A rather haphazard Age of Empires III review

Age of Empires. It wasn't the first real-time strategy, but it is up there with the best. Since the release of the original in 1997, I've been hooked on the series. In my opinion, Age of Empires II is still my bar to put every RTS I play against. Now, back when Age of Empires III was announced, I was filled with long-lost childhood memories of playing AOE I+II to the point where I'm sure my health suffered. Now, if my memory serves me well, by the time Age of Empires three was out, other RTS's had taken the stage, such as the graphical "Dawn of war", and I had started dabbling in RPG-esque "Warcraft III" and "Starcraft". But my mind was set that anything in the Age of Empires saga had to be good. I look back now, and realize what I was.

A fanboy.

Any who, I bought the game, and I found it a a good game. That's it. A good game, just about worth the money I paid for it. Entertaining, flashy, and stuffed with European pride. But...it lacked something. "I don't know, maybe my memory was kind on AOE II" I think quickly, buying an excuse for the game. I go to play AOE II, it remained to be a fun and enjoyable experience; and perhaps even better designed. So I then play the multilayer of AOE III. Most sins are quickly forgiven. In AOE III there is a home town system that means you can call in re-enforcements from your home country to help in America. In single player, this isn't massive. It's useful, but not game-changing. On multi-player though, it was a genius idea. I means your style of playing can be genuinely different to the guys next to you, even if you share the same nation. Also, it has a very good matchmaking system, that seemed almost familiar, perhaps from the Battlenet of Blizzard it almost stole everything from, but with half the creative spirit.

However, just because a game has a flashy lobby doesn't excuse it from general gaming fallacies. A piece of crap in a photo frame is still going to leave you retching in the morning. A catch, which permeates the whole game, can be found everywhere you look. AOE III wants you to rush. Defense is not an option, you attack, and attack early, or you die. It's to the point where you can no-longer build barracks in the first age! It's like the game is little terrier with sugar, held back by the owner until he gets a look from the governors' wife, after which the dog just yaps and barks away at anything close, before, like the owner, feeling the heat, and slowing down. Now this could effect my judgment. See, I'm not arrogant, but I was a bloody good fortress builder. If anyone knew how to hold a keep, it was me. Well, can't do that anymore, as in AOE III, they just reel in the cannons, and boom, your wall is gone.
There's probably a lot more I should beat the game for, but I should also be getting to the conclusion to. It just doesn't feel right to be slapping the franchise I've bought into since I was 5 years old. Then again, I do it with legend of Zelda all the time, so perhaps I fail to see what's wrong here. But my overall opinion of age of empires three is...

Meh...

Not brilliant, but not bad either. If you want a time-sink, or if you like RTS' with lots of rushing in it, then this game is for you. But...In all honesty (And I don't say this often), I would have preferred a spruced up version of AOE II, a game which still holds its place as the Benchmark for all the RTS' I play to this day.
Anyway, next post, I'll be back to talking about me, and my life. I know this review isn't perfect, isn't meant to be, but I needed to put something worth reading up here... Also, although it's no excuse, I am very tired right now. I've spent the whole day out on the heat. I mean, after easter this year, the nerve of mother nature giving us a heatwave! Make up your mind woman!

"Horatio, I am dead". A slice of my mind

Now, I was going to do a game critique, because I wanted to see if my abilities as a critic were any good, but then I thought "what game?" So I wandered the strands of the Internet for inspiration, until I reached a forum post that tickled me sufficiently to deserve mentioning, and also chose my game for me. The post was "Shakespeare Vs Ghandi". Now, I'm no Harry Hills, but I'm pretty sure that in a straight fight Shakespeare would win, what with Ghandi being a pacifist, so I go closer, looking at the topic proper.
Turns out it's a competition on which one had the most impact on the world, which is a little more fair. Who do you go for? The man who made the world laugh and cry, or the man who liberated a country/subcontinent. To be honest, it depends on your perspective. Ghandi has definitely had more of an influence on the world, I mean, India is now coming up to be a rival to it's previous masters (AKA, us in England). But culturally, Shakespeare is a no-brainer. He practically made the English language what it is today, and inspired many more works of theater and film than people care to mention. He's also one of my heroes, and I aspire to forge words and ideas in the same way he did, and perhaps save the English language while I'm there. But text speech is a different rant. I will get onto it though, don't worry.
Now, my mind being what it is, I made a side-step and took a quote from "Hamlet". That's the posts title, if you didn't know already. This quote is used in Age of Empires III when your explorer (or his dog, I forget) dies. So, here we have it! My next post will be a review on Age of empires III, as this one is now probably a little too long to do a full review. Besides, being the professional I am, I want to play it again before I post, to make sure I get the right experience.

Oh, and by the way, I'm collaborating with a comrade to make a new blog called "Speeches for the Mute". Yes, we played with the same words, but that's because it's going to be similar to this one. But instead of hearing me babble on about mindless drivel and my life, it will be a place for political and cultural thought. We thought it was a good idea at the time. Time will tell.