added Meristation , Gameshark , and Gamernode reviews.

Alright so I was in a really bad mood yesterday and took it out on Fatindian. (Sorry indian)  In other news, I don't really like some of these reviews. I can only assume some of them are playing the gold version to score it this way. Which of course since thats what "shipped" they have every right to do so.

There also seems to be a "Let's stick it to Stardock" attitude making the rounds, which is unfortunate since some of these reviewers seem determined not to give Elemental a fair shake.

Most reviewers are reviewing 1.06 and say so in their reviews. I mostly agree with what's been said.

Gameshark:

"The world is generic..."

"A fireball does less damage than your average sword..."

"The tactical battles are never very interesting because so many of the units are basic melee guys and you will have run roughshod over the map before you get to anything interesting. If you use the auto-resolve, the attack rating will be all you need to worry about as hordes of peasants and observers take city after city. Lead the rabble to victory and feel like a king, I suppose. In most cases you don't even need to worry about the AI opponents. They will send out tiny armies or single heroes to take lightly defended cities while you rush on to the capital."

"Elemental is now undercooked with no incentive to keep sitting down to dinner."

Sounds like Elemental to me.

I disagree completely.  More than one big site, according to news blurbs linked on this post, have delayed their reviews because of the state of the game, a kindness they do not often extend to publishers.

And of the reviews that have come through, almost all of them have some kind of caveat/disclaimer saying something to the effect of 'It's Stardock.  The game will get better, its not there yet.'  Stardock is getting a pass here.  Giving this game a C is generous considering the current state of the game as of 1.06.

found this review from Papercut Productions on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahTehhLD5ec

final score: 85%

They're also glossing over or ignoring the whole "multiplayer won't work until at least 2 weeks after launch" thing. That's a kindness not usually shown when stuff listed on the box is flat out missing.

Says singleplayer or multiplayer. so technically you get the promised point on the box. But yeah I know what you mean.

The very beginning of the current PC Gamer issue (# 205 : October 2010) -- the first 2 pages after the magazine's cover -- is a 2-page advertisement for Elemental, paid by Stardock. 

Those full-page, 2-page ads are very expensive. Stardock is a regular advertiser in that monthly magazine.

Let's wait and see if PC Gamer will dare publish a negative review, with a mediocre score, in its November issue (out in 3 weeks).

In the current issue, there's a small Elemental preview, on page 48. Dan Stapleton, after having played some pre-1.01 version, concludes his preview by declaring :

"I've got great confidence that it'll live up to its potential by launch day."

Whatever .. Gamespot and Shacknews and surely others are holding off reviews for further patches. That is cutting Stardock more of a break than recent history anyone has done for ANY size publisher.

There are enough reviews out that we can get a pretty good sense of what most people are seeing with the game.  It's a credit to the devs that there is so much praise for what they are attempting and so much confidence that they will eventually get there.  But that said, Stardock can't really pretend that the release is meeting critical expectations, either.  There are a lot of respected reviewers that have weighed in and unless you think there is a vast conspiracy, it's hard to ignore those.

That's not to say that there aren't forum members on various sites who are exagerrating the games flaws.  I'm having fun with it and it hasn't crashed once in hours of gameplay, for example, and yet you'd think the game was an unstable unplayable mess from what some have said.  However, most of us acknowledge (even Stardock based on the already announced patch plans) that there are a lot of ways the game can be improved.

Now it'd be damn funny if they enabled MP and disabled SP at the same time.

Frankly, it's just getting the reviews that a contingent of beta testers feared back at the end of July.

I've played half a dozen games, one lasting in excess of four hundred turns. There's a lot of potential, enough that I'm excited to see what happens over the next six months, but right now this puppy is still essentially in beta mode at 1.06. For me, the oom and other bugs are less problematic than the anemic dynasty system, anemic magic system, dearth of special abilities, inconsequential differences between factions, not able to switch weapons during combat, not able to upgrade or equip existing units, having to destack units to select them for strategic buffs, not able to clear forests, and a general lack of flavor etc.

If this were the finished game, I wouldn't play another turn. Thank the gods it's not. I think some reviewers (and forum trolls) may have axes to grind, but a lot of the critics are saying the same thing: overhaul Elemental so it lives up to the original vision and it'll be a hell of a game. Meanwhile, it's getting reviewed for its very much unfinished state.

Most likely PC Gamers review will be "C- for effort" like most of the others. Maybe once the miracle patch arrives, they'll get a follow up review, but that's only if Civ V fizzles. All bets are off if Civ V surpasses its predecessor.