Reviewers aren't unbaised, even if they pretend to be. They let other things get in the way of their reviews. In particular, Stardock has three things going for them

1) A lot of good will. People like underdogs and Stardock qualifies. They are an indy developer, they run the underdog online game purchase service etc. Also they are rather nice, open people. That makes people like them, and want to like what they do.

2) A good history. They've published two top flight 4X games (GalCiv 2 and Sins) in the last decade. Both were extremely well received. Thus people expect their next product to be good as well. They'll rate it higher than they might, even if it isn't. You can see that with Valve. They can do no wrong according to most. They release something like Left 4 Dead 2, which is very much just a samey expansion pack branded as a game that has some graphics/performance issues due to the old engine that is Source, yet it got nearly perfect reviews. People wanted it to be great because it was Valve. Same deal here.

3) A real desire for this kind of game. A lot of gamers and thus game reviewers really, really want a good fantasy 4x game. They want what Elemental aims to be. As such they find it hard to rag on it, because they want a game like it so bad. It has been so long since there was a good fantasy 4x game.

Thus, they are getting probably more of a break than they should. Over all, I'm glad. While I am not happy with Elemental now and I do think people should have consequences for what they do, I do have faith. They just released it too early. This should be Beta 3 or 4 here. Given that they do have a history of support, I have hope that it will be great in 6 months. However I don't want to see everyone pass it over because it wasn't great at launch. It would suck for it to be a great game that gets overlooked.

We'll see what happens. I have a feeling they'll have a rather different timeline and schedule for their next game.

Yeah, it was a different era when MOO3 came out. Back then, if what was in the box was pure crap, it was game over. You suck as a dev. All the reviewers would maul you. Now, "indies" like Stardock can get away with selling $50 boxes that say "IOU: 1 finished game" and use the sales of those boxes to finish the game. It's a catch-22 for fans like me: Either support "indies" and reward that kind of behavior, or rage against them and contribute to big corporate domination of the games industry.

If you ask me, this industry is heading for another crash. All our heroes are either dead or have gone to the dark side.

Wow, and vanilla ToEE was a bugfest basically. [Note: Imo it's the best CRPG at it is now with the huge community patch...:)]

Oh really? I played MoO3 retail version, w/out any patches, and it worked. And MoO3 has muuuuuch more content and gameplay depth than Elemental. Maybe, someday, if Brad does not back out of supporting it, like he did with Demigod, E:WoM WILL be better than MoO3, but reviewers should judge what already is there, not what Brad promises there will be.

[/quote]

That doesn't seem to be the case at all, to me. Quite the opposite. Aside from Neoseeker, who gave it a fantastic rating (and apparently is a member of this community, on the beta team, which does make his review somewhat idiosyncratic), almost every other reviewer constantly pointed out the virtues of Stardock and often repeated their claim that they believe that this game will be, if not excellent, then probably great or at least good at some point in the future. I read a LOT of good will in those reviews, almost all of which seemed fair. The French one seemed the only one that was aggressive, and the "game enema" one the only one which seemed very questionable. Most of them seemed fair, and some of them right on spot. Of course, that's only my opinion.

Um, your "review" on gamespot isn't exactly what one would call coherent. You rate it "superb" with 9.0 but describe it (if that's what you can call it) as something which should, by the score standards you use, as something deserving of a 6.5 (caveat: hard to tell exactly what you were trying to say). I think many of the reviews rating the game as "fair" (6.0 to 6.5) or mediocre are, in fact, agreeing with what you yourself wrote ("There are much worse games out there to spend your money on then this one") -- that is the definition of mediocre.

Nobody likes the fact that Elemental is getting mediocre reviews (and note: nobody has given them abysmal reviews); while some people will dislike it doubly so (because they feel that the mediocre reviews are undeserved), almost everyone here dislikes the situation. That doesn't mean, however, that the reviews are substandard, grossly unfair, or more subjectively biased than all reviews, to some extent, have to be (since they are expressions of our subjective feelings regarding our experiences with a product).

true played moo3 version 1.0 and it worked very well

MoO3 is an example of a game that DID get piled on by the Internet, largely because of peoples inflated expectations for the sequel to the beloved MoO2. Had MoO3 been called "new space empire game 1", it wouldn't be reviled the way it is now.

By the same token, can you imagine the insane rage that would have occurred if Elemental was called "Master of Magic 2" and released in this state?

The comparison to TToEE is a good one.  That was another game that was clearly shipped too early, but had a lot of potential.  I am surprised that it has a 70+ average review score.

PC Gamer: 70

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/02/elemental-war-of-magic-review/

Heh.  This is why I look for Tom's reviews (and diaries), regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions (although he's pretty fair here).

I'm glad i didn't buy this half - finished game .

updated list with PC gamer score   thanks Profligate!

RIP Black Isle, Bioware, Westwood, Sirtech, 3DO, Blizzard, LucasArts, Red Storm...

I read all the negative press on this game. I still bought the game and have a few words of wisdom.

1) 4X games are usally not perfect out of the box. the concept is so difficult to code the developers need the user community to help make game choices and help balance out the issues.

2) 4X games usally take more then one start to understand the information displayed and how the interface works. They can be frustrating to learn.

3) 4X games have so many ways to play, that not ever way ends up in a fun experience.

4) If 4X games were so easy to create the genre would have more titles being developed.

My fist experience with a 4X game was back in 1982 with a C64 and it took me the better part of a week to figure out the game mechanics, and even that game was patched after release. So Yes, there are issues with the current version 1.06 but it's still playable. I don't use the battle mode because there is no withdrawl at this time, so I just use the resolve mode similar to Civ4. I have a 400+ turn game going and no crashes. I would not reccommend doing the campaign, just keep starting a new game until you get use to the interface and some of the game mechanics. Make just you start on a large map to buy time while learning. I am still learning the game and can't wait for new patches that squash bugs and add/fix game play.

If you like to play a game that is immersive as Civilzation but more interting at it's core then get this game and sit back and enjoy what Stardock has done and will do for the first year.

As a UI suggestion, I think that the description needs to be (changed/improved?)

example: +25%  ->  *1.25

+50% -> *1.5

-30% -> *0.7

-10% -> *0.9

I think such simple changes would erase much confusion, if those things on the left were to be changed to how they appear on the right.

Ouch... Well give it a month and Elemental will be fine. Then I will bet money on the expansion scoring high.

Screw the reviews. 1.07 plays fantastic (ai silliness aside of course, brad hasn't came back from vac to start workin on it) Another few patches and it should be really shaping up. Shame I will have my Civ 5 and my contemplated (as in I am on the fence about it) Final Fantasy 14 maybe...wish I had made it into the open beta...want to try it before it releases....

Thank you.

That was an excellent review from another fan of Stardock's other projects. One of the best reviews so far.

You do realise many people will be unable to find the game remotely interesting with the moronic ai that's in at the moment? I can't see how it could play fantastic when whatever you do you can't lose unless you really want to commit suicide, and thus there is no challenge.

looks like the average will be around 6-7

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/elemental-war-of-magic

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/02/elemental-war-of-magic-review/

Looks like Gamespot has concluded the review in progress: 4.0

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/elementalwarofmagic/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review

That Gamespot review is reasonable in tone but atrocious in score. Do they even look at the scores they give other games?  Temple of Elemental Evil got a 7.9 from them which is a game that suffers from many of the same sins as Elemental.  I think the user score on the game (6.7) is a better guide.

Damn TToEE got 7.9?  Thats insane.  IMO, both games deserve 5-6 on a 10 point scale, as released anyway.

4.0 from Gamespot is *really* low for them.

4/10 give me a break