I think statements like yours are why there is so much animosity on these forums. Just because the game didn't crash for you every 5 minutes doesn't mean that it's that way for everyone. Unplayable is a matter of opinion. But someone experiencing crashes or core game systems that don't work right or don't work at all could very much consider the game unplayable. That does not make them wrong, a liar or a hater. It just means that they had problems with the game and you didn't.

When I was in school a 59 or below was an F, a 60 to 69 was a D, a 70 to 79 was a C, an 80 to 89 was a B and 90 to 100 was an A. I've always thought that a rating system based on 0 to 100 was pretty much the same. Of course 50 in a 0 to 50 system is an excellent score. Depends on the rating method. Girls in my day were always rated 0 to 10 with the exception that some get an 11. Always depended on how hot she was and if she'd put out if you know what I mean.

yea, girls were 1-10, but i still put 7 as average on a 10 point scale, others put 5. really might of messed things up

Then by thier own scale 70 is fair - it still needs polish and depth - in a month or two it may well make it into the next bracket (and may be already there for you if you haven't had any technical faults).  It probably won't be until the expansion that we get a real test as to whether it is an all time classic.  The saving grace is that in this niche (fantasy TBS RPG crossover) there is really little competion (Fall from Heaven being a notable exception)

Dominions 3 still beat E:WoM hands down.

I think the review is fair. He lets us know the problems, but also the potential. I like the game, but as he said the AI is a total pushover and lots of stuff isnt balanced at all.

Love how everyone conviently misses how they waited to review other games.

I love Doms3, it is definitely one of the best and most complex fantasy TBS games, but I wouldn't compare it to EWoM. EWoM should be compared to AoW/AoW-SM/MoM for example.

I didn't miss it. Ever stop to think it might have been a matter of scheduling? So many games, so many reviewers. I'm not familiar with GTA4 but maybe they waited on a final score because the multiplayer component was not a patch but a free add on. With regard to Mount & Blade Warband, I think that's an indie developer which is basically a 1 or 2 man operation. Probably gave them the benefit of the doubt and a little leeway review wise. With GalCiv2 a major hit along wiith Sins, Stardock can no longer be considered a indie developer. In other words they are held to the same standard as the big boys. Maybe even a higher standard due to their Gamer's Bill of Rights. I think reviewers have been very fair with the exception of the Neoseeker review. Anyone thinking this game deserves a 9/10 right now is either on drugs or a complete idiot. Or maybe both.

Brad himself encouraged reviewers to review CURRENT game and do not wait till big patch. So they did what SD CEO said, whats the problem?

Well you've mentioned a whole two (out of the thousands of games they review) other instances when they waited longer to review a game, and in one of those cases there was already a review out for the console version. So we can assume that the other 99% of the games they review are done immediately, making this very consistent. Meanwhile your conveniently missing how Brad told them to review it now and not to wait. Are you saying that they should have told him no?

The game was released early because naughty people released torrentz which forced StarDock to release it early to the customers who actually paid. Otherwise, the guy thinks a lot of what I think -

1. Good game.

2. Balance it.

3. Add more stuff.

I completely agree with you Harrorist,

And to give more weight to your point, Frogboy, the man himself, stated that he did not want reviewers to wait for 1.1. He said, they should review the game as of 1.05.

So Ahroo, I think that you should take hairrorist's suggestion and think before posting.

These sorts of comments are completely unnecessary.

What I'm most pissed off about how we all predicted this and they still released the game early.
Even closing my, in Brad's own word "Obnoxious", thread asking why they're rushing the game so.

"[Stardock] has taken a critical hit to their [Reputation] and suffers [90] damage."

Well from what I am hearing, the game's stability has greatly improved with version 1.07.  It's sad, but had Stardock released the game just 1 or 2 weeks later, the reviews would have been much better - I'm thinking an average of .5 to 1 percent more.  The difference between a 6.5 and a 7 or 7.5 makes a huge psychological difference in the mind of prospective customers.

What really got the negativity going was probably PC Gamer's original "warning" which probably wouldn't have happened if they had first seen the game at 1.07.  But then again, who's to say that the dev team would have wised up and fixed the game had we not seen it first in it's Gold form.

I guarantee that a few of the bigger gaming companies have influenced the exaggerated negative hype especially with reviews. Basically if Stardock wasn't known for producing top-quality games and was more like most other gaming companies that regularly put out inferior products then the review wouldn't be so negative? The game is no worse than most other games upon release. And unlike other games and companies we have had nothing but a earnest attempts(6patches in two weeks)by Stardock to improve the game so to please most everybody. Conspiracy more than likely along with instant gratification, shortsighted/what have you done for me lately mentality, has contributed too the negative feedback. For a perspective follow link to Wikipedia about MoM it will sound alot like this game tons of bugs and poor AI but with patching it suddenly became the be all of fantasy 4x gaming so will this with patience and less whining.

You know, I'm liking Elemental more and more each day.  The game reminds me of how games were released 10 - 15 years ago.  They were usually very buggy, had a high learning curve and were generally very unpolished.  I think the current expectation of quality for game releases has increased dramatically since then.  

Most games today are released by huge publishers who put an endless amounts of time into polish and tutorials rather than good, deep gameplay.  The bar has been set so high now, that anything which would have been considered normal for 1995, is automatically discounted as trash.

I mean just take a look at some of the greatest games of all time: MoM, XCom, Daggerfall, Goldbox games.  Every single one of those were EXTREMELY buggy and an utter nightmare to figure out how to play if you weren't a computer geek already.  Yet we hold those games to a very high standard of great game design.

I think when you've removed the 2010-colored glasses and take a look at the game from a core perspective, it's far more appealing.

Great review, and sad to see the rabid fanboi echo chamber already chomping for Tom Francis's (a well known and well respected reviewer) throat.

Maybe the game wasn't released "early," but it was certainly released in an "unacceptable" state.  Let's ignore, you know, rational argument about that fact, or the almost 50% disappointment rating, or the well-written reviews spelling out exactly why this game isn't where it should be, or the general state of the forums, and move instead to Bradley's confessions that, you know, the game is half-baked.  And further, that it wouldn't be fully baked even in February due to their development process (ie, lack of impartial testers and feature-creep).

There is no fanboi argument left at this point.  Your lord god frogboy has decreed on high that his game sucks (in softer tones) in its current incarnation.  He has decreed on high that he wants reviewers to review 1.05.  

You are not allowed to rip your clothes and gnash your teeth at reviewers calling a rube a rube when the dude you idolize is calling it a rube too.  

You are not allowed to rage about reviewers not reviewing the latest patch when your lord god from on high has decreed that 1.05 is his desired review version.

If anything, we all should be overjoyed that PC Gamer was nice enough to hand it a 70 (the review undoubtedly read as a 50-range).  70's the bare minimum for anyone to even consider a purchase thanks to the American 70-90 educational system.

So you seriously think is all part of some shadowy conspiracy against Stardock? How do you explain the fact that the average user review is just as low as the average critic review, or the fact that stardock itself has apologized for releasing the game in the state that it's in?

I remember Brad a couple months before release questioned whether or not the game would be ready. Then in like a week he said we will make our release date.

Honestly, imo - I think he wanted the game to be done so he could take his sabatical and code some ai or mod. He wanted out of the office. Notice how he took a vaca right at release when the game is in the shape it is in? I and others said the game was not ready and he got on these forums and made us sound like trolls. He didn't want to hear about the game in an unfinished state.

I wonder if the devs now can actually get the real work done now that he is gone?

Ultimately it is his leadership that got them in this mess. I would question working for anyone like that after seeing how this went down - the pcgamer warning and the forum flaming that he participated in. He new he was releasing an unfinished, and untested game - reason he become vigilant to squash anyone that said so.

But I am sure there is more to know than meets the eye here. So its all speculation. But just look at the facts...

Brad ignored beta tester red flags saying game was unfinished

Tactical battles were never released to beta testers

Game never tested with all gameplay elements in place (Memory leak would of been squashed)

Game released anyways

Poor reviews

Buggy unbalanced game that is still in a final beta stage 

Brad wrote a basic apology letter

Brad on vacation 

Devs now have to fix the mess in short order

This game needed another 3 months for polish and another 3 months to add content.

If you don't think those kind of things happen in corporate, industry, then my friend I have some ocean front property in Arizonia for sale. And for the reviews and avg. being the same can't say I have seen that in fact it seems from Gamespot where they gave it a 4.0 user reviews had it around 6.7 hardly the same avg. but hate it if ya want it's your party and ya can do what ya want too.

I can agree to the text and the verdict. The text means critizising what is amiss, the verdict 70/100 means giving it a chance, which it deserves.

Well no I do not in fact think that there are any shadowy conspiracies going on to take down Stardock. I tend not to believe in things that there is absolutely no evidence for. The fact that you disagree with some reviews, and the fact that you you think conspiracies sometimes happen in "corporate industry" do not in fact count as evidence that some evil plot is going.

And the 6.7 average user review is about the same as the average critic review. You'll note that it's lower then the PC gamer review. Yes there are individual critic reviews such as gamespot that are both higher and lower then the average critic review. That's the way averages work.

Why did I have to wait until the 25th for the "day zero patch" when actual release was supposed to be the 24th?