Taking the average review is such a poor system in general. First off it is a volunteer statistical poll and these are inherently biased as the only people that are going to post a review or reply are those that have a strong opinion to begin with or have some incentive to do so. Once you get through the zealotus crowd of reviewers (a.k.a. the angry or pationate viewers of the item) the poll is skewed away from the objective reviewers. Sifting through a review to get to these are tedious to say the least.
If this review system was any good, there wouldn't be a need to have actual game reviewers. This leads to another problem about taste. Get somebody who likes 4x games will give 4x games will give more critical reviews when it comes to 4x games. But if they are indifferent to 4x games these games get less criticism and at times get an unfair review in the end.
Then there is the problem of expectation. If the expectation of the game must meet certain criteria to whatever is on the reviewers mind about the game, then the game will succeed or fail on that opinion alone and be graded with that in mind. A rather poor system indeed. The problem is the vision of FE from what the developer was intending to the game must be an integral part in the final product. The review must also reflect whether or not the developer succeeded in what they were intending with the game. For example, if the developer was designing a game to force the characters to disco dance after each successful tatical battle for 3 turns and the game does this, then this is a successful game from the goals of the developer. But from the player stand point this may be a undesired feature. Does it mean that the review of the game should be lower or higher? A non-game example of this would be to take Picasso and his abstract art. Picasso did exactly what he intended, but people didn't like it. It should be able to be reviewed and judged based on two different review numbers. Picasso doing what he intended (thumbs-up), peoples desire to own such art (thumbs-down).
There are mechanical choices that were made in FE to which I don't agree, but from the developers point of view they succeeded in the mechanic itself (snaking to trees/rivers... is their a way to mod this back in by the way?). Should I downgrade the game because of this, or should I give them the thumbs up here. My personal assessment of FE from playing the game for roughly 6+ months in the beta. I say this game is a huge plus. Bugs are negatives yes, but not the sole reason to lower a score. There may be 100 or so open bugs for this game (I don't know), but looking at the amount and quantity of game this should not have a large effect the score.
I would say based on what the goals of the developers here the game itself should get a good score between 90-95. Based on my experience from the game and what I felt the developers goals were and my expectations from this game, I'd give it a 90. I would be hard pressed to try and lower my score from this point because it is a great game and fits very close to what the developers were intending with the game.
I have to say thank you to Stardock for producing and creating this great game that I have had a lot of fun playing and enjoy each aspect. I would like to see what they could do if they were not limited to a 32-bit os. I'd like to pay / play a 64-bit version of the game with extra content. We'll see whether this will be a possibility in the future.