For games like this, classics here on GoG How they work today is way more important than how good the game itself is.
When looking at these games, the number one thing I need to know is how well it runs, not how good it was when it came out.
So please, make sure you test the game in atleast the current version before reviewing it.

That is a common and understandable complaint about the reviews. But on the other hand some people want to know about the game not the technical stuff. So I don't think there will ever be a consent on this. It certainly won't change since we see this kind of topic reguarly ;-)

I never think about how a game 'performs' when writing a review. I just assume it works when I buy my games here.

If a game has small size (>2GB) and it has minor glitch (which don't stop me from playing) then I am okay with it.
While if a game is larger then I wait for patches to arrive.

This also includes if you have played a game, but it's been over a decade since you last played it. For example, you may have found Toonstuck to be funny back in the 90s, but it may well be an unfunny grate to the ears now.

The problem with that : Even the information "how does it runs now?" is pretty useless (or even harmful) if said "now" was 6 month and 9 patches ago.
The review sections are stock full with rants about bugs that have been squashed years ago. Or the opposite, glowing reviews about the way this game works on older OS, when it's a mess on windows10...


At least, informations about the game's design and gameplay don't become obsolete too often (they do sometime when DLCs/patches come with massive changes, but it's less common)

Great topic.
Reviewing for memberries purposes and whatnot is a thing, while revisiting a game might be true horror as mentioned above.
So... it's always a mixed bag when the issue is classic releases imho!

On the other hand, there are other types of unhelpful reviews:

[i]
This game didn't work on my specific system even though it works just fine on other people's machines, but still 0/5 worst game ever!!!1

I can't specify my savegame directory therefore 0/5 worst game ever1!!!

This otherwise fine game features some reasonable mechanic that I personally hate, thus 0/5 worst game ever !1!![/i]

When you say "haven't played" - I agree. However, if I have played the game, then I am able to give a review, be it a nostalgic one.

And, no, I disagree with "How they work today is way more important than how good the game itself is" - gameplay always trumps technical thingies. And so a review should also always reflect this.

Valid point, though Charon is right too.

GOG tries to make these old games run, and even though it's important to assess how well that worked at the time of re-release, these reviews are then set in stone while work on the game may be ongoing. What use is e.g. a "Doesn't work on Windows 10" review if GOG fixes it the very next day?

It would be interesting to design a review system that is tailor made for GOG's unique circumstances, but as GOG will rather change jack shit on their website and forum, these are all dreams.

The imperative for reviews therefore could be:

Make your focus clear in the headline.
Keep it short.
Try to assess whether the problem is just yours or will undoubtedly surface on other systems too.
Don't write a review before attempting elementary troubleshooting.

I think this is really the point... the review system is not fit for purpose.
It should really have a variety of options (including having you include your OS etc. for technical reviews) so you can either categorise reviews as technical or otherwise or have different sections where you can review how it runs separately to how it plays.
In isolation both technical and gameplay reviews can be completely useless (and to be honest I find reviews basically useless anyway, I occasionally read them to get a feel for a game I don't know a lot about but I don't trust them as far as I can throw them) and they need a lot more context for them to be of lasting value.

Exactly. For me that's a way more important issue than nostalgic reviews mentioned above!

Reviews from uncritical fans ramp up games' ratings and at least make me interested in that games; technical issues are less important, because for a good game it's sometimes only a matter of determination to make it work properly.

But there are great games, with cult or classic status, which has poor ranking on GOG due to some technical issues, which:
a) does not matter, if the game is great (VtM: Bloodlines!)
b) has been already solved, but still affects game's rating.
I play on Linux and face the problem with ratings very often. Windows 10 raised a lot of technical issues and caused a lot of games to be unplayable for Windows users. For me nothing changed, games work properly with native ports or Wine-based tools. These are still the same, great games, but the current rating system does not show that any more... :/

What's even worse are people who go

"Oh hey, i know this game so much. I've played it and love the heck out of it but it doesn't work sooooooo......1 star".

I'm going to strongly disagree with you. If the technical issues are severe enough, they can easily ruin a game. Textures constantly flickering so that they hurt watching, constant crashes, the game eating save files, extremely long loading times and so on can ruin a game with stellar gameplay.

One solution to reviews being made obsolete due to patches & fixes would be to simply do what Steam does right now, show an all time and a recent review score. If there's a big difference between the two, it's likely because something has been fixed (or broken).



Also, another reason to limit reviews to games people have on GOG would be to limit knee-jerk reaction reviews. This is more of a problem with modern games, but I've seen several cases of people giving negative reviews to games that they have no experience with, and where this lack of experience clearly shows. You get "intelligent" reviews like: (one of the earliest Her Story reviews)