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. 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.
  2. 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.
  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. 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!
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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 .
  12. 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
  13. dlcatalin
    Jul 12, 2020
    7
    The graphics and feeling of the game is right on the spot, for a 3d rts, just perfect. But ...
    I didn't like the fact that buildings where limited in number, and you where very restricted on where and how to build your base. It felt so liniar and childish ... felt nothing similar to the freedom we had in 1 and 2. Progressing ages feels like a rush, no enjoyment.
  14. aralath
    Aug 7, 2018
    7
    Good game with good graphics and mechanics. However, it did not excite me as AoE II.
  15. SilverOrlov
    Sep 25, 2019
    7
    Objectively, the game is good, but I was not specifically interested in it. The second part was awesome for me. Or earlier, the 1st part became for me a kind of "strategic discovery". However, I will not give a bad rating, since the game itself not bad.
  16. Valgeth
    Oct 13, 2020
    7
    Better than AOE2 first and foremost, music: 4/5, cinematics: 4/5, UI: 4/5, Story: lol 5/5. So here's the bad part, base building is still slow, campaigns ditched base building in many missions which is good, also added more variety in objectives, the story is fun but if I constantly have to wonder what's true and what isn't, that's a problem, though it did make me curious enough toBetter than AOE2 first and foremost, music: 4/5, cinematics: 4/5, UI: 4/5, Story: lol 5/5. So here's the bad part, base building is still slow, campaigns ditched base building in many missions which is good, also added more variety in objectives, the story is fun but if I constantly have to wonder what's true and what isn't, that's a problem, though it did make me curious enough to actually read the real history so that's a plus. Skirmish matches allow you to go into death match, which negates base building to some degree but cannons are so over powering. I like the feature in blitzkrieg where inanimate things aren't units but rather are things that units can take control of, in BK you can kill artillery crews and seize the cannons. You can clear out buildings and reoccupy them, features which this game sorely lacks, in BK you don't build structures or train armies, that's ridiculous, you just call for reinforcements or better yet in the Fields of thunder expansion you have to wait for reinforcements to arrive. Lots of features in this game allow you to save time, like home city cards, but if you're facing an enemy with better cards you're done for.… Expand
  17. Shimmeywill
    Feb 26, 2020
    7
    A strong RTS game with fun units, a good balance of requiring mico management whilst also allowing you to enjoy the spectacle.
  18. Shtern
    Jul 5, 2020
    7
    Топовая РТС своего времени. Да что уж там, наверное и сейчас любители покликать найдут себя в ней.
    Если интересен сюжет, тут он есть, если сложность, она привецтвуется, так что можно смело покупать и играть, особенно на распродаже, но даже так игра стоит своих кровных денег.    Топовая РТС своего времени. Да что уж там, наверное и сейчас любители покликать найдут себя в ней.
    Если интересен сюжет, тут он есть, если сложность, она привецтвуется, так что можно смело покупать и играть, особенно на распродаже, но даже так игра стоит своих кровных денег.
  19. Zeyon88
    Apr 13, 2021
    7
    Story: 6/10
    The Way story is given: 14/20
    Gameplay: 23/30
    Design: 5/10
    Feelings left after playing: 16/20
    Playability(Bugs and optimization): 9/10

    AVARAGE: 73/100

    Gameplay is simple but there are are some elements that makes it enjoyable. Campaign is a little bit short but satisfying. Not good as Age Of Empires 2 but still a playable game in your free time.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Dco326
    May 1, 2022
    6
    Izmedju 6 i 7... nekako aj interesantno je i presao sam sve misije i sve historical sranja ali nesto ima slj u njoj, grafika mi se ne dopada, range jedinice mi se ne dopadaju, ai moze nekako da bude lud nemam pojma dosta stvari mi ide na zivce, ali definitivno ne bi predlozio ima dosta bagova onaj definitive edition takodje i tako... bas nemam pojma ali ne bi predlozio i ne bi je igrao vise :)
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. LokiF.
    Oct 22, 2005
    5
    Ok, but not very different to other RTS, such as Rise of Nations, Empire Earth II.
  30. 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
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 »