Maybe you would still call them so, maybe not. I'm pretty sure if most reviews stated that the game is good all the peole who curse and soil the reviewers in this forum would be pretty happy and call them wise men... NO word about whores to the industry. only because they state the truth (in my opinion which originated in personal gaming experience) which is uncomfortable for all the fanboys they get even worse and throw shit on everybody who doesn't share their opinion (which is blended by fanboyism)... and that's ridiculous, even if it's normal behavoir of most people on this planet.

sorry for bad english, hope my point gets clear nonetheless.

That's just a balance problem, though. A lot of things work better in early game then in late game because of how the numbers line up, the "if your sovereign dies in enemy territory it's game over" mechanic, and the bug that makes shards not work and thus magic not scale properly.

This is why I get annoyed when people think that "balance" really means that everything has to be identical for MP. It doesn't. It actually means that there isn't some "do this and you win" super build that nothing else can counter.

cum means slash (i.e. also, along with, etc.):

so TBS cum RPG is like saying:

TBS/RPG

Batman.

From site: Elemental really is a steaming pile of bugs right now, but the incredible game within is visible even through the haze of frustration.  I cannot recommend buying as-is, but keep Elemental on your radar screen if you have even the slightest interest in the genre.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  If the innumerable bugs get fixed, and mod support truly works, then this game will be off the charts in terms of pure strategy-gaming awesome.  I'd even be able to cease pining for Age of Wonders.[/quote]

Very nicely put. Totally agree.

Agree with a D+ in its current state, too.

It's not just poor balance. The basic system Elemental uses to compute results is simply not right for the game. Balance-wise, the problem is that values have to be too low and too similar to produce a predictable result. Sadly, that problem is made worse by how simple the system is: it simply isn't enough to be interesting/compelling, and it's not just a major departure from the usual "to-hit + to-damage + to-avoid-damage" mechanics similar games have (and players expect), the simplicity makes special abilities, spells & whatnot feel boring and same-y.

As for the reviews, I really don't know what you guys expect. The game is in no shape to be reviewed yet, but Stardock shipped it anyway. Any honest review of the present state of the game has to warn people away from it with big letters, because, well, not everyone is a Stardock forum dweller with the patience of 10 saints and a wholly unreasonable willingness to pay to help beta test. You, dear reader, and I probably are exactly that. But we're neither the norm nor the audience reviews of Elemental are aimed at.

You are totally missing the point. And in fact, you are probably doing exactly what the reviewer did. You glanced at the information and jumped to conclusions.

We don't care about the score, I think the game deserves a lower score. The point is, the reviewers knows next to nothing about the game he is reviewing. I doubt he even played it, to be honest.

Actually READ the review, pay attention to the details given about the game. The dude didn't play the game, period.

Here is my belief:

Most of the reviewers are used to games that are very polished and very intuitive.  They are also probably used to an instruction manual and a tutorial.  Let us face this fact, right now, this game has none of the above items.  So, for the average casual gamer, this game will be beyond their understanding.  This game, as it stands, will only appeal to people who are used to playing the civilization, the alpha centaris, the MOO, the MOM, and the other 4X games already.  People who can figure out, with out the computer telling you, that your cities need work because they are only level 1 and the enemy CPU cities are level 3.  Most of us can realize, we are doing something wrong if the CPU can grow a city to level 3 but we can not and we are in an "ideal" location with food already within the city borders.

The game does lack polish in that aspect.  I just got the game last night.  I was doing well on Extreme.  Until I realized that this one enemy computer CPU had 3 cities that were 5 times my size and my two cities were still stuck at level 1.  Then i realized how to gather the resources within my influence (the clay, the fertile land, the goldmine).  The game sure did not help me much in realizing that I needed to do something to them.  I just ASSUMED (and we all know what happens when you assume) I had to research a technology or item to gather resources from that specific item.  So I was going thru the Civilization tech tree line looking for a farm to build to get to level 2 on my city.  If the game was a bit more UI intuitive or tutorial friendly, I may not have made that mistake.  Likewise, I was dominating an EXTREME NPC soverign that had 3 cities tat were level 5 and I only had 2 cities at level 1.  I could never muster enough forces to capture a city, but I kept him from leaving his, though.

This.

You're pretty much on your own in finding credible information.  There's also that double standard where you can trash the little guys, but if some big company does the same it is okay. 

100% accurate?

The 1UP review refers to a "robust multiplayer". 

We're hating on that reviewer not because the review is negative (I agree that the game is buggy and not fun atm), but because the reviewer has no clue what he is talking about.

Which makes me wonder - what's the point?

If a reviewer is looking at it with his/her taste - and I have my taste and if they don't match, how much value is in the review? If I don't know if I like the game or not - but the reviewer might not have my taste in games or look for what I look for, how much stock should I put in the review? There's no way of knowing the taste/what they are looking for? Is the reviewer praising it because he/she likes it or because it's actually that good that just about anyone would like it? Likewise for things that are bad.

Never mind the whole "condense the game to a single number in an arbitrary and not-even-standard number system". It's like trying to convert from metric to english units. 7 here is average, 7 there is good, 5 there is bad, etc. What's the practical difference between a 7.7 and 7.8? A 8.9 and 9.2? A 4.9 and a 5.0? Is there really any separation of quality there or just some way to try to split hairs to say which game is "better"?

And what are reviews geared to? Fans of the genre? Fans of the company's past offering? Fans of the sub-genre? "Casual" Gamers? "Hardcore" Gamers?

It just makes me wonder why it's such a review based thing when it seems like it should be a demo-based thing - i.e. demos for the gamers so gamers individually can make decisions based on actual experience with the game - especially if reviewers can't, by nature of their jobs and assignments - delve deep in to some games that might require a long investment of playtime to really get everything out of it.

I look at both the critics and the user reviews, and make a combined opinion based on that.   Sometimes they're wrong, but usually they're right.   Simply look up reviews for games you've already played and see how that compares.  I've done that, and I've confirmed that the forums hosted by the games themselves are biased.   It's not necessarily the censorship and the moderation; it's that you're getting only the people who still play the game on the site.   Stardock is wise to allow negative reviews on its own site--because I'm watching, and if I see a thread delete, that adds to my sense that the site is biased.   Allowing stuff also means that I am able to feed my input to their marketing department.   I haven't played the game.  Does that discredit everything I have to say?   No...because what's the #1 question marketing is going to ask?    "Why aren't more people buying the game"?"