Since we are playing hunt for numbers, I am giving FE a 75/100 atm and guesstimating that we could end up at 90. I am playing the beta for fun now, and really enjoying it. CIV IV is in my opinion the best game ever, and if FE gets anywhere close to that standard I will be a very happy puppy.

I like what I have played of the Beta except that balance seems off and/or I'm horrible at strategy and get my butt handed to me a hundred or so turns in. I have not yet been able to "enjoy" a game yet, but I'm chalking most of that up to "it's Beta". I am anxious to see Beta 3 before posting rave reviews all over the web.

I wouldn't hesitate to show the current build to the press. I remember my first reaction when trying out FE Beta 1, and it was completely positive, before I delved deeper into the issues. I think FE is in a state where you can show the game for a couple of hours and it will seem like a game that is shaping up nicely.

The only thing from beta 2 I would really focus on fixing before showing it was city building. The tile placement system makes you go "uhh?" when there's no real purpose to it. But I think Beta 3 is supposed to address that issue.

I'm pretty sure there is no shelving date.  Isn't FE digital distribution only?  

I don't think the point is that advertising dollars = high game score.  But that high game score without advertising dollars (or effort, in this particular case) = no sales.  If they want to overcome WOM's dismal history and have a good selling game they need to produce a great game with lots of publicity saying that it's a great game and not more of WOM.  

Same here.  FE has already surpassed WoM...and WoM wasn't all that bad at the end.  No, I don't play it anymore (why would I with FE?), but the final iteration was solid.  I've played much worse.  At least Stardock hung in there to polish the game, instead of letting it take the path of (unmodded) MOO3.

Crusader Kings 2 had those awesome youtube videos ... which is about the best advertising you can get these days

Aah, but they weren't paid adverts on review sites, in fact they got free advertising that way, due to the demand to see them.

gotta start somewhere though :p

Anyways, I think more advertisements = more critics willing to review the game ... and therefore you get a more normalized meta-score, as opposed to something skewed heavily (likely for the negative).

And yes, I think there is something to be said about a good advertising campaign and higher ratings. (not hype, but advertisement)

Rating a beta like this is mostly about trajectory and limits.  Is it improving?  How quickly and for how much longer?  Is there anything in the design that will prevent further improvements?

That said, I think one of the strongest points of FE is the XML modability that it has.  It is still in beta and already people are modding in new content, and we don't even have any sort of editors yet.  Even if the balance isn't great on release, this detail will likely make it possible to bring the playability up after release, adding all sorts of new content.

Another positive point is the graphics.  It is a pretty game at this point, playability aside.

Of course, the danger of having so much content and so many variables and options is it makes it difficult to create an AI that will effectively use those options.  You can teach an AI to play Tic-Tac-Toe fairly easily.  Teaching the AI the pros and cons of a fireball is another issue.  This is the critical issue and is also where the current build still falls short.  It has yet to kick my butt in any real sense, and I can easily prosecute a war against an AI that has a much greater power score.  This is likely a combination of a bunch of little balance issues in the AI combining to kill it, and hopefully it can be solved.  Strategy games ultimately boil down to the difficulty of the AI.  As an RPG, however, FE is showing more promise and that is why I still play it.  After the exploration, looting and questing is over, however, I usually thrash a kingdom or two and then quit.

I do see the game improving over time and the XML modding ability extends the upper limits of what this game can be.  The real limiting factors are things that cannot be modded or balanced, like certain AI elements, pathing, and UI features that should be added or removed to make the game more playable.

For the purpose of marketing, the first couple hours of the game should be the focus.  Since that is where more of the RPG elements shine, it is pretty good, though more tech, building, and equipment options early on would help.  Reviewers will mostly only look that far, so the game is in fairly good shape in that respect.  The ultimate critical score of the game, particularly from players, however, will come from challenge and replayability.  If that is not there, it will quickly be shelved and not achieve the classic status that we are hoping for.  Right now the RPG replayability is looking good so far, but the strategic replayability is in need of some improvement.

Mods help sell post-release units. Civ4 Mods like FfH, impacted post release sales of Civ4. FfH2 created a buzz which rippled through the industry and is still being talked about. A wide diversity of mods, extends the buzz to far corners.. Like how the Babylon 5 mod for Civ4, was being posted around in random locations across the sci-fi net-verse. Some people were hearing about Civ4 for the first time. Others, fans of Babylon 5, finally had a compelling enough reason to buy Civ4.  Upon hearing a loud enough buzz, some few people will go on to buy a product.  Mods help create, then push a profitable post-release buzz to intimate corners of the net. 

I would doubt that mods really create any real sales.  I truly doubt there are a lot of people passing on games in genres they like only to purchase them later due to hearing about mods in significant numbers.  I'm sure it happens, I doubt it's really a strong factor in a games sales.

Ahhh, marketing.  Or as I call it, psychology of the critic and consumer.

Using Metacritic's numbering system from http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores 

At launch, I would have given WoM a 15-20.  In its present state, I would probably give it 40-50.

As of 0.86, I would give FE a 60-65.  If the tech tree, faction differentiation, etc. gets cleaned up, I can see giving FE a 75-85.

Not sure.

I think I ended up buying like 5 copies of Civ IV over the years solely because there were mods/ stuff I liked other than pure sandbox.

That being said, I'm probably an outlier. And plus, with digital distribution (and eventual cloud gaming) having to buy a second copy after you 'lost' the first one is basically nonexistent. Instead, you only have so many years to play a game until the game is 'locked out' for whatever reason. But you only ever need to buy one copy.

If you think that's even remotely an option you're living in a dream world.  If SD doesn't bring it up, the reviewers certainly will.  The combination of SD's reputation & openness, WOM's major expectations, and WOM's awful, awful launch guarantee it.  Not to mention the fact that it was the last game they released.  

SD pretending they could avoid any mention of it would be naive bordering on idiotic.  

Best to accept it, meet the comparison's head on, and show that they've learned and produced a better game now, in part, because of the disaster that was WOM. 

You read my mind; although I think you're being a little too generous to EWOM.  By the way, FE is also going to need better city management, skill trees, AI, and a polished UI before it can get to 75-85.

Why would you buy the same computer game 5 times? Make no sense unless it was formultiplayer. Twice maybe, but 5 times??? Would you lose your head if it wasn't screwed on?

Yes, I'd agree this sounds pretty accurate.

Well I move around a lot, and I think I bought my first Civ IV at least 6 years ago.

I bought Civ IV twice, Warlords once and then BTS twice, and then I bought Civ complete once iirc.

I think it went Civ IV, Warlords, BTS, BTS, Civ IV, Civ Complete.

I'm in general agreement that Stardock has some distance to create between E:WOM and E:FE. A distance in the narrative. A span of prolonged positive talk about Fallen Enchantress. Peppered with occasional rejoinder when asked about WoM, that the games have little to compare.. even the lore has evolved. When WoM is brought up in interview: speak of those core changes which make such a comparison pointless. E:WOM was a different game, made a couple years ago under different management and design doctrine. E:FE is new. Different from bow to stern. New design, new mechanics. Expanded lore, new art, just about everything. E:FE is Not an expansion pack. Not even a fat pack like Civ4's BTS. The difference between E:FE to E:WOM, is more like the difference between Civ4 to Civ3. Yet not so severe as Civ4 to Civ5. E:WOM and E:FE are very different games. They do the same basic thing, but in notably different ways. 

How Stardock can garner positive press:

Focus on the community itself.  Make as secondary, your concerns with the established press. Don't blow them off, just backseat them. Focus on the fans, who can then ripple messages of E:FE throughout the 4x TBS community. And RPG et all. Help the players do the talking. If the players talk loud enough, the established press will be tempering their reviews accordingly. Utilize the wonderful word of mouth tool, otherwise known as the floundering phenomena of social media. Foster a following of vocal and Involved fans. Host 'community created content' contests. Write yet more dev journals, post queries for player feedback, and organize volunteer troops of focused testers (task them in groups, to test specific balance tweaks etc). Re-organize the Elemental forum hierarchy towards ease of navigating increased content. Host community events such as succession games, cooperative democracy games, and other forum based, group play. Get involved with getting the players involved, so altogether we get even more people involved. To snowball the established press with the power of the involved gamer!

How Players can create a positive buzz:

Participate in E:FE relatable threads at other community forums. And keep posting here. Post AAR's. Upload game footage and video reviews. Participate in forum based E:FE play: Succession Games, Tourneys/Quests, Democracy, more. Write stories based on E:FE lore. Share that cool stuff you made with the editor. Post Screenshots. Make mods. Blog about it. Post about it. Do things with it.   

LOL.

In other words, your opinion is irrelevant? Is that the message you're trying to convey?

WOM is a 15-20? Even Sword of the Stars 2, which was, at best, early beta quality at launch, totally unplayable got in the mid 40s.  15-20 would make WOM the worst game in history. A 1 star game still gets a 20. I am on record as being massively disappointed in WOM but it was, at worst, a 3 star game using metacritic standards. It's not worse than MOO3 was at launch where it was totally unplayable. 

Anyone who thinks FE 86 is worse than MOO 3 on ship is delusional.

It really isn't that useful to have anti-fanboys (ultra critics) sitting there with their comic book guy voices saying how low they'd rate FE when any reasonable person knows that FE, even in early beta, is a pretty decent game. We all saw the polls. Virtually everyone who voted said the game was Great or Good in beta. 

I understand that some people get off on thinking that they are somehow better by saying everything sucks. But it's not terribly useful to the process unless you're going to get people to ignore you.

Like others, I'd say if FE were released today it would get in the mid 70s. That is pretty spectacular for a game that's in beta. They still have a ways to go but everyone, including the devs, know what specifically is still needed.

It's pointless to try to give an early beta a review score.

I think something got lost in the debate.

What I am saying, and you will see this happen in the coming weeks:

The PREVIEWs will be written. They will be posted. And then the battle in comments areas will occur. You will likely find that almost anyone who totally craps on Fallen Enchantress has never played WOM or FE.  But they heard "how bad" WOM was and so they'll feel...compelled to comment.

What we are hoping for is that people who have played the beta and think we're on the right track will post.  Obviously, if we thought FE today was amazing we'd release it. But it's exactly where we'd expect it to be at this stage -- promising but lots of work to do.

I think that FE easily has 50% more production quality and excellence.

If FE was scored solely on how much better it is than WOM, then I'd say  53 * 1.5 = 79.5 score.

However I do not think this is the score that it would get if it launched today.

Only with Unique Factions and Better UI (UI is already 10x better than WOM tho) will it reach anywhere near 79.5

After that, Meaningful decisions will bring it above 80.

State Property vs Corporation usage is a meaningful decision.

Heroic Epic + Ironworks  VS. Heroic Epic + West Point is a meaningful decision.

Switching to either Mercurians or Infernals is a meaningful decision.

Specialists vs Cottages is a meaningful decision.

Food + Hammers vs Science is a meaningful decision (it just happens that Food + Hammers is the better choice in Civ IV, if used well)

I see. Makes sense.

Once they start posting their previews ... can you tell us which sites/ which companies you haven given previews to so that we will know where to go?