How would GOG know that you don't own the game, especially if it's a game that's out on multiple platforms and/or for many years? I owned JA2 for 2+ years before I bought it on GOG, and I did consider myself versed enough in it to be able to answer any questions, so I could also write a review of it. Same holds true for quite a few games. Does the fact that I don't own the game on GOG mean I cannot do a proper review of it?
A "Owns it on GOG" indicator would be highly appreciated though.

Yes, I remember one game that was also vote brigade, but the game was not published here but even got a negative wishlist to not be published.

Yes, I am talking about HATRED.

I don't have anything against reviews posted based on past experience with a game that explain what the game is about. I've done that and had the review reach the top spot without feeling any guilt. I try to mention that my experience was not with GOG's version.

GOG should indicate automatically whether the reviewer has GOG's version and allow customers to filter reviews based on ownership. They could also limit non-GOG-owning reviews to rereleases or games that have been available for a long time on other sites. Troll star ratings are harder to spot than troll reviews, so maybe the average rating should be limited to people who bought the game through GOG.

Should non-buyers be allowed to rate reviews up and down? Generally the decent reviews make it to the top, and if a review convinces you to not buy something you'd consider it helpful. But rating up someone's bad review is the easiest way to abuse the system. So maybe that's another case where it would help to be able to filter based on ownership status, or have GOG weight the customer votes a lot higher.

I'm not, I already know how especially the non-gaming media will react. They will simply present it as another example how "gamers", meaning young nerdy angry men who never got laid, just can't accept that now there are female gamers too. As if people who've normally liked games are simply against female gamers, and women in general. In fact, they allegedly hate women.

Forget about proper journalism where you actually try to understand the issue (from both sides), exploring it more deeply etc... No, it is just easier to write if off as a simple one-sided case.

Oh well, the world is imperfect.

By checking what's in your account like Steam does. What matters is whether you played the GoG release, not that you played the game 20 years ago. The current system is open for abuse, and while this is AFAIK the first documented case of review-bombing here, it sets a precedent and GoG needs to take action. Right now you could literally register a few dozen accounts and bomb any newly released game.

Not without buying the game. And the term itself is quite vague. You can still get legit criticism and have the same result. Going by the current usage, you can say Batman:AK and AC:Unity were review bombed as well. And what steps can really be taken? You buy a game and get an option to review it.
What can GOG do about that? You can't hold back review rights for people who did negative reviews, and you can't force a ceiling on negative reviews or something.
I hope different but expect the same as what you said.

So what happens in case of a Kickstarter game that I have on Humble instead of GOG due to how the publisher issued keys? Same game, but I don't own it on GOG.
How about a game I bought the retail version of and not the GOG one, like The Witcher 2 on release?
What about Carmageddon Max Pack, that has the exact same files both on GOG and Steam, thus Steam's version is the GOG version?

There are multiple ways one could have a game GOG sells yet still not own it on GOG. You say that none of those opinions matter, because it's not the GOG version, even though GOG's versions have been sold on other stores as well(the infinity games for example or the tomb raiders on steam).

Yes, there should be a check of whether the reviewer owns the game on GOG or not, but it shouldn't prevent people from posting a review. Just tag the reviews as "Owns product on GOG" or not as needed.

P.S. And I have played the GOG version of games that I do not own on GOG (not illegally, weird as it may sound), so should I be able to review said product or not?

1) GGers are about ethics in gaming journalism the way neo-Nazis are about social democracy. It's a false flag they run to get people behind their real agenda. GG actions have not actually resulted in better gaming ethics. They have resulted in harassment, intimidation, BAD journalistic ethics and trying to intimidate news outlets (the Intel thing), and the idea that one must pander to angry trolls to avoid horrible consequences.

2) There is no 'gamer identity'. There are people, who play games. Some people who play games don't like it that other, different, people play games. Or that other people play games differently. Or that other people play different games.

3) PSA: It's possible to dislike the same thing a group purports to dislike, and also utterly oppose that group for other crap they pull.

I would prefer that all news sites were better. But I'll take bad reporting over harassment, intimidation, and trying to enforce a made-up 'gamer identity' via criminal and social tactics.

The negative reviews that were just political rants got deleted, I think.

Yeah. People put BG on such a pedestal. It's a good game, in parts a great game, but some people have decided it's the best thing ever and won't listen to any other opinion.

Precisely. I'm a huge fan of Baldur's Gate, but I can understand how others might not like it. However, what Beamdog did to Safana and Khalid and Jaheira was to me like finding out that recent editions of Hugh Lofting's Dr. Dolittle have made changes to remove racial stereotypes (including editing of a subplot; the book was written in 1920 for God's sake) or the removal of corporal punishment in Enid Blyton's books. Or the calls to remove "nigger" from Huckleberry Finn.

Why? Create a spiritual successor, call it "Adventures in Cormyr" and add all the characters you want. Why change the classics?

Are all Bernie bros misogynists? Because what you just asserted about GG is similar conflation. Maybe GG aren't closer to neonazis, but to anarcho communists and Occupy? Hmmm?

Any way, before there was GG there was this whole brouhaha involving a games dev and a games journalist hooking up. Several things happened at the same time:
1 - the games dev was mobbed - to say the least
2 - several people concerned about ethics in gaming journalism (there were earlier "scandals" like Doritogate) focused on the new issue
3 - discussion of the topic was repressed across pretty much most of the mainstream gaming media

3 is conveniently forgotten but it was the fuel that resulted in 2 and 1 becoming a much bigger deal, proving again that it's never the scandal, it's the coverup.

As the fire kept burning, instead of divide and conquer, you (general you) decided to conflate the issues and dismiss topic 2 as camouflage from the outset - hence the Gamers are Dead articles. Hence Gamergate. Today amazingly more and more people are willing to admit what was obvious from the start: the level of cronyism in gaming media was excessive - still is at the least sloppy - and the indie scene in particular was a huge source of issues because the passion of all involved made professionalism a secondary concern.

Now you here still refuse to distinguish 1 and 2 as separate issues with some overlap, despite yourself having concerns with the sloppiness of gaming journalism. Others must be liars, unlike you. You can see and state there is sloppy journalism and yet not be a misogynist harasser - but you do not give others the benefit of the doubt.

Amazing really: "Yes there were issues, but you can't be honestly concerned with them, because I don't trust you." Either that or you disagree with the word ethics and like to say sloppy instead, as if the meaning of lack of professionalism was not equal either way...

I hope in another few years you will have moved even further - from merely acknowledging there were issues call them ethical or call them sloppyness - into realizing how the incendiary nature of certain emotional responses to what were legitimate worries and criticisms contributed to cause this whole mess.

People have always been willing to talk about the cronyism in gaming journalism. This is not a new thing. Professionalism was always a problem with the indie scene, and before GG people were willing to do things like actually talk about professional working standards in game development that everyone could agree on.

All GG brought to the table was NERRD RAAAGGEE and that was supremely unhelpful. To people who were working on this issue for a long time, GG was a huge blow because any attempt to discuss actual issues got co-opted by angry bigotry. The dialogue on this stuff was seriously set back and politicized in an extremely unhelpful way.

We're finally starting to return to something resembling the state we were in prior to GG starting, except now everyone is slightly angrier, and discussions must be had much more carefully (and often out of public spheres, increasing cronyism and ethical conflicts) because any mention of 'ethics in games journalism' in public is asking for angry trolls on both sides to land on you.

Sloppy journalism and unethical journalism are very different things, and driven by very different motivations. If you don't understand the distinction, there can't really be a productive discussion on how to improve either or both.

You can literally review any game on GoG without buying it. It is my opinion that this should be changed to prevent review-bombing. Steam's system is much more reasonable in that regard. Don't own the game on the platform? Then you shouldn't have the right to review it on said platform. Go to Metacritic or wherever you bought the game from.

So many games here are old and niche, they'd have no reviews if that was true.

You know what's a top turnoff for online products? No reviews.

Steam can only get away with insisting people have to have bought the Steam version because they're the vast majority of the PC gaming market.

@OP : The review you are quoting makes a very valid point. I don't think that makes a great review, but I've seen far worse. The first thing about reviews : not every good or bad game can be easy to make good reviews about ; in that particular case, if a game is remade into a statement, does it *need* more things to be said about ? That doesn't cover everything, but as I said, it's a fair point (but I agree it shouldn't be the most helpful thing said about the game).