It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionDon't complain in the reviews!(79 posts)(79 posts)
(79 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 20, 2015
I see this as a site design problem. I've wanted two separate sections for a long time. One where people can write their experience of having actually played the game and one for general feedback where errors and other things can be posted about.
Simply I don't want to have to filter this information myself.
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
HunchBluntley: Except that -- to use your "doesn't work on Windows 7 x64" example -- often the problem has more to do with that specific user's system than with Windows 7 overall (especially if GOG has tested the game on 7 and decided to support it on that version of Windows). One user saying it doesn't work on a certain OS can stop others for whom it would work from buying and enjoying it, because someone thought, "If my system can't run it, then NO ONE'S can!" So this might save people from spending money on a game that wouldn't work for them, but it might also scare people away who wouldn't have had any problems.

The "reviews" of this sort I really have a problem with are the ones that just say something like the example you gave, or "Tried to install, but nthing happened. this sucks, dont but it!", and NOTHING ELSE! If you're going to be foolish enough to write a 'bug report' review that you can't edit or remove after the fact (as opposed to filing a proper Support ticket), at least include more detail. ...Scratch that -- just contact Support, use the forums, whatever. ;)

When it comes to technical problems with a game, by all means, mention bugs encountered in the game, mention poor performance, mention wrong-sounding music emulation, frequent save corruption, these sorts of things. If you never got the game to run in the first place, though, you are not qualified to review the game, any more than someone who would've bought it if only it weren't so darned expensive is qualified to do so.
avatar
javihyuga: I still prefer the warning. A bug complain warns me to search more. An "I love this game it's great buy it" tells me nothing.

A great example are the Chaos Gate reviews. I don't care "The emperor tells me to buy it". I don't care "It introduced me to W40k". I don't give a monkey's about being "A blast for the past". I care about "Inmediate CTD". And I care that there are a lot of reviews about that issue which are marked as useful. I know that I wouldn't know fo sure until I tried the game, that they being marked useful proof nothing. But it tells me to search the forums, the web, to try before buying... whatever. It points out that the chance of wasting money is way far from an asymptotic zero. And to be careful and don't buy it on sight.

So, in a system were the norm is a combination of non-english reviews, a few spam reviews, a lot poorly written and pointless reviews, "I don't have the game but played it 20 years ago and it was rad" reviews and the awfully common "I am not nostalgic, this is a masterpiece" reviews, I don't find that a "It crashes" review is out of place.

But that's me. If you prefer people to tell how heart-warming were the evenings playing the game with friends and praising GOG is totally OK. If you think that a review should stick to describing the gamecard, it's fine. But I personally don't give a fuck about those reviews. So please, keep both, as I don't claim every review I found shitty or misleading should be removed.
This. To be honest, I wouldn't even consider the happy feelings posts as reviews. I mean, it's nice to hear about someone's experience, but that has all of jack and shit to do with conveying information about whether the game is worth purchasing or not. In fact, I would automatically discount those types of reviews as being colored by nostalgia goggles. (That's not a diss on it, I'm guilty of the same thing as well.)

If I take time to read a review, I want it touch on some things I find important.
1. Is it fun?
2. What type of game it is.
3. Does it execute well? No graphical glitching? Well written characters? Clever dialogue? Characters with character? Replayability?
4. Potential issues with my system
5. What's included if I purchase it?
6. And, if it's not too much trouble, how much time that person has spent with the game.
7. Bugs.

My definition might not be the same as everyone elses, but to me, what I find an objectively good review would be a consumer's report.
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
javihyuga: I still prefer the warning. A bug complain warns me to search more. An "I love this game it's great buy it" tells me nothing.

A great example are the Chaos Gate reviews. I don't care "The emperor tells me to buy it". I don't care "It introduced me to W40k". I don't give a monkey's about being "A blast for the past". I care about "Inmediate CTD". And I care that there are a lot of reviews about that issue which are marked as useful. I know that I wouldn't know fo sure until I tried the game, that they being marked useful proof nothing. But it tells me to search the forums, the web, to try before buying... whatever. It points out that the chance of wasting money is way far from an asymptotic zero. And to be careful and don't buy it on sight.

So, in a system were the norm is a combination of non-english reviews, a few spam reviews, a lot poorly written and pointless reviews, "I don't have the game but played it 20 years ago and it was rad" reviews and the awfully common "I am not nostalgic, this is a masterpiece" reviews, I don't find that a "It crashes" review is out of place.

But that's me. If you prefer people to tell how heart-warming were the evenings playing the game with friends and praising GOG is totally OK. If you think that a review should stick to describing the gamecard, it's fine. But I personally don't give a fuck about those reviews. So please, keep both, as I don't claim every review I found shitty or misleading should be removed.
First of all, calm down. I never said "nostalgia goggles" reviews are particularly helpful -- by and large, they are only of interest to other nostalgia gamers -- but many, if not most, at least contain some relevant details about the gameplay (sometimes even including bugs and game balance problems), which the "it didn't work" reviews generally do not. The point I was trying to get across was that a very brief "review" that simply says something like "It crashed. GOG SUX." is exactly as useless as "Oh, the memories!! Played this when I was 14 at my cousins house for hours! Thanks, GOG!!! :)"

Anyway, it's usually a good idea to at least glance through the game's forum before spending much money on a game anyway, as there's likely to be much more info about problems there, and one can actually ask people who've experienced trouble running a game for more detail -- impossible with a review. The smart bet is always to post there if you have a problem, since you might actually be able to get your game working if somebody else knows how to fix that problem.

But I think this comes down to a fundamental disagreement about what a user review should be. A review should absolutely contain info about technical problems like crashes, but, in my view, if you didn't play the game at all (even if it was because of technical issues), you shouldn't review it. Other people (such as you) disagree; that's fine. But let's not shout at one another over it, eh? :)
avatar
Tarm: I see this as a site design problem. I've wanted two separate sections for a long time. One where people can write their experience of having actually played the game and one for general feedback where errors and other things can be posted about.
You mean like the game forums? =D
Post edited July 20, 2015 by HunchBluntley
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
hucklebarry: A single review is worthless. For all we know its written by the devs or a fired employee. It takes a compilation of reviews to get an idea about a game. I tend to ignore subjective comments like "boring" "too long" , etc. But when someone drops a one liner that helps determine the games feature set, stability, etc... I find that very valuable when added to other data available about the game.

In fact, if the product is popular enough, I PREFER reviews that don't rehash the same stuff all the other reviewers leave behind. There could be 500 reviews on a game and someone new to the game will try and leave a 3 page review discussing the color palette in the opening sequence and the font used in the closing credits... but then will bury a glaring technical issue in one line in the middle of the review. This is more of issue IMHO. People spend so much time on subjective stuff, especially to argue and complain that rarely anyone leaves the true meat of review. I.E. will the game work for me?

Using the specific example that the OP later clarified, to note that a game does not work on the current most popular OS by several fold, is a very useful piece of information. While that review does not provide enough data to know it can be trusted, it does provide enough incentive to investigate further before buying.

One example. I just bought a Fire TV Stick this weekend. The whole reason I bought it was because it supports Plex. I have a plex server and I want a way for my TV to have a native Plex app instead of using the bland DLNA app on my TV. Guess what? the plex app for the Fire TV stick does not work. I'm honestly considered writing a review, in full, to be... "Does not work with advertised Plex app". They advertise it, I bought it. It doesn't work. I don't want to water anything down in order to help other potential purchasers. I don't care to describe other features to anyone else as the product is useless to me without the feature I mentioned and there are enough other reviews out there that cover those highly opinionated details. Bottom line, it does not work. How would you get that across? I would flag reviews like that as very high to get them at the top of the review charts. Not only will it warn other purchasers, but it might prompt the lazy devs to get off their butts and fix their product. Downrepping reviews that cut to the point and mention technical shortcoming enables companies to keep making money off of incomplete products.

Hope that helps.
Well said, I couldn't agree more. This kinda sums up how & y I feel reviews which include technical details r more valuable 2 potential buyers than other aspects of the game itself like content, character development & so on. But that's not 2 say those other reviews r not helpful as well.

There r many other very gd comments here which I found very useful but due 2 me being able 2 type with only 1 hand pls 4give me 4 not naming them. My main pt is that all these comments really explained y even reviews with just 1 sentence r of use 2 potential buyers. Of cos, if 1 can include more details abt the technical prob/s that wld be more appreciated.

So 2 conclude, it doesn't hurt any1 2 hv reviews with 1 sentence on technical issues in a game. They r not 2 be looked upon alone & shd be judged along with other reviews when 1 decides whether or not 2 buy a game. 4 those non-buyers I guess those reviews wun matter 2 them anyway. ;)

As 4 DeMignon's comment, I hv 2 respectfully disagree cos if my post were so annoying or hard 2 uds I believe my posts probably wun even get 2 be seen by the rest. ;) It does not matter wat age I am or appear 2 be, as long as most ppl can uds & find them of use (esp 2 the thread starter) I think my job is done. If any, the fact that Dracomut1990 has no issues with the way I type & commended my post as excellent shows that he can uds & appreciates my contribution 2 his thread.

My main purpose is 2 try 2 be an active & contributing member of this forum & just as I respect ur right 2 not like the way I type, I hope u can respect my right 2 type as I wish (as long as the majority can uds of cos). This shall be the last time I reply 2 anything other than wat pertains 2 the purpose of this thread. I sincerely apologize 4 hving 2 derail this thread again in order 2 ans such 'meaningless' issue.

I wld also like 2 take this opportunity 2 thk all of u who hv given so many helpful comments here & r able 2 'tolerate' my comments, hope they dun annoy u too much. :)
Post edited July 20, 2015 by tomyam80
Posted July 20, 2015
[slight derail]Prince is in the forum! He posted right above me! OMG!
XD
[/slight derail]
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
Tarm: I see this as a site design problem. I've wanted two separate sections for a long time. One where people can write their experience of having actually played the game and one for general feedback where errors and other things can be posted about.
avatar
HunchBluntley: You mean like the game forums? =D
More like a true bulletin board where you can only post notices and it'll have to be moderated. Something more "in your face" so to speak. Many people just don't take the time to properly search after information anymore and the games forums are simply too many clicks away. I don't think even a direct link to the game forums would help much.

I confess I've also grown lazy so it's a feature I'd appreciate too.

Edit: Making it exactly like the Review function placed somewhere else on the page would work I think.
Post edited July 20, 2015 by Tarm
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
HunchBluntley: First of all, calm down [...] But let's not shout at one another over it, eh? :)
I don't know how you can think I was shouting or excited :/

avatar
HunchBluntley: [...] a very brief "review" that simply says something like "It crashed. GOG SUX." is exactly as useless as "Oh, the memories!!
No it is not. The first one warns about the possibility of crashing. If the user fails to explain more or goes on a rant, again, I don't care. The useful part is "It crashed". Two words can be more useful than paragraphs.
"Oh the memories" contains 0 useful information.

avatar
HunchBluntley: many, if not most, at least contain some relevant details about the gameplay (sometimes even including bugs and game balance problems)
Duh. It seems that under your eyes defending the kind of review which was questioned on the thread and showing that there are threads as pointless, but without the potential help, equals dropping all reviews in two bags. Au contraire. I am saying that in a flawed system there is no (logical) reason to discriminate one potentially useful piece of information for having some faults present on most reviews, from others without the useful part. I am not the one making a thread complaining about some reviews. For me it's as easy as reading them and taking what information I find useful.

As I appreciate a review which contains little to none information which I couldn't have got from the gamecard, I find ironic complaining about a review which only contains information about potential crashes.
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
HunchBluntley: [...] a very brief "review" that simply says something like "It crashed. GOG SUX." is exactly as useless as "Oh, the memories!!
avatar
javihyuga: No it is not.
Yes it is ;-P

But seriously, those complaints about the game not starting or not working at all are of no use. Why? Because GOG tests the games for specific operating systems and when they say it's working, it actually does for almost everybody. The gamers still having problems usually have individual issues which don't apply to the majority reading the review. So these complaints are misleading and it would be a shame if anybody refrains from buying a nice game just because of them. After all GOG is known for an usually helpful support and gives the 30 days-money-back guarantee if the game doesn't run at all. Reviews should give you an idea of what game to expect and not of what problems single individual users have to get it running (e.g. because of them not having the old DirectX components installed etc.). Nonetheless, it's very informative to know how often a game crashes, whether there are certain specific incompatibilities and of course how bugged a game is, but these aren't the tech complaints the OP is talking about.

tl:dr: If GOG says it's working, then it's generally working. Individual issues with no further details shouldn't prevent anybody from buying a game, because if it's really not running, there's GOG support and the 30-days-money-back-guarantee.
Post edited July 20, 2015 by DeMignon
Posted July 20, 2015
I can't think of a single error / bug that isn't important to know about. Why should they not be in the game reviews?
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
Gilozard: I can't think of a single error / bug that isn't important to know about. Why should they not be in the game reviews?
Because they are very often not errors, but simply the user's inability.
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
Gilozard: I can't think of a single error / bug that isn't important to know about. Why should they not be in the game reviews?
avatar
DeMignon: Because they are very often not errors, but simply the user's inability.
1) Most of the bugs mentioned in reviews that I've seen are actual bugs.

2) So what? If a game is too confusing for someone to run properly or if a user can mess it up by doing a typical install-and-run that is a problem the dev should fix.

If we're going to be controlling and limit users based on perceived ability and knowledge, 90% of people on GOG would have to be lectured every time they post in the forums. We don't care about things like that around here.
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
DeMignon: Because they are very often not errors, but simply the user's inability.
avatar
Gilozard: 1) Most of the bugs mentioned in reviews that I've seen are actual bugs.
In my experience, detailed bug reports in reviews are rather seldom, while a simple rant like "Don't buy, doesn't run" is comparatively common.

avatar
Gilozard: 2) So what? If a game is too confusing for someone to run properly or if a user can mess it up by doing a typical install-and-run that is a problem the dev should fix.
Sometimes yes, but on GOG usually no. While this is more often true for new games, the usual good old game isn't under development any more. That aside, as I've already mentioned, it's often not a problem with the game, but with a specific system, be it GPU driver issues, settings, anti-virus suites, missing components, exotic configurations, access rights and whatnot - all things a developer usually has no influence on and it affects only a small portion of gamers. As long as there's no detailed info other than "doesn't run" in a review, it's not helpful.

avatar
Gilozard: If we're going to be controlling and limit users based on perceived ability and knowledge, 90% of people on GOG would have to be lectured every time they post in the forums. We don't care about things like that around here.
That's not my intention at all, I was only saying the OP is right, these reviews are misleading and in my opinion annoying. Lecturing on the other hand wouldn't be only annoying, but unacceptable to me. That wouldn't be the gog.com I like. Still, these little rant reviews are annoying, as well as all the fake praises by publishers to boost sales.
Post edited July 20, 2015 by DeMignon
Posted July 20, 2015
avatar
javihyuga: No it is not.
avatar
DeMignon: Yes it is ;-P

But seriously, those complaints about the game not starting or not working at all are of no use. Why? Because GOG tests the games for specific operating systems and when they say it's working, it actually does for almost everybody. The gamers still having problems usually have individual issues which don't apply to the majority reading the review. So these complaints are misleading and it would be a shame if anybody refrains from buying a nice game just because of them. After all GOG is known for an usually helpful support and gives the 30 days-money-back guarantee if the game doesn't run at all. Reviews should give you an idea of what game to expect and not of what problems single individual users have to get it running (e.g. because of them not having the old DirectX components installed etc.). Nonetheless, it's very informative to know how often a game crashes, whether there are certain specific incompatibilities and of course how bugged a game is, but these aren't the tech complaints the OP is talking about.

tl:dr: If GOG says it's working, then it's generally working. Individual issues with no further details shouldn't prevent anybody from buying a game, because if it's really not running, there's GOG support and the 30-days-money-back-guarantee.
I believe OP didn't mention abt any specific forum so it may not just simply be dealt with by saying how helpful or gd GOG support is (which I dun think is bad but definitely could be better also) & there's a 30 days money back guarantee (which also comes with it's own requirements b4 1 is considered eligible 4).

Fyi, not every game site that sells games hv a great support & active forums with its members willing 2 help give advice 2 solve any glitches like GOG does & neither does every of those sites provide such money back guarantees.

If u truly think the trouble of buying a game only 2 find out it has glitches or incompatibility issues aft playing mid-way & aft spending hrs trying 2 resolve the issue 2 no avail; hving 2 seek support & patiently wait numerous days, possibly weeks 4 patches 2 be available (assuming it can be patched) w/o feeling angry/disappointed & resorting 2 ranting in the forums; or aft all that, only 2 find out the error can't be patched & u hv 2 go thru more hassle 2 get ur money back is better than that 1 sentence which warned u fr buying the game in the 1st place, I REST MY CASE.
Post edited July 20, 2015 by tomyam80
Posted July 20, 2015
I'm torn. The earliest reviews tend to get the most exposure - there is no randomization of the reviews that appear when you go to a game page. So if the "game is broken" review comes about because someone refuses, say, the simple expedient of Run as Administrator, and it's the first review for a game, then that can have some pretty bad effects on the game's reception due to the user's problem that may not affect a single other buyer.

I do agree with seeing smaller bugs posted in reviews, things that aren't technically dependent on a particular customer's hardware and software setup. For instance, if the game itself runs fine but a major quest is broken, then that's a bug that certainly ought to go into a review.

I guess I would ask that a buyer at least try to get the problem solved via Support - and make a forum post about it since pre-purchase due diligence should include looking through the forum for feedback along with perusing the reviews - before posting a review. If it's still not working right after making efforts to correct the problem, then review away.

And hell, if you do make a "game is broken" review, then be sure to update your review if and when the broken game gets fixed. Even if it's to eat some crow.

Personally, I look at the forums more than the reviews. For one, the reviews tend to over-rate games, so anything below 4 stars is pretty unusual. Does that mean that most everything in the store is 80% awesome or better? Doubt that. In the forum, you get the good and the bad, the bugs and the fixes, the mod scene, and sometimes a better overall feel for what a particular game plays like.
Posted July 21, 2015
avatar
micktiegs_8: What a shitty event.... excuse me, I'm going to barf.

it took me nearly a minute to read that in concentration
avatar
tomyam80: Well, there r those who write in short forms that can be understood easily cos they r near-universally recognized & then there r those who write their own short forms just 2 troll ppl 4 fun & irritate the hell out of others on purpose. It's a BIG diff & I'm very sure ppl can tell 1 fr the other. ;)
You are correct, sir! That's what happens when I read posts at 4a.m. before work...
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionDon't complain in the reviews!(79 posts)(79 posts)
(79 posts)