Well folks, it looks like the gag on reviews is over, so reviews are starting to hit the internet:
- IGN Review here.
- Games Radar here.
- PC Gamer here.
- Metacritic reviews here - reviews appears to range between 60/100 to 100/100.
As a fan of the series, I’m happy the first couple of reviews seem quite positive; however, the footage shared by the reviewers does also confirm that the game is virtually unchanged from the beta and technical stress test (i.e. the feedback provided in these forums hasn’t been addressed or incorporated in any way, which was to be expected given the tight timelines between the beta and the release).
While I remain deeply underwhelmed by the graphics in particular, I hope folks who end up purchasing the game end up having a blast!
Here’s my review. I loved the game, though it does play a bit safe. The graphics are fine. I like the artstyle but it’s a little rough around the edges.
Media give 100 make me disgusting. You can love the game but ignoring all the shortcomings will just makes 100 cheap.
Yeah, I would take that with a grain of salt given that its “Windows Central”. My personal rating would be closer to 6/10, potentially going up to a 7/10 if the campaigns end up being a blast.
But launching a triple AAA title in the AoE series without ranked multiplayer, without a map editor, and these graphics? Can’t help but feel a bit disappointed overall. It just feels rushed to me, but hey, let’s see how the general public receives this game when it actually launches this week.
That’s the only way these outlets think they can gain publicity.
Many such cases.
From beta and playtest I’d give it something between 7 and 8, so pretty good for a classic RTS game. As a AoE number 4 - probably minus 1- 1,5 points from that.
Can’t speak for Windows Central ( didn’t give the game a 10/10 either) but as a reviewer I have to say, I write about how I feel regarding the game. My overall feeling, the fun I’m having, what impresses me and what doesn’t.
And while it’s a shame clicking in the fog still doesn’t have a visual indication, you can’t change team colours and some animations are janky… I still had a lot of fun. It’s just a very good strategy game. And that’s reflected in my score.
Wow, this wasn’t fixed? I thought that if anything would get fixed, it’s at least those minor (but important) quality of life details. With that, I repeat – what we played in the beta and technical stress test was the final product.
I’d like to give credit to the developers that they lifted the review embargo 3 days before the game is released and that they are lettings streamers stream pretty much anything they want (from what I’ve seen), this is not very common these days and I appreciate the transparency.
@SuikerBroood, can you tell us if the campaigns have any sort of meta progression or are all the missions completely independent from each other? I know the devs motioned that the Rus campaign will have you returning to Moscow several times but do any decisions you make in previous missions affect future missions? Is there anything you can do between missions to affect missions (research, level up, things like that).
No, the campaigns are pretty linear. You return to Moscow (and it will have changed due to the timeline) but I don’t believe that’s due to decisionmaking. But to be fair I only played through the campaigns once. Already quite a challenge to do in 10 days
Different magazines rate differently.
For most magazines a 6/10 would probably mean an absolutely awful game.
More than 80 usually means good and less than 80 bad.
Some magazines have a 5 star system like Windows Central so it’s easier to get the 100/100.
Screen Rant (atm at the bottom of the list) also use a 5 star system and gave 3/5 stars. (I don’t know them but their name implies they often rate low)
If the same set of magazines rate all games it ends up being about fair again.
The magazines always rating high will be evened out but those always rating low.
But at the end Metascore doesn’t matter to much.
New World has more than 10 points less (73 compared to 84 atm) and has very high player numbers.
Some of these reviews seem based on nostalgic factor. The PC Gamer review Is Good. This game should have 70-75 scores nothing more. As i said, only a good game.
Hey JImmy, guess you are a little surprised by the scores
No, I don’t think this game deserves 70ish scores. It’s a very good strategy game.
For me 80 of 100 nothing more.
I’m probably closer to 65 out of 100 based on the beta and stress test.
To be true to my self, i can only give 5/10.
For a 4 year game developpement, it is empty.
Even the closed beta feal whit more real gameplay content.
They halved so much the units damage.
The worst of my fear hapen.
Age of empire 4 is literaly a chess pion game.
Here’s the review we did at PCGamesN:
From the beta, it is a 8 out of 10 for me. Can’t say more until I get the full game.
Game is a success, admit it please
Jokes aside, we haven’t seen the user reviews yet but it doesn’t look like this game will end up in a desaster.
At this point the critic score is the same as Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition.
This game also had some problems at launch that have mostly been fixed but those scores were made before those fixes but the same is true for AoE4. Many things are promised for later like a level editor or regicide game mode.
It’s wayyyyyyy too early to be able to conclude that this game is a success. We’ll have to wait for release to see if the User Score is anything close what some of these early review sites are handing out.