What surprises me is that Elemental was even widely known enough to receive a nomination for most disappointing game of the year on a site like Gamespot.
Since I won't pay a company to beta their game, and I won't purchased broken buggy products that are missing advertised features, I couldn't vote for Elemental myself. It isn't going to "win" this dubious award though because the other titles on the list are huge and one of them trying so hard to recover from a terrible launch that Enix is still not charging monthly for it.
It sure was difficult deciding between Star Trek Online and FFXIV Online though. Star Trek left me bored and wanting. FFXIV is gorgeous but managed to annoy the living hell out of me to the point where I only beta'd it for a handful of days before I decided enough was enough, and that was free play.
Anyway, I don't put much stock into these kind of polls, usually unable to vote on most of them because my games are not on the list, but I found it interesting to see a game like Elemental make the list.
Edit: Apparently it did make Tom's list: http://fidgit.com/archives/2010/12/the_ten_most_disappointing_gam.php#more
A billion idle haulers, and problems with miasma? Sounds like you barely played it.
Acctually you just need to setup a refuse stockpile outside. Simple.
Watch the captnduck or 51ppycup tutorial vids on youtube, they're fantastic.
Back on topic:
Civ V was a let down but that will hopefully be fixed as time goes on, don't forget that Civ IV without the massive ammount of patches and 2 expansions isn't that great either.
E:WoM was an absolutely huge letdown, not because of the balance issues or anything mechanics wise but just because of the constant crashes.
It IS stardock afterall so I've got no worries about game mechanics, they'll be fixed and polished to perfection in due course but the stability was absolutey abysmal, I just could not play the game.
I could be looking too much into what you are saying, but I really don't think the major problem with EWOM, FFXIV, and other games on this list was hype. Sure, you hype things up enough, especially in the MMO arena, then the letdown is worse, but these games had and in some cases still have fundamental problems while charging Triple A prices. At least Stardock isn't asking people to fork out money for fixes hidden in expansions, and SQ Enix has essentially frozen their subs, so both companies should get credit for that. It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of people were disappointed, evidently enough to vote for or list the games in this antiaward fashion.
Loved 2. Loved 4. Been playing since the original. Not sure if I gave up more of my life to 2 or 4.
There are a few problems with 5. The AI was terrible. For a game that was touting its new war mechanics as one of its major advancements over its amazing lineage the combat was trite. You can gimmick your way around just about any closely even "battle". I also found the "every unit a boat" mechanic dumb. Planning an sea invasion of a neighboring country is something you should have to invest resources and planning in. Not just grab the army you just used to conquer your territorial neighbor, toss them into the ocean, and invade your island neighbor.
I also found the interface tedious. There were way too many times where I found myself frustrated as I tried to do things and had to remember that the way they designed the interface was counterintuitive to the way I expected it to work. Maybe that's just me, but even so it happened a ton.
There were certainly some things I enjoyed about it and some potential innovations to the series that I'd like to see them keep (city states, no stacks of doom to name two) but I'll maybe check it out after I see an expansion or two and some polish and improvement. It had absolutely no "one more turn" value to me. I found myself struggling to complete games. I think I finished three games. Came back after one of the big patches, found it not improved at all, and didn't finish the game. Saw they completed another big patch this past week (or the one before). I may try it again after the holidays, but I'm not holding my breath. Some of the problems are patchable (AI) and some are design based (boats).
Long story short Civ 5 just felt like Civ-Lite with a crappy interface.
Civ V may be patched up to the point where it is a classic yet too (though I'm doubtful). But as far as letdowns go, Civ V as released was huge. I've played Civ IV with BTS and Warlords more since Civ V came out that I have Civ V. I've also played Elemental more since Civ V came out than I have Civ V.
Civ V will be decent after patches and expansions. I don't doubt that at all. But I don't think it will merit mention in the best TBS games ever conversation. I think Elemental has far more potential after patches and expansions to be on that list than Civ V. Partially because of its niche (fantasy tbs) but also partially because of its post launch support and the fact that Stardock obviously isn't afraid to dream big.
Civilisation V was everything I feared it would be. Owning, and loving, Civilisation IV, there is no reason for me to purchase Civilisation V. They took more out than they put in, and the game just feels ... weak. The move away from Stacks-of-Doom opened up some interesting combat opportunities that were entirely squandered. Steamworks certainly didn't help it's cause.Elemental wasn't as good as it should have been, with 1.1 being what should have shipped at release, however seeing how far it's come already only makes me stare into the yonder with glinting eyes of hope.For me, the most disappointing game of the year was easily Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty. No contest. Usually, I just answer SPORE - as the game was such a massive disappointment for me that it shall forever more be the most disappointing game of any year. This year though, I gotta give credit where credit is due. Starcraft II's single player campaign was terrible in ways I never thought possible; with 10 years of time between installments, I expected a real sequel. What we got was Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos's first campaign's (of four) Story stretched wafer thin over a 15-20 hour game and polygons. The streamlined UI only hides the marignally altered Rosters; they could have had the same gameplay impact with an expansion pack 8 years ago. It's multiplayer side is cold and lifeless; no chat channels at launch, regionally restricted player base - including forums, worthless map editor, worthless custom game system and the complete lack of any social feature bar Facebook integration for their self-proclaimed 'Social Network'. Blizzard, the company who never made a bad game, lost their sheen this year for me.
I can't see how Elemental really qualifies as "most disappointing". Maybe shortly after release, yes, but in the past few months it has seen such substantial improvements, and Stardock has proven their dedication and commitment to the game that I don't see how anybody can continue to express disappointment with it.
I disagree. Vanilla Civ 4 is one of the best strategy games ever made. The expansion packs simply take a great game and make it better.
I have to agree.
But the intro vid was great... the first 2 or 3 times...
Wow.
I mean... just... wow.
I'm glad GameSpot will be making the decisions on most disappointing game, instead of some of the fanboys here (who are trying to appear to have a non-biased point of view by saying Elemental was a little disappointing but every other game released this year is horrible). Civ 5? SC2? Perhaps not classics, but...
Just wow people.
The problem with Civ5 and SC2 are their prequels - these games are both heirs to much-beloved series, they have a lot to live up to, and if they don't match up we still have a very good prequel to fall back on. In other words, as sequels to already good games, they're held to a higher standard than an original game (and rightly so, according to Frogboy, original games on original engines are a heck of a lot harder to make). We're talking about "most disappointing game" here, i.e. how good the game is compared to how good everyone expected it to be, not "worst game overall."
I'd say vanilla Civ5 was far more playable and complete than 1.0 Elemental (1.1 is a different story!), but then again, I was also more disappointed with Civ5 because it had Civ4 to live up to. I ended up playing more of 1.0 Elemental, bugs and balance issues aside, because I just didn't feel like playing Civ5 when I could be playing Civ4 instead. Not saying the game is inherently bad, but it's a step backwards in a series we all had high expectations for; hence the word "disappointing." SC2 is also a solid game, it's just that I already played that game to death, 10 years ago, pretty graphics do not a sequel make.
Unlike the above-mentioned games, Elemental doesn't have a recent (i.e. within past decade or so and still playable on modern machines) prequel that we'll just go back to if the new game doesn't match up - really, what are your other choices if you want a fantasy TBS? People naturally have higher expectations for a sequel to an already-awesome series than for a brand new game in a genre that hasn't been touched in too long. That being said, all expectations and sequels and such aside, Elemental has come a long way since 1.0 and as of 1.1 I'd put it in the same ballpark as Civ5. It promises to go much farther as well in the future, but all that's outside the scope of this discussion; I get the feeling most voters on gamespot are judging games by their 1.0 release.
I agree with Sythion.
What about the new mechanics, UI, campaign, custom maps..?
In short, I think you're wrong. But I've seen this attitude alot over the internet. "Same ol, same ol". It's just that for us who like(d) Starcraft, it's the perfect game. Just like Age of Wonders or its sequels would be if they changed the combatmechanics of how Att, Def and Dam work to Master of magics system.
But that's because most people (especially kids) play the games when they're new and thus rate them after a week or so.
I'd like to point out that elemental while not a direct sequel to anything is seen as the spiritual successor to MoM. This means that, for some people, it had even MORE to live up to than a lot of the sequels released this year.
With the possible exception of SC2, but that was 12 years in the making, it's a special case.
For the record I love SC2, play it online with my friends constantly.
Yep I have to agree I was very disappointed in this game as of right now because I was sold on the "Successor to MoM". The only reason why I have stuck around is to see what Stardock does with it is because the community is very active and I see Stardock listening. As of right now this game and impulse are taking up space on my hard drive because after 3 games of v1.1 and having not the slightest bit of fun or desire to play due to lack of magic, AI, character creation, game imbalances, tech trees, bugs, useless land space that have no meaning and much more than I prefer to type. I will give it up to v1.2 or the first expansion after that it will be uninstalled at that point if it cannot draw me in for that just one more turn feeling.
You seem to have the shades of history on. It took moret han 6 months before Civ 4 was even playable more than 2 hours at a time. Yes, I enjoyed it, but I had to quit the game every two hours and reload, because it was so packed full of memory leaks and random crashes.
Edit: Fixed wrong quote, caused by poor forum layout.
I think this is part of the reason why I have tended to not be as negative. I can judge this game on its own merits, since I never played for or cared to play MoM.
Elemental being disappointing is in a way a compliment, as the nature of the game (heir to MoM) and the company (SD) and the paucity of similar fantasy strategy games raised expectations quite high. High expectations are a double-edged sword.
Frog's accepting responsibility and honesty regarding all this aren't disappointing, however, and make up for a lot. I don't see anything similar from Firaxis and/or Take2 regarding CivV's disappointing condition, which hurts them a lot.
Currently I see Elemental's star ascending, and CivV's descending. It's not where you are when the race starts, but when it's over, that matters.
"That being said, all expectations and sequels and such aside, Elemental has come a long way since 1.0 and as of 1.1 I'd put it in the same ballpark as Civ5."
With all credit to Stardock and Elemental with the speed at which this ship is turning, to me stating that Elemental and CivV are in the same ballpark quality-wise seems like a pretty damn big insult to the guys at Firaxis. I won't write more because statements like that make me a bit angry at the fanboyism and I might write something I regret later. All I'll say is that you should stop for a minute and think.
Okay, I'll continue a little bit more. I don't question some people enjoying Elemental in its current state, but to me as a developer and an all-around supporter of good quality games, slamming the guys at Firaxis this way is really pretty damn rude. I know we're not on the Civ forums but please have some respect at what the guys over there have done. Sure, the game has crap for AI and especially because of this is a big disappointment, but it's still a complete, working game with a lot of cool mechanics.
One of the worst moves by Stardock, I think, was invoking Master of Magic by name. "Spiritual successor" are their words.
Historically, that don't usually work out in the successor's favor. Given that the best parts of MoM (the unique magic system, the vast array of interesting spells, the solid unit and character system) are absent from Elemental in both spirit and substance, and in some cases deliberately so, he should have just left off at "Hell yeah, we love MoM." I know that the minute they started comparing MoM to their game, my expectations went through the roof. And no, not "release" MoM, but the MoM anyone can go out and play right now.
Getting inspired by another product is fine. Using that product's memory to amp up the fan base for your product, is setting the state for disappointment for everyone.
(aside from the usuals of "some people prefer Civ V" or "some people hate Elemental AND Civ V")
I'd be disappointed if 1.1 -> 1.2 wasn't as big of a change as 1.0 -> 1.1. I'm expecting Tactical Battles to be completely re-done, and Magic made a more fundamental part of the game. Or some other similar changes if these two are done later.
You done with your firaxis fan boyism? Cause Civ V is crap. It ruined the series and its integrated with steamworks. Firaxis and all their fanbois can kiss my arse. Not only did they go TOTALLY AGAINST the very design philosophies that Civ was built on..they still stuck sids name on it and sold it to us when its purely anti Cid design wise. Its not that the AI is stupid.. its that the design philosophy is. Things like AI that tries to play like other players is something Cid speaks out against in every game design speech he's ever given. Yet they ignore him (and the design philosophy of the ENTIRE FRANCHISE) and do wtf they wanted, slap his name on it and wonder why fans of the series are pissed.
Probably why Civ V Lead designer Jon Shafer is no longer with firaxis not even 3 months after civ V was released. Last time i saw a lead designer booted so quickly it was.. Brad . So ya I would put them on the same level.
Lets see. Game is released. People are disappointed, Lead designer gets replaced.
Its a carbon copy only the CIV name on the box and "critics" who have never played Civ before and played it for an hour before writing the review saved it from financial ruin
But heres the big difference. The core design issues in Civ V aren't going anywhere and these are the problems that most detractors have issues with. Atleast with elemental we see them changing core design issues to address the overall problems of the game. Not to mention openness with the player base. You know actually conversing with the fans instead of having some paid PR rep trying to upsell everything and ignoring the real issues.
Lastly the discussion is most disappointing GAME... what part of that did you not understand. In case you don't fully understand what that entails it means fell short of expectations. Its natural that a game with such a long history and large fanbase would have far higher expectations than elemental did. Meaning its far easier for it to disappoint. Even easier when they Ignore the design philosophy that BUILT the series.
/endrant
P.S. I'm aware that Cids name is actually Sid.. however I've played far too many final fantasies in my life so it always comes out with a C. Speaking of franchises that are falling from grace...
For me to continue playing this game I need the AI, magic, character customization and the one more turn feeling soon not a year from now. A year from now I wont even remember this game if these things have not been addressed in v1.2 or the first expansion except for wasting my hard earned money.
At this point right now I really wish when I read that first article on gamespot back in Nov 2008 when the game was announced they did not say nothing of MoM because I would have never have even given this game a seond look or if Brad did not constantly refer to MoM at the PAX 09 video on youtube. No matter what people say that we need to look at this game in its own light that will never be for me. I was sold on this game because of Brad / Stardock selling it as MoM. If people do not believe me I will post links to everything that I can find showing Brad / Stardock using MoM as a selling point.
I know that I am not the only one that purchased this game because of the false advertising because I have seen many other people say the samething, but I can show the proof to anyone that says that Stardock never said such things or once they did not get the license for MoM they never said anything about MoM again. I have seen such fanatic fanboys on this site stating these types of things at release when everyone was up in arms over this game.
I think some people are confusing "Which game was less finished" with "which game is more disappointing" when comparing Civ V and Elemental.
Elemental was obviously less finished. I don't think a single Stardock employee would disagree with that statement. The problem is that Civ V was finished (with bad AI) coupled with the fact that Civ V has the legacy of some of the best computer games ever to live up to. Is it unfair to hold them up to Civ 2 or Civ 4 after they were patched and expanded? Maybe. But too bad. That's what expectations are. The game was finished and was finished poorly.
Civ V, with the exception of AI, was a complete polished game when launched. It was disappointing partially because of bad AI, but also because of horrid design decisions and a terrible UI. Take those things, throw them against massive expectations, and you have a major disappointment.
Does Elemental have many of the same problems? Sure. But they aren't the same studio that developed MoM. They call Elemental the spiritual successor, which means that MoM is their inspiration. If anything their expectations come from GalCiv.
Brad isn't the same designer as the MoM team. Sid Meier is the same guy from all the Civilization games. Civ V needs a partial redesign much like Elemental went through with 1.1 (and 1.2?). The difference is that they won't acknowledge it and we'll never see it. You see patches to fix patchable flaws (AI) but you won't see a redesign to fix mechanic flaws.
Elemental was certainly disappointing. It just wasn't Civ V disappointing.
I don't think Civ 5 is fundamentally flawed, I just think the execution and AI are terrible.
Elemental had fundamental flaws, but has shown a willingness to fix flaws in the past, and has fixed a few with 1.1.
This is why I expect the final version of EWOM to smoke civ 5 final edition.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
