High 70s... if I had to guess I'd say 77 or so....

I think some of FE's design decisions will irk some reviewers (such as the way research is handled).  I still believe the different game systems feel a bit disjointed and the balancing is not quite there.  Also magic is STILL behind MOM in terms of spell diversity...

83 - It deserves more compared to other games, which have a 85+. But thats because of all the arguments here (mass market, niche game etc.).

 Niche games can have some advantage because they are generally reviewed much less so less likely to get bizzaro reviews.I think 75-80 is fair because it is a good game but not in the same league as Dishonored or X-Com in my view.

86

Pretty much the above. The fundamentals are good now. I hope this game will go the same route as the GalCiv games, where by the second expansion the whole game is awesome.

80-85 range, depending on the things we couldn't see yet, like the campaign, and they bug hunting/polishing till release.

Well as is with latest update I would not score it as high as CIV V.  The game is better than it every was but still has some issue (weak AI, no sea units, primitive TC)  I'm not currently noting bugs at this point. so I'll give it a 70 at this point.  With current bugs I'd give a a 68.

Now this is just the Vanilla game. I'm afraid that it aint going to get much better than this before launch. However with modding and expansions this game will go from an Ok game to a fantastic game.  Basic game engine now seem solid so I think this game has the potential to be great.

Now CIV V upon realease should not have been a 90 more like an 80 due to issues it had which God and Kings have mostly addressed. Now it is a 90 IMHO.

78

That's awfully low in my opinion. And here I thought I was one of the most negative guys here in this forum.

I would be quite surprised if the game got less than 75.

I would be really surprised to see any review less than 4 stars.

I'm not sure on what basis it's not, at least, a 4 star game. I'd really want to know how a reviewer could justify less than 4 stars. 

Sometimes this forum sounds too much like the zealots at Civfanatics. It's a real turn off.

I've been on Civfanatics for years and my take is that a lot--maybe a large majority--of the hardcore players won't touch Civ 5.  Firaxis reduced a chess-like game to a checkers-like game, which makes it a waste of time for fans who want a strategy fix.  I haven't played G&K but the problems were in the core design of the game, so it's unlikely to be fixable without starting from scratch.

Anyway, back on topic, why is everyone so glum?  Galactic Civilizations 1 & 2 got great reviews.  Assuming that the quality is the same, shouldn't EFE get similar treatment? 

Most of us that have played the game and supported StarDock have seen how far this game has come since WoM and are basing our assumptions of "nothing less than a 4 star game" on the amount of improvement between FE and WoM and not of the game itself. I can easily imagine reviewers looking at FE and saying things like, "No siege battles, no multiplayer, tactical combat not fleshed out, balancing still needs a little work, seems like the game components aren't gelled together yet... after some updates and expansions this could be a great game. StarDock has come a long way from WoM but is still running down the home stretch before the finish line. I give it 3.5/5 stars."

Reviewers today I think put too much emphasis on how easy the game is to get into. Niche games with steep learning curves? Dominions 3 - 82, Distant Worlds - 78. SotS Prime never got above a 79 even with the expansions (Prime -68, BoB - 79, MoC - 75). All of those games I consider to be strategy classics worthy of space on anybody's HDD... yet only Dom3 cleared the 80 Metacritic bar by a measley two points. FE should get around an 85, but I will not be surprised to see it hovering around 75-79.

79