Wow... brutal.

PC Games in the 4 range - at least it beat out Woody Woodpecker Racing & Battlecruiser 3000 A.D.

Kevin Van Ord is a crap shoot of a reviewer though. He blasted Alpha Protocol, a game that was super fun to play but definitely had its issues. And yet he loved Mafia II, a game that has gotten scores all over the board.

Not saying he isn't a good reviewer but like so many in the business a bit arbitrary.

I have been critical of Elemental myself and still don't see how you could possibly give it a 4.0. That's just ridiculous.

I think its a bit low but I am not surprised. I woud give the game a 6.5/10 after the 1.07 patch before that even lower so 4/10 is feasible. The good news is that SD is committed to the game so hopefully within the quarter we will have a much improved game.

Did you read the review and then determine what the score should be?

Scores don't really matter, just read what the guy has to say and see if you agree or disagree.

Work out bugs,

Re-work mechanics (tactica, magic, etc)

Balance, Polish, Balance, Polish

Add rich content, lots and lots of content...while trying to also capture that ever elusive "charm/character" that the games
we love all have.  It's all in the details, no part of the game should feel like someone took a shortcut.

Then re-release it (expansion/whatever) - call it "Elemental war of Magic: Redemtion Edition"
have people review that, then it can be the epic story of the game that was a 4/10 that climbed its way to 10/10

Good news is this is exactly what stardock seems to be doing so far, hope they don't loose the fire.  I couldn't play it past my 3rd game  but am still following the forums as I find the path this game is taking to becoming a better game facinating.  I don't think I've read a single post that says "I hate this game I hope it fails"  everyone wants it to do well.

Cheers. 

If you care to do something positive, instead of being passive echoes of one Gamespot reviewer's opinion -- and that's all it is, a personal opinion -- please vote on Gamespot, granting a higher user-rating.

It often happens, on Gamespot, that the aggregate user-score is much higher than the official reviewer's score -- who is just one guy, with his pseudo-expert opinion.

EDIT > Because of reply #15, I remove an incorrect information I had given in my original post. It seems that this particular Gamespot reviewer has effectively played the game somewhat extensively. (My use of the word "somewhat" is a skeptic's warning : How many full hours of focused gameplay did he really put in ?)

4.0 might be arsh, but I, for one, would find difficult to give more than 5 (that's a personal statement) as of now (1.7)

It has been said a million times but they are two main areas with huge problem:

technical: sluggish and buggy, but this is being ironed quite quickly; and I personally can play a buggy and sluggish game when the content is great. Someone mentionned Alpha protocol, well as cumbersome as it was I did also greatly enjoy it. This brings us to the catastrophe that is the second shortcoming;

Content: 20 quests, 60 spells, 60 techs, 10 units (and I am being nice), when most people, I think, at least I did, were expecting more like 100 quests, 200 spells (am being low here), 200 techs and 50 units (and this was a minimum, not withstanding "personal design" which is a joke)....

I recall in Beta (2A, I think), Brad saying that all the game needed was bug squashing and that all the tremendous content would be unveiled with the gold edition. well, we got what? 2 more map seeds...

Anyway:

to me, if the content remains the same but with zero bug and great performance --> 6.5/10

Boost the content to a MOM/Dominions 3 level --> 11/10

I will never ask for a refund (am too late anyway lol) and I dearly hope that all the content I hope for will one day arise. However when Brad (again) tells us, that (content speaking) we will get a free update with Book II of the campaign (meaning we may have to pay for book III... yeah, sure..), I could not care less. Just let me use the campaign map as I wish, the story is bad anyway. I am very afraid that the funds aimed at developing more content will be diverted for such foolish errand as developing what is he campaign today.

regards to all, sympathy to the fired staff, hope we all find the silver lining soon enough..

Actually, if you read the article, it is pretty obvious the guy played the game extensively, on 4 different machines even.

How would manipulating numbers be positive?

Just vote in your conscience. If the game gets better, the user score will go up, period. As of now, many people are doing what you advice, and they appear little less than Fanboys, giving 9.0s or 8.5s. The true friends are the one telling you you are under-performing when you indeed are, not he ones rubbing your back and telling you you are great when you are about to eat poo...

this is exactly what caused this catastrophe... nobody at stardock was able to walk up to Brad and make him understand it would be a terrible mistake to release the game as it was. We, beta testers, also share this responsibility, even though we fought hard to make him understand.

He now recognizes his mistake, too bad it puts some people on the street.....

I hope later (if the gam is "cured") the most popular gamesites will give it a new shance, a new review.

yes they do. if it didn't matter it wouldn't be there.

Nope, he mentioned 3 patches. So it must be 1.06. Which makes sense since it's the only patch that lasted almost a week.

Still, all points in review are valid. Although score could be better.