I doubt continuing that discussion was his intention, instead the double standards.

In one case you're saying "that's great, even if I don't like it, soneone else probably will", in the other you're saying "this is complete ass". Perhaps someone will enjoy said ass?

A couple people on the forum who dislike the game won't stop GOG from releasing what they want. It's a popular site now, tons of people visit it.

GOG WILL be the second DD service to host Daikatana!

I actually quite liked Desert Storm back on the old XBOX. Yeah it wasn't the best game I ever played but I thought it was quite realistic and required a bit of thought.

I'm not sure he means it can be "bought" at the first, merely "acquired".

http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-DAI/daikatana

GG beat us. :D

Or that!

Looks like GamersGate made us their bitch!

Suck it down.

I think people who whine about this or that game appearing here really don't understand the overall concept behind GOG.

As for whining about the games they don't like that are on this site all I can say is "Tough. You'll get over it." I have no use for strategy games myself, but why should that give me a reason to yell at GOG for marketing to the people who do like strategy games? Also, some games on here, even ones that aren't necessarily good have a place as they have their niche in gaming history. (I bought Messiah when it cm out and never got it to work to play at all, but despite all it's flaws it was one of the most innovative games of it's time.)

As for whining about games they want that aren't on here? They apparently have no clue what it takes to get a game on the site. The biggest issue, and it's somewhere in the site they talk about it I'm sure, is licensing issues. Some companies are so uptight with their IPs they'd rather let them rot in a vault unused than let someone else make a buck off them. Other IPs may be tied up in contracts or legal issues that won't allow them to be published by GOG.

Haters are gonna hate. But I think the majority are either unwilling or too stupid to understand the underlying concept behind GOG. It's impossible for them to give us everything they want and it's unreasonable to trash anything they do give us no matter if it's of questionable quality.

I agree GOG should maybe improve how quickly they order the reviews, but I am still against restricting the reviews to people who have bought the game by virtue of the site. We are not a first-run site, many people will own copies and played these games awhile ago. Sometimes that makes nostalgia take over already and if you restrict to only those who have bought (sometimes for the umpteenth time) the game you bias yourself even more upwards than GOG reviews typically are. That's what I see on a lot of sites that require you to buy before you rate where many will have already seen the movie (in the theaters) or played the game (because these are re-releases) somewhere else.

I agree that the reviews mentioned by the OP are pointless and stupid, but in general reviews and ratings on this site are pretty positive for most games and restricting reviews to people who have bought the game would bias ourselves towards even more nostalgia. GOG just needs to update the ordering faster so the pointless and stupid reviews are pushed down further, faster.

The "review problem" isn't one that can be easily solved, because the core of the problem is people not being objective about their reviewing, and/or not taking the time to express their opinion in a useful manner. I personally think that reviews that are entirely "OMG I played this game back in the day and it was so awesome 5/5" are just as harmful as "This game sucks. DO NOT BUY." And I can't think of any restrictions that will solve this.

I would agree with that. A "true" review points out the reasons why you like or dislike a particular game.

One solution to the review issue is maybe a minimum number of words needed for a review to be posted, like 100 or something. Of course that could lead to "This game sucks really bad!" being repeated 20 times.

Yeah although then you really, really could mark them as spam and there would be no argument that GOG would be right to take them down just as they could take down "This game was so awesome!" repeated a hundred times. I dunno a word count might help a little in both directions and I think is better than the "only if you bought it" restriction.

One thing I would like for them to do is to make a review system that doesn't let you review Witcher 2 with 5 stars a week before anyone (outside the developers' club) has played it :p

...I mean, maybe it's just me but that just seems kind of fishy.

Maybe they could have a "have you actually played this game?" checkbox when writing stuff and a "do you want to see the reviews by people who haven't even played the game?" checkbox when viewing them. Some of the wild reviewers might actually be honest enough to not check it!

Sequiro, allow me to nod my head in shared sympathy. I came to gog.com originally for one really good old game. I stayed because of their variety and lack of DRM. If they only stocked the real "classics" I probably would have bought that first game and never looked back.

I mean, one man's trashy game is another man's trashy-but-not-in-a-bad-way game. I did, after all, buy Duke Nukem the Manhattan Project, so I can appreciate a game that is not triple-A quality. You can have great games some of the time, not great games all of the time.

In fact, I'll probably get Conflict: Desert Storm sometime. It sounds like a fun B-grade game.