I've been a long time lurker, but this is my first post in a long time (maybe first ever? don't recall). Without a doubt, Elemental has received more flak than any other game I've ever purchased, and it saddens me to say that much of it is deserved. This has been said before, but we essentially paid for a beta product (hell, I pre-ordered, so I explicitly paid for a beta). What I didn't understand however, is just _why_ there was so much venom in the anti-Elemental posts. I think, now, several weeks after release, I get it.

Despite it's state, people love Elemental: War of Magic (EWoM); or rather, they love what it should be, and they love what they think it still can be. It was hailed at one point as the spiritual successor to Master of Magic (MoM), and if you look at it only superficially, it can be described as Galactic Civilizations 2 (GalCiv) - But With Wizards and Dragons and Swords. As a fan of GalCiv, this sounds fantastic to me. Throw in a MoM feel, and you've got a winner! If you factor in the fact that there just aren't many/any fantasy medieval 4x games out there, or released in recent years (save for a couple of great mods for other games), it's not hard to see that fans of the genre would put high hopes on EWoM.

So why the hate? Well, EWoM at release, and even in it's current admittedly improved state, falls short of the high expectations people placed on it. I won't elaborate on what's wrong; partly because this is subjective, and partly because many of the issues have been covered to death and back on the forums already. It's clear the developers are painfully aware of the issues (and as a programmer myself I can appreciate dealing with so much negative feedback), and it's also clear that they have pledged to resolve the issues and support the game. Thus I have to conclude that the hate comes from such high expectations, and almost a feeling of betrayal at the current state of things; correct me if I'm wrong.

Nevertheless, although I agree with many of the criticisms, I cannot condone the tone they take.

I didn't write this post to criticize the jilted fans either though. I suppose like many others, I just wanted to get my opinion and views out into the air. As I've said, I agree with many of the criticisms of the game. Yet still, I absolutely love the game -- it is very much a diamond in the rough, and I'd like to highlight a few of the high points, as I see them, and what I consider some unfair criticisms of the game.

1. The setting. This includes the graphics, the backstory, and the general look-and-feel of the game. Many seem to disparage the the graphics of the game, citing their bland appearance. I think this is actually a strong point for the game. First, Stardock tried to do something original, instead of making another cartoon-like World of Warcraft (WoW) clone. Maybe they succeeded in making a fine graphical style, or maybe they didn't -- this is subjective -- but I personally applaud the effort at trying to roll their own style. It is no small feat to establish a new, unique visual style, and I believe the world is only better off if more people attempt it, even at the risk of failure. However, it seems to me that the graphics fit the setting _perfectly_. Why? Well, according to the lore of EWoM, we are essentially dealing with a post-apocalyptic medieval fantasy world. This is an ambitious setting, and as far as I know, unique (again, correct me if I'm wrong; it's an intriguing idea and I'd love to play other games in this vein). Having a desolate, drab landscape, and muddy, dirty, _tired_ looking people, seems to be a perfect fit for the lore. Add the fact that only half the factions (Kingdom) are trying to improve things, and the other half (Empire) are actively working to make things worse, and you have one hell of a great, dark setting.

In short, I don't want an MoM clone. If I want to play MoM, I'll load it up. www.gog.com made it easy to run it on modern machines, so there's really no reason not to. I do however want a new setting, with its own unique quirks, and it's clear that EWoM strives for this. (Also, if I wanted a MoM clone with updated graphics, I'd sooner go to Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic -- even they deviate significantly, and yet it was a great game in it's own right.)

2. The future. Often I've heard people claim this project a failure, based on the release version of EWoM, and Stardock's track record, particularly regarding Demigod. This to me is nonesense. I believe that Demigod was an exceptional example, and not the norm (I feel I should state for full disclosure's sake, I enjoyed Demigod as it was, and used it primarily for single player). Demigod for me reflected poorly on Gas Powered Games (GPG), as the developer. Perhaps the publisher, Stardock in this case, controls the funds, but ultimately there is a level of pride in creating a game, and I feel that GPG just didn't have it. Furthermore, I don't believe that Demigod is a good example to use against Stardock, because Stardock had a similar relationship with Ironclad, with a little known game called Sins of a Solar Empire (SoaSE) (yes, that's sarcasm). SoaSE received no shortage of free updates and great expansions; was it perfect? no. It certainly wasn't bad though (and in my opinion quite fantastic), and they worked hard together to create one hell of a memorable gaming experience.

Regardless, neither of these two points are really relevant. EWoM is not like either of these two games, since it was published _and_ developed in house, and so I think it only fair to judge Stardock based on similar projects, such as the GalCiv series. Again, it is only my opinion, but GalCiv (2) was a fantastic game. There was no shortage of updates and extra content, and the expansions were large enough (and again, supported enough) to be warranted. I thoroughly enjoyed GalCiv, though I will readily admit it is not flawless. However, I will also just as readily admit it is one of the few games that has been sitting on my hard-drive since I installed it, and one of the few games that still gets played every now and then, even though it came out years ago. I would not put it on the same level as Master of Orion (MOO) 2, but I would place it as an equal to MOO 3 (yes, again, full disclosure, I'm one of the few perverts that actually liked this game -- though they should have advertised it as a bureaucracy simulator instead of 4x), the Space Empires series, and a few others. GalCiv was not perfect, but it was great. Perhaps there are some problems with it, but this is the case with every game, good or otherwise (and if you think MoM is perfect, do load it up; it has problems, it's just that its awesomeness overshadows those flaws). Dominions 3 (dom3) is another similar example; there are many things about this game that infuriate me (the level of micro management in the mid-late game is insane, by my standards, particularly with the noobish but fun LA Ermor). This doesn't stop me from craving it though, as there's just too much that it does right.

To summarize, if Stardock states they will fix the issues with EWoM, I will believe them, as it is an in-house project. That they pledge a year to it alone, is also taken in good faith, as it seems like similar effort had been put into GalCiv. And keeping all of this in mind, I don't expect them to ever make "the perfect game"; EWoM will always be flawed in some way, as again, much of a game's quality is subjective. However, the setting is already there, dark and dreary as it is, and now it just needs a little bit of polishing.

3. The CEO. Brad Wardell. He didn't get as much flak as EWoM, but almost. However, this doesn't seem relevant to the game itself. Some people seemed to see an arrogant game developer trying to stiffle criticisms, but I think he was simply passionate about his work. Indeed, he put it best himself (paraphrasing here) when he "got too involved in the game as a programmer, and couldn't take an objective look at its status as far as completion was concerned, immersing himself too much in a world he loved". You can fault a developer for being an ass, but you can't fault him for legitimately liking his work, and striving to make it great. Furthermore, in all honesty, he did apologize adequately after cooling off, and made no cheap British-Pertrol-esque attempt at pretending there were no problems, but instead outright admitting them and pledging to get them resolved. Perhaps this is a token apology, but in an increasingly impersonal field of business, even that means something coming so readily and early in a game's development.

As to him being too active on the forums... I can think of some other CEOs that have a very public-facing life. Steve Ballmer is famous among non-Microsoft employees for his ridiculously over-the-top speeches, and Steve Jobs IS Apple, I'm convinced. The guys that run digg (it's current state notwithstanding) have their diggnation each week, where more often than not you learn about beer, and so on. CEOs that interact with the public are just part of the company culture, but don't really appear to affect the development going on behind the scenes. I guess what I'm getting at is, you can hate (or love) Brad, just don't confuse him for EWoM itself.

All right, this post has gone on longer than I planned initially. If you've read it in full, I thank you in advance. Feel free to add your comments, though bear in mind these are mostly my opinions only.