I mean...yeah? But HOG are particularly blatant in their cookie cutter-ness. I should know, I co-played about 30 of them with my mom. The Enigmataorhateveritscalled series was among them.

While I do agree that correct tagging would be a good thing - not just in this case - I'd like to take the opportunity to suggest GOG to tag their games correctly. It's unbelievable which games i.e. they tag as being "adventure" (Kingdon come Deliverance, Hollow Knight, Jazz Jackrabbit 1+2, Magrunner ect.). At least I was able to use custom tags in my library to tag those correctly.

I've just been chatting to the dev of Prominence (wishlist entry here) on Discord and he said this game was turned down because GOG weren't looking to add any more graphical adventures to the catalogue - then they add a load of cheap HOGs! Seriously GOG? WTF is going on over there?

Then I'd say we have to define what's "bad" before we can discuss any further. Let's stay with movies for a moment because yes, theree are several badly made movies (cheap effects, bad=fake acting, bad settings, forseeable plot ect.). Those are movies I personally dislike (at least when I am sober ;)). Still I won't say that these are OBJECTIVELY bad. I still think there's no such thing since objective means for everyone. If I am taller than you I can say this for a fact and it's objective to everybody. Art however (and I consider games to be art just like movies, books and paintings) will always just be and it's up to the people playing/experiencing it to decide if they are good or bad and this might differ depending on who you are asking.

Same goes for HOGs. As long as there still is a target group you cannot say those games are objectively bad. Maybe there is not that much work involved in developing them and maybe there's not that much gameplay involved when you play it - but that does not mean the game is bad. It just means it has not much gameplay in it. You make the rule that goes like "no or minor gameplay" = bad game, others make the rule "enjoyable experience no matter how much gameplay or playtime" = good game .... you are judging by your own rules here while people might use other rules to define what's good and what's bad. You mentioned TB and I am a big fan of him as well but he has the same rule that goes like "adventures are just rubbing item A with item B that's the whole gameplay and I don't like them" (he always managed to distinguish his personal opinion from objectively stated facts - that's one thing I admired about him). Yes, if we analyse the typical point and click adventure that's all that they are - still they are my favorite genre because .... I just like the experience. The same experience I can get by playing a VN (even if it is kinetic) or a HOG. Imo the EXPERIENCE is important and not the gameplay or mechanics itself and the experience will always be subjective.

I doubt this would happen here. As you said "some" people enjoy the shovelware on Steam but most don't. Imo GOG will not sell anything here that only a few would like. Just search the forum and you'll see how often people have asked for HOG on GOG. Then search again and tell me how many people were asking for "Shower with your dead" or "Under the blanket".

I don't know how experienced you are in things of economics but when it comes to surviving as a business you will have to broaden your offer and you'll have to aquire new customers. Otherwise your business won't survive. What do you think would have happened if GOG would have stuck to their original motto "Good od Games" until today? Just look how many classic games are added and how many indie games. There are far less classic games because it is getting harder and harder to get those to GOG - also those need much more support and testing to make sure they'll still work on modern systems. When GOG added indie titles to their catalogue many people weren't happy but it was the right thing to do. GOG made more money which gave them the opportunity to expand their store, adding several languages and so on. This all would not have happened if GOG would have stayed "specialized". And by the way, they already provide something the competitor does not odder at all: DRM-free gaming. It's imo their biggest asset and the reason I am trying to buy GOG only whenever it is possible.


Never heard about this - but just saw the trailer and for what it's worth I voted for it.

Just skimming through the lastest posts, but :

Totalbiscuit + Hidden Object ? GOOGLYGOOGLYGOOGLY !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAiA0svwJVE

It's champagne !

Also :

The HOGs that I've played had such sort of punitive mechanism. In the form of a timer that would "jump ahead" if you clicked wrongly too often. In fact, the very recent Hidden Folks is the first HOG I've played where I was allowed (and actually encouraged) to click anywhere an much as I wanted, and it took me some time to dare to, because of my older HOGs habits.

"I don't like it so it must be crap to everyone." And here I thought we were done with the baseless hate posts for this thread.

The most hilarious thing about the people who complain about these new games on GOG is that I suspect they haven't even encountered a genuinely bad HOG yet. Oh the sheltered life.

(My mommy always said there were no monsters, no real ones, but...)

That was the beginning of everything. "Good Old Games" become "All That Is Good On Gaming". You can't keep your store just selling the same articles through the years. As I said before on some post, we are already 2018.

"many people weren't happy". I'm sure of that. This is just an endless race to win new customers. Many old customers have a lot of games and stop buying after some years, or buy a lot less. Is the same race for every store (virtual or real life stores, and not only gaming stores, that doesn't matter).

Just look everybody at any shop or store of your city. Is just that simple. And at the same time so tricky to resolve if you are the owner.

Well, Lynette said "cheap" and not "crap" to be fair. And they are cheap - at least at this moment :)

And this rule has no meaning, as experience is subjective. I could recommend you games, that I enjoyed. But this won't give you any kind of information to be able to decide, if you will like them as well. "Minor gameplay" on the other hand is a fact and objective for everyone. It is then up to the consumer, to decide, if he is ok with it or not.

I am only interested in what is functioning. Categorising games by enjoyment is not functioning. Reviews like "I like this game" are worthless. Reviews that clearly list features and elements are helpful.

Again, someone's experience has no meaning for other people. Gameplay and mechanics on the other hand do.

Let's start with everything that is not a game, but sold/advertised as one, is automatically a bad game. And the way I described HOGs, they are not.
The goal of my question was, if you would state the same arguments or would you criticise this step? It is enough, if you answer the question honestly for yourself. If your answer is 'No', then we are on the same page, you just draw the line somewhere else.

I am not. I can talk only from the perspective of a customer. And as a customer I wouldn't switch to a competitor, if he has the same to offer.
The DRM is a difference, but not one, that made me interested in GoG. I came here, because I wanted a heavily regulated store. And while this is a subjective preference of mine, I doubt, that many are bothered by DRM in the form of a client. They got used to it and it has nice benefits. I always use Galaxy to install and play as it is just convenient. Therefore GoG needs something else to distinguish itself from others. And I doubt people will switch from Steam to GoG, because HOGs are sold here now. But in that case only CDP have access to stats and can see the development.

What would be a compromise (for me personally) is to blacklist games (by genre, tags, developer, publisher). If Steam would have done this, it might still be my preferred platform.

Now that sounds more interesting, but I'd imagine it is still the same gameplay of "look at a picture, click somewhere".

Just because something else is worse, doesn't make something better or suddenly good. I am afraid, that the "habituation effect" gets actively (ab)used to shift or lower standards. If a game does something super terrible, following games are perceived more positive, since it isn't "as bad as the last time".
I remember Overwatch and Killing Floor 2 being criticised for having lootboxes/ MTX skins available. Now after EA's SW BF4 people are more accepting their system.

"Stop corrupting our lands with this evil!".

I've heard this song before. But that time I was in Salem with a DeLorean.

Well, tired of this thread anyway.

True. Features can be described to others objectively and those reviews that just do that are imo the best. We don't disagree here at all. I am just disagreeing with your categorizing games as "objectively bad" or "objectively good" just because the gameplay mechanics are few or many. Yes, you will describe a game to others by describing its features but that does not mean that all there is to a certain game ARE those features. As you said (and I agreed) the experience in the end is what makes a game good or bad and since this is subjective and since it's all that counts in the end you won't be able to categorize games in "good" and "bad" for anybody else but yourself and the people from which you know what they like or dislike.

You want an honest answer? I would not even care. I watch the releases and whenever something will be released I like I will put it on my wishlist. Even though I am pretty sure that GOG will never go the Steam route (because Steam has NO curation AT ALL) I could live with this as well. I would never critizise a store adding additional products - why should I? I am sure some people would be glad.

this assumption was posted in another time not so long ago and was proven to be wrong. In fact most people here on GOG (at least those that are posting in the forum) are here BECAUSE they prefer GOGs DRM-free approach. Even those who are using Galaxy aren't FORCED to do so.

Even GOG Galaxy is different because you don't HAVE to use it. Again: they ARE different.

Sure they won't but people here on GOG have already asked GOG to get HOGs here - they are just fulfilling an existing demand. Just read the thread and count how many here are unhappy about this.

Blacklist? You mean "filter" or "ban"? A filter could be implemented quite easily imo and should make all those "problems" you obviously have, disappear. GOG should just add this as a feature. Afaik Steam has some sort of a filter but it's pretty rough.

BUt MuH hArDcoRe GaMinG OBJecTiVe StAnDaRdS!!!




edit: Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's just so ridiculous.

No, I am not saying that. I enjoyed good and bad games. I disliked good and bad games. I completely detach the quality of a product from the enjoyment one can get. You either are not capable doing so or just don't want to.

You don't have too. A liberal store is a valid strategy, but it is just A strategy. I personally prefer if there would be a retailer, that didn't go this route and I hoped it is GoG.

Where do I say the opposite? I had Steam users in mind, when I wrote that sentence. My assumption is, that GoG being DRM free is not enough to compete, as (I believe) most are not bothered using a client anymore.

I have no idea, how you came to the conclusion, I was saying otherwise. I was talking about the merits of a client as part of my theory, that being DRM free is not enough to distinguish itself.

And I admitted in my very first comment (via an edit though) that looking through the thread it seems, that most accept it.