[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
Review by Ian Morris
Europa Universalis III is more than a little tricky to review. Hardcore strategists and history fans will lap up the attention to detail, the old-school presentation, the incredible amount of depth, and the slow gameplay; however, fans of what we now consider to be RTS games (Command & Conquer and the like) may quickly be put off by those very same features. It's because of this that EU III seems to be aiming for an entirely different target market, so much so that it may as well come with a warning sticker on the box: "Do not play unless you're very enthusiastic about history." Accessible it certainly isn't, especially if you're coming to the game thinking it has any real relation to the likes of Rome: Total War.
AdvertisementPutting you in the role of a nameless leader of a country of your choosing (you can play as any one from the known world at that time, which leaves plenty of unexplored continents for you to discover), EU III sets you the task of doing... well, whatever you want. An open-ended strategy game in the extreme, the choices you make really are entirely up to you; there's nothing in the way of a story to follow, and no objectives to complete. It's this level of freedom that can make Europa Universalis III quite daunting at times and also means that anyone who doesn't have the patience of a Greek philosopher will face an uphill battle getting involved.
Played from a top-down perspective, as if surveying a map, your land is divided into different provinces, with large red borders separating your nation from its neighbours. This is the only view you can have of the game - the entire game plays out like a glorified, real-time version of Risk. Just a lot, lot slower. Anything you attempt to do will take months to complete; things such as recruiting an army or moving units between provinces can take upwards of 70 days, so whilst it may sound impressive that the game spans over 300 years in history, you'll still find yourself getting little accomplished. This also means that the game requires some incredibly complex forward planning, as, if you ever happen to get invaded, and you don't have the necessary amount of troops ready, there's no way you can put together a counter attack in time. Although you can hire local mercenaries, these are, understandably, nowhere near as talented as properly trained soldiers, meaning you'd probably be better off spending your time and money waiting to recruit more soldiers, whilst praying that your province's keep doesn't fall before you manage to get anything done.
Despite an overly clunky interface and a disappointing lack of appropriate tutorials, you can't help but be impressed with the way EU III lets you adapt your nation to your liking.
Whilst you can speed up the game, choosing from one of around five different speed settings (depending on the speed of your computer), all this does is make it even easier to lose control of your nation, as problems will begin cropping up far too quickly, even if your armies are being built faster. This effectively forces you to play it one of the lower three speeds, where things take a very long time. It's this unforgiving double-edged sword that Europa Universalis wields that makes it appeal to grand strategy veterans, while at the same time making it incredibly inaccessible for anyone who's new to the genre.
Despite an overly clunky interface and a disappointing lack of appropriate tutorials, you can't help but be impressed with the way EU III lets you adapt your nation to your liking. You're able to change everything from your Government's level of investment in certain things, to choosing advisers to your leaders, or even setting ideas for your nation to follow. All this has to be done while trying to keep your citizens happy and thereby prevent them from rebelling, as well as maintaining your country's good name and reputation around the world. This can be a genuine challenge to accomplish, especially for a relative newcomer to the genre such as myself - keeping everyone happy is never easy, and you'll likely find yourself with a few rebellions that need squashing in the first few years of play. This is by far the most interesting and most enjoyable part of the game, and could well have made the game a must buy, if it weren't for the fact that the menu system seems to be constantly working against you. Simply put, there are far too many menu screens, each with too many buttons and nowhere near enough explanation. As you can imagine, this leads to a horrendously steep learning curve for any newcomers to the game. Finding the appropriate menu to do a certain thing takes forever, and with numerous sub-menus to navigate, and a disappointing lack of shortcuts, many will find themselves in a war of their own as they attempt to do the simplest of tasks.
... but everyone else will find a game that's hard to get into.Combat is another area where Europa Universalis falls disappointingly short. For the sake of this example, let's presume we're playing as sleepy old England. As a country which begins the game at war with France, you're going to want to amass a decently sized army to defend yourself against any possible attack, as well as reinforce your province in Calais. However, as each of your provinces can only build one army at a time (taking at least 70 days a piece), you'll find yourself having an incredibly long wait before you get a chance to defend anything. To make matters worse, there's also every chance that whilst you're sitting around waiting for your units to be built, the French will march in with a 10,000 strong army and take Calais from right under your nose, before you've even had a chance to react. This is just one example of the incredibly tough situations that Europa Universalis III throws at the player, and newcomers are likely to feel completely overwhelmed.
If you eventually do find yourself in a brief spell of peace time, you may find yourself wanting to invade another country, to garner better taxes, and provide a second base for your armies. To get your troops to another you country, you must first load them onto a boat, before setting sail for enemy territory. However, for some strange reason, you can't load your armies onto a boat when the boat is docked at one of your ports - the boat must first set sail and position itself in the middle of the ocean before your troops can climb on-board. It's a bizarre design decision and is downright confusing for a game which prides itself on realism.
After you land your troops in enemy territory, presuming that you don't come across any enemies defending the province, you're then in for a long wait, as you just sit and watch a still image of the enemy province's keep, waiting until you see it catch fire or the walls collapse. At this point you can choose to assault the keep or wait for them to surrender due to starvation - it's up to you. Again, this can take weeks or months, just as it would in real life. It's just that reality doesn't always make for an enjoyable game. Unfortunately, combat with two armies feels just as slow and uninspired; when you and an enemy enter the same province, a battle between your two forces will automatically occur, and you then sit and watch as the numbers go down, and the enemy team trounce yours. You can't arrange your armies and you have no command over the battle at all, a feature which proves to be very limiting, and makes you feel far too detached from any battles which occur - the ability to change the formation of your soldiers, or even issue some sort of orders would have been nice, and made the game feel much more involved at the same time.
At the end of the day, if you're a relative newcomer to the grand strategy genre who's interested in sampling what the genre have to offer, this really isn't the game you'll want to get started with. The incredible scope, combined with the awkward menu system and lack of tutorials just serves to make this game completely inaccessible to the grand strategy novice. If you're a fan of EU II, you're sure to love this and will probably see many of the issues highlighted as problems for newcomers as reasons why you love the series. However, without anything there to hold your hand through the first few years, EU III is a game that will be completely inaccessible to the average gamer, and because of this it's hard to recommend.
Editor's comment: The review text has been altered slightly from the original which was published on 29.01.2007. These changes were made to more accurately represent the views of the reviewer.
Turn to page 2 for a second opinion on Europa Universalis III
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
[ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next Page » ]
munna wrote at 17:27 on 29 January 2007
how can someone give this awesome game 5/10
maybe he/she is not good at this kind of game
Gabe wrote at 19:15 on 29 January 2007
Oh dear, that really is a rather shocking review. It seems to not only miss the whole point of it (why compare it to an RTS, when nobody else in the world would?), but skims over everything to boot.
Settings that make no difference? Much like real life p[olicy changes don't happen overnight, and take a long time to develop. Everything is incremental, and moves you further toward your ideal.
I wonder if this was down to a nameless member of staff for a reason?
glcm1961 wrote at 19:55 on 29 January 2007
After reading this "review?", I can understand why it was written by "PRO-G Staff". I'd hate to be the one signing my name to it. Talk about revealing your ignorance. You just know it's going to be a debacle when they mention EU III, COH, and RTS in the same paragraph. Talk about a reviewer being out of his/her element! It was actually pretty amusing reading this review (can you believe it actually takes 70 DAYS to build a unit! LOL!!!!) and that before you invade a country you have to declare war on them, and if that wasn't enough, you also have to amass an army AND get your soldiers into enemy territory! Oh the humanity.
What sums this up the best is the author's rhetorical question: "Where's the fun in that?" It's too bad sites like this don't have reviewers who are qualified to rate games such as this. The "fun" in this game is obvious to anyone with an ounce of strategic blood in their veins. This reviewer should probably stick to something a little more in line with his expertise. I'm guessing World of Warcraft or Pokemon.
Niox wrote at 22:12 on 29 January 2007
By far, one of the worst reviews I have read in a long time. He/she seems to only care about flashy graphics and seemed like he did not take the time to neither learn the game nor understand the concept. I'm not an EUIII aficionado, in fact, I only play the game on occasion. Still, why anyone would hire this reviewer is beyond me.
Rogue Soul wrote at 23:10 on 29 January 2007
I'm inclined to agree. The reviewer does seem to have lost the plot on this one.
If he's going to compare it to other games, at least use games of a similar genre like Rome/Medieval Total War, Hearts of Iron2, Civilization or earlier versions of EuropaUniversalis1/2. All of which I'm a huge fan of.
Yes, Europa is a complicated game to get into, but please give it to a reviewer who has the time to appreciate the depth this strategy game has... and take this shambolic 'review' down.
Gabe wrote at 23:36 on 29 January 2007
Well, to be fair, this review really highlights how good most of the other reviews are. And let's not hold back - it is a terrible review for sure. But that doesn't mean the rest of the site is poor - it is still one of the best web-based gaming sites around, I think.
TomO wrote at 23:50 on 29 January 2007
The reviewer in question (who is only nameless due to a database cock-up and not some cover-up, his name will appear shortly) has a background in RTS and turn-based strategies. He points out the areas in which he feels the game doesn't work, most notably its speed and lack of clear objectives.
The final paragraph sums this all up, where he makes it clear that to this game is not suitable for the average gamer, but it may well interest players who want such extreme detail in their games. In that sense it's served its purpose. Fans of this genre will know what they're getting, while total novices will know how inaccessible the game is compared to the RTS games they are more than likely used to playing.
Niox wrote at 00:37 on 30 January 2007
I have to disagree with you Tom. I did not even hear of Europa until a few weeks ago. I decided to download the demo and play it. Within a relatively short amount of time, I began to appreciate the gameplay. Being a total novice to the series, I actually found the tutorials sufficient and the game isn't that bad to pick up and play. Sure, if you compare to completely mindless games it's a big leap forward in terms of complexity. But, honestly, you can make the game as relatively simple or complex as you want. Not to mention you can always speed up time so it's not so slow placed.
glcm 1961 wrote at 02:30 on 30 January 2007
Tom, his final paragraph sums up why this is such a terrible review. Falcon 4 is terribly complex but is a great flight sim. Based on your logic, it would probably only garner a 5 out of 10 as well. Games need to be rated on their merit, not on their appeal or ability to be enjoyed by the "average gamer". Check out the reviews given by other sites if you aren't convinced. I think it's great to hear a contrarian voice when the situation warrants, but in this case your reviewer is basing his rating on the inaccessibilty to the average gamer, which is exactly the wrong criteria for rating a game. I dabbled in EU II, and having just played about ten hours worth of EU III, there's no comparison when it comes to ease of use and user friendliness. The tutorials were just fine, and overall the game is quite well done, with a few minor quibbles. Admit it - your reviewer screwed the pooch on this one.
Irrepressible wrote at 02:45 on 30 January 2007
LOL, this reviewer is completely way off.
Oh no, I have to actually build an army, declare war and send my troops to enemy territory (and it takes time), thats too much, thumbs down :D . And too top it off theres no one to hold your hand through the first few years? LOL
Furthermore I have to actually think up what I am going to do with my kingdom? Im shocked :D
Big thumbs down to reviewer
Spearthrower wrote at 02:47 on 30 January 2007
I'd also disagree Tom - anyone who claims to first Declare War then goes about amassing their army and moving them into position afterwards really can't be considered to have a background in strategy games.
Nimon wrote at 03:04 on 30 January 2007
Horrible review. I guess any air combat came is going to get 5/10 from the same reviewer? After all, most people aren't too excited about air combat games, or any type of flight simulator for that matter. I'm sorry to say that you'll be the laughing stock of people who actually have experience with these kinds of games.
Luckz wrote at 03:12 on 30 January 2007
This review really is shockingly bad. Not only are the comparisons pure idiocy, making as much sense as "against Need For Speed Carbon, Counter Strike certainly does not stand a chance. why? NFS has vehicles.", but putting it into the RTS genre, speaking of "squads", pretending you could only build one army troop at once and last but not least giving horrid pro arguments (there is, if anything, a huge intentional lack of historical events) makes for an impressive number of historically relevant wrongdoings. The simple act of keeping everybody happy is far more of a "genuine challenge" in, say, SimCity 4, where it actually is the focus of the game. EU is far more about interaction between countries than just country management. The game is quite accessible, as previous comments mention. History obsessions are not mandatory, just helpful, but that's also the case for games like Close Combat.
The only use this could have is teaching people how not to write game reviews.
Ugh wrote at 03:17 on 30 January 2007
...what the hell? Seriously, how can you call yourself an objective reviewer skilled in strategy games? You just whined about having to *GASP* build troops before declaring war! What is wrong with this game?! And the actual moving of troops into enemy territory or fight armies...were the developers on peyote?
Damo wrote at 03:50 on 30 January 2007
Unfortunate
He seems to have a very unfortunate grasp of what genre EUIII belongs to. Giving it a 5/10, considering how much real crap out there, is criminally misinforming to the intended audience for this game. It is also absurd how he even mentions combat as dissapointing. It isn't supposed to be Age of Empires, Starcraft or MTW. It is just an abstract representation, and one of the best and most indepth for a grand strategy game I've seen.
Yes. It's not something you'd find on battle.net, but it's not supposed to be.
TechGod wrote at 04:26 on 30 January 2007
An interesting View
Need to bring up some points.
1) First off after looking about 15 other reviews for this game this is the lowest, and with some of the least amount of evidence, score. Now this brings to mind the saying "Its not everyone else who is wrong, it is you".
2) Apart from the lack of evidence, and I would like to know what kind of games this review does enjoy. The arguement isnt very good.
I give a rating of this reviewer 4 out of 10 stars.
Stunned wrote at 04:58 on 30 January 2007
Astounding that a mainstream site would publish this
After reading this review I cannot help but think that you are doing this site's usually-fine reputation a complete and utter disservice. Perhaps the "reviewer" was having a bad day, or was under such tight deadline pressures that (s)he had to whip this off in half an hour? I find it impossible to believe that the reviewer has any credentials whatsoever to write the article beyond a reasonable grasp of the English language.
Tom, I triple-dare you to go and find a second strategy gamer and have him/her play the game and just give you his/her thoughts. This time, pick someone who is good at chess and thought R/MTW was a pretty good game. Heck, how about the person who reviewed Civ IV for you and gave it a 9/10 rating. Even better, find 4 hours of your own time and be willing to sit down and give it an objective look (even if it isn't your type of game). Then re-read the review your site has posted.
No time for the above? How about reading what other expert (qualified and respected) strategy reviewers are saying and then ask yourself how it is that your "expert" rates it soooooooo far off the grades given by just about every site that pays any attention at all to strategy games. Then ask yourself if perhaps you mightn't have picked the wrong person for the job.
Your argument that the 5/10 is warranted because it's too deep for the casual gamer doesn't hold any water. How can your site rate a game like GalCivII a 9? It's a good game, sure, but not for the masses. Most WoW players would die of boredom, just like many would when playing Civ IV. EU3 is in that class of game, and should be evaluated on that basis.
Were I doing your review, I'd rate it somewhere in the 8-9 range and then make sure that in both the opening and closing paragraphs I took great pains to point out that this title WILL NOT appeal to the casual gamer. IMO it's looking like it will be one of the outstanding leaders in this niche market for the foreseeable future and should be rated as such (a bit of work is needed on it to polish it up, so 9 would be a reasonable max score; but overall it's already looking to me like a diamond in the rough).
DTN wrote at 09:34 on 30 January 2007
People being too harsh and unrespectful...
First off I am a paradox fan (EU among other things) and i must say that the review can be considered questionable. How i also must point out that too many people are being overly critical of the reviewer and going about with commenting on his intelligence and integrity. It seems people fail to realize that as a reviewer, this person has his OWN opinion and this is what the review portrays, his opinion.
Seriously some of the EU fans here are discrediting themselves with the way they are responding to this review. Arguably with justification, there should be no reason to attack the reviewer's integrity.
He points out the same things that i've seen many average gamers will likely find as annoyances or things they will not like of the game. Please note that AVERAGE does not mean all people. There are people that like or dislike this game based on its attributes. I personally agree that on average, most people would not play this game much because of the same things that the reviewer points out. While I do NOT believe the game should be rated as a 5, I respect someone else's opinion, which some of you should learn to do as well. EU first and foremost as a personal opinion has been for a special niche of gamers (people like me that enjoy the freedom and accuracy and strategy of the game.)
I agree with the reviewer that the game is not made for the average gamer and I can UNDERSTAND his choice to make this a 5 score game though I also disagree with that score personally.
[ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next Page » ]