Perhaps some of the reviews are not out because the reviewers can't get the game stable enough to actually play.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6274610.html

Here's a youtube video review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahTehhLD5ec

Umm... it should be nearly complete when it comes out. You kidding me? How can you even make this argument?

I love Stardock as much as the next guy, but you people need to stop drinking their kool-aid without thinking.

EDIT: I'm gonna go ahead and assume that was sarcasm but it doesn't make sense any other way.

The problem is, im cool with financing works in progress which i think have potential, i did it with Fallen Earth and mount and blade. But one is a MMO and the other openly stated you were paying for a beta, which would get constant updates. This is where the problem lies, i would have no problems paying for a quality beta from a company that says: look, we are a small team, we need a bit of float and input to make the game better. But thats not what stardock claimed, it says you have a right to a finished product when it ships. Well, multiplayer is out, game crashes very often for me (Sometimes 5 times per hour), i cannot access the tac battle editor without crashing, things are poorly explained about the advantages of going this or that way regarding units or tech. Its all ok with me, because i have faith that stardock will make it right, but they kinda inserted a foot in their mouth by making claims of "games should be finished when it ships" and then shipping the version we got.

They wouldnt have caught all this flak if they would have taken the Mount and blade dev road. And they would not have been left wide open for criticism which sadly is tarnishing what is a great but roughly polished game.

Yeah I have searched around, nothing yet...

Fidgit (Tom Chick's site) will be posting a review tonight, I'll link to it once its up.

[/quote]

Actually, yes they are. Gamestop and even PCGamer have not released actual reviews, just updates about their issues and warnings for customers to hold off until further notice. I've seen these sites nail games to the wall for day 1 releases.

Tom Chick and some other reviewers seem to have had copies fairly early and could have easily hammered it to the wall.

Well, it seems Stardock's past history earned them some good will after all (and rightfully so).

But I get the feeling they're depleting their entire "Diplomatic Capital" with this release.

Future versions of this game must be stellar, or Stardock will have to rebuild its credibility from scratch.

After playing the game solidly for the past few days, and on a variety of machines, I haven't seen a single crash or major issue that makes me scream at my machine.  I had a weird 'Activate your Product' thing earlier, however that's all fixed.  Obviously my case is a 'best case' scenario, considering people are experincing some fairly sizeable issues.

When Elemental is 'working as intended' I think it's brilliant, and a lot of fun.  I think it's perhaps not as 'full' as people were hoping though.  Yes, there are empty turns of nothing more than travel or research bar watching, however this stands true for nearly all games of a similar nature.  Something that really annoyed me with Civilisation IV was the 'improvement spam' section of the opening turns of the game.  It gave you something to do, sure... however it was boring, and just gave you more to watch.  Elemental gives you quests instead, which feel better, at least to me.

Personally, I think Elemental: War of Magic provides a solid foundation.  It's rare to see a game try and be it's own unique thing.  Obviously, it takes inspiration from obvious sources, however Elemental is simply Elemental.  The A.I. is a little dumb, quests could be a bit more indepth, and new gameplay mechanics could be added in to satisfy that instant gratification itch we all have, however I'll happily give Elemental a recommendation to anyone who asks.

I'd compare Elemental: War of Magic to Team Fortress 2, in terms of it's release situation.  It's got some stuff, it's certainly fun, but it needs some improvement.  Can't wait to see what Stardock add in, and what the modding crew can get up to.  I know I'm already dreaming big!

1up Review - C+ - He doesn't much like anything far as I can tell, though he does say multplayer is "robust" (wonder when he got to use it? )

Also - Tom Chick's review - "But for now, Elemental is not a game I recommend you buy. It's a game I recommend you watch." is his conclusion. The article is more optimistic though in that he clearly believes SD will wind up with a great game once the time it needs is put in. This is probably the best quote:

Shacknews has their "field report", which is not a review but reads a lot like one.

It is not inconceivable that SD has enabled multiplayer for reviewers.

And most of the points made by the reviewers have been raised on this forum.

being robust for a few dozens reviews isn't the ame as robust for a full player base.

Game companies routinely ship different review code than the release code. Damn near the industry standard actually.

You should add this link: http://www.gamekult.com/tout/jeux/fiches/J000093507_test.html

It's in French, but you needn't read French to understand the 3 out of 10. Mauvais means Bad.

A few trandlated quotes:

means extremely shallow, completely without balance.

proposes more bugs than interest.

They also lambast the lack of MP and quote Brad and explain there's no risk they'd buy the game.

Les plus... Quelques rares bonnes idées

Les moins... C'est quand même bien moche Campagne sans intérêt Ergonomie très perfectible Finition à revoir d'urgence Un pot-pourri qui n'égale pas un seul de ses modèles Gameplay lent et complètement déséquilibré Le multi toujours pas disponible

Means:

Pros: A few rare good ideas

Cons: It's really ugly; uninteresting campaign; very perfectible ergonomy; polishing must be remade urgently; a potpourri which doesn't equal any of its models; slow and completely unbalanced gameplay; multiplayer unavailable.