Recent reviews by Pouakai

Age of Empires III is one of my favourite games of all time - it's what got me into the strategy genre years ago and is largely responsible for where I am today. So when there was a definitive edition announced, I jumped at the chance with the hope that it was finally getting the attention it deserved after living in the shadow of AoE 2 for so long. But having played it a bit over the past couple of days, and as much as it pains me to say it, I can't recommend the Definitive Edition at the moment.

First of all, there is some great stuff. I love the addition of the new civs, and the graphical updates. Naval battles are a sight to behold and it makes sense that they've been given pride of place in a game set in this era. It's also abundantly clear that the team have gone to great lengths to try and address some of the misrepresentation from the base game, particularly of the Native American civs. Changes to the names of the Lakota and Haudenosaunee are great moves, as are the changes to the campaign to ensure a more accurate representation of indigenous Americans.

However, I feel as though this has gone a bit astray with some of the other changes. By renaming aspects like the Colonial Era or the Plantation into the Commerce Era and Estate respectively, as well as other more controversial areas of history, the game gives the impression that it is now attempting to whitewash history in a manner which doesn't acknowledge the actions of European colonists. The name "Andrew Jackson" is also conspicuously absent from the Battle of New Orleans, in lieu of the totally-not-Andrew-Jackson "American General" - a move which, despite Jackson's abhorrence as a figure, seems like an odd call when the battle would be representing him in his correct historical context.

Beyond this, I can't get over the UI changes. The card selection for home cities is confusing and difficult to navigate when compared to the original, as well as hides the home city itself (which is a huge shame given the effort which has clearly gone in there). It's difficult to see what units are selected (and garrisoned), and there is no option to revert to the original UI as there is in other definitive editions. (EDIT: Adding to this, there's nothing to indicate why you can't select a card, such as in the instance of requiring a higher level home city, which is a glaring oversight)

There are a bunch of other minor things that are a bit disappointing but not really important enough to mention (like the Knights of St John in the campaign getting the British flag instead of the Knights Hospitaller flag from the original game), but they more just add to the disappointment instead of cause anything (as in, I'd be happy enough to overlook them if the rest of the game was fine.)

Overall, I really want to like this game, and I really hope that the team behind it will continue to improve it to eventually have it in a position where I can recommend it. But for the time being, you're better sticking with the original version of it.

EDIT: Having continued to play, I feel like I should also point out the huge amount of bugs I've come across. Campaign missions don't fire, cutscenes stop part way through (they don't freeze, the characters just miss their cues and it stays focused on them), and the game hangs in the middle of climactic battles. I'm not sure how they managed to introduce a whole series of bugs that were never an issue in the original game, but I suppose that's worthy of an achievement?

Despite the rocky release, Hello Games have proved something big lately - they genuinely care about this game, and put serious work into it. With the latest update, No Man's Sky continues to exponentially increase in terms of size, mechanics, and story. While it's still at a point where it's not worth $90 or however much full price is, it's definitely worth a buy on sale to explore what's becoming a fantastic game. Definitely something which would have been deserving of an early access approach, but a great game now