Right, because you're privy to the exact gaming habits of millions upon millions of people around the world who do their gaming on PCs, mobile devices, and consoles (both old and new)?

Are you seriously saying that a game sucks because no one plays it (argumentum ad populum)? Are you seriously unable to recognize any of the qualities that made Sonic such an influential, or at least, memorable game? What about other lauded classic games like Jedi Knight, System Shock 2, Deux Ex, or Baldur's Gate II, or Planescape Torment? I'm not holding up Sonic (or any of these other titles) as a perfect game by any means, but your complaining has been, and still amounts to, you saying "I don't like this game, therefore my opinion is objectively right and everyone else should agree with me."

I would at least have more respect for your opinions and position if you laid out a factual argument, or at least an argument backed up with evidence, laying out your precise problems with the Sonic games, why they're problematic, and how they could be fixed (and yes, the onus is on you since you're the one who started it, and you're the one who insists on being right). But the only reason why you seem to dislike Sonic games is because other people like them so much. Sorry, but that's not a valid reason if you're going to expect others to fall in line with what you say.

So basically you're saying that you're too lazy or impatient to do your due diligence about your game purchases?

So you are expecting the rest of the GOG community then, to do the hard work for you and give you some kind of magical metric that will instantly determine a game's quality for you, while at the same time being completely agreeable to your particular tastes of games.

They are implemented, in the form of the "Is this helpful to you?" buttons.

Oh, and your complaint is centered on the fact that again, you're actually told to put effort into researching your purchasing decisions? God forbid that people should actually be responsible consumers when they buy games!

Good grief.

Man, now I wish I still had that Sega Genesis collection for Xbox 360 around so I can replay Sonic 1-3.

Wow man, did i touch a nerve :) your post reminds me of a vulture picking apart a dead body.

TLDR!

My ONLY point is this, like i stated in the title ..... "there are too many 5 star reviews" You people can complain and whine all you want but you know what .. its a FACT! your kicking a dead horse trying to prove otherwise.

My evidence?? go read the reviews bro, all the evidence is right there.

Maybe when YOU have something intelligent to add to this conversation, i might have a little respect for you. If you can prove, with evidence, that there are NOT too many 5 star reviews, maybe then ill listen to you, and read your incredibly long posts full of quotes and misquotes, and nothing else.

Yes, there is really no such thing as an unbiased review, a reviewer who claims otherwise is either:
a) self-delusional b) clueless about what a review is c) desperately fishing for followers

Equally suspicious are reviewers who call themselves 'honest', which is just a synonym for 'unbiased'.

Even reviewers who focus on the technical side are rather biased, for example what is a 'clumsy mechanic' in a game depends on who is playing the game. What are unacceptable frame-rates to some are not so to others, and so on. Most of the big reviewers also have big expensive rigs, which directly affects how the game performs. The experience for those with lesser rigs can be markedly different.

However these "technical" reviewers are still the most practical, at least for me. If I had been warned about games that frequently crash I would never have bought them.

I fully agree with your view that reviews should not be based on memories you had 15+ years ago.
As far as scoring goes I prefer those that rate the components of the game: graphics, sound, story, mechanics etc.
To me these were more useful than having just one overall score.

There are currently 71 5 star rated games (4.8 or more stars), out of 1165 total (per MaGog, not counting DLCs and alt versions). That's 6.1%.

Please note that best practice recommendations for the atrocity that is grading on a curve suggest a 10% threshold for the top grade or rank.

OP is full of it.

Not contesting your point, but I'm curious why do you make the cut at 4.8 and not at, say, 4.5? Counting the half points like 4.5 as a full grade seems counterintuitive since the reviews themselves that constitute these "medium scores" are full points.

Because it's the medium scores that ultimately count for the catalog. Since a game which evokes strong feelings, either way, motivates people to leave reviews for it, there isn't an asymptotically "objective" amount of X-star individual reviews a game should amass, for any given X. 4.8+ is what makes the website display an impressive-looking 5-out-of-5-star rating (which is what gets people's panties in a twist). 4.3 to 4.7 is four-and-a-half. There are 555 games rated 4 1/2+ stars -- fine for a curated store.

Errr, I try to search 4.5 stars and above and it shows 334
Over 1165 is 28.7%

I try to search 4 stars and above and it shows 780 that is close to 67%

On another note, I hate 1/5 star reviews. 5/5. I don't mind too much. I just see it as 'this person loves this game'. It actually colours their review. The 1/5 reviews are often screams like: don't get this! or: This is DRM because there is multiplayer or something similar along those lines. Even if a release is buggy, they will go overboard with their negativity, leaving no room for: "At the time of writing..."

Usually my process of 'buying a game or not is the following.

1. First I check screenshots
2. In case of unclear idea of the game, I watch the trailer.
3. If I like what I see I check GOG's average rating and user reviews.
4. If those are positive, I'll look a bit at playthrough videos.
5. If I still am intrigigued I'll buy it.

Agreed. Same goes for the ones basically reviewing the price of the game.
They didn't think Alien Isolation was that great. Someone didn't agree. Hilarity ensued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqPkMQ2ToU

Using Starmaker's criteria of 4.8 stars and above (with MaGoG's filter set to "is at least..."), and the search range set to "Regular Games" only, I get 69 hits. When I set it to your criteria of 4.5 stars, I do indeed get 334.

Starmaker and I actually did try to collect some hard evidence based on MaGog, and the proportion of games actually rated at, or close to 5/5 is actually in the minority of GOG's overall catalog. Even if we take Gnostic's more conservative criteria and consider 4+ star rated games, 67% does show a higher proportion of higher rated games, but it hardly means that ratings are grossly biased in favor of 4 or 5 star ratings.

And the thing is, I actually agree with the general spirit of what you say. Absolutely, we need reviews based on how well a given classic game's graphics, story or game mechanics have aged. At the very least, people should be upfront about their biases and preferences when posting reviews, or should mention a little what personal history they have with the game they're reviewing.

What I don't agree with is the tone taken to present it...which again, basically amounts to, "Stop liking things I don't like!"

Heh, thanks for posting that.

At least requiring ownership of the game would prevent a lot of the:
"Remember when I was 9 and played this game on Genesis!?!? That was awesome, and I didn't know any better! 5 out of 5!!!"
Nevermind the fact the poster hasn't played the game as an adult to make a critical exmination of its quality and/or the PC port may have been a subpar version.