Just read what you wrote. It's pretty self-explanatory.

As some others have already said, once it's got a price tag attached to it, a game is open to reviews / critique, no matter how buggy / unfinished it is (same goes for AAA releases, and no pre-orders don't count, because you can always retract until the last day before release, and it isn't made avaible during this period, neither to the public nor critics... and while you can critique the "pre-order" practice, you really can't the game, as you usually have no access to it either way).

Also, EA / GiD is not a beta, it is a sold product. And even if you dislike it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and the last thing GOG should do is remove / censor negative reviews and votes because a game is in GiD.

This is (assuming if) you ever return to cover the game again. One of the problems with an early access/development released games is some people will get their fill of the early version and have the remainder of their impression and interpretation of the game muddled by it. If you give a game 1 star because feature xxx was broken and you can't muster to play it again, then when the entire game was completed, well you still won't fix the review because you can't bring yourself to go back into it again. Burning yourself out effectively.

Definitely useless as a review. Like someone going to a restaurant and complaining about how humans have to put something into their mouth and chew and swallow and reviewing that, and not the food or service of where they went...

Which is the hard rule for if you should review something. It's good and all if something's being actively developed, but if you charge for it you consider it finished enough to make money off of. Maybe the income just goes back into the game as Art assets and improved sounds and dungeons, etc, but really it's still a pay wall. TB numerous times went on about this, recently ranting about how Beta had no meaning anymore. Here we go.

Then the real world of the games industry is cuckoo.
http://kotaku.com/fallout-4-review-embargo-gets-embargo-1740855250
I also believe I overheard that the review embargo for the latest Tomb Raider game was moved to a day earlier, causing a lot of controversy about the stability and performance issues of the game as Nvidia and AMD had not yet released game ready drivers, which were to be released the day after.

And to add upon TB's comments on "Beta" https://youtu.be/jTZyr6iaYIc?t=1h53m31s

Humour me. I would be glad to hear your thoughts.

You are talking about review embargoes on a product that has not actually been released to the public or sold as a saleable product (other than pre-order, which is probably a different topic). This is not the case for in development games that are saleable in any state.

Also that TB link, he clearly states that the success of the product is down to living up to promises and expectations, which is what your 1 star reviewer clearly had issues with.

Id rather they turn true reviews for game OFF until final release. Only then do u get a fair balanced review (unless your an asshole who rates a game just cause of the price or not into beta/alphas or something not related to the game at all).

I think reviews on early access games are fine. If for no other reason than to know if this is a game you might like or want to put up with. No different than any other game. Heck, how many reviews do nothing more than complain about the price?

Having said that, the reader of the review should hopefully know going in, this is basically a game in alpha or beta. The quirks or issues the reviewer had will hopefully be fixed later. Not to mention, the game may change altogether. Went from an RTS to an FPS (somehow). This might not be the case here since the games will hopefully be past that point when they come here. Who really knows for sure.

What I think should happen is the user be able to make an addendum to the original review after the game is released since I'd like to see their original potential gripe (probably won't happen very often since I am guessing most people will get bored with the game before it finally gets released). So you can see the beta review and the released review. In addition to that, the review should have something that says this is a review for the game before it was actually released. It's debatable on if the pre-released review should affect the overall score or not (or if you can have the option to not have that be included in the numbers). Lastly, an option to filter out pre-release reviews would be nice as well.

The review you're constantly having a problem with doesn't even include the words early access. I think that terse review sums up why they gave it one star pretty well. Don't be coy - I know you can read it, too.

1) They had so many things to say about the game that the review exceeded the character limit.
2) After paring down the review to acceptable length, it seemed too negative, so the reviewer felt like accentuating the positive.
3) They then snarked about never paying for a game that wasn't finished, somewhat weakening their point but not obscuring it.

It's a comprehensive review. It says, the game isn't good, it doesn't give enough reason to stick with it or hope, and they don't recommend it to others, though they make no specific claims that it should be avoided by all. Short is not always incomplete. There's a well-known (and possibly accurate) attribution of a six word story to Ernest Hemingway: "For sale: baby shoes. Never worn."

Exacting detail isn't always needed. That six word story is complete. And though it doesn't compare and won't be talked about in the future, that one star review is complete, too.

oO You can't review your review if you're not allowed to edit it!? And adding a 5 star "Whooohooohooo AWESOME!!!!!" review next to your 1 star "I hate Early Access" review would be kinda stupid.

In the image you posted the scores look pretty well reasoned, and they make a good point about GOG selecting a game which has been on EA for a long while.

"Handing out money to a unfinished product" What else could that be other than early access? There is nothing said about the game still.

It doesn't matter if the game is finished or not , what should be written there is if it is a good or a bad game, and a review should reflect the good and the bad about a games mechanics, functionality, technical problems, looks, sounds, feels or fun factor. None of which were even as close as referenced to.

It is fine in my opinion that games in early development can be reviewed, but the game reviews should reflect the games, not the development methods.

Not only that, but pay-gated. Yes, it's so outlandish of me to say so. Watch me burn at the stake for such a suggestion.

It certainly does get annoying when people shit rate because of the in-dev addition, or for other ridiculous reasons, even when they don't own the product. To clarify, I'm talking about reviews in general, and not only in-dev.

No, I can't agree with you. You're asking for a heaping plate of words. You say that there is no way to savor the dish without every morsel laid out, your Faulknerian spaghetti of sentences smothered in details, weighing the whole dish down until you need both hands to lift it; even the table must be solid and oak, and you appreciate its whorls and earthy scent - I understand.

But I'm telling you that (and I won't carry that food metaphor any farther though I feel it had legs) meaning is carried in the spaces between the words, just as music is no less about the quiet between the notes as it is about the notes themselves. You don't see in that one star review that everything you want addressed, is addressed. But it is.

Say, rather, that you would prefer reviews that are exhaustive. That you want every detail laid out plainly. Thats fine. But don't say that review you dislike isn't complete, or doesn't address the game itself. Because it does.