This review is accurate, even though it hurt to say it. If it was still "in Beta" I'd say we were on the right track, but the game needed a month, even two months of additional work. Man, I'm sad.

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

Three does seem harsh though?

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.

Like the review says: The game is good, why else would you have wasted so many hours on it. The problem is that the game show much more potential than it currently has, and this leaves us depressed and wanting more. If them game had been polished to a more limited set of features it would have satisfied most games and reviewers, but it wouldn't be the elite uber strategy game so many of us desire, but which is so hard to create and not that profitable really.

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.

A little harsh, but what was said was true, I hate that it was.

But hey!! you know what......so what!!  Prove em wrong, stick with it..... no expansions at 1st just work on what you got.

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'.

IMO the game is a 5, at 1.07. It's thin in a LOT of ways. The AI is weak/stupid. They at times still seem unbounded by resources. It's generally glitchy. Lots of little bugs, UI needs improvements. If you put MP on the box - you'd better have it up and running sooner than 2 weeks. They dug that hole.

I think it's a 5, and before today I was a big SD fan. I can see how it would get a 4. 

So, so sad.

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.

Not exactly a review on what the game isn't, more of a review on what the game promises and does not deliver. SCII promised an engaging campaign and a fun multiplayer that can be competitive and casual with tons of potential for user-created maps. That's pretty much what customers got.

Elemental's standard game promised a fun randomly generated world that suffered a cataclysm, ready to be rebuilt and fought over by new channelers. While the game tries to hit that promise, crippling bugs and bizarre design decisions do dampen that "one more turn" feeling. I remember a couple of days after release when I told myself, "I'll put this down after one more turn, I got this!" only to have my game crash. Again. Loading my last auto-save hung my game on the same spot every time. Maybe it'll after 1.1 or something, but you can't really knock a game like Starcraft for poor stability like you could this game.

Elemental also promised a strong campaign and multiplayer. We know how that turned out, so therefore the score is four. I feel pretty bad about this whole mess, and I hope Stardock can get through it. But claiming the game deserves a seven and others attempting to organize to inflate the user review score may be the only thing more odd than say, the lack of rivers anywhere on the map.

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.

I kind of wish I could tune out and forget about Elemental for now, and rediscover it after a year. The Gamespot reaview is quite accurate. This game is really just an incomplete mess. I hope the points about visuals and sound effects are taken seriously by Stardock too. Even those parts that aren't really related to the broken game mechanics are really meh.

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.

And yet in the same universe firaxis built civilization 4 as a multiplayer game with singleplayer on top of it.

But why am I even trying, people already mentioned that gamespot have given dread lords and dark avatar 9.0 and 9.1

review is valid.

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.

This doesn't matter. It is an advertised feature. No one forced Stardock to advertise that mutliplayer would be available for up to 16 players as a feature of the game, not an upcoming feature or MP being thrown into an expansion. This was their choice and they blew it. It's in print, and therefore they are judged on not only not having a week later, but two weeks later and still counting. Every single review should dock them heavily for not actually having a working MP since that is what they actually advertised the game to have. It's not even an opinion about MP, it's a fact. They said it would be there, black and white, and it is not.

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.

This is the truth, look at this thread of people saying "man i would have given this game a 7 or 8!!!" I've said it before, fanboys really ruined it by gassing up Stardocks head and they continue to do so.

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.

Matt is here.

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

Totally disagree.  I think the main engine (not the tactical combat) is slick, smooth, and looks terrific.  It may well be a 'style' thing rather than a 'quality' thing; as with games like Sword of the Stars and Borderlands.  Elemental doesn't look just like HOMM 5.  Good!

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...

You know, the #1 complaint seems to be stability.  My computer is like, 3 years old (and wasn't even close to state of the art for its time), and I've yet to experience anything other than minor inconveniences.  I've only completed a few games, (maybe 20-30 hours total of played time in elemental) but I have crashed maybe 3 times.

Either way, perhaps the computers you guys use are just too good...