Age of Empires III

 PC
User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 778 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 529 out of 778
  2. Mixed: 190 out of 778
  3. Negative: 59 out of 778
Buy Now
Buy on

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
view
per page
  1. MichMart
    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    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
  2. matrasman
    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 aAs 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
  3. MikeH.
    Oct 15, 2005
    7
    AoE 2 > AoE 3. The graphics are nice (not that special). The water looks nice. The economy sucks. You make villagers and they just gather resources, you don't even have to build a gather site. Later on you can make buildings that automaticly generate resources, making everything focused on fighting. The fighting is boring and stupid. Cannons are overpowered/cause lag because of AoE 2 > AoE 3. The graphics are nice (not that special). The water looks nice. The economy sucks. You make villagers and they just gather resources, you don't even have to build a gather site. Later on you can make buildings that automaticly generate resources, making everything focused on fighting. The fighting is boring and stupid. Cannons are overpowered/cause lag because of needless physics that can't be turned off. The campaign is stupid. This is age of empires not age of magic. I wanna play a campaign about history not fiction. Fountain of youth? WTF? Russians in the US? WTF? Someone was smokin hella good weed when they made this. Online is fun. ESO is ok but not as good as Battlenet. You get a homecity its like an RPG because you need to lvl it up. Yeah not much to say 7/10 is a nice score for this game I want to give it lower cause it pisses me off but yeah I won't be like that. Peace out go play Age of Empires 2.… Expand
  4. MarkS
    Dec 12, 2006
    7
    First of all, the Fountain of Youth, at least the QUEST for the fountain is not myth.. a lot of men and explorers died in the hunt for it.. Anyway... the game it's self is not a jump forward, except for in the graphics/physics department. The lack of a gathering point is annoying, and the upgrades are rather weak. It's a good fun game if you wanna kill time, but if you are aFirst of all, the Fountain of Youth, at least the QUEST for the fountain is not myth.. a lot of men and explorers died in the hunt for it.. Anyway... the game it's self is not a jump forward, except for in the graphics/physics department. The lack of a gathering point is annoying, and the upgrades are rather weak. It's a good fun game if you wanna kill time, but if you are a HARDCORE AOE fan, you will not like it.… Expand
  5. FredB.
    Jul 7, 2007
    5
    This game does not live up to its predecessors. The gameplay is much too simple. While Age of Kings and Age of Mythology contained many unique units, AoE3 basically has only a few different kinds of units with some variation in fundamental stats and graphics. This is the game's main problem. The game makes up for this by focusing on special traits for each civilization, but this is This game does not live up to its predecessors. The gameplay is much too simple. While Age of Kings and Age of Mythology contained many unique units, AoE3 basically has only a few different kinds of units with some variation in fundamental stats and graphics. This is the game's main problem. The game makes up for this by focusing on special traits for each civilization, but this is not enough. The home city system is a good concept, but it also gives the player too much of an advantage over computer opponents, which do not appear to use them. Trade routes are a good feature of the game. They add strategy by setting fixed locations to try to control. Native Americans are another good feature, though the lack of unique units makes for squandered potential in this area. The campaign was also unsatisfactory. The scenarios were too short and most of them were just the same build-and-destroy scenario on a different map. It quickly becomes repetitive and boring. Finally, unless you have the best graphics card ever, don't play maps with a lot of water. The game tends to slow down severely whenever a ship or dock is taking damage.… Expand
  6. Hilly
    Nov 2, 2005
    5
    Nice looking but very flawed. AOE2 was fantastic with combat because it emphasized formations. In the early gunpowder age, everything was formation-based -- think British squares and lines at Waterloo. Instead of emphasizing and expanding on what AOE2 had, there seems to be a step backwards to make it more akin to AOMythology. AOM was an enjoyable game, but it's not an AOE game. Nice looking but very flawed. AOE2 was fantastic with combat because it emphasized formations. In the early gunpowder age, everything was formation-based -- think British squares and lines at Waterloo. Instead of emphasizing and expanding on what AOE2 had, there seems to be a step backwards to make it more akin to AOMythology. AOM was an enjoyable game, but it's not an AOE game. Here, formations can't easily follow other formations, there's no wheeling about, no way to make a New Model Army, little co-ordination, no good way to keep support units like healers out of battle by, no obvious way to select a default stance, and even trying to keep units in a line when told to "stand ground" feels like cat herding. If there IS a way to do these things, it's not obvious or clear at all . Games like Rise of Nations and Rome: Total War do a much better job of dealing with combat, especially RON. Given all that, I very much like the Home City concept. It adds another level of strategic planning and unpredictability. Overall, a good buy, but not a must-have.… Expand
  7. Andrew
    Nov 3, 2005
    7
    AOE 3 is a nice game, but it is not a great game like AOE 2/ Nice Campaign, but it was too similar to AOMythology. There was a sense of been there, done that through the whole campaign. Its not bad and if u like the RTS genre, try it out.
  8. Kurei
    Nov 8, 2005
    6
    Being a big fan of AOEII, I was naturally looking forward to this game, but it turned out to be a rather insipid followup to an otherwise fantastic series. The included campaign is contrived and is based on some ridiculous mythical premise which was obviously very poorly thought out. It doesnt help that the heroes look and behave like punks you wanna beat up on. IMO the interface takes up Being a big fan of AOEII, I was naturally looking forward to this game, but it turned out to be a rather insipid followup to an otherwise fantastic series. The included campaign is contrived and is based on some ridiculous mythical premise which was obviously very poorly thought out. It doesnt help that the heroes look and behave like punks you wanna beat up on. IMO the interface takes up too much screen real estate. The graphics are ok, but they are nothing fantastic for a contemporary game. Controlling the artillery is a major pain in the butt - you usually end up with arty pieces wheeling around in the heat of battle. Even the computer controlled units do it so its a design flaw(?) Otherwise it is an OK and well built game. OK buy but nothing special, and well short of the hype.… Expand
  9. ThomasH.
    Dec 31, 2005
    5
    The Biggest dissapointment in a long time, looks great from the trailors, but really is just AOE 1 with new menus and graphics. Buy Soldiers Heroes of World War II/ Faces of War, cheaper and better.
  10. Padagortrax
    Nov 6, 2005
    7
    This is not a bad game -in fact RTS is my favourite genre- but imho this game delivers nothing new. Yes, the graphics are good, but I didn't find any great challenges or innovative leaps forward. I was a bit disappointed as I had been eagerly awaiting its release. Good, but not brilliant!
  11. LokiF.
    Oct 22, 2005
    5
    Ok, but not very different to other RTS, such as Rise of Nations, Empire Earth II.
  12. ClintR.
    Oct 27, 2005
    5
    Nice graphics of course, but it doesn't begin to hold a candle to AoE2. So if you want it because you're a diehard aoe:tc fan...don't waste your money. It's not nearly as fast paced as its predecessor nor am I engaged as thoroughly regarding the economic aspects of the game. im not a deathmatch lover tho, i greatly enjoy building the econ. hey what can i say? i outboom Nice graphics of course, but it doesn't begin to hold a candle to AoE2. So if you want it because you're a diehard aoe:tc fan...don't waste your money. It's not nearly as fast paced as its predecessor nor am I engaged as thoroughly regarding the economic aspects of the game. im not a deathmatch lover tho, i greatly enjoy building the econ. hey what can i say? i outboom and conquer. this game seems more weighted for the combat. the whole homecity shipment thing bothers me too. feels like the game has digressed from aoe2, but I guess im just a purist. my 2 cents… Expand
  13. MichaelL.
    Apr 16, 2006
    7
    The graphics are fantastic and the addition of physics to an RTS is very welcome. However, I, like many reviewers, have played this game before. The card system is a rehash of the God powers of AoM. The Home City is very insignificant and is only meant to increase the longevity of the game until you see how shallow it really is. AOE III has many strengths, like its style, graphics, and The graphics are fantastic and the addition of physics to an RTS is very welcome. However, I, like many reviewers, have played this game before. The card system is a rehash of the God powers of AoM. The Home City is very insignificant and is only meant to increase the longevity of the game until you see how shallow it really is. AOE III has many strengths, like its style, graphics, and polish, but it is nothing new. If this sounds like the reviewers above, it's because I feel the same way - a bit unsatisfied. I still had fun with it, though. Ensemble is amazing.… Expand
  14. RandallS.
    Oct 27, 2007
    7
    The campaign definitely isn't anything to write home about, it gets boring really quickly. The multiplayer is good for kicks, but it has some serious flaws. I'd recommend Age of Mythology for a good RTS. I went back to it after a couple weeks of AoE3. The units are fun and unique, you don't need to deal with cities which end up to be just an annoyance, and it actually The campaign definitely isn't anything to write home about, it gets boring really quickly. The multiplayer is good for kicks, but it has some serious flaws. I'd recommend Age of Mythology for a good RTS. I went back to it after a couple weeks of AoE3. The units are fun and unique, you don't need to deal with cities which end up to be just an annoyance, and it actually matters who you pick when you advance through the ages. Definitely a top notch RTS. AoE3 was somewhat of a disappointment, but it is a good game.… Expand
  15. Hallowfax
    Nov 18, 2007
    5
    I expected the campaign to be better than it's predecessors, I wanted not only it's graphics good, but a wide variety of gameplay options. My overall review is varied, I just have to give it an in-between rating.
  16. Kurtz
    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.
  17. P.R.
    Feb 6, 2006
    5
    40 bucks down the drain...so boring compared to WC3...the online play is buggy and laggy...and takes forever to get a decent game...hopefully empire at earth will be better.
  18. ClaireG.
    Nov 17, 2005
    7
    Like all other AOE fans I waited eagerly. Love the new game love the graphics there is bound to be an add on which will be interesting and may please those who are understanderbly a bit disappointed after the wait and the hype.
  19. Schlafanzug
    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.
  20. Dezuuu
    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.
  21. grazr
    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 whereI 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
  22. K.Dep
    Oct 31, 2005
    5
    Holy cripes is this game full of bugs!! Right off the store shelf the game crashed every 5 minutes, and I know what I'm doing so it's NOT my computer. There is a patch available, so get it right away. The game still crashes, but much less frequently. The sound rarely works. Microsoft has admitted the game has problems and will release another patch. The game itself is not bad, Holy cripes is this game full of bugs!! Right off the store shelf the game crashed every 5 minutes, and I know what I'm doing so it's NOT my computer. There is a patch available, so get it right away. The game still crashes, but much less frequently. The sound rarely works. Microsoft has admitted the game has problems and will release another patch. The game itself is not bad, just more of the same. The campaign mode is nothing special at all, with nothing anywhere near as interesting as Age of Mythologies. I liked that game far better for gameplay and storyline. AoE 3 is much the same, with some minor changes. I certainly regret paying $60 for the game. Wait for a price drop.… Expand
  23. gm101
    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!
  24. heime2003
    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    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
  25. total
    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.
  26. ccam
    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.
  27. simondclinch
    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 myIt'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
  28. aralath
    Aug 7, 2018
    7
    Good game with good graphics and mechanics. However, it did not excite me as AoE II.
  29. Zeratex
    Feb 11, 2019
    6
    Improves graphics over the 2nd entry, but downgrades all the depth and gameplay to the strategy of the 2nd.
    Campaign mode is fun and enjoyable but its more like Hollywood movies instead of giving the historical vibe.

    Still nice game worth playing.

    6.5/10
  30. bacisnipertop62
    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 .
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

35
#35 Best PC Game of 2005
11
#11 Most Discussed PC Game of 2005
3
#3 Most Shared PC Game of 2005

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 52 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 52
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 52
  3. Negative: 0 out of 52
  1. GameSpot
    82
    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.
    Read full review
  2. 1UP
    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.
    Read full review
  3. Yahoo!
    70
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »