Absolutely worth it in my opinion. Some bugs here and there but it was so excited by the features alone, i bought the retail collectors edition (that and i generally love game soundtracks). After playing for a bit, I am pleased but am also anxiously (but patiently) waiting for 1.1 to go live as it looks to have a lot of cool improvements. I completely trust stardock as i have though gal civ 2, sins and expansions and demigod. (for the latter two as a publisher as ironclad and gpg are involved respectively)

If you enjoyed Gal Civ 2 and you enjoy a fantasy setting with turn based strategy, go for it. if action games and console style fps twitch gameplay are your thing, you likely will not enjoy it imho. I am happy with my purchase and I actually don't have a lot of disposable income or free time similar to you as you said. all in all no regrets here personally.

Sure....get it.  If you want to be a part of the testing and discussion about the game.

No.....wait.     If you want to play a finished and polished game.

Not worth it yet. Give it at least a month then come back and ask us.

Once 1.1 goes live, assuming the devs handle most of the major issues that exist in the beta right now, I'd certainly recommend the game.  Ignoring the beta-related issues, I'd say 1.1 brings the game from a 6 to a low 8. With a little more work, I think this game is going to become a 'must play' for fans of turn-based gaming.  The potential is certainly there.

However, if you buy the game now you get the first expansion for free.  It might be worth it to buy now.  But if you're not sure, I'd wait until 1.1 goes live.

I'd say wait before you get even 1.1; remember the state of the last "release" version of Elemental?  I would not trust the next release until there's been some time for players to verify whether or not the "beta issues" actually get eliminated in the 1.1 "release" version.

Stardock may claim to have learned from their mistakes, but those are currently words unsupported by deeds.  Give them a chance to prove themselves before you take them on faith.

By my standards, and the ones of the review magazine I read, It'll bring the game from a 4 to a 6. To get an 8, all aspects of the game need to be developed: magic (not just more spells but more possibilities; there are spells the engine can't just manage yet and that's a shame), quests (right now, it's not exactly Elemental's strong point), tactical battles (1.1 will have a basic, although usable, system. What needs to be done is to make it into a tactically interesting system).

I think February-March is when the game will start becoming a lot more interesting; I can't wait to see it happening, because I still believe in this game.

I'm with just about everyone else.  Wait... the game has potential but was released too early.  I haven't played it since the game came out and am just waiting for the 1.1 patch.

Thanks  for the enormous number of responses.

What I can say from the amount of people who replied is that there are many people who like/want the game to work.

Which to me isa good thing.

I will prob hold off till xmas paycheck. Perhaps we may even get a xmas sale (can always hope)

Flashman

Recommending things is a good way to wind up as a tool for guerrilla marketers, exploited without pay, so I have a policy of not recommending things unless I get a cut.

To be perfectly honest, the game isn't very good.  Unless you are the rare, die hard fantasy strategy gamer that doesn't care about balance, tactics, or interesting world, factions, and gameplay, this isn't the game for you.  I've tried my damnedest to get he most fun I can squeeze out of the game, but the more and more I play it, the more I realize that each individual part of the game, is shallow and poorly done.  They are working to make changes, and I believe that eventually this will be a decent game.  That isn't today though.  I'm going to be playing it a lot, and posting my opinions on what could be done to make it more fun.  But the tactical battles are so fundamentally flawed in design, I will be amazed if they ever approach being good.  I would want the devs to start over, instead of making tweaks to the Tactical combat.  Completely new maps, unit placement, ranges adjusted, terrain effects, one action per unit per turn, units getting turns based on their speed AND each unit having a speed score not based solelyon equipment just to start.   Play Final Fantasy Tactics, play Brigandine, the  battles in those games were far superior than this game, and they were realsed a dozen years ago.

Why not?  why can't we compare a turn-based roleplaying combat to a turn-based strategy game?  Is that some rule somewhere?  Seems to me the concepts are pretty similar, you have units on a squared grid map, some are ranged archers, some are melee, some are magic users, they have stats, equipment, speed, movement, in fact, I don't see a reason not to compare them.  Do TBS get a pass on bad tactical combat for some reason?  Explain please.

That's not a good argument, almost so bad I questioned if it even deserved a response.  I'm simply talking about the tactical battles themselves.  I'm simply talking about the battles.  Thats it.  I agree on a STRATEGIC level, the games are far different.  But I am not talking about that.

The battles are similar, but FFT does it far better.  The maps have meaningful terrain.  Units movement, speed and range play a role in tactics.  Those are basics of tactical battles, this game does not have that.