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
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.
» Go to 's original post
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).
» Go to 's original post
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.
» Go to 's original post
Examples abound: Raise armies to prepare for war, plan your war aims, move the armies into position, then declare war and execute your plan. This is something that is fundamental to a game of this scope - a focus on *strategy* rather than small unit tactics. Declaring war, then deciding that an army might actually be a good thing to have, then finding out what to do... is a completely different sort of game.
As for 70 days in a game that spans 330 years being a long period... That's what the ability to adjust the game speed is for: take it slow when you have a lot of decisions to make, go fast while waiting for them to be implemented.
It is not that the reviewer is wrong in his comments about the game - factually honest it is for the most part, just ignorant of e.g the long term effects of all those non-war options he dismiss with a shrug- so much that he misses the entire point of a game that focuses on grand strategy.
The game is not accessible to the average gamer, that's true enough and to many it will undoubtedly be boring and complex. That, however, is an awful reason for scoring gameplay in a game low.
Is the measure of how good gameplay is *really* dependant on nose-counting? Does that mean that every single simulator or other game which appeals to a niche market should score low by default because the average gamer will find a host of annoyances with such a game?
I think not.
Starting out by establishing as frame of reference "EU3 vs Company of Heroes?" did make me check the calendar again, I have to admit, but 'twasn't April 1 yet. As well do a "Grand Theft Auto vs. Colin McRae Rally" -
"While GTA brings much unwanted compexity to the racing genre, one immediately notices the lack of support for fundamental game modes popular to the genre. Building a career is poorly implemented and involves subplots that are not conductive to the actual racing experience - it seems that the developers chose to focus attention on free-style minigames detrimental to overall game play rather than on presenting the best racing experience possible. Where are the winning ceremonies? Where the attention to terrain that makes control realistic? As for the graphics, the less said the better - a worse layout for a racing game has seldom been seen. As such, GTA certainly isn't for everybody - the hardcore guntoting crowd with a penchant for slaughter will no doubt love it, but it is hard to recommend to the average gamer. Gameplay 5/10, Graphics 5/10, Sound 7/10"
» Go to 's original post
Now that was a funny review.
» Go to 's original post
And stop reviewing, that's certanly not for you.
» Go to 's original post
Gameplay 5/10, never laughed more ;)
Keep playing Doom or whatever you want
bloody heretics ;D
Graphic could be 0/10 but who cares ?
» Go to 's original post
To everyone saying I'm not qualified to review these games, I'm a massive fan of the majority of RTS/Turn-based strategy games. I play lots of Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Medieval : Total War, and although your comments are right, that maybe the comparison at the beginning should have been drawn between EU III and Medieval : Total War, the score would not have changed, as M:TW eclipses EU III in terms of both strategic depth and accessibility. I've been playing games since the days of the Amiga 500, and I think that's long enough to have a pretty good idea of what works, and what doesn't.
In the end, this review is just my opinion of the game. If lots of other reviews out there say it's great, then fine, no-one's saying my opinions are the right ones. But I don't see that anyone has the power to tell me that my opinions are wrong. The score was based on several major flaws I found with the game, many of which rendered the game inaccessible to both the average gamer, and myself. I played this for several days straight, and by the end, I was just getting frustrated with the confusing gameplay and the lack of control I had over my units in battle (and while I'm at it, why should you have to move your navy into the middle of the sea to be able to load units onto them? Why can't this be done in a port?).
The tutorials on offer were not up to par at all. When you began a game on your own, it was like you were literally being thrown into the deep end of a pool with a weight tied around your ankles you feel completely out of your depth. And even though I had experience in the genre, I still struggled to make sense of many things when playing it, which suggests to me that the game is flawed. I realised that many people wouldn't actually manage to get a year into the game, yet alone play for the full 300, and to give the game anything higher than a 5, or anything more positive than the review I've written would be misleading. In my opinion the game has many flaws, but I focused on the main ones the inaccessibility, and the general lack of control you have over many things, not least your troops.
Secondly, to the several people who have suggested that Tom or I changes the score and/or review based upon other reviewer's opinions, I'm afraid that isn't how it works. I wrote a review, offering my honest opinion of a game, and whether I liked it or not. I didn't. I'm sorry if that's hard for some people to palate, but it's my opinion.
OK guys, now I'm gonna take individual comments from what you people have said, and reply to them.
Glcm1961 : The "fun" in this game is obvious to anyone with an ounce of strategic blood in their veins. - I play many strategy games, both on PC and tabletop, and whilst I could see that there was a modicum of fun crawling beneath the surface, I found there were far too many problems that prevented it from being as fun as it could be. Oh, and to you and Nimon's Falcon 4.0 comment, I have that installed on my PC. I bought it when it was first out, and remember the 500 page manual well. That was another relatively inaccessible game, but it's not as inaccessible as this. I'm actually a huge fan of flight sims, and if I ever get the chance to review one for this site, I'll take it. Maybe you can base your opinions of me on something more than a solitary review.
Luckz : pretending you could only build one army troop at once I'm not sure where this has come from, as it's true. Each province can only build one troop at once.
TechGod : I like the way you seem to say that my opinions can't differ to anyone else's. Are you really suggesting that I change the score, the review, and my personal opinion (which is, after all, what you've read in the review), just because other sites think it's better than I did?
Fr : I'm sorry to hear that, in your obviously well qualified opinion, that I'm not qualified to be a reviewer. Constructive criticism is welcome, personal attacks are not.Last edited on Tue 30 January 2007 by king_spoon_ian
» Go to 's original post
Calling the armies "squads" is telling us the set of mind is completely off. That's a tactical jargon that doesn't fit in a game like Eu3 that is strategy at its finest. Asking for a 3d engine for battles or RTS elements is just plain silly. The idea of a tactical battle going in a game like this will make every Eu3 player smile.
70 days seems to much to recruit a small army? Yeah just forget about history and let the men be ready in one click! It's more enjoyable like this!
The review is lacking on the analysis of internal policies and doesn't understand that those policies are fundamental and really make a difference in the race for success. But that's because the reviewer doesn't seem interested in that.... the warfare seem a much more interesting element.
Here are the previous problems come up. Having almost ignored the country management only to engage a more "exciting" war is only going to lead to a good beating (as in the England example). Is a good strategy to first declare war and then worry about prearing for it? No of course. I don't see why blaming the game for player's faults. You should have raised your armies first. Be grateful enough you were England and not a continental power or else the french will have just stormed your capital due to your poor leadership and strategies.
After that there is the complains about the siege system which is like complaining about how warfare outside battle worked in tha timeframe.
Eu2 is about strategy not tactics. Complaining about the "lack of control" over battles or the fact that sieges are boring is just plain wrong for a strategy reviewer. I never heard people complaing about Civ 4 not having a 3d engine for battles.
I guess the reviewer is asking himself where the fun in Civ4 is.
The reviewer was just searching for tactical battles and wasn't interested in diplomacy, religion, economy, colonization and other strategic problems where you have FULL control of what your country is going to do. Speaking of strategic depth Eu3 has no rival at all... competition is just miles behind.
The review's main complain is that Eu3 is just not M:TW. :D
» Go to 's original post
My first question is as to whether or not the reviewer discovered the fast-forward button. That is not intended as a patronising question, but a legitimate one. With the speed on full you can breeze through a year in about 2 minutes, if that. If he played on normal speed I can understand where the criticism over the pacing comes from - when I play (the demo) I spend most of the time on full speed, or paused.
You can raise more than one regiment of troops in some provinces, and you can also hire mercenaries to bolster your forces, so I think that as a criticism is pretty much groundless.
It's a shame because when I saw the review I thought that I had found a good 'con' side to the EU3 argument that I could point people to when they were considering buying this game, but this review doesn't provide that.
I appreciate that reviews are always subjective, but I do think an attempt at objectivity should be made. I have only played the demo of this game, but that is sufficient to make me think it will be deserving of an 8, in my opinion, of course. Either way I think that a score of 5 doesn't reflect the genre of game this is in. I repeat the point made by several people above - you can't compare this to Company of Heroes. They are completely different games.
Ah yes, one final criticism is over the comment that you can't achieve anything in 300 years. As England I played the demo and had substantial North African territory, as well as having taken most of Scotland - and that was before the 30 years was up. I am positive I shall have far more impressive successes when I play the full game.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
I don't normally come to this site, but saw its rating listed and was curious why it was so much lower. You never know, some reviewers may have a particular gripe they couldn't get over, but at least make some valid points, whether you agree with their rating or not.
That was not the case here though. The reviewer is just dense (I'm being a lot politer than my actual thought), and Pro-G has convinced me this will also be the last time I come here by publishing such utter rubbish.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
@Albert: EU3 is an RTS though. It's just that the genre has been polluted with C&C clones, altering the meaning of the label RTS ;)
» Go to 's original post
"I'm a massive fan of the majority of RTS/Turn-based strategy games. I play lots of Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Medieval : Total War"
"...you feel completely out of your depth. I still struggled to make sense of many things when playing it"
"The score was based on several major flaws I found with the game, many of which rendered the game inaccessible to both the average gamer, and myself. I played this for several days straight, and by the end, I was just getting frustrated with the confusing gameplay and the lack of control I had over my units in battle"
Need anything more be said?
Post Comment
Login or register to reply to this topic
Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.