While incredibly hard to get into for newcomers, Europa Universalis III offers a supreme amount of depth that hardcore strategy fans will lap up.
HOT GAMES: Resident Evil 5 - Lost Planet 2 - BioShock 2 - God of War III - Mass Effect 2 - CoD: Modern Warfare 2 - Punch-Out!! - Pokemon Platinum 
Copyright © 2004-2009 Pro-G Media Ltd. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - About Us - Advertise on VideoGamer.com - Content Solutions - Staff - Contact Us
» Go to 's original post
I will preface this by giving my credentials so youll know where Im coming from. Im a long-term grand strategy game player with a history that stretches back to the days where computer meant a dizzying array of huge blinking machines and attached reel-to-reel storage devices that *barely* fit within the confines of the entire main floor of my universitys new computer sciences building. Look at old NASA footage from the glory days of the Apollo program. Thats when I first encountered them. We played board games (or cards) back then; then, as computers got small enough to fit in your living room and plug into your TV, I began to play games on them.
I havent played *every* strategy game released since then, but Ive played quite a few of them. Somehow I managed to miss the Europa Universalis franchise on its initial release (most likely because I was busy locking horns with the enemy in MOO2) but I came across EU2 in its early days and have been hooked on the title ever since. I needed an hour or two with the demo to decide that EU3 show promise of being a worthy successor.
Okay, now lets look at your review.
The first paragraph has to set the tone for your piece and establish a quick connection with the reader. Rather than churn out 1000 words to describe the genre of game, most reviewers these days will through out the names of a handful of well-known titles that fit into a similar category -- presumably on the assumption that the reader will know at least one of them and be able to form a quick mental image of the type of game under discussion.
So perhaps you will understand why I was downright mystified as to why you chose "Company of Heroes" as your yardstick since IMO thats incredibly far off the mark. CoH is more FPS than RTS (again my opinion) and EU3 couldn't possibly be further from being FPS if it wanted to. So...why *didnt* you pick MTW or something of that ilk?
By drawing the comparison to CoH you damage your credibility with anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the title, and (much worse) you establish *entirely* the wrong connection in the mind of the reader who has never heard of the EU franchise. By making the comparison, you *mislead* the reader by setting up an image in his mind of the general type of game you're reviewing. Youre saying that EU3 is trying to appeal to the CoH-type player and then (correctly, based on that false premise) state that its incredibly unlikely that EU3 will interest him unless hes a history buff with the patience of Job.
In your response posted above, you elaborate on your credentials as a reviewer by mentioning past experience with lots of turn-based and RTS games, and the specifically cite Dawn of War, CoH, and Medieval: Total War. Um...MTW is in the right ballpark, but DoW and CoH are something completely different (theyre tactical games, not strategic). I have to assume that at some point youve played -- or at very least have passing familiarity with -- the Civ franchise? Why not pick that? You have only marginal unit-level control in Civ IV. You can decide upon the order you send your units but there are absolutely *no* pretty cut-away battle animations or tactical-level control. MTW or Civ IV would have been far more appropriate titles on which to base comparison, and then your objections to EU3 would have carried some weight. It would also have gotten your readers "into the right mood" by using two very well known, high sales, familiar titles. After that, criticise the game all you like.
After your opening, we come to a statement in your second paragraph: that EU3 is "[a]n 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." If you're unfamiliar with the grand strategy game genre (or dont like them at all), a statement like that would be understandable. But for someone who professes to have played many (and enjoy some of them) Im...well...stunned!
Many games are broken down into "quests" or "missions" or other short-term-objective mechanisms that hold the player's hand and relieve him of the responsibility of devising a strategy and executing it. This helps to hold the player's interest (and makes it easy to digest in short bursts of play) but it's also a very limiting design decision to force a player down a predetermined path where only a limited number of possible "moves" will achieve the objective. But most emphatically, that *is* *not* what grand strategy games are all about. That's what tactical sims are for (and the same design strategy is also used in RPGs, etc.).
Perhaps I should remind you that the core of a *real* strategy game is to place the player in an environment and then allow (or force) him to develop an overall strategy to take advantage of (or extricate himself from) the circumstances. Some games (like MTW) include tactical elements, but many others eschew this for a more pure strategy game experience (Civ series, MOO series...heck, you could even lump the original Sims game into this category if you wanted to stretch things a bit...but CoH? Sorry...beating a dead horse again.)
EU2 allowed you complete freedom to choose your own path -- an approach that would be best compared to finding yourself with one settler and one warrior on a randomly-generated world. I don't recall much in the way of "story" or "objective" in the Civ franchise either...could it be that not every player wants to be cattle-prodded down a predetermined route? EU3 seems to be designed in much the same way.
Start a new game and you find yourself at the helm of your chosen country -- to use your example, England -- and are knee-deep in 15th century Europe. What goals could you possibly need the game to prompt you to achieve? You dont need a PhD in History to know that Englands still around in the 21st century so perhaps object #1 might be survive. Your high school history classes might also have mentioned -- in passing -- that England built a huge colonial Empire and fought rather a lot of wars to hold on to them. I find it hard to believe that *anyone* could have escaped into adulthood without at least some basic fuzzy grasp of history. Surely Columbus discovering America, the French Revolution, the American war of Independence, and a handful of other factoids would remain buried in ones head, even if the specifics are a little vague now.
So what to do? What missions? What objectives? Stay alive. Expand a little. Explore. Build a colonial empire. Do what all strategy games ask you to do: think, conceive a plan, prepare, work towards that plan. Formulate and execute a strategy. Does a strategy gamer need a pop-up message, or advisor, or voice-over to suggest this too him? No. Its in his blood.
Now your third paragraph, where you comment on the disappointment of a top-down-only map view without traditional RTS elements. Um...say what? My first impressions of EU3s interface is that its a far cry better than the ones presented in most strategy games since theyre less intrusive and dont obscure everything thats going on when you need to see it. Theyre tucked away around the edges of the screen -- usually in expanding form -- precisely to cater to the strategy game player who demands ease of play.
The majority of competitive titles in this niche are turn-based, so its understandable that they have rather large submenus that cover the entire screen; but EU3 is played in real time so its vital to me as a player that I can accomplish what I want to without losing sight of the big picture. EU3 gets a big two thumbs up from me in this respect (except the interface when you click on a province the interface that comes up hides the scrolling history log and is a bit oversized for my tastes...but theres a lot of info packed on those screens so I guess its understandable). Incidentally, you might have mentioned that the various map colouring modes are really well done -- particularly compared to the limitations that EU2 had with some of its ones -- and are invaluable for giving you a ton of necessary information without having to go digging for it.
You actually make one really perceptive remark in that paragraph. You say that EU3 plays out like a glorified, real-time version of Risk. Hey! Maybe youre on to something. Unfortunately you say it with a tone that suggests that playing a glorified and complex computerised version of Risk is the last thing in the world that any sane person would want to do. Now ask yourself...arent there a lot of people who *enjoy* Risk and would *kill* for a computer game like that? Its 100% fine that youre not that kind of person. I completely understand. [Side note to Tom: but why are you having Ian review the game in the first place? Why not use someone who likes and plays this type of game and is predisposed to treat it at least impartially and objectively?]
The time comments only reinforce that this is most definitely *not* your cup of tea. There are moments when you simply have to wait for things to happen and dont have much to do. For strategy gamers thats the time you spend looking around at potential opponents and formulating your plans. The *reason* youre waiting is that youre in the midst of preparing to execute a strategy that you decided on earlier and youre assembling the resources or troops or cash you need to put the plan to the test. EU3 (and its predecessor) give you a speed control to make time fly if you want during those periods, but I prefer to use it more profitably by beginning the process of selecting my *next* big move.
You begin your fourth paragraph with a comment on the interface and tutorials. Having spent countless hours playing EU2, I found the tutorials in the demo to be more than sufficient to teach me the basics of play -- but I have the advantage of generally knowing much of that beforehand from my EU2 experiences so I guess maybe it could be somewhat daunting to a first-time player. Ive already mentioned how much I like the new interface improvements (though if youd said that EU2s was occasionally problematic or counter-intuitive and that EU3s is a vast improvement, youd get my wholehearted support) but I can appreciate that its a matter of taste and it just didnt happen to suit yours. (Should you care to respond to this, Id love to know in slightly greater detail what you find so clunky)
Then, for the next sentence or two, you finally seem to hit on what is a core (and key!) ingredient of a strategy game on this scale. You mention the challenge and complexity of managing your country without having it blow up in your face. To a strategy gamer who might be interested in a new title, those kind of comments are music to my ears. In depth and accurate modeling of the real world intricacies of doing such a thing? Gritting your teeth and doing all sorts of nudging and poking and prodding whilst avoiding rebellion and dissent? BRING IT ON! Thats part of what turn my crank, and its the kind of thing that strategy games plead for and rarely get in a title.
You follow that up with a complaint that the scope of the changes you make to these controls arent immediately apparent. Well...isnt that what youd expect? For a game like this to be in any way immersive, you would be sorely tested to appreciate a system where drastic swings in state policy or control would be possible at all -- or at very least you should expect extreme social unrest and civil war if you tried it...which is what youd just pointed out with your previous sentences. Make small changes, gradually, and over time to achieve long-term objectives. Try to do it too fast and watch out! Sounds good to me.
The next paragraph has already been addressed in previous posters comments, but I just cant help wonder how you manage with any of the other strategy titles you profess to have played. Have you ever won a game? You describe a sequence of actions as [paraphrasing]: (1) declare war, (2) raise an army and gripe about how long it takes to do this, (3) move into enemy territory, (4) besiege provinces. That, quite frankly, is a "strategy" I'd expect to see from an Oblivion gamer, not a strategy game player. Anyone who has played any strategy games would describe your modus operandi as ill-advised, poorly planned, and utterly suicidal. I wont beat a dead horse any further, but I must say that I find it increasingly hard to believe (almost inconceivable) that this is your genre.
Your penultimate paragraph tells me (the strategy gamer) that siege warfare is well modeled. Sieges take time and patience, and you should expect some deaths due to attrition while youre doing so. Along the way you have to decide when -- or if -- yourre ready to try to bring it to a close early and throw your men against the walls. Cool! Good gameplay decisions to force upon the player. But wait. Youre saying that this is a bad thing? Say what?! Also, you say that youre watching the one siege for the whole time it takes for the city to fall. Why would you do that? Dont you have things like your economy, diplomacy, trade, etc to take care of too? Shouldnt you be thinking about where to attack next? Shouldnt you be leaving a siege force behind and using your main army to track down the enemy and annihilate his ability to counter-attack? Shouldnt you be recruiting regiments to replace the casualties your existing forces are taking? Sorry, but if I wanted a tactical siege warfare game with neato graphics, I wouldnt be looking at a game like EU3. Id be digging out a copy of Stronghold or something.
Then, almost as an afterthought, you throw in the comment about the lack of *tactical* regiment-level decisions if you happen to encounter an enemy army and fight a battle. Well yeah. Thats what grand strategy games are supposed to do (though a big thumbs up goes to MTW for incorporating tactical battles in that game...its fun to do sometimes, though not really what Im usually looking for in this genre). Dont get me wrong. I understand that this sort of thing isnt your cup of tea and thats your prerogative as a player; but as an author who is writing an article to review the game, its strike three for me as to whether Id base any buying decision (present or future) on anything you write.
Its in the final paragraph that you finally dish out a little praise, but you qualify it by saying that youd need to be a history buff with a penchant for realism to enjoy it. I disagree. Im no great history buff (though this series has made me somewhat more interested in reading up a bit on that stuff I vaguely recall from school) and I enjoy it just fine. What you need to be is a *grand strategy game* player who is interested in a complex challenge without too much instant gratification. I cannot possibly be the only one that falls into this category, but you all-too-plainly do not.
In closing, I think you have done the readers and the site owners a disservice with your article. You have failed the criteria necessary for an objective reporter by painting a very poor image of a game that doesnt fit your subjective preferences. By undertaking to review this game you bit off more than you could chew, and are choking on it. If youd confessed that up front, and admitted to it throughout your article (using it as a qualifier to your complaints) then I might have been willing to cut you some slack. But you didnt. And you most definitely *did* *not* do justice to the game or your employers.
» Go to 's original post
Sorry, but thinking MTW eclipses EU3 in strategic depth just says it all: you have no clue about what you are talking about. Or you are lying (i find this hard to believe), either way it kind of makes this review worthless.
"Albert - how exactly would you describe this then, seeing as it is a strategic game, that plays out in real-time?"
Look at it this way, Oblivion is played in first person and you shoot at things with the bow or spells. Does this means Oblivion is an FPS and you should compare it to UT, Quake or Far Cry?
» Go to 's original post
More properly, EU3 it is strategy and that particular variant, grand strategy. As such, proper comparisons would be with other games focusing on strategy rather than tactics. It is a small field compared to mass market RTS's, and most of the games in the field are turn based, but they exist.
Failing that, you can call it an RTS, with the predictable reaction that people will either draw completely different associations (cf. calling GTA a racing game) and rightly conclude that it does pretty poorly in comparison when measured by what is expected of an RTS.
» Go to 's original post
When you hit on Risk you were oh so close Ian. Think about it this way. The EU series is almost a natural progression of the Risk idea. Taking it to a more realistic and in depth level than previously conceptualized. However, Dawn of War (which I love dearly) is IMO more of a progression of C&C or the old Warcraft 'strategy' (meaning tactical) games.
I guess you could summarize the 'RTS' genre into to smaller subgenres: Micromanagers and Macromanagers. All the games you mentioned were more of the 'Macro' idea (CoH?! as previously said...FPS tactical gameplay NOT stategical) than the 'Micro' ideal. You can look at MoO2 versus MoO3 for good examples of Micro v. Macro. Micro would be more the epic strategy games (Civ, MoO2, EU, Hearts of Iron, etc) whereas Macro would be the more tactically sided games like DoW, Starcraft, Warcraft, C&C, etc. Occasionally you'll have games with a blend of the two (the Total War series) but generally these are far smaller in scope (world size and/or time frame) than the games that take the strategic or micromanament style to heart.
In short I suppose I'm saying that while you probably have played many games in the past Ian your experience with games of comparable styles of gameplay seems to be lacking and it's certainly reflected in the review. You seem to be speaking from the point of view of an FPS or DoW player rather than a person that can objectively review EU (or any game similar to it).
» Go to 's original post
This literally made me chuckle into my tea. MT:W is nothing more than a strategy mini-game tacked on to frame some great RTS battles. As a fan of history the RTS combat in TW games is top notch, but any person who actually believes the strategic side is complex is thoroughly kidding themselves. Just examine any of their mechanics from physical "diplomat" and "spy" units to lack of any real world Holy Roman Empire or Papal controller systems.
It also amazes me that you can tag a game that really only allows you to control christian kingdoms in Europe as having more strategic depth than something that allows you to play ANY entity in the world that existed for 300 years. Truly, MTW strategy is better for some people, including you apparently. However then you are the wrong person to review a complex grand strategy game if you are just going to carry in your personal baggage and attack it because you couldn't figure out the basic principles of warfare.
PS: I'll give you a hint, England typically relied on naval power. Where you got the idea that the small English population should field a larger army than the massive French kingdom is beyond me.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
Talk about a single review tarnishing an entire site's reputation.
» Go to 's original post
But dont be mean to the reviewer. He just missed the point of the game. I hate Pokemon, but heck, its popular.
» Go to 's original post
Pro-G is not that bad of a site, but the editors definitely screwed up here (which is fine since we're all human and we all mess up from time to time)...but if Pro_G is going to salvage its reputation as a reliable source of gaming information and news, this review needs to be pulled IMMEDIATELY and redone by someone who is capable of writing a review that's actually worth reading.
If you're going to give a game a bad score, it should be because it failed to properly deliver on what the developers were trying to accomplish, not because it wasn't what you thought it was going to be.
An analogy: giving EU3 a bad score because you went into it thinking it would be like warhammer or M:TW but were disappointed to find out that it wasn't is like giving rainbow six a bad score for not having plasma rifles and energy swords because you went into it thinking it was going to be like halo
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
Okay, let's get the RTS-comparisons out of the way. It just isn't. Well, as has been pointed out, it actually is, but in the true sense of the term. No, it is nothing like CoH or Dawn of War, but then again, who would pick it up and actually think it would be? And besides, you can pause the clock and still carry out any number of actions, and only start time moving again when you feel like it - so in essence it becomes a turn-based strategy title where you define the length of a turn.
Next, Ian, have you actually played any number of similar titles (I'm thinking either EU1 or 2, Hearts of Iron, Crown of the North)? You mention a pedigree of titles that are far removed from this sub-section of the genre, which does nothing to assert any credibility to your review, and use that to damn EUIII. And what is the whole 'I've been playing since the Amiga days' about? I've been playing games since my dad typed them in on our ZX81, does that mean I win?
Also, this sentence made me chuckle, whilst at the same time coming across as very arrogant: 'I realised that many people wouldn't actually manage to get a year into the game, yet alone play for the full 300...' - I didn't realise you think on behalf of everybody.
Anyway, to continue: you mention that there is no story (which is true) or objectives to complete (which is untrue). Did you not take a look at the scenarios included, which have very specific objectives and end-goals?
It is also strange that you neglect to actually mention anything of diplomatic relations, tech-trees, matters of government, etc, presumably dismissing them all as being redundant? The mind boggles. Your description of invading is appalling, too, but others have commented on that.
In the end, you are right in that nobody can tell you that your opinion is wrong; people can, however, tell you that you have not approached this review in a particularly thorough manner. You say you spent 4 days with it, but neither your review (or your reply in this thread) do anything to indicate that is so, as evidenced by the inaccuracies and the lack of explaination of core-components.
The score is almost irrelevant here anyway, as this series will be attractrive to devotees of the earlier titles in the main rather than fresh faces, and so those fans will probably buy it anyway. It just reminds me of a certain mag (a couple, actually) that reviewed games they hadn't actually played, mentioning things that didn't even feature in the finished title. Not that I am suggesting this is the case here, but just that a site relies on reputation.
» Go to 's original post
If you want to only stare at the words Real Time Strategy, then presumably one might classify EU3 as an RTS. However, that would be like calling Oblivion an RTS since it is in 'real time' and there is 'strategy' or ancient Wizardry 3 (or Bard's Tale if that's too old) an FPS because the perspective is from the first person and you 'shoot' (arrows and spells).
And of course, that is plain ridiculous.
RTS is an established game genre. It started with Dune II, and has been developed ad-nauseaum, with Warcraft, C&C, and StarCraft as the classics, and the last real innovative programs of the genre being AOE, Rise of Nations, and of course the fantastic Company of Heroes.
EU3 is not an RTS, and to insist on comparing it with other RTS games, complaining on its differences, is illogical. IMHO of course.
» Go to 's original post
There is no rule that states a game has to be reviewed by someone with experience of the series, and in this case Ian approached the game with plenty of experience in the RTS and turn-based genres. We believed this would be good enough for him to offer a fair opinion on the game, and that is what he's done. If after his time with the game he missed things, that is surely just as much a fault with the game's design and how it welcomes new players, as it is Ian's apparent overlooking of key features.
Had the game been reviewed without playing it, as has been suggested, it would have likely been a glowing review, but served no purpose at all. No matter what your thoughts on what is stated in the review, it is based on personal opinions formed by playing the game. Being his opinions, they can't be wrong, they can just be the polar opposite of other people's.
» Go to 's original post
Classic.
» Go to 's original post
I do like the way the writer and staff have responded though. On other sites there is almost no interaction with the author of reviews, so that should at least be commended. A top though. Next time get one of the guys who has posted on here to review a Europa game. They seem to know their stuff.
Post Comment
Login or register to reply to this topic
Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.