Yeah :)

I don't know what's going on with those reviews either (that was not the only review that said something of that "downward spiral of quality" sort) - very, very odd.

Yeah that's my guess as well and I can understand why GOG would want a small one, but it seems like it should be faster ... those reviews have been up for awhile now crowding out better reviews from the front page - also the first one currently is also a newer review of the game, so it must be some combination of weirdness for GOG's system.

This really reminds me of a thread I started in October...

[url=]http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/strangest_reviews[/url]

I have noticed that many people still don't understand what "review" means while reading some of the game reviews lately. I feel this needs to be changed, rather sooner than later.

I think the review system needs to limit the reviews to people who bought the game, or at least a pull-down menu in the review-box that states if the game was recently bought from GoG and played or if the game was played in the past and the review is based on nostalgia.

However, I reckon a minimum length for a review would probably suffice, it takes much more effort to actually write some honest thoughts and memories about a game than "Th1s g43m suxx0r don7 byu!!11". I am sure some who actually want and are mentally capable of reviewing the game will gladly spend a few minutes to share their thoughts.

Agree with the minimum length thing. Now since my post is too short and I have nothing to add I'm gonna fill it with useless junk.

Just kidding.

Maybe not limit reviews to people who bought the game, but showing whether the author of a review bought it on GOG or not and giving priority to reviews written by people who purchased the game could help.

I'm in favor of limiting reviewing to people who've bought the game, or showing clearly if the reviewer has bought the game or not. Positive reviews based solely on nostalgia are just as unhelpful as those spiteful reviews.

Oddly enough limiting the review to only people who have bought the game might actually increase the nostalgia factor in the early reviews (which tend, not always, but tend to be the ones that end up on the front page). The reason is because the often the people who insta-buy buy the game on GOG have played the game before and loved it and this is their xth time paying for the game. The reviews you select for, especially early one, are people who have played before and want to buy it again. Whereas someone who tries to warn people that the game is not good or is at best mediocre (and is willing to explain why beyond "Do not buy suXors, herp derp!!!!) can't post because they don't want to buy the game again - they didn't really like it. So with second run sites you select even further for positive reviews if you restrict to people who have bought the game. You see this often with second run sites. First run sites the reviews limited to people who have bought the game don't have this problem.

Lots of people review out of nostalgia when they haven't even bought the GOG version of the game, and don't intend to. Of course if reviewing was restricted there would still be people so excited by the release of an old favorite, that they'd buy and review before playing it, but the ratio of nostalgia reviews to proper reviews would at least be better. And the random spiteful reviews would disappear entirely.

Anyway, I don't read GOG reviews to decide if I want a game. I find the game forums or googling to be more helpful.

After reading this thread, I almost feel bad for my Deus Ex review. Then again, it's such a popular household title, I think "A bomb!" still qualifies as a reasonable review :>

But I'm digressing; I'm all for over-enthusiasm, or less than enthusiastic, reviews if there is sufficient recognition for its shortcomings or qualities, but knocking on a game simply because it is not titled Marvin's Marvelous Misanthropic Muses is silly. I mean, come on, OH WOE THIS ISN'T SYSTEM SHOCK~~ Yeah everyone knows there are some big names being thrown around the Internet constantly, that just their mere mention would make people reinstall them; however, just classifying only these games as being worthy of notice is no different than buying into the hype of AAA titles that have hundreds of thousands of dollars splurged on the marketing process.

My experience on second run sites where they limit the reviews to people who have bought the game or movie is opposite - those who have the bought the game already have played it or watched the movie and are buying because they like it so much. This biases it far in favor of the movie/game in question. I see this all the time on movie sites where you have to buy the movie to review it (since many people have seen the movie in the theatre or on TV and are now buying the movie). The reviews are almost overwhelmingly positive on every movie, no matter how bad. Restricting to buyers actually increases, not decreases the nostalgia ratio because only those who have nostalgia for the game end up reviewing it because they're the ones who bought it, especially in the beginning, and those are often the ones that end up in the front game card. The people with intense nostalgia are likely to pick it up again. People who played the game and do not have nostalgia for the game don't buy insta-buy it and therefore can't review it. I would agree that an overly nostalgic review is not necessarily a bad thing as long as they bother to explain what made the game so special to them. It's the one liners: "Buy, it's awesome" that are not particularly useful. You are right that it would eliminate the spiteful, ill-thoughtout reviews. However, a minimum word requirement should take of both.

Despite the fact that I have read the odd good review of a game on GOG, the forums are probably more helpful. :)
You are an awful human being ... :)

(internet note: that was intended to be jocular and not offensive)

only let people who bought the game on GoG review it.

I agree, I thought the same when I read the reviews about Desert Storm and some other titles.

Reviews should be objective in some way and provide an explanation of the game. I usually ignore them but I fear that GoG might have some decreased sales because people tend to give bad ratings.

Although on the other hands most people know these games and rebuy them again. But at times like me, I buy games that I have never played before.

I use GoG to find some old, undiscovered gems, too, and often buy games I have never played before. While I know some games aren't perfect and they have their flaws, I don't understand it when someone calls it a "sh*tty game" just out of spite, without an explanation what the reason was.

A good review should be able to point out the weaknesses and the strength of the game while telling how the game plays and feels as a whole.

That's a weakness of the peer review process, true. But I haven't seen that appear for GOG's reviews.

The main weaknesses I see for GOG are the fact that an early review will retain most of the attention (they need better sorting tools) and even an old game released here will lose attention (by reviewers, which is especially unfortunate as I feel the ones who give the game time don't feel compelled to contribute as they aren't in demand) shortly after it's release.

I personally like recommending a review I disagree with if it's well written and reasoned, and that's all I can offer to those who feel they are in the minority. I don't feel the need to be always popular or in the majority, myself.