I just really find it upsetting because I wanted to find out more about MegaRace and there were like three reviews none of them longer than a paragraph and two of them weren't even full sentences..

GOG should come up with some kind of template and allow full length reviews to be submitted and then posted above with the game info. Then simply allow people to post comments below, limiting them to a set amount of words.
I know most people only put coments anyway and since they are from many different countries i can understand why their english may be a bit bad (i, however have no excuse). I know if i tried to write in any other language it would be terrible.
If possible it would also be handy to post links to game info & reviews,maybe even showing ratings (is it Steam which already does this ?)

I really, wholeheartedly disagree with statistics. the ratings steam shows, has like a 65 for CS:CZ, and I've played the game and it's actually quite solid, it's more than just a model/texture update, I'd rather see an actual review than a number.

True.
There are many games which scored very average reviews which i got more enjoyment out of than some which were rated really highly.

This seems like a great idea, but it might prevent negative reviews of fan-boy games (e.g. Fallout 1/2) from ever seeing the light of day, even if they present valid opinions.
I disagree with the general sentiment on this thread that only long game reviews should be allowed, primarily because I also disagree with point 5.
Not everyone who is looking to buy a game on GoG is an uninformed newbie who's never heard of the game.
For example, as someone familiar with the Descent series, single-paragraph reviews which compare Descent 3 to D2 are more valuable to me than the essays required to meet the criteria suggested in this thread.
The ratings system should help to balance out the different opinions, insofar as good, comprehensive reviews get good ratings. Perhaps one day they could expand this to include feature reviewers as well as feature reviews.

Have you tried the "read critic reviews" button just underneath it? The metacritic system is brilliant, and I think the rating reflects the general opinion of the game quite well.
Looking at the full metacritic rundown, a few reviewers shared your opinion and really liked the game. A majority, however, were underwhelmed.

a one paragraph review really probably answers only one question. And therefore is not a review of the game. Maybe they could split it up into sections though, like full reviews, and short reviews, because I can see where a full review might not be necessary, but if you're going to give a game an extreme score like a 1 star or a 5 star, I would expect you to show your work as to why you think it is.yes, I have looked, and while the system works if you view the games page, it's quite broken if you reduce the whole of the page to the single critic score, which is what steam does.

I actually posted a topic on the same thing a few months ago, and I agree.

There are several contributing factors here, but I think the most significant are:
* Deadlines. Every man and his dog has a review up within 24 hours of the game being released. As many gamers will buy their games within a few days of release, waiting to do a comprehensive review means losing your share of the readership.
* Early access. Publishers don't have the same level of access to pre-release copies of games like they once did, so they are less able to form their opinions prior to game release. Also, I don't think cheat codes are as readily available now as they were in the past. Expecting a reviewer to make his own way through the first hour of Daikatana without giving up is just mean.

Certainly this is true for new games, but to stay on topic, I'm referring to reviews specifically only on GOG.com.

NO.

I honestly don't see any need for a change in the system. Blocking people who post short/not so useful (as far as you're concerned) reviews just means there will be less reviews in total. I very much doubt they'll suddenly say "oh well, I'll make more effort". It's very easy to skim through and find the useful ones, it's also pretty easy to find reviews elsewhere on the net if you're so inclined. I see no reason to waste extra time on fixing a feature that clearly isn't broken just because you feel it doesn't behave how you'd like it to.

I just posted an ideal ruleset, I'm not demanding change.
Mostly I'm just whining in the hopes someone will read it and strive to make a better review next time.

There should at least be automatic sorting of reviews based on user ratings.
I'd love a "review police" but I guess that just opens the doors for more drawbacks than benefits in the long run.
I saw a Fallout 1 "review" which was three lines long and basically said that Fallout 1 was a crap game and I don't recommend it for anyone because it wouldn't run right away on my computer, also it wasn't a 3D shooter with bloom, wtf *runs to his mama crying for more money to buy another game with*.
Stuff like that needs to go.

damn straight.