Nah.  It means we have something to do while they fix this game.

Wow, worse than Civ 4 (9.4) - a game I hated with a passion.  This is good news, it means I spent my money wisely on Elemental.

This IGN Review is pretty valid in my opinion, I do however think a 7 would have been a better score. I have no doubt that Stardock will get this up to a 9 soon enough.

Yeah, I don't know about the rest of you, but my favorite games are usually in the 7-8 score range.  9.0 or above usually means that the game focused on too much polish and not enough "game" (which consequently, most reviewers think more highly of).

Guys maybe let's wait for the demo before judging ?

So a troll jumps in with a review of another game, and this is what it generates...awesome.

What on earth does the Civ 4 score have to do with whether Elemental is worth the money or not?

You sound like someone who is experiencing some severe cognitive dissonance.

By this logic, doesn't that mean Civ V is better than Civ IV?  Since you feel elemental is better and it got a lower score?

It's rare to find valid logic in post-hoc rationalizations (and other ego defense mechanisms).

He never said anything about Elemental being better than either. From that comment, all you can tell is that Civ V isn't as good as Civ IV, which he hated. Personally I don't get what the comparison between the two is, they are different games, almost like night and day. You might like one better than the other, or maybe you like both. Big deal.

I'll probably end up getting Civ V, but honestly I have very low expectations for it, having played Civ II and the 3000 incarnations of it to death and back. Civ III and Civ IV and all the expansions pretty much rotted on my HDD until some decent mods came along that made it different. I expect the same will be true for Civ V, I'll get 1-2 games in, then set it aside for a year until a good mod come along. So to address the comment about the end of Elemental... "no." Then again, I don't judge games on how IGN scores it in the first place.

No, but he made a post-hoc rationalization for his purchase of Elemental based on a ridiculous premise (that Civ 5's score was lower than Civ 4, which he hated). His posts have all the hallmarks of buyer's remorse. He is attempting to resolve his cognitive dissonance over this mistake by attacking Civ 5.

Perhaps he was and perhaps he was not, I don't pretend to know what his psyche holds. Still, I follow his logic just fine. He hated Civ IV, sees Civ V scoring lower and thought, oh, good thing I bought Elemental instead. The only one I'm worried about is why you guys are attacking him.

Where you lose the logic is the fact that Elemental scored lower than both Civ IV AND Civ V making his happiness based on those scores illogical.  See?  Logic is easy.

So if a lower score is better, than Civ V must be better than Civ IV.  Which is the only way the logic could work.

It's perfectly fine to ditch the scores in your thought process and like whatever game you want, but when you use the scores to quantify your happiness it all sorta breaks down.

These things usually come down to economics and denial. People who can't afford to buy the latest hot thing and want it desperately and know that lots of other people can afford it, attack it instead to make themselves feel better. It never works!

The logic is a bit bamboozling you have to admit. To paraphrase:

"I didn't like Civ 4 which got a 9.4, therefore I wouldn't like Civ 5 which got a 9, so it is great that instead I bought Elemental which got a 6."

Either he cares about the IGN scores in which case he should clearly be playing Civ 4 (or 5) instead of Elemental, or he doesn't give a hoot about the IGN scores in which case why is he criticising Civ 5 for getting (marginally) less than Civ 4?

Not that I really care obviously - if he prefers Elemental and that is the game he bought then, great, big win for him!

I just couldn't resist commenting on the logic