Elemental Forums
Forgive me if this has already been posted...
http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/02/elemental-war-of-magic-review/
Who is tom francis and why should I care about his opinion? Where's Dan Stapleton or Desslock?
The game has been released far, far too early
And so was your review.
That’s the game Stardock put in the box, relying on a day-one patch to get it to an acceptable state. But the game’s requirements don’t include an internet connection to play, and even if they did, the optimistically named ‘day 0’ patch wasn’t out when they actually released the game to pre-orderers.
You'd think he would reaize how long it takes for a game that went gold to be printed, packaged, shipped, and sold.
My wife. I can sell my wife? Why can I sell my wife? How can I sell my wife? What happens to my wife if I sell her? Am I really going to sell my wife? More to the point, how much will they pay for my wife?
What a horrible and yet awesome way to describe Elemental. I like this review - everyone's complaining about the problems, but they do a good job of emphasizing all the awesome possibilities that lie behind the problems.
I thought the review was fair. It clearly acknowledges the vast potential in the concept and framework of the game, but also calls out Stardock for releasing a game that wasn't ready. No game is perfect out the box, but this one probably shouldn't have been released until at least the 1.07 patch. There are always hardware configurations that cause problems, but the released version had issues on many systems. Most bothersome to me is the numerous flaws in the coding that should have been obvious to any quality control - shards not working (key to making magic more scalable), sign errors in coding like in the Confusion spell where it increases attack, the mana regen error for the Umber, where they got 50 per turn, buildings that don't work as decribed or at all, etc. Rebalance and tweaking, adding new features, I think that's fine to add in patches, but basic gameplay should be working. There are about 5x more bugs than there should be in an "average" release.
That being said, I am playing the game and enjoying it, but as soon as the newness of it wears off, I can see the long-term replayability fading without some serious patchwork, especially the AI (yes I know they are going to focus on it). I have no doubt Stardock can fix things to at least make an A- game. (GalCiv2 was an A+ in my mind).
I've been wondering why Stardock was in such a rush to get it out. They must have known it had issues. My best guess is that Civ5 is coming out a month later. There is significant overlap in the target market for EWOM and Civ5 and for most of that market, Civ5 is probably the better known and more must-have title. If Stardock had released later, the game might have been overshadowed by Civ5, which could absorb 4x gamers for months and possibly dominate the holiday season. So maybe a decision was made to get it out now and secure market presence and sales. Patches could be done quickly to get it working better. Otherwise, wait until later in the year.
i think this sentiment is shared by most players...
But most of this excitement is over the game Elemental could be, rather than the game it is.
/me goes back to playing
Wow I'm really surprised the game got a 70/100. The guy was pretty much complaining the entire time.
you sir are so correct when a game is released to be sold, reviewers should wait 2-3 years before there review.
Or maybe just maybe game companies should release finished products with out a ton of bugs.
otherwise a very fair review. suprised they gave it 70
Tom Francis is probably the best known game reviewer in the business. PC Gamer also waited nearly a week to print, more time and leniency than most games get. Think before posting.
The issues raised by the reviews are consistent across the whole spectrum of reviews--almost uniform. The designer of the game himself has stated that the reviews are correct and more than fair.
2-3 years is just insulting. They waited about a couple of months before they finally reviewed Mount&Blade Warband. Another game that was in the same boat as this one. They also did the same thing to another game, I think it was GTA4? Where they reviewed it but didn't give it a final score till they threw in the multiplayer and finished the game. And rerwrote the review and scored it the next month. I don't see why they can't do the same here. I just don't see the point in writing a review that'll be terribly outdated by the end of the month.
Perhaps, but I know I got the LE and right out of the box it worked. There was no crashing to desktop every 5 minutes, and it certainly wasn't unplayable. Whether it was fun in its present state is another matter.
There's a much bigger company, and more ad dollars behind a GTA game...a sad truth about magazine reviews.
Don't be a fanboy, he's right.
That's exactly it. And I get called a fanboy in the above post for it.
1.07 came out today so the review of 1.06 is just like I said earlier. Pointless.
Oh really? So they smuggled proper magic, diverse factions, proper tactics, good AI and multiplayer in it w/out saying so in changelog?
Today's patch does not address ANY of issues pointed out in the review, so its not 'pointless', its still 'spot on', and will be so for monthes, at least.
I'd suggest simply ignoring Ahroo. He is clearly either mentally challenged, or somehow emotionally invested in how this game is reviewed.
1.07 invalidates all reviews... 
You remind me of Derek Smart's sycophants that were shocked and outraged that Battlecruiser was poorly received.
Well in my book 60s are average games, 70s are good games, 80s are excellent games, and 90+ is damn near perfect. But I don't care cause I know for a fact that we got tons of free updates rolling out to us so who cares. 
I was wondering this the other day - do game reviews thing 70 is average, or 50? or do they think it's something else?
I usually went with a 70 was average, and recently i've gotten in many arguments with friends who say 50 is. If they were going on a 50 average, I overrated a lot of girls on the hotness scale probably.
I suggest simply ingoring you. You clearly can't read or comprehend posts. Rushing to troll while you only make yourself look like a fool in the end. Let me state it again for those with the attention span of a goldfish.
GTA4 gets released in an unfinished state. The graphics are taxing on even high end machines. The multiplayer hasn't even come out yet. PC Gamer doesn't review it, instead choosing to wait a month for the devs to fix up the game before giving it a final score. This game comes out, same exact problems. Do they wait a month before giving it a final score? Do they wait till they put in the multiplayer? Do they even wait for the 1.1 patch that's coming this month? Nope! Let's just score it, tell people to avoid the game, and call it a day. That's clearly fair. I just don't get what the rush of making a review so early was for.
Well I think that's a problem with game reviews, that there isn't any one consistent way to interpret the numbers. Although I've never known a reviewer to consider a 50 to be average.
I personally tend to automatically think of a 70 as a C-, since that's what it would be as an academic grade. So for me 70 isn't average, 70 is bad. I know many reviewers think the same way, but not all of them do.
75 is "average". That is, a game to get if you already like the genre and have plenty of money and time to spend on better game in addition to this game. Otherwise, there are better games out there for you.
61-75% is Fair
"A decent effort that, but for a little more polish, coulda been a contender."
76-89% is Good
"Enjoyable, well-made and entertaining--just falling short of true greatness."
And so on.. according to PCgamer. I don't know what the UK PCgamer scale is.
Tom Francis is the guy that Brad Wardell personally compiled and handed over a copy of the 1.0 version of the game in order for him to preview it. He is also a friend of Mr. Wardell's.
From https://forums.elementalgame.com/394855/page/4/#replies
Tom Francis's debiliating PC Gamer preview only was possible was because I personally compiled a version for him (of v1.0) for him to see because the v1.0 version doesn't work outside North America (region checking). In other words, that negative PC Gamer UK preview was only possible because I was so confident in Elemental's readiness that I bypassed Stardock's PR people to get a friend of mine in Europe a copy.
You do realize that Brad (aka Frogboy) has strongly encouraged reviewers to review elemental now instead of waiting, saying that he thinks that this is the fair thing to do?
That seemed like a descriptive, helpful, and fair review. I'm actually impressed with the text, though the entire system of "scores" is a terrible way to judge games.
I should say when discussing, we actually were debating over 7 and 5, not 70 and 50. that might change this drastically.
I think I can answer the question why they don't wait. It's because reviews are supposed to be a service for the consumer. Not for the publisher or developer. It is the responsibility of the publisher or developer to actually put out a good, finished and polished product if they want a good review. Why shouldn't reviewers review the same copy sold on retail shelves? It would be a huge disservice for reviewers to wait on patches. In this case it really wouldn't have made any difference. Bad is bad.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.