Hello...
I was browsing through some games and noticed their scores are around 3/5 stars, but the usual reviewers give those games pretty decent scores. So I went through some pages of reviews and noticed a few reviews where the member gave the game a 1/5 star because they felt $20 wasn't worth paying for a 50 MB game. Of course, those reviews have been marked down as very unhelpful by the majority. However, that still doesn't help the score of the game itself.

Shouldn't these scores/reviews be considered illegitimate since the reviews are for what the player feels about the game play factors?

Giving a game 1/5 stars because they feel $20 is too expensive for a game that is small in size is ridiculous. It' shouldn't be considered a real review.

What I suggest is if a vast majority of the people find a review very unhelpful, that the review gets hidden and its score discounted from the total score. That way, games that are decent would have real scores, rather than skewered scores based on ridiculous opinions.

Also, to extend on this suggestion, make it so if members are constantly creating unhelpful reviews, that their new reviews become discounted toward the score, until their 'helpfulness' is in the positive.

EDITED:

Please note that although this thread states a 'minor problem' with very unhelpful reviews, it's actually what I suggested as a 'solution' to help mitigate unhelpful reviews. So this could also pertain to unhelpful reviews with those that talk about nostalgia but not actually rating game play mechanics, etc.

The solution as stated in my 4th paragraph basically means if a member posts a 'review' and it gets an overwhelming amount of unhelpful votes, then that review's rating becomes discounted towards the overall score of the game. This way, the score of that game fits within the range of helpful reviews.

Sorry for the confusion. For some reason, when I post on GoG.com, my English expression becomes 'broken' and long winded.

EDITED #2:

What I suggested was a mechanic to help people 'at a glance' what the helpful voters feel is a fair general score and that the score itself can break down further, say on 'hover-over with mouse cursor' how it was voted.

Examples on mouse hover-over the general score, a little pop-up will hover/load up and say:

- Score based on 80% who bought the game: 3.5/5
- Score based on helpful reviewers: 4/5
- Score based on unconfirmed players: 3.5/5

Etc.

Reason I suggested this besides to help mitigate the unhelpful review scores is because we developed a similar voting/rating mechanic on a web portal we built for a client. So far, it works with some +/-margin.

The system is to further help narrow down/filter out bad scores that add to the overall score. Indeed, as Skeletonbow mentioned, there is no such mechanic to make scores more accurate without a manual laborer (moderator) to go through reviews and confirm them as such. However, this system is self moderated by the community and is to give a general outlook on how the game scores.

Personally, I do my research on a game from different sources before I purchase it. However, this suggestion is to help the game get a fairer score.

Of course, if people feel this system won't work for GoG, then hell, feedback down the drain. Ultimately, all I did was suggest a system/function for the game scores, regardless of the issue.

Thanks for all of your responses.

How is mentioning that the game is too expensive for what it is (in the reviewer's opinion of course) an "unhelpful review"?

because the reviewer didnt give directions to zanzibar!

Price is huge to me, too.

Nonetheless, GOG reviews are fairly reliable -- as are the stars. Just take them on a 3 star system and deduct 2 from every rating.

5-stars are all stellar games. 4 are rather mediocre. Stay away from 3s.

1) The reviewers never played the game.

2) They're basing the worth of the game on its file size.

Their review would have been fine if they played the game and found out the content/substance of the game falls short of the price. However, none of those reviewers played the game. So how would they know that the game isn't worth the price? I'm sure price is huge for many people, but this isn't the issue. The issue is that those reviewers rate the games based on the cost per file size without ever playing a second of the game.

Cost per size.
That made John Holmes famous. :D

Haha ^_^

Because the value of five dollars is going to be different from person to person number A. Number B because the work that went into those 50MB for Minecraft, for example, is more important than the value of the MB themselves.

Eh. there is no such thing as a "illegitimate" review. Everyone gets to determine the value of their time and money how they see fit. There simply isn't any "proper" way to review any game.

And what makes you think they didn't play it? If they know the file size, they have at least bought it.

A review should be based on the actual game itself, gameplay, sound, graphics, story.... not the freaking price -- thats got nothing to do whether the game is good or not. It might have to do with game *value* but that really should be rated separately... i bet OP is talking about Redshirts.....

The bigger issue is that the front page reviews are usually just whatever the first reviews were. Regardless of whether or not they're at all useful.

The Universe tends to balance itself out so in the case of game reviews, the overrating ones and the underrating ones balance each other out nicely so I don't think there's an immediate need for cleanup action.

I think it's okay however people want to review a game, but my problem is not being able to sort reviews based on star rating. Steam lets you view positive/negative reviews only, and that's incredibly helpful.