Some of these reviews read like kicking someone while they're down.  Elemental hardly deserves a 4.

Which version?  If you are talking about 1.0, then you are right, a 2 or a 3 is probably more in order.  It might not even be fair to review 1.0 since I'm not sure it qualifies as a game.

1.06 or so, which is what it appears gamespot reviewed it at is probably a 4 or 5 if you are giving points for potential.  Not having multiplayer in is a HUGE negative IMHO.  The game would have to be otherwise FANTASTIC to get more than a 5 or 6 with a major, advertised component missing 2 weeks post launch.  Unfortunately, it is not otherwise fantastic.

I dunno, based on the justifications given in the review, 4 seems just about right to me.  I definitely didn't get the 'kicked while down' feeling that you did.  Seemed to be a pretty reasonable articulation of what the game is not.  And right now, what is missing/incomplete/unpolished is simply much more glaring than the light of the potential.

I'm curious as to the definition of "ironic" you're using. Besides, back then Gamespot was still in the same business of IGN of pumping everybody's scores to the sky equally.

Yeah, I do. Though pointing out the individual differences would be a waste of time, most of it is subjective anyways (like the visuals or interface). Is it perfect? no, the AI is still awful even compared to Civilizations let alone GalCiv or 'hardcore' TBSs, and performance in general is still fairly bad particularly in the end game. But 4.0? no way in hell. Maybe a 5 would be deserved from the guys at Eurogamer that write multi-page love letters and demands for GotY awards then slap it with an 8/10, but from Game freaking Spot? even if they got supremely unlucky and had OOM errors on all four of their machines it deserves a lot more than that.

The 'ironic' whereby there is an implied incongruity between the score given by gamespot for Elemental (which was artificially deflated) and the Score for the Galciv2 expansions (which you now imply were artificially inflated).

Good enough for you?  Unless you are just trying to nitpick an often misused word since you don't really have a better argument.

No, Multiplayer is not really subjective.  Unless you feel you do have it.  I'm not sure how you can simply 'let that slide' as it were.  And that would be assuming all other aspects are gravy.  Which, let's be honest here, they are not.  A score greater than 5 would make me not trust gamespot ever again, and 4 is more than fair.  4 = 'poor', which seems right to me.  CEO's don't usually issue apologies when their games are better than 'poor'.

Bingo.  A game should be reviewed for what it is and now what it isn't.  Heck, even StarCraft II could be given a low rating if you judged it based on everything it isn't.  Judged on its own merits, I think Elemental deserves a 7.

With the AI having access to unlimited resources and still spamming cities the game is seriously broken and no fun at all. Other problems with gameplay could be sorted out in due course, but this needed sorting before release.

4.0 seems very generous.

Because only a tiny fraction of strategy gamers play multiplayer, as it has been proved time and time again for the last decade. That's why GalCiv2 didn't include any at all. And you may have missed the apologies for Demigod then, Metacritic rating of 76 and user rating of 80, it's just how some companies are. And how others aren't *cough*Rockstar*cough* yet their games still get a 9.0 from these "tough" reviewers at Gamespot.

What I'm reading on a lot of these forums is if too high a review, the reviewer is tagged as a fanboy and/or getting funded by Stardock.  If too low a review, the reviewer is either incompetent or didn't play it.  I go by the quality of the review, and this is pretty detailed and extensive. It covers all bases, and I agree with most points.  The user score may or may not boost it up overall, but the writing is on the wall no matter what.  

I can appreciate Stardock planning to overhaul it, but I live for today.  Today its not worth my playtime. Maybe tomorrow.  I think that's the common theme we are hearing from most reviewers.

Ok, let's judge it on what is there instead of what is missing:

A negligible campaign.  And negligible is being kind. - Poor

No multiplayer despite being on the box (or are you just going to play word games and accuse me of judging on what it 'isn't'?) - Very poor

Ridiculous AI, and I mean ridiculously bad.  I haven't seen an AI this bad in a long time. - Very poor

UI, I'm not going to go into this too much, because some of it is personal opinion, and although I think the UI is awful, I'll just give it poor marks based  solely on the fact that feedback is almost non existent and it is almost uniformly inconsistent. - Poor

Tactical Combat - Again, let's not get into it.  Can we just say it's poor and be done with it?  Because 'poor' is generous here. - Poor

Graphics - For some reason, some people love it.  I can't understand it.  I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that at the very least it's a few years behind modern standards.  Don't get me started on some of animations - Poor

Sound - This is simply pathetic on almost all fronts. Voice over work is awful.  - Very Poor

I could really go on and on, but what is the point?  I think you see where this is going.  This game simply is NOT up to snuff in almost every area.

Which was exactly my point.  The obvious gaps in what should be there or is fun/working are simply far more obvious than the few things that not horribly broken.

What does Starcraft II have to do with this game's review? Did you beta test this game? if you did - and still give it a 7, you should be forced to buy 10 copies. Do us all a favor, next time, stay away from PC games, go play Xbox or something.

I love you rune.  You come up with the most laughable stuff when you have absolutely no good argument.  It makes my day.

To be honesty, I really do like the overland map and cloth map thingie, that is actually pretty slick and looks pretty good.  The terrain elements however, do not look so great to me (and not just in tactical).  The ragdoll stuff looks hideous to me though... That's just me.

I don't need it to look like HOMMV, but several years later, that game's art seems more polished than this ones...