I think he missed the part about the world emptying to make way for the endgame wars. Of course, the endgame needs more direction and the faction AI needs more teeth, so that's probably why he missed. I think I'll stop reading so many reviews. All I can think about when I read them is how I agree, feel my mod fixed those issues. Most reviews are a total disconnect for me. I am surprised that modability is not a factor in their analysis.

I think that modability isn't an issue until there are some really good mods out there. Or rather, until a mod is recognized as being really good. Until then, it's hard to say "Well we might get a good mod in a few months" in a review. (Though from what the reviewer was saying about it being a construction kit he should certainly think so.)

I have to agree about the endgame wars--if the AI were able to put together a serious endgame war then there would be a clear boundary between "making the world safe" and "making the world yours" and "emptyness" wouldn't be a problem. I think the AI is close: I've had Relias throw some serious armies at me in one game, and Yithril shows promise this time. But until the AI can recover from an initial defeat and put together a second wave, we're not quite there.

Until there are a few great mods? You've cut me to the core, good sir. Recognized or not, there are two wonderful mods that were ready at release. And one of those is on the same skill level as a game reviewer, beginner.

Calm down there, getting a bit hubris-y. We're not quite near "great" yet.

A "great" mod to me is something that gets talked about before the actual game, such as Day-Z, or FFH2 (not that I played it). I think our mods are fun to play, but "great" is overstating things. If there was a MoM total conversion with a year of development behind, it might be called "great".

It was an interesting review to say the least.

Ultimately, the market will decide whether it's worthwhile to continue investing in the PC games unit.  We have one more expansion pack we've promised to do. After that, we shall see.

Rock Paper Shotgun produce some of the best constructed reviews on the internet, and are easily the best PC Gaming site around.  However, I think they cover themselves nicely with the "WOT I THINK" title - this is merely the reviewers opinion.  And, like a few times before, our opinions differ in this case.  It's no biggie as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's a fair assessment of Elemental, and none of it is biased or unfounded.  I can understand how the game can be perceived as lacking a personality.  Shit, I couldn't tell you a thing about any of the in-game factions.
But the same can be said for virtually every RTS Game, including Stardock/Ironclad's own SoSE series which they gave a glowing review.  The thing I love about this "blank canvass" is that I can create my own damn story.  My guy is who I make him.  I build little stories in my head - in a game running at the moment, a bunch of random monsters formed a party after I failed to kill them off.  I've construced an elaborate little story in my mind for this tiny scenario - and if the game was trying to shove it's own story down my throat, that would be impossible.

Horses for courses, I guess.  Fallen Enchantress suits me perfectly.  Maybe I'm biased?  I don't know.

The comment about Warlock sums it up. If you are looking for a game you consume in a few weeks, FE isn't for you. 

Which game do you think people will still be playing in a year? Warlock or FE?

It's a shame that reviewers are rewarding games like XCOM, which come and in 20 to 30 hours of play but are critical of games that have a lot of pieces available. If you play as one faction, some pieces of the world aren't very relevant. 

I understand what he's saying in his review. I just don't agree.  What he wants in his games seems to be every trend I am disliking in modern gaming. The shift towards tight, focused pieces of entertainment consumption. 

What score? I don't see a score.

I think that it was unnecessarily harsh.

I encourage everyone to support FE on all fronts when it comes to review sites ... with the full disclaimer that I likely won't be doing so, at least not until I've played 1.0 for more than 1 full game, tried some custom options, and tried a few of the pre-desig maps compared to the random maps.

Most of his points had been made by the community during the beta. So I don't think people are waiting for the "reviewers to make up their minds for them".

I think legitimate issues are being identified and discussed. Once again I say, the developers should trust fan feedback a bit more. It's nothing like WoM's case, but even for FE a few valid complaints have been too hastily dismissed. Still, I think the expansion will have the chance of finally "getting there".

I couldnt read all this wall of flame in that site. The only thing i realised is that people want easy, fast pased, non complex games that ends in a max of 30 hours. Warlock was a piece of @!$ and unfortunately XCOM failed in my eyes too. Was enjoyable but when i finished it i had the taste "That was it?" It follows the modern trend of small original games with many DLCs you have to buy separately (they already announced the first DLC for XCOM)

People also must realise that not all games are for the same taste. If you dont like a game simply dont play it. Dont start a flame war mocking those who liked it. As Lantros said you cant satisfy everybody. After all we all have different option about how the game should be (there is always room for mods  ) 

After that review from now on i am gonna read the only the review of a game. That comments really tire me

Agreed.