[quote who="searro" reply="183" id="2746242"]And if Brad changed name, put money in the caiman's isles and start doing something else ?? [/quote] In the end, it's just a game and you're only out $50. Let's have a sense of proportion here.
[quote who="wynams" reply="4" id="2746181"]Maybe he was on a deadline and couldn't play it.[/quote] If that's the case then he had no business writing a review.
[quote quoting="post"]Btw, how long will it take for Elemental to show up on the shelf for $30?[/quote] Probably not for a couple of years. However, I consider Elemental well worth the asking price now. It's already a deep, addicting, and fun game, and it's only going to get better.
None of those statements are mutually exclusive and therefore not contradictory. Oh, and good job to the OP for lifting a bunch of loosely related comments out of context and jumping to unsupported conclusions. You sure you don't work for PC Gamer ?
[quote who="onomastikon" reply="141" id="2745585"]I'm not sure that's the way it works, though. Normally, people buy a game and if they don't like it, they NEVER buy the expansion pack. The expansion pack is for the people who LIKED the game.[/quote] It depends. Sometimes an expansion pack improves a game significantly enough that it's worth giving the game a second look even if you didn't like it the first time around. Expansion packs are also used to add features that th
[quote who="Dale_" reply="137" id="2745483"]Actually, DRM is NOT a specific form of copy protection, it is ANY protection method. Forcing customers to register to receive patches IS DRM.[/quote] According to the almighty Wikipedia, the term digital rights management "is used to describe any technology that inhibits uses of digital content not desired or intended by the content provider. The term does not generally refer to other forms of copy protection which
[quote who="jshores" reply="104" id="2744898"]The comment in the original context conveys they did a good job, but the times (gamers / industry) have changed, becoming more demanding. In reality, the state the game was released in would not have been acceptable in 2006, or even 1996. The Hubris refers to writing an apology and punctuating it with a sentence that suggests they didn't do anything wrong, it's really the fault of the industry, gamers, whoever. They need to let go of that pride an
[quote who="Quacko" reply="74" id="2744552"]Yeah once you commit to a release date and get shelf space you can't really delay it a week.[/quote] More precisely, you can't do that when you're an independent publisher.
[quote who="MysterD" reply="65" id="2744483"]If you really wanted 1.05 to be the earliest version reviewed b/c that seems to be the one you originally wanted to be the first released version, that should've been what version shipped on disc - even if it meant delaying the game's official release date for a little bit of time.[/quote] Things don't work that way anymore. Now the standard procedure is to ship a gold version as early as possible and then release a day 1 patch provid
[quote who="surlybob" reply="30" id="2744228"]Hit f5 more often. They only leave the posts of complainers when they are poorly argued. Anyone who makes really good points gets modded. Heck, I might even get modded just for saying this, and I'm a total fanboy.[/quote] The best thing about a conspiracy theories is that the nutjobs find a complete lack of evidence to be the most convincing evidence.
[quote who="Tridus" reply="24" id="2744203"]Does your wife know you're writing this? I can see it now: "Honey I'm just going to get a beer." *Sneaks on Internet*[/quote] "You did it again, didn't you?" "What?" "That floozy, the internet... you were with her, weren't you!" "What? No! I was-" "Don't you dare lie to me, Brad Wardell. I can see the sweat on your palms where they were resting on the keyboard!" "Hone
[quote who="niteshade6" reply="115" id="2744273"]I don't see why spearmen getting gunned down by helicopters is an immersion breaker. There have been plenty of times in history when low tech people got gunned down by high tech people. If the spearmen had a reasonable chance of winning that would be different, but they do not (not saying that could never win under any circumstances, but it should be extremely rare and only under unusual circumstances).[/quote] Actually, it can hap
To anybody who's said that Brad should admit that Stardock made a mistake to release the game when and how they did: [quote who="Frogboy"]To those reviewing the game: I would urge you to review the game prior to v1.1 [which will be released sometime in September]. I say this because v1.05 (the release day version) is the version of the game that was originally released and if that version of the game is considered flawed then my view is that Stardock should suffer the consequences
Thanks, Brad! This is why I love Stardock.
[quote who="Tormy-" reply="102" id="2743047"]What the hell is this hysteria with regard to EWoM vs. Civ5?[/quote] I don't know about hysteria, but Civ 5 is undeniably the 500 pound gorilla of turn-based strategy games and an obvious point of comparison for Elemental. That said, I think Elemental offers a distinctive enough experience that Stardock could successfully carve out their own niche.
[quote who="solidsmooky" reply="87" id="2742229"]Elemental only has until Civ 5's release to fix itself. Once Civ 5 comes it's a wrap.[/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by "it's a wrap". Stardock is committed to Elemental and will be working on it exclusively for at least the next year, and that's not going to change even with the release of Civ 5. Another point to make is that this isn't a zero-sum game. Just because a person buys Civ 5 doesn't mean they can't al
My comments were with respect to Stardock's development strategy of releasing a solid foundation for people to buy and essentially test while they spend the next year polishing the game and making changes based on player feedback. It actually reminds me a lot of how open source projects are put together with the obvious exception that the end user is asked to pay for it. This model works fine for an independent company with loyal and dedicated customers who expect it, but it doesn
[quote who="gunnergoz" reply="40" id="2741267"]Knowing that, to encourage the public not to buy a game because it is only partly done (but still playable) is in a sense wishing death upon small indie developers. . . I think reviewers need to keep these things in mind lest they throw out the baby with the bathwater. Not all developers are the same, not all games are the same and not all gamers are the same.[/quote] You make a fair point, but the flip-side of that argument i
[quote who="sicjake" reply="25" id="2740675"]Had I never purchased GalCiv, and if Elemental was my first Stardock game, I'd be pretty upset at my purchase, but I'm not, again only based on Frogboy's dedication to their games long term that I experienced with GCII.[/quote] I mentioned this elsewhere, but I think Stardock's problem at the moment is that they're now a rookie player in the big leagues (thanks to Sins of Solar Empire's widespread popularity) but they're still operating lik
I think Chick's review is fair even if I don't agree with everything he said. I think the game is worth a purchase even at this early stage with the understanding that it's still a work-in-progress and probably will be for the next several months. But despite all that, I'm finding it a blast to play.
[quote quoting="post"]Right now: the perception of this game is that it's unplayable...[/quote] I don't know how that myth started because it has never been the case. Yes, the gold version was in rough shape for a release product, but outright unplayable? Not at all. I'm not sure what a company can to do combat a falsity that so many people appear to have unquestioningly accepted as fact.
I've had a lot of fun with Elemental and think it's worthy of a purchase, but your mileage may vary.
[quote who="vxvoodoo" reply="9" id="2740368"]This looks fantastic, and mock up or not, it comes from Stardock. Which raises the question: WHY wasn't it implemented??? That's top-notch UI, pretty and intuitive. Can anyone from SD explain why it was dropped in the process? [/quote] It's entirely possible that as pretty as it looks, it simply wasn't a workable concept in-game. I'm sure the UI went through several iterations until Stardock found one that did ev
You need a non-aggression pact in order to move freely through each other's territory.
[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="2" id="2740520"]Since when is Stardock "indie", anyway? [/quote] Since they're not beholden to a publisher.