PixelBoy: You need to remember that you can get a refund on Steam if you play less than two hours. It can therefore be assumed that those who absolutely hate the game will choose to get a refund, don't have it in their collection, and don't end up writing reviews about it. But those who like the game and have it in their collection, can review and rate it, so the whole system automatically favours positive views.

Olauron: When a game is bought only by the small target audience (by fans of this or that developer, this or that gameplay feature, etc.), reviews by owners are higher than for a game that is more known and is bought by a wider audience with different expectations. It doesn't mean that the quality of this game is better. It means that this game is unknown and is bought only by core supporters. Or even that the lack of quality of this game is so apparent that most gamers who happen to see game page do not bother to buy it to write negative review.
So, for the extreme number of small games on Steam even with the positive reviews the scenario for the average gamer (like myself) is
1) I had no idea that this game even exist;
2) now that I know about it I would call it trash but I can't because of Steam review system.

Edit: typos.

Pheace: This is an argument for why low number of reviews make reviews less reliable than higher numbers? (which I don't disagree with) Yet your point seemed to be that it was bad that only owners could review. I don't see the connection.

Olauron: The rule that only owners can review a game is one of the reasons of low number of reviews. Why would I buy a game if I have negative opinion about it?

Olauron: Should I try everything to have an opinion? As a gamer I don't need to run a game to know whether its graphics is good (screenshots, trailers), whether its sound is good (trailers), whether its gameplay features are good (game page, game site, screenshots, trailers).

Olauron: Should I try everything to have an opinion? As a gamer I don't need to run a game to know whether its graphics is good (screenshots, trailers), whether its sound is good (trailers), whether its gameplay features are good (game page, game site, screenshots, trailers).

Pheace: Yeah, and I don't need to be flooded with pointless reviews like "Weeaboo crap" or "Denuvo sucks" "Graphics suck (highly subjective)" etc etc. I'm far more interested in opinions of people who were still interested in the game based on what they're seeing and were disappointed after testing it than I am of people who weren't or aren't interested anymore to begin with before ever even playing it.

ZFR: A review and opinion are two different things. Yes, reviews should only be done by people who tried the product.

i_hope_you_rot: Just buy this

https://www.gog.com/game/asura

or this

https://www.gog.com/game/immortal_redneck

or this

https://www.gog.com/game/tower_of_guns

Olauron: A review is an opinion with arguments.

Maighstir: To answer the question in the title: I do. The tea Uppercut Games offered me was sub-par, thus their game is refused. They need to learn to select better leaves and make a better brew, if they can do that, I may give them another chance.

Mawthra: And that's a perfectly valid point... but negates the fact that not everyone feels the same way about every game

ZFR: But on Steam and GOG these are user reviews or customer reviews. If I come across something that is called a "user review" I expect it to be written by a person who used it.

ZFR: That... was my whole point. Not everyone feels the same way about every game: it's subjective. So no matter who does the curation, if you have curation you will eventually find a game that didn't pass the curation process while you thought it's good.