The steam system doesn't really work either. The first review I read for SoD was a negative review citing the SJW and political agenda being forced down their throat. I checked the users profile - they'd played 9 minutes. There was absolutely no way they had managed to come across any objectionable content in the first 9 minutes.

Yes, I just found out about this. I agree it should be removed since it has so much potential for abuse, especially from competitors / fanboys. I still think ''review bombing'' is abstract in terms of review content, but allowing anyone to make any statement in a system where the maintenance staff cannot on reasonable terms be contacted for removal is bad. I recall how some author was declared to be a neo-nazi on an amazon page for his book, which is a 100% factually inaccurate statement that can cause harm.


This is interesting too. Almost all other online commerce sites have a non-verified purchaser review option. I didn't contemplate that it will influence product credibility, but remember my own behavior of disregarding products without customers on sites like amazon.

I still think GOG should either do owner only reviews or alternatively allow the dev to choose reviews from unverified customers with flags pointing them out.

I'm trying to remember where I saw it, but I think the data pretty clearly indicates that no-review products fare the worst of all in online shopping. So the most important thing is to get reviews.

Steam and Google Play are the only stores I know of which don't allow reviews from unconfirmed purchasers, and that only works because both of those stores are >90% of their platform. GOG is not in that position.

Interesting thoughts Gilozard. I don't agree with much, and I can't say I'm very surprised...

Some people have always been willing to talk about cronyism - no matter who does it. Others have always made those critiques very partial - conditional on involvement of the big game publishers and larger commercial agendas, but turning a blind eye to cronyism nearer indies / narrative driven games, and specific ideological agendas.

Nothing surprising - indie cred and mission journalism both overlap significantly with "stick it to the man" and anti-capitalist activism. That anyone would feel defensive about acknowledging that is to me ridiculous given all the talk of sincerety as the ethical standard to replace objectivity. But I digress...

I don't particularly remember nerd rage being the reason for the mass deletion of threads before GG even had that name. I'm sure it was there from the start to some degree, but it was fueled by not even allowing anyone to discuss the taboo topics. Rage certainly didn't cause anyone to sleep with anyone else you know?

Now, distrust was in there for sure, with lots of confirmation bias on both sides. But the reflexive dismissal that distrust had any validity - in the typical "nothing to see here" coverup model - only served to fuel the paranoia of those so inclined. Me I saw it as just another sign of the ethical immaturity of most of those in positions of relative power in gaming media, but maybe you will call it just sloppy moderation.

As an aside, GOG is exceptional (for good and bad) in that it was one of the very few places where outright deletion and dismissal was not reflexively performed, and if you look at the relevant threads objectively you will see the rage, insults and abuse was not exclusive to one side of the discussion - far from it. At least you do acknowledge both sides are trollish - not a big step from there to realize also abusive. Thanks for that step.

Finally, as for the distinction between sloppiness and lack of ethics, you might have to elaborate. I see both as mostly unintentional lacks of professionalism in this context (though really I will not put my hands on the fire for anyone else's motives, this shit is too polarized now) - still in theory neither is equivalent to existence of antethical motives. And they can certainly overlap rather than be wholly distinct.

I think the more relevant point is that this is again your othering distrust. If you see / saw a criticism about lack of ethics as an implicit accusation of malice - that is another example of how from the beginning there was a certain oversensitive defensiveness contributing to the overreaction and demonization. One could almost say that was RAAAGE (of the How dare you question/refuse me! privilege variety) and extremely unhelpful. Whether anyone enraged identifies as nerd, gamer, or whatever - it hardly matters IMO.

But of course, the labels matter to many. Ultimately this does go back to the rejection of objectivity all around - not unique to journalism. If you reject judging others on the basis of their observable factual behavior, you are only left with their identifying labels. The group abides, the individual is subsumed. Guilt by association becoming the norm. To me, that's kind of counterproductive if the goal is to look at individuals as diverse units of human value. One could almost say the rejection of objectivity is antethical with acknowleging the value of diversity - if one looks at the consequences rather than the intent that is.

Tragic. The constant pursuit of freedom via libertinism and lack of challenges or boundaries to one's will rather than freedom as libertarian agency limited by respect for others as equals.

i don't get what you're implying? i can point out at least 3 bioware games/expansions that "feminists" would ABSOLUTELY HATE.

GOG could improve the situation by limiting who can review brand new games. I went over some possibilities a few posts back.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/review_brigading_on_gog/post63

The question is, why does GOG carry reviews at all? I see two main reasons. To help drive sales, and to provide a service that encourages customer trust in the website. GOG's review system hasn't ever been perfect, but it's usually helpful enough to justify using it. If non-customers can torpedo impressions of an early game without any proof they've ever played it, it doesn't help the sales angle at all, and it turns customers off of the review system in general.

There's no particular reason for GOG to give review space to every single account who claims to own something. If a new game comes out and you paid for it on Steam, review it on Steam. Someone else will do a good enough job here and get voted up for it. Older games are less likely to get targeted by agendas, and reviews from past owners are far more valuable in those cases, so GOG should continue to keep those open to everyone. But GOG should still indicate if the reviewer bought and downloaded a GOG copy so that the reader can tell if the reviewer is aware of any changes or bugs in the GOG release.

I said "against SJWness", not regarding social issues.

I have a copy of NWN platinum on DVD here physically in front of me. Are my thoughts completely irrelevant if I haven't bought the game on GoG? And if that's the case if I buy the game and never played the GoG version, does it make a difference since I'm still reviewing the original game?

Ownership of a digital copy ultimately isn't a good representation of knowing what you're talking about. Someone recalling purely on nostalgia will probably be apparent. Still I'd be hesitant to replay the Gold box for D&D archived games just to review based on my already present views from playing it 10 years ago.

I thought I'd stay out of this thread - because most of what's here isn't an issue for me.

But, GOG has no business leaking ANY account information to strangers - even if under the guise of "indicating[sic] automatically whether the reviewer has GOG's version", and even if "just" whether a particular account holds a particular game on it or not.

If a particular account holder WANTS to share that info - fine - but no way should GOG just do it automatically.

JMO

Hahaha that is hilarious, I mean the people who got their panties in a bunch now are usually the ones who accuse the other side of getting angry at minor things!
gotta love videogamers, probably the dumbest subculture after football fans.

Judging by my posts being low rated, it appears we have a bunch of self-identified losers on the boards, eh?

do explain your definitions. 'cause AFAIK most gamers do consider such "feminists" (as in those who get offended over any female stereotypes or overly manly male characters) as "SJWs". and the SJWs do consider "problematic" videogames as social issues.

We're only talking about reviews here, not showing someone's information in other contexts. The goal is to have a system that excludes random or organized drive-by reviews that have no investment in the game. If the only way to post a review is to have the game in your GOG account, it doesn't matter how GOG marks your review, because your review itself will be proof you have the game.

They could give you a confirmation box saying "By submitting this review, you are acknowledging in public that you have this game in your GOG account." Then you wouldn't accidentally be posting that information.

But consider something else. Remember we're only talking about reviews here, not your profile. If you post a review of a game, aren't you very strongly implying that you have played it? If you don't indicate you're reviewing based on a different release, aren't you strongly implying you have the game in your account? The only reason to be posting a review at all is because you genuinely played through enough of the game to share your opinion on it. How does confirming you have the game you're reviewing cause additional harm beyond what you already reveal by posting an informed public review of that game?

Just saw this. Please read this : https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2nz204/important_ftc_update_4_ftc_confirms_that_yes