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. HansW.
    Oct 22, 2005
    9
    Cool game absolutly brilliant.
  2. Georgy
    Oct 26, 2005
    3
    The main problem with this game is that it is not historically based as the legacy, but it contains three boooooring fictitious stories where you are always pursuing somebody. Instead of Age of Empires, it should be called: Age of Mytology III I hoped campaigns related to Napoleon, Tzars, Henry the Eight, the French Revolution and ended up with Amelia... it sucks.
  3. DanielZandormaz
    May 23, 2008
    0
    There's no save game option in LAN Multiplaeyr game. It's a shame. The programmers are not good enough to find a solution for this lack? I wasted my money in this game because compared to AOE 2 this new version is worst!!! Following I will write in portuguese for more people know about those issues related to the Age oF emperes III:
    Esta nova versão até que    There's no save game option in LAN Multiplaeyr game. It's a shame. The programmers are not good enough to find a solution for this lack? I wasted my money in this game because compared to AOE 2 this new version is worst!!! Following I will write in portuguese for more people know about those issues related to the Age oF emperes III:
    Esta nova versão até que poderia ser boa pois tem gráficos muito bons mas peca em diversos pontos. A versão 3 do Age Of Empires não tem a opção de salvar ou restaurar um jogo na opção de Multiplayer/ LAN. Isso é um absurdo para um jogo deste porte. O que aconteceu? Os programadores não encontraram uma solução para algum poblema relacionado a salvar/restaurar jogos multiplayer? Que decepção. Pior é que no site oficial do jogo não tem nenhuma explicação para isso.    … Expand
  4. Richard
    Nov 26, 2005
    1
    Buggy and way over-rated. Age II way better than Age III. Too many game flaws and on line is really buggy. Game gets boring fast ... even on line against real opponents but that also is flawed ... only one style of game play works. A waste of $$$.
  5. JoeS.
    Nov 16, 2005
    2
    I am a HUGE RTS fan and this game is an utter dissapointment. With all of the hype, it is truly frustrating to spend $60 on something that is not much better than the free demo. Save your money, or I'll sell mine for 1/2 price!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Jmsbpp
    Jun 17, 2013
    10
    un excelente juego con varias cosas por destacar entre estas la originalidad y hermosos mapas con cosas grandes por descubrir dentro de el, un buen tema musical.
    Lo que lamento es el pixelado pero no es algo tan grave para bajarle calificacion
  10. JUANPANB
    Sep 2, 2013
    10
    EXCELENCIA Y PERFECCIÓN, esta gran combinación es mi favorita, en especial si se habla de un videojuego, si se habla de AGE OF EMPIRES, con esta tercera entrega el juego logra mejorar en varios aspectos, logra entretener y lo mas importante divertir al jugador, muy original y logra mostrar la capacidad que tiene MICROSOFT de impresionar.
  11. Nicolas-SW
    Oct 5, 2013
    3
    This game really dissapointed me, even if the graphics were great, they completely changed the Age of Empires style. This looks like another type of game, with very few civilizations, lame campaign and bad mechanics. This is the reason why Microsoft decided to develop Halo Wars and then shut down Esemble Studios.
    A shame that this game sunk the AOE franchise.
  12. GlenMcGor
    Sep 9, 2005
    10
    From playing the demo, one can say that this might be the best Age series yet. Although some troubling issues with the Home City concept, and overall pathfinding issues might bring this gem in the making down. But let us wait for the final version, before we proclaim our verdict upoin ES.
  13. KevinR.
    Oct 19, 2005
    10
    Anyone who thinks the game sucks is smoking somthing.
  14. 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
  15. Terry
    Jan 1, 2010
    2
    Wish I'd read this before buying AOE III! Waste of money. Civ meets Warcraft, but not as good as either. Can't save multiplayer games? Are you serious? Does anyone know how I can get a refund. I've had the game nearly 3 days! Almost new!!
  16. DanB.
    Aug 26, 2007
    0
    Clearly a complete disappointment compared to the amazing and wonderful Age of Empires 2. This game lacks in all areas that a great RTS game has ever had. Limited towers? What is up with that! Units that all look and feel the same? Wow that was real innovative! Railroads you cant build walls over or gates over, wow, just what i want, a nice gaping hole in wall. Age of Empires 2 was an Clearly a complete disappointment compared to the amazing and wonderful Age of Empires 2. This game lacks in all areas that a great RTS game has ever had. Limited towers? What is up with that! Units that all look and feel the same? Wow that was real innovative! Railroads you cant build walls over or gates over, wow, just what i want, a nice gaping hole in wall. Age of Empires 2 was an amazing game. Its sad to see that they desired to drop the ball on the Zone supporting the game so now you cant even find anyone to play online anymore. They lost a large community just to push everyone toward Age of Crap 3. Ensemble Studios has defiantly took a turn for the worse. The card system is just stupid. It makes anyone that doesn't know how to get resources quickly and efficiently suddenly become really good at the game with a click of a button. The peasants don't have to return to the town center or lumber mill to receive the resources makes people not think about how they make there base before they build is because hey, you can have that 1 guy in the middle of the forest on the other side of the map getting resources for you and he doesn't have to run a mile to return them, he just happens to have a massive infinite strength to be able to hold it all just for you. I thought about giving it a 2, but then i thought, thats too generous. This game is the worst game ever made and should be avoided by all RTS Enthusiasts. Trust me, it is not worth it. Complete and udder failure just like Red Faction 2 was to Red Faction 1.… Expand
  17. 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!
  18. RMW_Critic
    Sep 24, 2010
    2
    Horrible game. It might have looked good, but it was repetitive, boring drivel. The stroy was decent but the voice acting totally tore the whole game apart. Skirmish was never different, not like games such as Dawn of War 40K or Starcraft, which had at least a little bit of difference in their skirmishes. I found it utterly atrocious.
  19. theNILE
    Jan 11, 2013
    2
    Ugh, the graphics even for the time (not even that long ago) were appalling and it hurt my eyes, it takes forever to install, has plenty of bugs and data seems to get corrupted easily, which caused me to re-install a few times (my computer was perfectly fine). Now the single-player is just dreadful, the game-play is 100% dull and the missions have no depth whatsoever, what's more is theUgh, the graphics even for the time (not even that long ago) were appalling and it hurt my eyes, it takes forever to install, has plenty of bugs and data seems to get corrupted easily, which caused me to re-install a few times (my computer was perfectly fine). Now the single-player is just dreadful, the game-play is 100% dull and the missions have no depth whatsoever, what's more is the way you usually go from one mission to another without an established connection and sometimes no explanation of what is going on is just laughable. I remember I didn't even know what I was doing in one of the missions and I had pretty much no fun with the single-player. I believe a game which is - vastly - inferior to it's predecessor in pretty much every way (even the multi-player - just look at the other negative reviews) deserves a terrible score innately.… Expand
  20. LibraLizard
    Jun 27, 2013
    0
    Absolute worst multiplayer system/support I have ever seen for a game. 3/4 of the time you can't join a game due to a connection issue, either with friends or strangers. Unless you want to play single player only, AVOID.
  21. ArtyT.
    Jun 8, 2006
    4
    Dissapointment!!! AOE 2 was so much better, much more balanced. This is more like RPG when the game begins, the explorer runs around collecting stuff and getting experience points. Very colorful though, what the Microsoft should have done is to take the Sim City 4 and just have the sims fight.
  22. theirrelephants
    Sep 20, 2016
    3
    Loaded it up at a friends house for a quick skirmish against the AI on a hard difficulty setting.

    Fled to an island after my base got sacked in 5-10 minutes, where I promptly discovered that the AI doesn't know how to attack islands. Or even how to go to them.

    This wasn't okay when Warcraft 2 did it, and it certainly isn't okay when an "AI" has the same problem 21 freaking years later.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. mtighe
    Oct 18, 2014
    2
    AO3 was, in all, a massive letdown. While both predecessors were brilliant and fun strategy games, this edition did little to improve itself. Gameplay is as it has always been, but the units and building lack variety, and tactics are now as simple as "how many units can i throw at this?" The most disapointing part of the game are its graphics. They are legitimately at the level of goldenAO3 was, in all, a massive letdown. While both predecessors were brilliant and fun strategy games, this edition did little to improve itself. Gameplay is as it has always been, but the units and building lack variety, and tactics are now as simple as "how many units can i throw at this?" The most disapointing part of the game are its graphics. They are legitimately at the level of golden for n64. And due to the use of character models in story scenes, these horrible graphics are often showcased. Either be satisfied with AO2, or buy an age of mythology game instead.… Expand
  28. digger89
    Jan 25, 2016
    4
    If you enjoyed the stories and single player campaigns of Age of empires 2, avoid this title. The story lines and acting of the campaigns are horrible and is incredibly bad compared to it;s ancestors.
  29. aralath
    Aug 7, 2018
    7
    Good game with good graphics and mechanics. However, it did not excite me as AoE II.
  30. 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
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 »