You keep spouting off about misinformation...what misinformation?

Again, you have no argument so you repeat the same lie. You have insulted me multiple times in this thread.
Everything I've stated is the truth...
You tried to start a stink about this rejection in the "Games GoG has rejected thread" and when that wasn't getting enough traction. You started another thread here. Exactly what I was saying about certain people who can't seem to find a rejected game they don't like and keep spamming the forums with these anti-GoG threads over games that were properly curated out.

The only one "misinforming" is you!

How many bad arguments are you going to continue to make...
The game has been priced at $29.99 or more for 5 years...
That's the price the developer has set...and that is the price GoG rejected it at.

Second, as we've gone through before, you have a bad habit of trying to complete dismiss a point with lame excuses. The number of reviews are NOT irrelevant! They show roughly how much interest a game is really generating. Same as the number of positives are NOT irrelevant just because you claim they CAN be manipulated. They are both strong indicators of the potential success of a title.

And here we have a 5 year old game with only 45% positive reviews and after 5 years only 162 people even bothered to review it. Less than 80 people rating it "positive", and I just showed one of those 80 reviews they rated it positive because the game is so bad you can laugh at it.

I think even at 90% off, most people aren't going to buy it because of its reputation and low quality. And I'm sure GoG knows that too. They rightfully rejected it then and now that 5 years have passed, there is no way in Hell they are bringing this game here.

Well, here we go again...

Misinformation: More misinformation and insults to kai2:
Another insults to kai2:
More insults to kai2:
And even more misinformation from the same post:
Insults to me:
Attemps to speak on behalf of the community without their permission:
Remember: always speak only for yourself. If someone wants to say something, they can do it themselves and they don't need your "help".

More insults to me:
And even more insults and threats:
As for my "insults", I always treat people according to their actions. If you are acting like a provocateur and a psycho, it makes no sense to be surprised (or offended) that you are treated like a provocateur and a psycho. Let me remind you that you are the first who appeared in this topic with insults, threats and attempts to put your speculations into my words.

All these quotes from above are nothing more than your speculations and insults, but definitely not "facts". I suggest you to calm down, otherwise I will contact support. I'm pretty tired of your provocations.

You using easily falsifiable data(this is not to say it is ALL false, just that it CAN be falsified) and touting it as evidence of how well/unwell a game will do on gog, for example.

Or misrepresenting some of what others have said here.

And you insulted him as well, leading him to get understandably upset. You're like a kid who throws rocks at an animal and then wonders why it strikes back.

You want civil replies? Then show some civility in your posts and don't resort to insults on other people's intelligence or their beliefs as some of your main talking points & debate point by point on the topic at hand while being ready to be open to new ideas/stances on the subject matter.
===================================

Gog could always work to negotiate a better deal, or the dev could choose to sell it at a lesser price.

First, you'd get better replies if you stopped talking down to those you reply to as if they are their opinions are trash.

Second, as I said before such data can and likely is faked on occasion, and even it it wasn't it doesn't show every single player's opinion(as not everyone left a review) so it(steam reviews) don't necessarily show an accurate portrayal of how well it was received.

Also steam reviews/sales do not necessarily indicate how well it'd sell or be received on gog, even if they are accurate.

As for my claims.....what else do you expect me to do to prove it? Make some fake reviews and risk getting my account banned? They CAN be done.....and my claim will have to be enough unless you want to try gaming the system there and take the risk that comes with that, as I sure as hell won't risk my own account just to prove it to you.

How much less than 80% 755? 70%? If that number is averaged out to the rest of those that didn't review it then how is that a bad number?

Also a sale is a sale is a sale....even if people dislike it they still bought it, and every sale for gog would be a good sale(more profit).

You said it...you THINK...you don't KNOW.

Because you know so much about gog's inner workings and what they're going to do. Who are you? Zoltar?
==========================================
And once again, I ask: Why do you keep coming back to defend gog in threads you dislike? It's not like you're getting paid to do so, and you seem to not like the topic & most of the replies you get....so why keep coming back in here?

As gog seems to not listen to the wishlist much anymore then why does it bother you so much when people make threads to drum up support in a mostly civil manner for their favorite games? Why not let people have their threads without you or anyone else adding negativity to the mix?
==========================================

I recommend that you just ignore him and try to move on with this thread....don't let him derail this thread any more than he already has, and let us get back to the topic at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, I love the look of the videos posted in the thread...it seems somewhat decent and I hope get it here....albeit for a fair price, that is.

You don't know what you are talking about.

"using easily falsifiable data" - Gamerager quit being an idiot. Nothing I posted is "easily falsifiable", you clearly don't know what those words mean...

I falsified only 162 reviews in 5 years? I falsified 45% positive reviews? You are nuts!

"Gog could always work to negotiate a better deal" - it doesn't work that way. It never has...more foolishness. And how much money does GoG make selling the game for the $0.50 it deserves?

You can't prove your claims because it would be stupid to do so. No one is going to buy this game on Steam just to downvote it multiple times. And that still doesn't explain the lack of reviews.

Just because someone CAN do something doesn't make the data so completely unreliable that it can be totally ignored. That's just you being dumb. In fact, I proved there were reviews intentionally upvoting this game. See one way someone can prove their claims?

As usual, you are talking out of your behind...

(Note: NSFW.....lewd language)
(All jokes aside, it looks pretty decent/interesting...definitely worth at least 5 bucks and maybe as much as 10)

You posted and complained about this in another thread - FACT
You made this topic to further complain - FACT...

You seem to think calling facts misinformation is a real argument...

I'm done talking to people like you who have constantly b.s.

No reasonable person would think this game being 5 years old and so poorly reviewed, belongs on a curated storefront. This game was not "greatly improved" as proven by the lack of reviews, keys given away like candy and still the game received only 45% positives. This game is still a mess with a stupid plot that makes no sense, enemies constantly stuck on terrain, horrible voice acting that they added more of and game-breaking bugs that still plague people to this day.

The only person "misinforming" is you, who for some reason is trying to claim the game with completely fixed when it clearly wasn't and the reviews and review scores proves this...

It's not surprising since you have no response...

Because your anti-intellectual "anything that can be manipulate is completely false" b.s.

Here's another example...
One game has 10 reviews over 10 years with a perfect 10 for 10 negative.
Another game came out last week and already has 1000 reviews with 97% positive.

You are claiming that because reviews CAN be manipulated GoG should just flip a coin. Since both those results could have be manipulated they are completely meaningless.

That's why your arguments hold no water and make no sense...

I never said it was completely false.....I just inferred that such data should be taken with that in mind and not held as 100% reliable(and of course not 0% reliable).

Unless the majority of those reviews can be verified as truthful the data should be taken with a grain of salt/with that in mind. This is not to say all reviews cannot be trusted ever, though(which is what you seem to be implying that I am saying).

Also could you please link to the game in question/more info so I can verify these figures?

(I am not trying to say you are lying, btw, but that without hard proof anyone can essentially state any figure they want for anything....some links/proof would be welcome on these numbers)

I did not say that....please try to stick to what I said and if in doubt ASK before making assumptions. The data can hold SOME value, and when used with other means(pre orders as I said before, ala kickstarter backer type pre orders/etc) it could allow gog to gauge interest BEFORE bringing a game to the site or not, and allow them to profit on games they can profit on and reject less games due to more user interest input/hard data/etc.

They only make no sense because you are seemingly misreading what I am saying and intending, likely due to a bias towards your own way of thinking and against that of others on such matters(feel free to correct me if I am wrong, however)
==============================================
(Note that I went through the trouble of replying to your posts calmly and civilly here. I would appreciate reciprocation in kind.)

Yes you did...

Post 64:
"RWarehall: You keep spouting off about misinformation...what misinformation?

You using easily falsifiable data(this is not to say it is ALL false, just that it CAN be falsified) and touting it as evidence of how well/unwell a game will do on gog, for example."

It sure seems to be you saying you cannot decide how well a game might do on GoG based on this data at all. But as usual you won't argue the 162 reviews over 5 years or the 45% positives just your assertion this can be easily manipulated with no proof.

In fact you used this dumb argument to claim it as "proof" of my misinformation...how dumb is that? Amazing how the education system has failed people nowadays. They think trying to poke a small hole means a 100% successful argument. Clearly people with no knowledge of logic nor reasoning...

I noticed how you ignored the part where I showed actual fake reviews and an account linking them together. The kind of evidence you could find but aren't even trying. I guess just your word about how easy it is to buy games to tank review scores...which still doesn't address the fact there are just 162 reviews over 5 years...but to be more fair it's really 4 years since they renamed the game to bury all the other bad reviews. Meaning this 45% positive result is from the "greatly improved" version of the game and not the original Raven's Cry...if this is 45% positive, how bad was Raven's Cry before?

Look at the risk of people shooting the messenger I think the arguing has gone on too much and people have stated their points already. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and has different tastes, although I never thought I'd come across someone who was so passionate about Ravens Cry I guess I was wrong.

Following people around stalking their username and judging them on how many games they have is wrong, yes there are plenty of things wrong with the way the forum operates (up voting and down voting and it's abuse) and I'm sure no one likes being down voted. I've had people stalk me in the forums and down vote me because of my opinions on things said in the forum as well so I suggest you guys just agree to disagree and go play some fun games.

Reread that bit I bolded....it contradicts your claim that I said it was 100% false or inferred such.

I cannot decide myself, that is true, but then neither can you. I think the customer should be able to judge that for themselves and they could be a valuable tool to determine what gog should bring here(vote with their wallets, quite literally) more so than some curation team, at least.

As for proof, I already told you why such proof is not going to happen. Most who do so aren't going to admit such and risk losing their accounts, and I would obviously not do such and risk losing my own account....but it CAN happen, as the review system is easy to game in how it is set up: i.e. one can buy a game on sale(1-2 dollars even or less), let it run a bit, then review it poorly or praise it highly if they so wanted. The system is close to being as easy to game as those polls where one can keep voting by refreshing the page.

So how many times can you call someone dumb or similar in one reply? Because saying it over and over does not make it so, and does not prove your point.

I could but why should I when you might just call me dumb some more and cast any proof I find aside for whatever reason? Also could you point out the post so I don't have to wade through several pages? It would be appreciated.

Review scores being easy to manipulate(steam/etc) is just one facet of why I don't trust them as much...another reason is because not everyone or even the majority is represented. Also usually only the ones who aren't lazy and had a memorable experience(good or bad) tend to review the most, leading to various problems with the results as well.

======================

Good points especially the bolded bit....have a good one, then.

Look GameRager...
You completely dismissed review scores entirely calling them "misinformation" on my part, continue to argue that somehow I can't decide anything from that data....

First, it's data. It can be looked at on its face and compared to other games where over 18,000 of ~36,000 games on Steam receive at least an 80%. Compare that to 45%...I can know. I can also look at that data and count exactly how many reviews it would take to drop a score from 80% to 45%...and let's remember that is for a middling Steam game, not a good one. And then there is the matter of only 162 reviews since 2015 or that less than 80 of them are positive.

Do you want to explain how one "manipulates" that data and makes about 1000 positive reviews just go away? (Being enough reviews to show the game is actually maybe popular enough to belong here)

And you keep going on with this stupidity of how "easy" it is to manipulate this data. But one person, buying a key just to drop the score might be easy (if there is some reason to waste one's money), but to buy enough keys to pan the game? It would be easier with this game since keys have been on sale for as little as $0.16, but still, wouldn't there be more reviews?

So yes, your argument is dumb. You refuse to discuss any of the details and keep going to your unbacked assertion that it must be just so easy to manipulate scores. But here is what you miss in the difference between GoG and Steam. GoG you can review a game without buying it and it still counts. In fact one can just rate the game without a review. GoG is very open to brigading. Steam is must less so, because in the main score, only verified purchasers count. Furthermore, one has to go through the hoop of writing an actual review. And of course this means someone who wants to hate vote a game needs to buy a key from somewhere. What a great way to stick it to a publisher! "I just bought 100 copies of your game to downvote the heck out of it. See publisher!"...as the publisher is counting their money...

Of course, if one doesn't have to pay for keys (aka publishers like this one) and they use them to add a bunch of fake reviews, Steam is vulnerable to that. As I gave an example earlier in the thread...

But I'm sure you will respond with the same anti-intellectual response "but reviews are easily manipulated so no one should trust any data" as you completely ignore everything else said to repeat your poor and unsupported argument...