I think you are missing the idea of what a review is, they are subjective and personal.
What is the correct score and who should decide it ? you ? GOG ? GameSpot ? TotalBiscuit ?...who ?

I don't think most older gamers pay much attention to the score itself but on what is actually said in the text.
Personally I tend to ignore the ratings and instead look for keywords like 'game length' and 'crashes often'.
If a reviewer complains about something I personally don't care about that review becomes useless to me.

I have no problems giving 5-star reviews if I don't think the game had any significant flaws, according to my own criteria, and I really enjoyed the game. I also tend to give 5/5 scores if I think the game is truly unique and only has minor issues.

You can't judge older games by today's standards as far as technology goes, obvious things like 'graphics' for example. The same goes for games where physics matters a great deal as with racing, sports and simulation games.

However you can certainly judge them according to the storylines and overall narration.
You can compare level and game design as well in certain genres, as with FPS games and strategy games.

I don't know about the newer version of Sonic, but what games I played that I feel better than the older Sonic I played before

Warlord Battle cry,
Master of Magic,
Lords of the Realm,
Jazz Rabbit,
Wizardry series,
Age of wonder series,
Mario,
Secret of Mana,
Breath of Fire,
C&C,
Diablo,
Warcraft,
Starcraft,
Final Fantasy,
Hero of Might & Magic,
Elder Scroll,
Vampire the Masquerade,
Half Life,
Counter-Strike,
Baldur’s Gate,
Pokemon,
Age of Mythology,
Aliens vs. Predator,
Battle Realms,
Black & White,
Dungeon Keeper,
Dungeon Siege,
Giants: Citizen Kabuto,
Homeworld,
Icewind Dale,
Neverwinter Nights,
Populous The Beginning,
Rise of Nations,
Sacrifice,
Settlers,
Spellforce,
Star Wars series,
Total Annihilation,
Contra,
Metal Slug,
Romance of the Three Kingdom,
Bubble bobble,
Suikoden,
Shining Force,
Age of Empires,
Titan Quest.,
Disciples,
Sacred,
Galactic Civilizations,
Warhammer.

Help fix the review system. 1 star everything to balance it out.

I think Tropico 5 has one of the best five star reviews.

I'm not aware of TotalBiscuit giving scores to games; Actually he has plainly said he hates scores since it condenses too much into a number. He also gives his first impressions of the game, usually biased towards mechanics over story.

The correct score is from recently played, unbiased (as possible), and un-inflated (with a 7 minimum), not based purely on nostalgia and glowing reviews from something 10+ years ago.

But i'm just throwing out what would be more guidelines. It's quite hard for someone to be unbiased, especially with a franchise they love where they are willing to score it without going off the old 'good will' from games in the past.

I think the confusion is because of the lack of definition of star points (as Socrates have said 2 thousand years ago may he rest in peace). For most people 4 point is average and 3 star is bad. For me 3 star is average, 4 star is good and 5 star is legendary. GOG should put such meanings on the page you are putting stars so people have a common opinion and 3 star doesnt mean it is bad.

I dont think rating on yesterdays standarts is totally bad idea. For my point of view only 2 things change with time and this is interface/controls and graphics. As a person who doesnt care about graphics at all, I am able to play yesterdays games with same joy i did today. Like Master of Orion (1993) which I play almost every week. Also, I dont think Heroes of Might and Magix 3 will ever be considered old for me. I can still play it anyday.

Sonic is still an awesome game.

Moreover, most of the games on GOG are really really good games and they do deserve 5 star rating. I gave Neverwinter Nights (which I played last month) 5 star rating because despite the bad critics, I had much more pleasure playing it than I had with Dragon Age Inquisition and I found it excellent in every department. So why not give 5 star?

I agree 100% with you. But that's a trend which is very difficult to change at this point. Especially when places like Steam have reduced game reviewing to a mere thumbs up or thumbs down. And I feel like a lot of people are translating a thumbs up into 5 stars here.

All the nostalgia 5-star reviews have diluted the real meaning of a 5-star review, especially when it comes to old games. You have to take those with a huge grain of salt.
This is even more evident when an old game is first released on GOG and immediately you see loads of 5-star reviews by people who don't even know if said release even works properly on current machines. And then those who actually buy and play the games once again are probably biased with their nostalgia googles on.

You can never know whether a user has reviewed a game by today's standards so you're better off just reading the content of the review as well as comparing it with other review websites such as metacritic or even checking out gameplay videos.

On the other hand, one can argue that it's actually fair to rate a game for what it was worth when it first came out. So if you want to find out if a game is actually playable by today's standards it's your responsibility to do some research.

That is what I hate most of today's world.

People play old games, and then judge them on today's standards. The old game may suck compared to the newest title, but that doesn't mean the old game is no longer or wasn't fun.

Others replay old games they enjoyed before and when it doesn't fit their current tastes, they pull out the 'game didn't age well' excuse to explain that.

Why am I the only one who picks up an old game and actually enjoys it instead of ranting about how it doesn't belong today or why it sucks compared to new titles so it must be downvoted?

Sonic the Hedgehog is a 5-star title. Or to be honest, I'd give it a 4-star and reserve the 5-stars for Sonic 2, CD, 3 and 4, mainly because the first entry is slow paced and only has two zones in which running is the theme while the rest are all heavy platforming, but then did I rate it based on how bad it is compared to newer titles or based on how much did I enjoy it, what I liked, and what I disliked?

Curious - can a grain be huge?

Serious - The five-star ratings that grind my gears, are the ones that simply say 'thanks for finally bringing this awesome game here GOG'. That's not a review, and not even fit for a postview (yes, I made up a word!).

Take me for example,never played Arcanum before buying it here and most people who know me knows that I place that game on a pedestal.
But sometimes I don't enjoy some games sold here because they feel really clunky and sometimes player hostile. Pretty much a severe case of Seinfeld is Unfunny like Ultima and most old Dungeon Crawlers and adventure games (especially Sierra titles)
Or the ones that review the game only based on nostalgia.
I mean,I love SS2 but so many people say that it's the Second Coming of vídeo games and forget that,by today standards,is very clunky.

Because most of us are not game reviewers. We buy games that we think we will enjoy or that we enjoyed when we were young. So, our rating is not, by any means, unbiased. We are not forced to play games that we wouldn't enjoy.

For example, i don't usually play sports or racing games. I'm not gonna go around, searching all sports and racing games i can find, trying to play them, just to bash them by giving them poor ratings. I would not achieve anything. Instead, i play what i hope that i will enjoy and, most of the times, i do.

So, taken from a statistical point your view, my library will not contain, on average, 2.5 stars games. It will contain mostly 4-5 stars games from my point of view. If i would work as an game reviewer, i would probably achieve that 2.5 stars average rating, as i would have to play games that i don't like. But as an passionate, i'm entitled in playing games that i think i will enjoy.

Rejoice OP, this thread sure as hell isn't getting 5 stars! :D

I love it when someone complains that the review system is screwed but then follows it up by dictating to everyone else what is and what isn't a good game. :P

INFIDEL!


:D The question was more directed towards Styer27. I realise there are a lot of games better than Sonic, I was just curious about in what sense Sonic is somehow no longer a good game, but other games can be.

The whole idea of time somehow diminishing the quality of a game seems weird to me. If you can get the same experience playing Sonic now as you got 25 years ago, how is it a worse game? If other games came along later and built on the idea of Sonic and somehow improved it (which in the specific case of Sonic I don't think happened, but it did for other games, I guess) does that diminish the older game? I don't think so, but I was there for the original, so who knows.
Maybe people who played Skyrim first think that Morrowind is just an okay game, but...I'm not sure I like the idea of living in a world like that :D.

If you truly think a 5-star game back in the day deserves a 1 star now, then I can see how you came to your whole opening post. Graphics isn't everything you know, and more importantly, in my opinion you can't rate a game without considering the (technological) achievements that were made back in the day.

Especially in the case of Sonic the Hedgehog, I seriously doubt there are many better platform games made afterwards that are so well balanced.

Styer27 does mention in a later post that 'they don't care about graphics either'. That, however seems like they're arguing with themselves, as first they bash people who five star an older game (generally speaking) but then says some old games are good, despite their graphics. I'm sure the people who properly give these old games five stars don't do it for graphics. Crap I feel like I'm running in circles.
So, is it contradiction? Hypocrisy? Oh, I don't know anymore.