This part should also be preserved as an example of subzero level of discussion style. This is just a bunch of personal insults.

Anyway I think you exxagerate a bit. The whole discussion came up before we knew that the review was a) indeed not very helpful (it could have been) and b) was not deleted (only shown much later, but the original statement was that it was deleted).

As such I think I agree with R8V9F5A2. Reviews should not be a popularity contest at least not to the extent that negative reviews are completely supressed. Ratings by helpfulness and even ordering by helpfullness are okay. Automatic deleting of unpopular opinion is not okay and at the time of writing this was not clear. It could have been the case even if it isn't the case.

Also his discussion style is miles above yours.

No, it isn't. It's a multipart hypothesis, which I then proceed to prove. Dipshits aren't owed niceties in return.

Also, you're insinuating that *I* am an intellectually dishonest dipshit who will proceed to edit the post when proven wrong and shamed. So fuck you.

Gamersgate isn't perfect, but it does at least screen reviews before publishing them. Also it offers a token amount of store credit for writing a published review. If GOG wanted worthwhile reviews then this would be the template to follow.
Yes.

But I'm not sure if you're supporting this stance or not.

Not really, but I'm for at least marking reviews from those who bought the game differently than those who didn't.

I don't want such reviews to be removed completely, because I review stuff myself on Amazon that I didn't buy there, and I read reviews from others. I'm capable of judging the value of a review. However I do want to know if the reviewer bought the game on GOG. I also won't mind knowing how much the reviewer played (something that I can on Steam), but I don't expect that. However, knowing if the person bought the game on GOG or not would play into my evaluation of that review. (And for those who don't care for reviews from non-buyers at all, there could be a filter for that.)
But as you said, that's not what consumers end up voting. They end up voting agree/disagree rather than helpful/not. Therefore their vote is quite meaningless.

Same goes for the original post, which is low rated not because it's not worthy of discussion, but because it criticises GOG, and that's something that automatically gets a low rating on this forum.

It should be possible for GOG to do that automatically. But I don't know how easy that would be.

I agree that reviews of the game purchased elsewhere have a certain degree of relevance. Just so long as that purchase was recent enough for their memory of the game to be reliable. 22 years ago doesn't count.

I can post to contradict. I wrote my first review a little while ago, and apart from a conversation with an idiot in the release thread, it was basically allowed to stand unchallenged. It was a 2 star review, and it was evidenced in threads that it was putting people off buying the game. The review is still there. I was expecting (and am now hoping) that there would be more plurality in the reviews, but it seems there are just 2 for this game.

If GOG had any business motivation for pulling reviews, it would have been mine. This was a fairly big title for them.

Not exactly, and nope.

The review evaluation system is badly designed in terms of review visibility and accessibility and prone to abuse (to address these two issues, it should offer filters by rating and sorting by magic), but in the specific case of the OP's review it worked well.

The original post is low rated because the argument is stupid. Look at threads where GOG is bashed for the chat blacklist not working or yet another piece of Good News[tm] (or, hell, the construction hat meme): plenty of green on criticism so harsh worse places would've banned posters for it.

Gog deletes reviews? I think it's more likely a technical problem because I've seen no shortage of exceptionally useless reviews that stay up forever.


My "favorite" types of reviews:


1.) SPAM that never gets deleted despite the circumstance that multiple users must have reported it

2.) Incoherent emo ramblings that don't even describe the game or any of its specific features and mechanics

3.) Reviews written before the player even finished the game. I don't care what you think after you only completed the 1st chapter, your assessment will be incomplete.

4.) Nostalgia based reviews. As a 14 year old kid, you were very impressed with this game and you still love it and it was instrumental in the forming of your persona. Ok...next!

5.) Reviews that try to be funny by using lame coypcat humor: "11/10 would *insert gag activity* again"


Edit: and here's a screencap to underline my point about reviews staying up regardless of how useless they are, this one was obviously meant as a joke and it admittedly made me laugh but let's not forget that joke reviews negatively affect the game's average rating because every rating counts the same. This 1 star review was for Shadowrun Hongkong:

Really glad size of the game isn't part of the price criteria. The OP states the 18MB game should be in the $1.99 tier. At that rate, The Witcher 3 + Expansion Pass doohickey would cost somewhere around $3,900 for 35 GB installed.



/heads over to the gifting thread to beg for TW3

You might want to read through this thread and reconsider. Apparently the review wasn't removed after all, and even if it was, it's not because it's a negative review, but because it wasn't a "review" to begin with. Just a guy complaining about the price of the game. Not useful to other potential customers, who'd like to know more about the game, at all.

Really? Some guy named SeederL33tNumeroEin over at superwareztorrent.gamez.com.ru said I can have it gifted from a bunch of his friends...


(just kidding folks - don't illegally torrent stuff. The only stuff I warez is my clothes)

Good call. Thats one positive to GG for all the negatives.... But yes ..i dont expect a proper full blown review - just something that resembles one instead of just "It was great and wonderful"..... devil in the detail. or lack of.

Oh I might, I also might not.

I have a principle in life: to believe a first and subsequent statements from a total stranger until he/she got caught on lie (unless it's not something like "give me some money, I'll make you rich someday").
The OP made a very serious claim against the all mighty GOG, through my reading on this thread I haven't find any inconsistencies with that very statement so far. At least at the moment of my own message.

Anyway making even very bad and obscure reviews to be buried upon negative votes might be a good feature, but it's well enough *undocumented* even more reasons for GOG officials to interrupt.

Here's a better approach: Instead of blindly believing the claims of a random stranger ( especially on the internet ), make sure you first consult all relevant sources of information, and then decide for yourself. Never trust a single source of information, especially when they're directly involved and thus likely to be biased.

In this particular case, all it took was a look at the game's reviews to verify two things. 1. OP's review is indeed still there. 2. ... as suspected, it was never a "review" to begin with.

And to save everyone else the trouble, here's a copy:

20mb game for $5.99, just REDICULOUS!!! by lonewolfgk
I AGREE!! This is rediculous, lately all these very old 2000 or less years games get sold for $5.99. These games are at $1.99 at most and even then rediculous for a 20mb game. I really think GOG should start looking at their prices, they are really pushing them a lot lately.
Sep 17, 2015 | Is this helpful to you? (3 of 91 users found this helpful)

As you can see, it contains not a single line of useful information about the game. It's nothing but a rant about GOG's pricing. And whether or not you or others agree with this complaint, it doesn't belong in the review section.