Reviewers aren't unbaised, even if they pretend to be. They let other things get in the way of their reviews. In particular, Stardock has three things going for them

1) A lot of good will. People like underdogs and Stardock qualifies. They are an indy developer, they run the underdog online game purchase service etc. Also they are rather nice, open people. That makes people like them, and want to like what they do.

2) A good history. They've published two top flight 4X games (GalCiv 2 and Sins) in the last decade. Both were extremely well received. Thus people expect their next product to be good as well. They'll rate it higher than they might, even if it isn't. You can see that with Valve. They can do no wrong according to most. They release something like Left 4 Dead 2, which is very much just a samey expansion pack branded as a game that has some graphics/performance issues due to the old engine that is Source, yet it got nearly perfect reviews. People wanted it to be great because it was Valve. Same deal here.

3) A real desire for this kind of game. A lot of gamers and thus game reviewers really, really want a good fantasy 4x game. They want what Elemental aims to be. As such they find it hard to rag on it, because they want a game like it so bad. It has been so long since there was a good fantasy 4x game.

Thus, they are getting probably more of a break than they should. Over all, I'm glad. While I am not happy with Elemental now and I do think people should have consequences for what they do, I do have faith. They just released it too early. This should be Beta 3 or 4 here. Given that they do have a history of support, I have hope that it will be great in 6 months. However I don't want to see everyone pass it over because it wasn't great at launch. It would suck for it to be a great game that gets overlooked.

We'll see what happens. I have a feeling they'll have a rather different timeline and schedule for their next game.

Wow, and vanilla ToEE was a bugfest basically. [Note: Imo it's the best CRPG at it is now with the huge community patch...]

[/quote]

That doesn't seem to be the case at all, to me. Quite the opposite. Aside from Neoseeker, who gave it a fantastic rating (and apparently is a member of this community, on the beta team, which does make his review somewhat idiosyncratic), almost every other reviewer constantly pointed out the virtues of Stardock and often repeated their claim that they believe that this game will be, if not excellent, then probably great or at least good at some point in the future. I read a LOT of good will in those reviews, almost all of which seemed fair. The French one seemed the only one that was aggressive, and the "game enema" one the only one which seemed very questionable. Most of them seemed fair, and some of them right on spot. Of course, that's only my opinion.

true played moo3 version 1.0 and it worked very well

The comparison to TToEE is a good one.  That was another game that was clearly shipped too early, but had a lot of potential.  I am surprised that it has a 70+ average review score.

Heh.  This is why I look for Tom's reviews (and diaries), regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions (although he's pretty fair here).

updated list with PC gamer score   thanks Profligate!

I read all the negative press on this game. I still bought the game and have a few words of wisdom.

1) 4X games are usally not perfect out of the box. the concept is so difficult to code the developers need the user community to help make game choices and help balance out the issues.

2) 4X games usally take more then one start to understand the information displayed and how the interface works. They can be frustrating to learn.

3) 4X games have so many ways to play, that not ever way ends up in a fun experience.

4) If 4X games were so easy to create the genre would have more titles being developed.

My fist experience with a 4X game was back in 1982 with a C64 and it took me the better part of a week to figure out the game mechanics, and even that game was patched after release. So Yes, there are issues with the current version 1.06 but it's still playable. I don't use the battle mode because there is no withdrawl at this time, so I just use the resolve mode similar to Civ4. I have a 400+ turn game going and no crashes. I would not reccommend doing the campaign, just keep starting a new game until you get use to the interface and some of the game mechanics. Make just you start on a large map to buy time while learning. I am still learning the game and can't wait for new patches that squash bugs and add/fix game play.

If you like to play a game that is immersive as Civilzation but more interting at it's core then get this game and sit back and enjoy what Stardock has done and will do for the first year.

Ouch... Well give it a month and Elemental will be fine. Then I will bet money on the expansion scoring high.

Thank you.

That was an excellent review from another fan of Stardock's other projects. One of the best reviews so far.

looks like the average will be around 6-7

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/elemental-war-of-magic

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/02/elemental-war-of-magic-review/

That Gamespot review is reasonable in tone but atrocious in score. Do they even look at the scores they give other games?  Temple of Elemental Evil got a 7.9 from them which is a game that suffers from many of the same sins as Elemental.  I think the user score on the game (6.7) is a better guide.

4/10 give me a break