake made by the credible review sites only to see that Evil Avatar itself is a full 18 points below the average score in it's own review of Earned in Blood just reaks of hypocracy.

I read Evil Avatar every day. I'd like to see the site become a valuable review source. But, for it to succeed it has to start with offering credible reviews.

Evil Avatar - If you're going to blast other review sites for scoring too low, don't be guilty of that yourself.

I know you've got different guys posting now, but you should consider creating some methods for securing consistency. Inconsistency is bad. And, for your site, hypocracy is really bad. Lack of hypocracy is the one, fresh thing Evil Avatar used to offer where other sites let us down...

[RandomViolence]

I love Evil Avatar, but this post is hypocritical.

This post complains that another (credible) review site has gone too low with scores of 82% and 88% for Age 3.

Just two posts earlier, Evil Avatar gives another game that is scoring high everywhere else a 70%.

That score is a solid EIGHTEEN (18!) points below the average score the game is earning according to game rankings (*average* = the middle ground).

I've made a lot of games. I've never had any problems with the random, wrong score. Even olympics scoring throws out the highs and the lows when they tabulate just to be fair...

But seeing this hypocracy prompted me to post since the thing I love about Evil Avatar is that (most of the time), the site's style and attitude is about not being hypocritical.

I know there are different people posting on Evil Avatar, but reviews should be considered by your peanut gallery before they're posted, right?

The problem with the Earned in Blood review is that it's not credible with it's criticism. For example: The review doesn't give any credit for the innovative new cooperative mode - it's as if the reviewer didn't even play it. The review claims "lack of innovation" as one of the weaknesses, yet the reviewer likely didn't even play (and certainly didn't comment on) the most innovative new mode. BiA is the first game of its type to offer authentic squad command and control using authentic fire and move tactics. Earned in Blood is now the first game of its type to bring cooperative game play to market in a way that actually works over the internet (even Halo 2 didn't manage to get their coop working over the internet). And Earned in Blood does so keeping the innovative squad command hallmark system perfectly intact. Also, the new cooperative mode (innovatively) offers several ways to play (from tour of duty style to timed objective or last-stand style). And it, innovatively, offers two unique campaigns: One from the point of view of the American soldiers and one from the point of view of German squad leaders. When have you ever played from the German point of view?

All of that is new to Earned in Blood, new to the entire genre and in addition to the story mode and multiplayer modes offered in the game.

The other criticism for the game is about sound normalization. Every other review I've read has applauded the audio design and direction in Earned in Blood. I personally think it is amazing and the production value of the audio is, frankly, as good as it gets in this business. Yet, the reviewer knocks the game for normalizing the levels of dialogue vs. gun fire *correctly* (as compared to most games where a person talking in a normal voice from 15 feet away is as loud as a rifle I'm firing from first person - anyone who's ever fired a real weapon can tell you that we were very forgiving with normalization). Remember, the game claims "authenticity" as one of its hallmarks. How can one ding the game for being innovative with respect to normalization of gunfire volume vs. dialogue volume.

And, with these two problems, Evil Avatar praises the game for doing what it does well, yet scores it a 70%. And just two posts later complains about another site giving another game a low 80's score for the same thing.

I know that Evil Avatar doesn't usually do reviews, but to see a post that criticizes a possible minor mistake made by the credible review sites only to see that Evil Avatar itself is a full 18 points below the average score in it's own review of Earned in Blood just reaks of hypocracy.

I read Evil Avatar every day. I'd like to see the site become a valuable review source. But, for it to succeed it has to start with offering credible reviews.

Evil Avatar - If you're going to blast other review sites for scoring too low, don't be guilty of that yourself.

I know you've got different guys posting now, but you should consider creating some methods for securing consistency. Inconsistency is bad. And, for your site, hypocracy is really bad. Lack of hypocracy is the one, fresh thing Evil Avatar used to offer where other sites let us down...

I think the thing you're missing about this is that Evil Avatar did not post the BiA review OR this news item. Rogue posted this news. He pretty much tanked it, and yeah, that happens once in a while.

If you have issues with the BiA review, you should post that in the thread following the review. The review is just an opinion, as all reviews are, something that should be even clearer in the context of a forum. Evil Avatar is a place that's all about people's opinions. I think the site should refrain from endorsing any single view in particular, as I very much like that the editors join the fray and participate on the same level as the rest of us, but we're all free to tear something apart if we don't agree with it.

Agentgray, who isn't an editor here, wrote the BiA review and didn't feel the title was particularly innovative. Make your points to him, perhaps it'll change his mind. He wrote it as Evil Avatar's BiA review, which may have been a bit improper, but he was merely trying to share his perspective.

Edit: I want to point out that I would hate it if EvAv became a review site in the traditional format. I would rather see the same community-oriented approach we have with news. Perhaps something similar to ShackNews user opinions, except without the suck.

[Stormwatcher]

I've played the full AoE 3 game, and it is BORING. It is as inovative and fresh as Doom3 (i.e. it itsn't at all!!) and the graphics are nto the good. The water is great, as someone mentioned, but the game is simply mediocre. The "innovations" are just needless, arbitrary complications... Ten minutes of Warcraft III single player are more fun than a whole day with AoE3. And the art direction in WC3 is 100 times superior, to boot. BTW, the terrain textures in AoE3 suck like there's no tomorrow, an ungly jumble of green and yellow dots. Dune 2 had better tiles. Heck, I'd rather play dune 2 again than play AoE3. Kasavin was generous with his 8.2. I really believe that Rise of Legends will kick AoE3's butt from here to Azeroth.

I usually trust Gamespot and their reviews, with some rare exceptions, I agree with them. I do believe HL2 deserves 9.8, BTW (I know it was pcgamer). And that Ocarina of time deserves a very rare 10.

Oh, and one more thing, BiA is really excellent. Congratulations for the guy who posted here and worked on it. It made me want to play WW2 shooters again. And it can be really hard.

[Shifteh]

I'm willing to say that about Half-Life 2. For as much as you're trying to say you don't care whether or not people agree with you on how great a game is, obviously you do.

I'm not saying I don't care about reviews - I do. What I'm saying is, if you're paid, as a professional reviewer, being a fanboy is crap. I don't want a review telling me what's good, and glossing over what's different. If anything, I want the reverse.

Liking a game is one thing. Pretending there's nothing wrong with it is another.

Example: Half-Life 2.

Story? It's ok. Nothing amazing, but a lot of it you have to discover through those hidden TV's. So really, you could go the entire game and have the only story element be: ALiens owned earth. Help earth.

Gameplay? Entirely on rails. I'm not saying that's a terrible thing, but really, the game told you exactly where to go, how to go there, etc.

Graphics? Amazing. I would go as far to say some of the best I've ever seen.

AI? Awful. The enemies weren't exactly terrible, but the teammate AI constantly got in my way. I died to various grenades, etc, because I was stuck trying to backup to the sound of "sorry, Freeman!" Your teammates were absolutely retarded, and I don't think they killed a single enemy that I can recall.

In the end, I view the game as the best Engine demo I've ever played. As a game, however, I beat it in 8 hours and was really not that amused. It was like Half-Life Light, and really didn't amaze me with gameplay. I've done it all before, and other than the occasional use of the gravity gun, it was all deja-vu. The gravity gun was fun, but it seemed just placed in for amusement. It didn't make any amazing core gameplay elements.

You can say it's a great game, I totally understand that.

What I don't understand is a rank by a professional game magazine that says nothing could be done better. That's garbage.

Here's my question: How many times have you played through the game? The whole game. I, personally, can't think of a single part I would want to play again. I liked Half-Life one, but again, I believe I liked it better than 2.

[Kefkataran]

I'm not saying I don't care about reviews - I do. What I'm saying is, if you're paid, as a professional reviewer, being a fanboy is crap. I don't want a review telling me what's good, and glossing over what's different. If anything, I want the reverse.


That makes sense. Keeping that in mind, I'd still probably give it a high score. 98%? Maybe not quite, but damned close.

Here's my question: How many times have you played through the game? The whole game. I, personally, can't think of a single part I would want to play again. I liked Half-Life one, but again, I believe I liked it better than 2.

Really? I've played through it twice, and I've basically added it (along with Half-Life 1) to my VERY small list of games that I will probably replay at least once a year.

Of course a lot of this depends on how ratings work for you. Let's take Ebert as an example, since I'm so fond of him. Roger Ebert's probably the best movie reviewer around, and at very least the most respected. Now his system of rating consists of stars. And only four of them. So four stars = 100%. So Ebert hands out 100%'s to movies on a fairly regular basis (I'd say at least one a week, usually). Now is Ebert being a fool here? I don't think so. Because for Ebert, these 100%'s do not mean that the movie is perfect in every possible way. Such a movie may never exist, or if it does, it won't very often. Rather, Ebert is saying that this movie is good enough as a whole that you can see past any of its flaws and still find a very high level of enjoyment and beauty in it.

And, really, that's what I would be saying about HL2 when I gave it that high score.

So it all depends on how you look at ratings, like I says.

[RandomViolence]

That makes sense. Keeping that in mind, I'd still probably give it a high score. 98%? Maybe not quite, but damned close.



Really? I've played through it twice, and I've basically added it (along with Half-Life 1) to my VERY small list of games that I will probably replay at least once a year.

Of course a lot of this depends on how ratings work for you. Let's take Ebert as an example, since I'm so fond of him. Roger Ebert's probably the best movie reviewer around, and at very least the most respected. Now his system of rating consists of stars. And only four of them. So four stars = 100%. So Ebert hands out 100%'s to movies on a fairly regular basis (I'd say at least one a week, usually). Now is Ebert being a fool here? I don't think so. Because for Ebert, these 100%'s do not mean that the movie is perfect in every possible way. Such a movie may never exist, or if it does, it won't very often. Rather, Ebert is saying that this movie is good enough as a whole that you can see past any of its flaws and still find a very high level of enjoyment and beauty in it.

And, really, that's what I would be saying about HL2 when I gave it that high score.

So it all depends on how you look at ratings, like I says.

Kef, get this crazy "logic" out of the boards, we both know it doesn't belong. :D

[Kelegacy]

Kef, get this crazy "logic" out of the boards, we both know it doesn't belong. :D

Too bad logic isn't viral, eh?

[Kefkataran]

If only I could spread logic the way I spread my various STDs.

Hell.

Really, though, it's not like Shifteh was being illogical as is apt to happen on boards like these. He's just looking at it a different way.

[Kelegacy]

If only I could spread logic the way I spread my various STDs.

Hell.

Really, though, it's not like Shifteh was being illogical as is apt to happen on boards like these. He's just looking at it a different way.

You usually have to have sex to contract STDs, or have some kind of genital touching or rubbing.

And I know you have never seen a flesh and blood vagina within 200 meters of yourself. Well, besides the one you slipped out of as a jelly-covered lad.

[Kefkataran]

You usually have to have sex to contract STDs, or have some kind of genital touching or rubbing.

I know. Why do you think I said what I said?

And I know you have never seen a flesh and blood vagina within 200 meters of yourself. Well, besides the one you slipped out of as a jelly-covered lad.

Must you mask your intense jealousy of my sexual prowess with infantile insults?

[Kelegacy]

I know. Why do you think I said what I said?



Must you mask your intense jealousy of my sexual prowess with infantile insults?

Actually, I know firsthand your sexual prowess. It's not that delectable. Well, there is that one trick you do with your big toe, but...