Petty & puerile, cheap shot.

Somehow I doubt that gamespot would be garnering such scorn if the review was an 8 or a 9...

Guess it all depends where it is received.

Gamespot puts a VERY heavy emphasis on multiplayer. Not having MP not still turned on probably cost them at least one full point. Easily.

It's a turn-based strategy game without the words "Sid Meier's" in its title, even if it was perfect in every way and included a free pony on the box it'd still only get a 8.0 at best, and then only if the reviewer in question happened to be partial to ponies.

So, unsurprising. Nothing more than yet another game taken by Gamespot to be made an example of how they totally do not inflate scores, honest, just so they still have some credibility left when they give the latest console-oriented, GFWL-infested trainwreck a 9.0 just because its got "GTA" in its title.

Can you dispute any of the reviewers main concerns?

Do you think the reviewer was wrong on many of the points?

I find a 4.0 to be a bit harsh, but I've also never had a single OOM issue or in-game crash.  I think the reviewer made a lot of valid points (although he really focused on the negative imo) and a 4.0 score in and of itself is fine because he justified.

What I take issue with is the fact that gamespot has no consistency at all with their ratings.  Elemental gets a 4.0, Farcry 2 (which was total rubbish, worst game I ever bought, and one of the main reasons I almost NEVER buy games on release anymore) got an 8.5, and Fallout 2 got an 8.8.  Are you going to tell me that Farcry 2 is a full 4.5 points "better" than elemental, and only .3 points "worse" than FO2?  Give me a break.  Everything on that site needs to be taken with a big grain of salt these days.

Yeah 4 is quite fair considering how the game is with its kinda broken gameplay mechanics.

Gamespot frequently gives niche type games 6 or 7, and these are games that work well and are fairly clean but cater to such a small population most players aren't going to like it, including the reviewer.There are several series this happens to, Settlers is an example which often got penalized for things fans actually like about the series, very slow gameplay.Other niche games, Rollercoaster original, get high because they are niche AND they are outstanding. So Elemental is a niche game that is far from stellar, broken and missing advertised features.

4.0 is generous from Gamespot for this title.

Why should people do this? The game is a trainwreck. Even Brad think so. A bad game is a bad game. Going to a website to vote and get the score up isn't going to change anything. At this point only Stardock can do that. I still have my doubts though. I think the game systems are broken or just don't work well together. Patching won't fix that. Only a major overhaul could fix it. It's already been pointed out that the game keeps changing practically every week without extensive testing. So I seriously doubt anything is really fixable.

Guess it's a good time for you to give up then;)

Yes, I agree - the review points are all valid.

Mind you, the crashes are a lot less now, but that's from 1.06 onwards.

And... um, er... I apologize in advance, but... the score of 4.0 is correct. 

Hey, hey, relax, put down that knife. I always find that reviewers simply don't understand these numbers. They go from 1.0 to 10.0. Thus, an average, okay, game should be 5.0. A really good game would be in the 9 area. Many games should be in 3 or 4.

And, currently, Elemental shows a huge potential. And I am quite sure (no, really!) that it'll reach there. However, currently it hasn't. And thus deserves a 4.

This begs a number of questions, chief among them is "why?"

Is the review in any way biased or incorrect?  As others have pointed out, other Stardock games have received scores of 9.0 (namely the Dark Avatar expansion of GalCiv2) from Gamespot.  Obviously they don't have a sitewide bias against SD games.

Given the huge number of remaining bugs and UI oddities still present in 1.06 (aka the version that appears to have been reviewed), would it be fair to give it anything more than a 4.0?  Once you factor in MP being completely disabled at launch, the various broken systems (AI, diplomacy, magic, shard, squad calculations, etc) and the many inconsistencies or bugged UI issues I don't see a 4.0 as being out of the realm of possibilities.

Reviewers are not required to rates games based on potential or community goodwill towards an "indie underdog".  In fact, this would make for a BAD review/site.  I want games to be ranked on a a limit set of criteria...  stability or lack there of, features and graphics.

I sadly have to say the review is rather spot on, though the situation with the games bugginess has definitely improved since the latest patch.

I'm a big fan of Stardock and especially Galactic Civilisations II so I've been somewhat disappointed by Elemental. A friend hyped the series saying he spent many, many hours on an early incarnation, so I decided to give it a go.

It's fun, there's no doubting that, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. The other races just build, build, build with no regard for what it will do to their resources and they appear immune to diplomacy no matter what I do technology-wise. The only civ I have ever managed to get any treaties or trades with was the Snathi and that was only a non-aggression. When I tried for a trade treaty there was no chance and no point when I weighed up the cost versus the reward. There was certainly no point in them accepting. They would, though, just like their leader sits in their home cities boundaries and does nothing but sell his daughters off to be married to my sons.

Combat is better but the tactical combat is dull and not at all challenging. I have found, after a few hundred turns, that I can send a small army of my sovereign, a few children (casters), some heroes and soldiers and summoned beings to trounce anything and everything I see on the map. That army is easily gained and doesn't zap my resources at all. I rarely see my cities attacked, even my another race who has declared war on me. They're probably on the other side of the map.

Speaking of declaring war, they do it so easily. They'll be demanding money within 10 turns of meeting me and then will declare war on my first refusal. I don't even believe I'm all that underpowered.

If this game was anything like Gal Civ II then it'd be great, so I hope Stardock can get it to that standard. I do enjoy it currently so improvements and overall menaing to the gameplay will make it a fun game. Currently I don't feel as if I'm making any progress, like I'm just on a treadmill of research and city building. It's almost a city sim with a world to explore.