Technojedi: There are plenty of games I've played on GOG or own the original CD/DVD/disks for games that are on GOG but haven't purchased again on GOG. There are some good old games I didn't get to play the first time they were "new" and I go to the Review section for a game to only find the first half-dozen "helpful" reviews are just nostalgic posts that evaluate the game through rose-colored (or a rare bad experience) glasses from the PAST.

I want to know if the game will run properly on Windows 7/8 without DoxBox shenanigans (i.e. Privateer 2 or Invictus). I want to know if the game is fun in the present (not in the past) or was perhaps one of those unique games that did some game mechanic first. I want to know what key things make the game still fun today that is similar/different from current games in the same genre.

I don't need to know that you sat on Daddy's lap as you played your first FPS and it was fun so I should get the game ,too, but now on GOG. That isn't helpful for the product I am thinking of purchasing: "Oh, this guy had fun with this game at age 7 on his dad's lap so I guess I should buy this game". Not helpful. I mark NO for not helpful.

Maybe GOG needs a special section for a game where people can wax poetic in nostalgia for a game they played over ten years ago but it should NOT be counted as a review of the game. A Review is one where a person currently purchased the game on GOG, somewhat recently, and played it. Then they are giving their evaluation of the game as it is TODAY, not in the past.

I ask all readers to consider marking nostalgic "reviews" as Not Helpful and perhaps we can help filter these otherwise useless game posts passed off as "reviews" from real, current and helpful reviews. Thanks.

Technojedi: There are plenty of games I've played on GOG or own the original CD/DVD/disks for games that are on GOG but haven't purchased again on GOG. There are some good old games I didn't get to play the first time they were "new" and I go to the Review section for a game to only find the first half-dozen "helpful" reviews are just nostalgic posts that evaluate the game through rose-colored (or a rare bad experience) glasses from the PAST.

I want to know if the game will run properly on Windows 7/8 without DoxBox shenanigans (i.e. Privateer 2 or Invictus). I want to know if the game is fun in the present (not in the past) or was perhaps one of those unique games that did some game mechanic first. I want to know what key things make the game still fun today that is similar/different from current games in the same genre.

I don't need to know that you sat on Daddy's lap as you played your first FPS and it was fun so I should get the game ,too, but now on GOG. That isn't helpful for the product I am thinking of purchasing: "Oh, this guy had fun with this game at age 7 on his dad's lap so I guess I should buy this game". Not helpful. I mark NO for not helpful.

Maybe GOG needs a special section for a game where people can wax poetic in nostalgia for a game they played over ten years ago but it should NOT be counted as a review of the game. A Review is one where a person currently purchased the game on GOG, somewhat recently, and played it. Then they are giving their evaluation of the game as it is TODAY, not in the past.

I ask all readers to consider marking nostalgic "reviews" as Not Helpful and perhaps we can help filter these otherwise useless game posts passed off as "reviews" from real, current and helpful reviews. Thanks.

Azilut: I don't think there's anything wrong with posting a nostalgic review, as long as the author clearly states that that's what they're doing. That being said, I also don't think there's anything wrong with marking said reviews as "not helpful" so that more contemporary reviews float to the top.

So, um, carry on, I guess?

Niggles: Maybe it might be a better option to have some sort of form with structure much like reviews used to have (everyone seems to write a lot of fluff and little substance in reviews at times - as if waxing lyrical throwing words will win a reader over ) - it Graphics,Audio,Story, etc know what i mean?. It wouldnt get rid of the nostalgic reviews but would at least give reader something proper to follow..if u look ....the best reviews on gog are generally those where people have bothered to go into detail...regardless of when they bought/played the game

Ixamyakxim: I don't mind them so much. Usually I can get a good idea from the review itself if it's going to be helpful to me. Sometimes I even like reading about someone's experience with a beloved classic.

In aggregate, I can usually get an idea whether or not a game is for me, based on reviews and impressions. I'd never base my decision on just one review. So it doesn't bother me as much when someone really gushes about a game. In fact I like these types of "reviews" 1,000Xs more than the ones that go like this

"1 Star. This game sucked."

End review.

Sachys: "10/10 I need therapy. Would read again."

Edit: its a further example - as the sale has brought out the wierdos!

snowkatt: does that often happen during sales or is this a special occurance ?

phaolo: Reviews maybe need some additional fields like these:
- played GOG version: yes \ no
- playthrough status: completed \ almost finished \ only half \ only first part \ no
- your age: (range)

With GOG Galaxy these could be auto-filled with also play date&time and game version.

snowkatt: does that often happen during sales or is this a special occurance ?

Niggles: I guess the more detail the better. Enough for customer to make an informed decision. doesnt help when opinion is divided on a given game though :).
Niggles: Oh it happens regularly. Game gets released. Someone posts up a review within half hour of the launch bashing the game (not even a critical review) ie - "Too expensive" "This game is crap" "Dont bother wasting your time".. with decided lack of details as to why....really sucks for the game if people buying rely heavily on the reviews .