Precisely. A review is not a comment. A review should be about the game and explain the rating you give it.

And even bricks and mortar stores will vet reviews based on certain criteria. Not everyone wants to hear you think a product is shit just because you didn't know how to use the thing properly.

true i guess but we can always sort by most helpful.

If you really need to crowd source opinions about a game just ask about it in the forums.

Deleting dumb comments imo is ok, but critical reviews not.

Usually dumb reviews are critical.

No one who likes the game becomes insulting towards the dev or GOG.

Most of the time, it's review bombing by people who put little thought or effort in their writing to begin with. When I read a review, I want to know WHY the author came to that conclusion. I won't miss one-sentence reviews that waste space and are uninformative at the same time.

Sometimes they do. Someone took a screenshot of the deleted Blade Runner reviews though and many of them that were deleted were not "abusive" or "insulting", they were deleted for bringing "unwelcome honesty" and calling out a bad remaster for what it is. The fact NightDive were forced to go back and re-release the original they "bait & switched out" then (partially) redo the 'enhanced' edition and the fact Steam reviews are still at "Mixed" with plenty of (non-deleted) similarly critical reviews still up and that even the gaming media called it a disaster should be a 'red flag' that someone went overboard here with setting the "DEL" key on "Autofire" mode against entirely accurate, truthful and non-abusive reviews...

Edit: After 7 years of development hell and comments by the CEO like "we went a different direction with the writing after we restarted the project", I'm hoping for the best (but preparing for the worst) with the upcoming System Shock (2023). It will be interesting to see what 'someone dared to criticise NightDive' reviews go "missing" and why if they mess that up too...

By your standards, even if the game didn't work on 50% of PCs then no-one would say that. Someone has to be the first to post a "this doesn't work on my PC" review - if they're an isolated case then the number of other reviews will point that out. It would be much better if GOG implemented review editing so that they could update afterwards, that would reward developers for fixing bugs, but don't blame the reviewer.

Depends if they're still playing it. A one-star "I tried it, and it isn't worth finishing" or (for some of us) a "I tried it, and it only works on QWERTY layouts, so I'm not continuing" is useful.

I don't like them either if they are flippant, lazy or incomprehensible. But there are valid reasons for both of those review types if they are well written and the reasons behind them are well detailed.

So Gog staff are able to delete your reviews after all? Does this mean if someone wants to change a review, you can message a GoG staff for them to delete your previous review so you can place a new one?

Regarding the topic, I think the best way to make sure GoG isn't unreasonably deleting reviews to cater to game sellers or something is for there to be a record of various reviews deleted and who deleted them that anyone can access, including what was said in the review.

We should not have to depend on GoGs word that the reviews or worse yet their silence and just hope they aren't mistreating customers with unreasonable review deletion.

Review deletion should be limited to abusive or fake (like someone making dummy accounts to brag up their product or sabotage a opponents) as well. No deleting reviews because "you think they are stupid", Like let others decide that for themselves. You could even have people being able to review others reviews, like say whether they found the review helpful or funny and being able to comment on others reviews.

That's a topic which turns up frequently here.
For example: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/how_to_editdelete_my_reviewrating_for_a_game

In the past support staff would do it, so it's at least possible. The question is whether they're still willing.

Hmm.. I don't know.. you're making a purchasing decision, your money is going somewhere
Like, maybe it isn't totally inappropriate to remind people what massive bellends JK Rowling and Doug TenNagle are when buying Harry Potter and earthworm Jim games and merch?

Or Activision and Ubisoft's terrible business practices and toxic work environments?

Or maybe I'm just a diehard woke old leftie who still watches Jim-Steph Sterling and Bob "MovieBob" Chipman?

What does any of that have to do with the overall quality of the games? You know... gameplay, graphics, sound effects, replayability, multi-player (if they have it), system requirements and performance, etc.

I don't know who those people are. Did they make any games?

Why does it have to? You are making a purchase, why shouldn't you be informed where your money is going?
Why limit a review to the art and ignore the business in a world where CEOs and top execs ignore the art focus on the business?