Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
34 
Report this post
https://steamdb.info/app/698670/graphs/
but if in 2023 hey never mention their sale, it mean the game doesnt sell so much
Were my opinion being asked, Scorn as a whole doesn't feel like a game whose production value equates to or surpasses full private funding, an 150K supplementary Kickstarter, and then a cash infusion from Microsoft. It feels more like a sub-100K indie project made by half a dozen college students on their old studio computers, and were that the case, I'd argue this would be held in much higher regard.
However, it was made by a professional team of 40 people, in a professional studio, with professional tools. Knowing this information, and more than that, knowing that this apparently took eight years to make, it's rather easy for one to deduce that the value of the game we got, playtime, assets, quality, et-cetera, was most likely nowhere close to equal to the amount of financial gain the studio received while making the game, both from backers, investors, Microsoft, and their Kickstarters.
Some people are theorizing that Ebb cut out the parts they cut out and slashed the total playtime to just pocket the extra money as a little side bonus, I'm on the fence about that but I do feel like the total amount of money invested by outside parties wasn't used fully by Ebb on the game.
Knowing that? We can condense the following, angry videogame defenders ready to disembowel me be aware these are educated guesses made on available evidence, I am not crucifying your child, I am speaking from what I've seen:
Financial success?: Depends. If they skimped on production costs, they're likely sitting on a good bit of surplus right now alongside however many copies of this get sold. Time will only tell if this outweighs the damage that it seems like they've done to their clientbase by releasing what many (Including myself) feel is a half-finished title with too many major parts cut out, but odds are they calculated and considered it a worthy gamble.
Social success?: Also depends. While a lot of people are quick to rush to defend this game despite knowing nothing of the development history or what was supposed to be the end result, there are many original patrons and backers who remember what was talked about and what the game was supposed to be like originally, an experience which, despite being the whole reason they supported the game in the first place, they never got. These members of the veteran's club know most about what was supposed to happen and how, and they're a source of notable income Ebb will have alienated with a move like this. People who actually do their research and look into the full history of the Scorn project as a whole might also be likely to steer clear of buying it or future titles from the studio, and said veterans are no doubt going to remember what was promised and what wasn't delivered.
Groundbreaking success?: Not really. At the end of the day, Scorn is...Still a game that's rooted in methods and mechanics that've been done elsewhere, and others would also say done better elsewhere. It doesn't really bring anything new to the table in terms of how one plays a game or what goes on within it.
Artistic/Conceptual success?: Mixed inputs. While Scorn did create a visually unique and stand-out artstyle and a world to go with it, because of the crippled length of the game and lack of depth or variety, what's witnessed by the player are moreso carefully curated snippets than a diverse and 'non-linear experience' like what's shown in the artbook. One must remember that the works of Giger and the like have already been done, Ebb's just further exploring that field...But it's arguable that the quality done does not excuse or surpass the lack of quantity. When you're doing something that's already been done, you usually have to pack a pretty heavy punch to surpass it, Ebb, however, according to those who've dug into things, have failed to deliver in this regard.
Yeah, I mean they could have at least released a statement before release of the game which reads the following:
"We gave our best, but the goals we had in mind for making our first game where just too overambitious. We had to cut a certain amount of content and are planing to release the game as an 5 hour long experience close to games like "Soma" and "Amnesia" instead of the "non-linear horror adventure" we were hoping to make "
and than sell it for 20 $
Instead of saying nothing at all and continue to falsely advertise it on their steam page as "6-8 hour long non-linear horror adventure where you acquire different skill sets" while charging 35-40 $ for it.
Ordinal and blacksunempire bring up very valid points. Thanks.
They could of course realize the dream and original promises from the kickstart by continue working on the game.
But i doubt they are going to do that. Probably forgetting scorn and focusing on the next game.
A sad trend that happens too commonly in todays gaming industri.
The positive reviews grow daily, it's now at 72% - it was at 61% on launch.
That means that as more people play the game, more people are enjoying the game than not, which means that the negative reviews were just a knee jerk reaction.
Steam doesnt count tho.
On steam almost every game gets rated as "mostly positive".
Even Agony is sitting on steam at 50 % positive ratings.
You get a much more acurate picture if you just look at the metacritic user reviews, where Scorn is sitting on an average score of 6.7/10:
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/scorn
It also means that on day one, 61% of players were not happy- as a snapshot for a game that I would have to assume many players completed in one sitting, it is not a good sign.
I wasn't speaking on just positive reviews or the numbers of such. I was commenting on the link that was previously provided, and the player numbers on a 5 hour game and the reactions from kickstarters and other supporters.
Even if reviews go to 99% positive, it doesn't clear up the issues and launch of the game. Replayability is not there from what I and others can tell. And a 5 hour jaunt in this game's world is all you need to see and do EVERYTHING. Even positive reviews (as well as negative ones) suggest watching playthroughs instead of playing it-
Or playing it on gamepass for $1 which probably doesn't line EBB's pockets as much as some players probably think.
That is not a sign of success.
look metacritic share same opinion than steam user ^_^
Chillex, those two sites are rating different things.
On steam you can only rate if you like or dislike a game, so 72% positve means that 72% of the user gave the game a "like".
On metacritic every user can rate the game on a scale from 1-10.
With 0-4 = bad game , 5-7 = medicore game and 8-10 equals good or great game.
Steam = participation trophy
Metacritic = grades in school
Two completely differnt things.
mean players on both website look satisfate from the game
did great game are over 90% on steam and metacritic ?
best game are over 98% on both website ?
bad game are below 50% on both website ?
for example bf2042 is 2/10 on meta and i think 3/10 on steam
witcher 3 is at 9/10 on meta and 97% on steam
another example is divinity, 88% on steam, 9.3 on meta
sacred 3 is at 1.5 on meta and 24% on steam
it look meta user and steam user are not so different with their taste about video game
what i see it is us steam player we forgive more easly video game or we are more tolerate with video game than metacritic user, metacritic look more severe
anyway a good game will get good review on steam and metacritic, a bad game will get bad revierw on steam and metacriticx