Agree, both sides, but there are an almost overwhelming amount of games that get negative feedback on Steam. Precisely because they paid for what they think is garbage. Someone on one of these threads even said he was surprised that it was getting positive. Armchair quarterbacking is definitely a tradition. I just think that this time there seems to be an unusually high divergence of opinion in the case of Pantheon.
Steam's review system reveals that most games receive positive feedback, contrary to the perception that negative ratings dominate the platform. In fact, the majority of titles achieve a "Very Positive" rating or higher.
It’s amusing when circular arguments are made to defend games like Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. The claim that a game is "good" simply because it has a "Very Positive" rating is weak at best. Let's look at a truly comparable example:
Banana is a game where you just click a banana. That's it. Yet, by customer ratings, it scores higher than Pantheon.
Moreover, Banana has over 85,000 reviews, compared to Pantheon’s mere 1,500 reviews. The disparity in review volume matters. Games with fewer reviews often start with inflated ratings due to a loyal core fanbase. As more players (beyond the hardcore supporters) share their opinions, the score typically adjusts downward, as already noted by Kyleran.
For example, Banana initially had a much higher rating but declined as its popularity grew.
I don't claim that the reviews make it a good or negative games. I can only speak for myself that I like it. I just found it interesting of the disconnect. Often when I see steam reviews and community sites, there is a slightly more synced review, although sites like these tend toward the negative.
I personally think all games need a free trial. With a small game like this, I imagine that 1) they need the money and 2) they worry about too many negatives from players.
I'll say that I played Elder Scrolls Online on and off since launch and the beginning was enjoyable and the rest is just more of the same. And that's a game with gobs of money and was released in a finished state.
You keep referencing these EZ mode games with me, as if I like EZ mode games LOL. I am not going to defend ESO now. Its moved to EZ mode just like WoW retail. I have been saying this for years. Original ESO (1 year after release) was pretty good, WoW classic was good.
But just because I like hard games doesnt mean I have to defend poorly created ones.
I was a backer of this game and Embers. I gave both these games feedback solutions to make a more popular game while maintaining mob difficulty within the game. Yet they choose to put in stupid mechanics few want, and leave out all the really fun stuff. Additionally overall this game is poorly made PERIOD.
I am not going to WhiteKnight bad games just because I bought it or like the genre as a whole. I am going to tell the truth and tell it like it is.
Agree, both sides, but there are an almost overwhelming amount of games that get negative feedback on Steam. Precisely because they paid for what they think is garbage. Someone on one of these threads even said he was surprised that it was getting positive. Armchair quarterbacking is definitely a tradition. I just think that this time there seems to be an unusually high divergence of opinion in the case of Pantheon.
Steam's review system reveals that most games receive positive feedback, contrary to the perception that negative ratings dominate the platform. In fact, the majority of titles achieve a "Very Positive" rating or higher.
It’s amusing when circular arguments are made to defend games like Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. The claim that a game is "good" simply because it has a "Very Positive" rating is weak at best. Let's look at a truly comparable example:
Banana is a game where you just click a banana. That's it. Yet, by customer ratings, it scores higher than Pantheon.
Moreover, Banana has over 85,000 reviews, compared to Pantheon’s mere 1,500 reviews. The disparity in review volume matters. Games with fewer reviews often start with inflated ratings due to a loyal core fanbase. As more players (beyond the hardcore supporters) share their opinions, the score typically adjusts downward, as already noted by Kyleran.
For example, Banana initially had a much higher rating but declined as its popularity grew.
I don't claim that the reviews make it a good or negative games. I can only speak for myself that I like it. I just found it interesting of the disconnect. Often when I see steam reviews and community sites, there is a slightly more synced review, although sites like these tend toward the negative.
I personally think all games need a free trial. With a small game like this, I imagine that 1) they need the money and 2) they worry about too many negatives from players.
Didnt this site give the game a positive review? Most the people in here WhiteKnight the game, and you say its mostly negative? As opposed to what, just full complete company BS point of view?
As more and more play it, its only going to get more negative. The game is garbage. If you think this is negative, wait a year from now.
If the devs wanted more positivity, then they should have made a better game, instead of wasting 10 years and 10million.
Just because the devs need more money doesnt mean we have to BS everyone about the state of the game.
I'll say that I played Elder Scrolls Online on and off since launch and the beginning was enjoyable and the rest is just more of the same. And that's a game with gobs of money and was released in a finished state.
You keep referencing these EZ mode games with me, as if I like EZ mode games LOL. I am not going to defend ESO now. Its moved to EZ mode just like WoW retail. I have been saying this for years. Original ESO (1 year after release) was pretty good, WoW classic was good.
But just because I like hard games doesnt mean I have to defend poorly created ones.
I was a backer of this game and Embers. I gave both these games feedback solutions to make a more popular game while maintaining mob difficulty within the game. Yet they choose to put in stupid mechanics few want, and leave out all the really fun stuff. Additionally overall this game is poorly made PERIOD.
I am not going to WhiteKnight bad games just because I bought it or like the genre as a whole. I am going to tell the truth and tell it like it is.
This is, again, you seeing things only through your own lens.
I mention a game like Elder Scrolls online NOT because it's an easy game and I think it's what YOU like.
It's because it's a game that "I" play and have various reasons for liking it and disliking it.
It is an example of a finished game with lots of money behind it yet besides that it's not that engaging most of the time.
And to cut you off at the pass, it's not that engaging because it's "easy" but because it's format is dull. I don't think it plays like a solo Elder Scrolls game which I find more compelling.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Part of the issue is that I don’t believe them when they say they like the game as it is now. It’s just wishful thinking—pure hopium.
If this game stays exactly the same for another year, there’s zero chance those same people will still like it. What we have now is supper subpar, plain and simple.
They’re not enjoying what the game is; they’re projecting what they want it to become and convincing themselves they like it.
I’ve seen it so many times—people defending bad games, only to completely change their opinion within a year. Just look back at the Embers thread: plenty of players were saying, "I’m level 5 and loving it, exactly the game I wanted." By level 20, those same people were calling the game trash. And the game itself didn’t change—what changed was their perception. Reality set in, and they realized there wasn’t some great experience waiting for them further along. Once the mystery faded, the hopium ran out.
So you just assume we're liars. Cool. I also assume you're lying and are deeply in love with the game. Debates are easy when you can just make up the other side's opinion for them.
Sort of, yes. I think you might be having a bit of fun, but you're conflating that with the quality of the game. Just because parts of the game are enjoyable doesn't mean the game, as a whole, is good.
Let’s use an analogy: imagine a wooden go-kart that relies on gravity for power. If someone tried to claim this was equivalent to a race car, it would be laughable. Imagine buying a race car and being handed this instead—what a joke that would be!
Sure, you might have some fun pulling it up the hill and racing down a few times. But the novelty wears off quickly. Let’s not pretend this is just the early stage of some future stock car. It's time to be real and call it what it is.
If you’re having a few hours of fun, that’s fine. Babies have fun with rattles, and restaurants hand out crayons and paper to keep kids entertained. But that doesn’t make those things great products.
I started to read this and stopped. I'm not reading that. Do you realize how asinine it is that you are trying not only to correct opinions but tell people that what they think isn't really what they think? How egotistical are you that you think that EVERYONE has to have the same experience as you?
I just think there are people that will completely BS people with their agenda. Wouldnt surprise me to find out you been on the pantheon forums fanboying this game for years, saying how great it will be. Now its hear and its garbage, you are going to tell people its not. Then eventually the avalanche of negativity will come down on this game, and you will go away and hide. Seen this so many times.
Now you're adding conspiracy theories and "agendas". WTF dude, it's a video game not the JFK assassination.
I've made 11 posts on the Pantheon forums, the last one was in 2019. So you just keep living in your fantasy world where everything fits your narrative regardless of facts.
Agree, both sides, but there are an almost overwhelming amount of games that get negative feedback on Steam. Precisely because they paid for what they think is garbage. Someone on one of these threads even said he was surprised that it was getting positive. Armchair quarterbacking is definitely a tradition. I just think that this time there seems to be an unusually high divergence of opinion in the case of Pantheon.
Steam's review system reveals that most games receive positive feedback, contrary to the perception that negative ratings dominate the platform. In fact, the majority of titles achieve a "Very Positive" rating or higher.
It’s amusing when circular arguments are made to defend games like Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. The claim that a game is "good" simply because it has a "Very Positive" rating is weak at best. Let's look at a truly comparable example:
Banana is a game where you just click a banana. That's it. Yet, by customer ratings, it scores higher than Pantheon.
Moreover, Banana has over 85,000 reviews, compared to Pantheon’s mere 1,500 reviews. The disparity in review volume matters. Games with fewer reviews often start with inflated ratings due to a loyal core fanbase. As more players (beyond the hardcore supporters) share their opinions, the score typically adjusts downward, as already noted by Kyleran.
For example, Banana initially had a much higher rating but declined as its popularity grew.
I don't claim that the reviews make it a good or negative games. I can only speak for myself that I like it. I just found it interesting of the disconnect. Often when I see steam reviews and community sites, there is a slightly more synced review, although sites like these tend toward the negative.
I personally think all games need a free trial. With a small game like this, I imagine that 1) they need the money and 2) they worry about too many negatives from players.
Didnt this site give the game a positive review? Most the people in here WhiteKnight the game, and you say its mostly negative? As opposed to what, just full complete company BS point of view?
As more and more play it, its only going to get more negative. The game is garbage. If you think this is negative, wait a year from now.
If the devs wanted more positivity, then they should have made a better game, instead of wasting 10 years and 10million.
Just because the devs need more money doesnt mean we have to BS everyone about the state of the game.
I'm talking comments, not reviews. Maybe I'm mistaken. I don't seem to be making my point very well. Just thought it was interesting. Wasn't trying to convince anyone of its greatness. Just an interesting thing to me. However, I seem to have drawn drawn a battle line I didn't mean to. Just something that I thought was interesting. It's apparent that I made a mistake.
I'm talking comments, not reviews. Maybe I'm mistaken. I don't seem to be making my point very well. Just thought it was interesting. Wasn't trying to convince anyone of its greatness. Just an interesting thing to me. However, I seem to have drawn drawn a battle line I didn't mean to. Just something that I thought was interesting. It's apparent that I made a mistake.
Well on sites where its not controlled by the dev team, I think you are going to see a more truthful perspective at least by some people. I think this site has been more positive than other independent sites that I have seen. But yes you are right, its going to be more negative than the pantheon site for sure, or a reddit that has a dev moderator.
I'm unsure why ESO keeps getting brought up in this discussion. It barely seems relevant. These are two totally different kinds of games and don't really scratch the same itch imo.
If the Reddit subs for Pantheon, MMORPG, etc. are anything to go by, P99 is Pantheon's direct competitor, maybe Embers to a degree. Much of the discussion and debates I see in those threads revolve around differences between Pantheon and EQ. Lots of players from P99 like the EQ way, while there are a lot of players who like that Pantheon is moving away from EQ in many ways.
I'm unsure why ESO keeps getting brought up in this discussion. It barely seems relevant. These are two totally different kinds of games and don't really scratch the same itch imo.
If the Reddit subs for Pantheon, MMORPG, etc. are anything to go by, P99 is Pantheon's direct competitor, maybe Embers to a degree. Much of the discussion and debates I see in those threads revolve around differences between Pantheon and EQ. Lots of players from P99 like the EQ way, while there are a lot of players who like that Pantheon is moving away from EQ in many ways.
You would have to scroll up to see my point regarding Elder Scrolls Online. Has absolutely nothing to do with a comparison.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Steam's review system reveals that most games receive positive feedback, contrary to the perception that negative ratings dominate the platform. In fact, the majority of titles achieve a "Very Positive" rating or higher.
It’s amusing when circular arguments are made to defend games like Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. The claim that a game is "good" simply because it has a "Very Positive" rating is weak at best. Let's look at a truly comparable example:
Banana is a game where you just click a banana. That's it. Yet, by customer ratings, it scores higher than Pantheon.
Moreover, Banana has over 85,000 reviews, compared to Pantheon’s mere 1,500 reviews. The disparity in review volume matters. Games with fewer reviews often start with inflated ratings due to a loyal core fanbase. As more players (beyond the hardcore supporters) share their opinions, the score typically adjusts downward, as already noted by Kyleran.
For example, Banana initially had a much higher rating but declined as its popularity grew.
I am not sure this is the case, I have looked into this before and not been able to come to a conclusion on how many of Steams games get an overall positive review. How did you work this out?
I do agree about the distortion that occurs when the number of reviews is small, but distortion will occur simply for having a low number of reviews. 1,500 is quite enough in my eyes, but yes the paid up fanbase are no doubt distorting that to the positive.
Steam's review system reveals that most games receive positive feedback, contrary to the perception that negative ratings dominate the platform. In fact, the majority of titles achieve a "Very Positive" rating or higher.
It’s amusing when circular arguments are made to defend games like Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. The claim that a game is "good" simply because it has a "Very Positive" rating is weak at best. Let's look at a truly comparable example:
Banana is a game where you just click a banana. That's it. Yet, by customer ratings, it scores higher than Pantheon.
Moreover, Banana has over 85,000 reviews, compared to Pantheon’s mere 1,500 reviews. The disparity in review volume matters. Games with fewer reviews often start with inflated ratings due to a loyal core fanbase. As more players (beyond the hardcore supporters) share their opinions, the score typically adjusts downward, as already noted by Kyleran.
For example, Banana initially had a much higher rating but declined as its popularity grew.
I am not sure this is the case, I have looked into this before and not been able to come to a conclusion on how many of Steams games get an overall positive review. How did you work this out?
I do agree about the distortion that occurs when the number of reviews is small, but distortion will occur simply for having a low number of reviews. 1,500 is quite enough in my eyes, but yes the paid up fanbase are no doubt distorting that to the positive.
Well chatgpt said SteamSpy had this data historically.
Here is chatGPT say on it.
"The average user score for games on Steam has been estimated at approximately 81.75% positive, based on historical data."
Although I will admit this is based on old data. Although chatgpt cant determine todays number it believes its closer to this now.
Here is what it said for 2022:
"Given these factors, while a precise mean percentage for 2022 isn't readily available, it's reasonable to infer that the average user rating for games on Steam likely falls within the "Mostly Positive" range, corresponding to 70%-79% positive reviews. This estimation aligns with historical data and observed trends in user engagement and review patterns."
Here is what it said for 2023:
"As of 2023, the average user score for games on Steam is approximately 82.22%, indicating a general trend toward positive reviews across the platform."
Either way it shows the average game is not even close to negative reviewed. I stated most games are rated positive, and this confirms its 20%-32% over 50%.
Just as a followup: According to steamspy Average User Score on steam in 2024 83.69%
So its going even higher every year.
I believe the industry has caught on, and is faking some of these numbers to get the ball rolling. With free product reviews, or them just buying 1000 accounts and given themselves positive reviews.
Just think 1000 fake accounts for a game is between $20,000 - $70,000, thats a small advertising budget. That doesnt even include the free keys.
They do this in entertainment and online products.
I know someone who is on the list to get free products. They send them a product, then they screenshot their positive review send it back. If they keep giving positive reviews they stay on the list and get bigger and bigger products, like Soda Machines, Coffee Machines, TV's, Latest Tech Mattresses, LOL its crazy this fakery going on with reviews now. Should be illegal.
Just as a followup: According to steamspy Average User Score on steam in 2024 83.69%
So its going even higher every year.
I believe the industry has caught on, and is faking some of these numbers to get the ball rolling. With free product reviews, or them just buying 1000 accounts and given themselves positive reviews.
Just think 1000 fake accounts for a game is between $20,000 - $70,000, thats a small advertising budget. That doesnt even include the free keys.
They do this in entertainment and online products.
I know someone who is on the list to get free products. They send them a product, then they screenshot their positive review send it back. If they keep giving positive reviews they stay on the list and get bigger and bigger products, like Soda Machines, Coffee Machines, TV's, Latest Tech Mattresses, LOL its crazy this fakery going on with reviews now. Should be illegal.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well chatgpt said SteamSpy had this data historically.
Here is chatGPT say on it.
"The average user score for games on Steam has been estimated at approximately 81.75% positive, based on historical data."
Although I will admit this is based on old data. Although chatgpt cant determine todays number it believes its closer to this now.
Here is what it said for 2022:
"Given these factors, while a precise mean percentage for 2022 isn't readily available, it's reasonable to infer that the average user rating for games on Steam likely falls within the "Mostly Positive" range, corresponding to 70%-79% positive reviews. This estimation aligns with historical data and observed trends in user engagement and review patterns."
Here is what it said for 2023:
"As of 2023, the average user score for games on Steam is approximately 82.22%, indicating a general trend toward positive reviews across the platform."
Either way it shows the average game is not even close to negative reviewed. I stated most games are rated positive, and this confirms its 20%-32% over 50%.
Ok maybe Chatgpt is better than Copilot, this is what it said:
"The average user score for games on Steam can vary widely depending on the game and its reception by the community. However, many popular games tend to have user scores around 7-8 out of 10. This is a general estimate, and individual game scores can be higher or lower based on player feedback."
You will notice it says "However, many popular games tend", so it is not even taking all the reviews as a sample so not that trustworthy at all. Maybe I should bin copilot?
At the end of the day, the reviews are kind of moot (unless they refund).
Pantheon needs cash. In lieu of a subscription, they need a constant stream of new people to purchase the game.
If we take the 40,000 total players number and assume ALL of them are new/Steam players, at $40 and minus Steam's 30% that's just $1.1M And obviously there is no way all 40k are from Steam. If it's half, that puts just $560k in the coffers.
How long is that going to last with a staff of 15-20? Especially after the costs of running he servers etc...
What do they realistically need to get to "full launch"? And is there a path to get that cash?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
At the end of the day, the reviews are kind of moot (unless they refund).
Pantheon needs cash. In lieu of a subscription, they need a constant stream of new people to purchase the game.
If we take the 40,000 total players number and assume ALL of them are new/Steam players, at $40 and minus Steam's 30% that's just $1.1M And obviously there is no way all 40k are from Steam. If it's half, that puts just $560k in the coffers.
How long is that going to last with a staff of 15-20? Especially after the costs of running he servers etc...
What do they realistically need to get to "full launch"? And is there a path to get that cash?
20 developers probably costs $2 million a year, including their salaries, benefits, office space, computers, etc. There's a marketing budget on top of that. The servers to run the game probably don't cost very much.
So not quite a year left unless they get an infusion of cash somehow.
Comments
I personally think all games need a free trial. With a small game like this, I imagine that 1) they need the money and 2) they worry about too many negatives from players.
But just because I like hard games doesnt mean I have to defend poorly created ones.
I was a backer of this game and Embers. I gave both these games feedback solutions to make a more popular game while maintaining mob difficulty within the game. Yet they choose to put in stupid mechanics few want, and leave out all the really fun stuff. Additionally overall this game is poorly made PERIOD.
I am not going to WhiteKnight bad games just because I bought it or like the genre as a whole. I am going to tell the truth and tell it like it is.
As more and more play it, its only going to get more negative. The game is garbage. If you think this is negative, wait a year from now.
If the devs wanted more positivity, then they should have made a better game, instead of wasting 10 years and 10million.
Just because the devs need more money doesnt mean we have to BS everyone about the state of the game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I do agree about the distortion that occurs when the number of reviews is small, but distortion will occur simply for having a low number of reviews. 1,500 is quite enough in my eyes, but yes the paid up fanbase are no doubt distorting that to the positive.
Ignore the haters and trolls as they were once again, completely wrong
Here is chatGPT say on it.
Although I will admit this is based on old data. Although chatgpt cant determine todays number it believes its closer to this now.
Here is what it said for 2022:
Here is what it said for 2023:
"As of 2023, the average user score for games on Steam is approximately 82.22%, indicating a general trend toward positive reviews across the platform."Either way it shows the average game is not even close to negative reviewed. I stated most games are rated positive, and this confirms its 20%-32% over 50%.
Average User Score on steam in 2024
83.69%
So its going even higher every year.
I believe the industry has caught on, and is faking some of these numbers to get the ball rolling. With free product reviews, or them just buying 1000 accounts and given themselves positive reviews.
Just think 1000 fake accounts for a game is between $20,000 - $70,000, thats a small advertising budget. That doesnt even include the free keys.
They do this in entertainment and online products.
I know someone who is on the list to get free products. They send them a product, then they screenshot their positive review send it back. If they keep giving positive reviews they stay on the list and get bigger and bigger products, like Soda Machines, Coffee Machines, TV's, Latest Tech Mattresses, LOL its crazy this fakery going on with reviews now. Should be illegal.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Ok maybe Chatgpt is better than Copilot, this is what it said:
"The average user score for games on Steam can vary widely depending on the game and its reception by the community. However, many popular games tend to have user scores around 7-8 out of 10. This is a general estimate, and individual game scores can be higher or lower based on player feedback."
You will notice it says "However, many popular games tend", so it is not even taking all the reviews as a sample so not that trustworthy at all. Maybe I should bin copilot?
Anyway fair enough, most reviews are 70 to 80%.
Pantheon needs cash. In lieu of a subscription, they need a constant stream of new people to purchase the game.
If we take the 40,000 total players number and assume ALL of them are new/Steam players, at $40 and minus Steam's 30% that's just $1.1M
And obviously there is no way all 40k are from Steam. If it's half, that puts just $560k in the coffers.
How long is that going to last with a staff of 15-20? Especially after the costs of running he servers etc...
What do they realistically need to get to "full launch"? And is there a path to get that cash?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
So not quite a year left unless they get an infusion of cash somehow.
------------
2025: 48 years on the Net.