It’s hard for me to review Age of Empires III DE. I have played the original release religiously since it came out and am a huge history fan, with these kind of games being a large part of the reason it was my minor in university. However, the remaster is not without its flaws. The first part may be biased, but I dislike the UI changes, so much so, That I stated it throughout the beta in the feedback system for nearly six months before official release. One thing I give the Age of Empires II remaster major props for , is keeping the original layout of the UI.

The second issue is in the historical revisionism. While the “Age of Discovery” was not a pleasant time, it was a fact of life of the time. The European Powers sent out colonial charters and tried to claim as much land as they could. So renaming the first two ages: from Discovery and Colonial to Exploration and Commerce is odd. With the fact that a game based on the entire institution of colonialism being afraid to label it as such is jarring at best and pathetic at worst. The second part of this will be on the second campaign from the war chiefs expansion. Where the entire story has been redone to fit a new narra to be. In the original release. The half Lakota protagonist is caught between increasing tensions of the Lakota people and the settlers coming during the period of westward expansion. With the character’s mother Amelia Black describing a crucial fact of humanity “ Like all people, some are gentle, and others not” when referring to the portrayl of the Lakota by the settlers. With the campaign coming down to what side the protagonist will side with. In the remake, this narrative was thrown out the window. With the story going from Westwood expansion forced the hands of the Lakota, to detecting the settlers as monsters and entirely in the wrong. With the story removing all combat with Lakota for the first two thirds of the campaign and forcing the player to fight “bandits” then having the player fight the settlers and a repainting of General Custer. From the first game’s “follow your conicense, but you must pick a side.” to the remaster treating him like Governer Radcliffe from Pocahontas. All that was missing was the musical number. As a consequence , it turns the whole campaign into a few hours of misrepresentation, something the original addressed well. For these reasons, I can’t recommend the remake, while the changes to multiplayer are a nice addition to the game. If you want a themeatic game on the period. Then this remaster sadly fails to hit the Mark.

Paradox’s fusion of Civilization: Alpha Centauri with their flair of Grand Strategy Games. Stellaris sets you in the role of a planetary government that is leaving its homeworld for the first time. Where over the years, your empire will grow, expand and compete with aliens trying to do the same.

Stellaris sets itself apart primarily through its ability to take aspects of successful space colonization games like Alpha Centurai which were turn based and transform them into real time. While addressing the ideology and immersion of civilization. With Stellaris allowing for standard diplomacy, on top of a UN like system for the galactic community. This combined with the science of space colonization and the science behind it provides a special flair for any enthusiast of the genre.
I would also like to give credit to Stellaris for introducing to many the ideas and science of space. A topic often vast and the theoretical ideas of the future are approachable and actually encourage someone interested in space to look into it with the games events labelled anomalies and the descriptions for tech and the game’s late game projects called “mega structures “ that take common sci-fi tropes like a Dawson Sphere and explain the process and benefits in quantifiable ways while keeping it simple.

Overall, I would recommend Stellaris to anyone interested in either a space like colonization game or anyone who is a fan of the paradox method of Grand Strategy such as Europa Universalis IV