Too much hate for a good game

[Habanero Pickles]

Seems like it's been trending for awhile to hate this game, like since its release. It's really a shame because it's actually enjoyable. Whatever bugs may have been seem to be no more. The gameplay is engaging if you understand it. I like the story in the campaign and appreciate the historical setting.

Take a look at the review scores for Grand Ages: Medieval, Rise of Venice, Port Royale 3 and Railway Empire. Keep in mind these four games are all from the same studio within a recent time frame and feature the same play style. All of them had bugs on release and all of them have seen patches and updates. Railway Empire enjoys "Very Positive" reviews both overall and recently. Port Royale 3 has "Very Positive" recent reviews while both Rise of Venice and Grand Ages Medieval have "Mixed" reviews of around 50% positive.

I seem to recall Port Royale 3 getting a lot of hate and having "Mixed" reviews as well. It looks like the recent buzz for Port Royale 4 has convinced a few people to try PR3. Without a current fad to hate the game, buyers are free to decide for themselves how to like it.

I own and play all of these titles. They all work (some on Linux) and rarely if ever crash on me. Of the four, I find Railway Empire the least engaging and just a touch boring. I think it's a trains vs ships thing. It's still a good game, but I can't imagine how Railway Empires is really that much more amazing than it's sister games to merit 90+ percent positive reviews while the others tank as low as 46 percent. They're just not that different.

If you consider any of these games even remotely entertaining, consider leaving a positive review. I'm just a fan who would like to see more games like these, with good sales and maybe even some DLC for the upcoming Port Royale 4. Thanks.

[PlankGas]

I tried this game for about 30 minutes 01/2019, then bailed out never to return again. Played on Steam Linux.

[Habanero Pickles]

55 hours on it in Linux. :)

[zeitbauer]

game's too simplistic for anyone who's read a book. developers seem not to have an education in economics or history. like, they go to a store and buy stuff, and they think traders went to a town, established a wool farm and yet still have to buy at full price their wool. mostly, though, like most all civ type games, it just turns into another race to build more infrastructure and better toothpicks.

[Dray Prescot]

It is a simplified version of the economic system used in their Patrician/Port Royale/Rise of Venice games, when we wanted a better version.

Plus it did not live up to players' hopes for it. It's only redeeming feature was that it was multi player unlike all of the other similar games from Kalypso. So for those who wanted multi player it was the only choice for Kalypso (myself I am a solitaire game player).

[ArcaneGamer]

The game lacks mid to late game features like more diplomatic stances and relationships, exploration, espionage/sabotage, dynasties, court politics/advisors offering different kingdom bonuses, etc. The trade and production are tedious and repetitive, which doesn't make for good game-play in a self-acclaimed grand strategy game.

On top of this, the studio quietly abandoned its planned updates for the post-release game because of poor performance and reviews. We could have a much better Grand Ages: Medieval today if the studio listened to the community feedback and improved the game.

Grand Ages: Medieval is in competition with CK2, EU4, etc. They need to find inspiration from those games to make Grand Ages: Medieval more competitive.

Grand Ages: Medieval could be a build your kingdom from feudal lord to emperor game, but no, it's just a tedious blobbing simulator. Knights of Honor is more fun than this, and I can't even choose where to place the cities in that "Atari" graphics game!