I'd recommend taking a look at the reviews for The Witcher 2, particularly the second and third ones. They managed to get over 400 approves and over 500 disapproves even though they're just complete bullshit reviews. Calling them reviews is extremely generous as they aren't even as good as the reviews based upon playing the game years back.

But, yeah, I think it's something that needs to be dealt with in some manner. And I'm not sure how else to ensure that the review takes into account bugs that are there or that were fixed in the meantime.

I think those 'rose tinted' reviews should stay. If I'm already hyped for the game, the'ye an additional encouragment. If I'm not convinced after reading them, I check Gamespot reviews from the period/watch gameplay on youtube/download demo. There are so many options out there, really.

You mean second and third ones on the first page? They don't really upset me, even though they aren't completely about the game itself, more about a lack of DRM. (The first review is pretty freakin' detailed, though) Oh, and I think, if these are the reviews you're referring to, that the numbers mean 400+ people upvoted, while 100+ people downvoted, and the total number of people that voted was 500+.

To me, these are at least more meaningful than someone saying, upon first release, "I was so excited I shit my pants". We have the option to downvote something like this, and these kinds of reviews do.

Other than that, I don't have anything new to say. I don't really view the review issue as an issue currently. I just think people need to take a little time to skim through what reviews there are, look for anything less than five stars, check out the game's forum for compatibility issues, then decide whether it's worth the money. It's not the end of the world either way, and trying to control what people say here, in a strong manner, is not something I'd necessarily approve of.

This shit again? Reviewing is reviewing. It's going to be biased everywhere.

They aren't reviews at all of the game, which is sort of the point. They managed to get like 45% of the votes in favor without actually being a review of the game.

By "flag", I was referring to binary-state metadata that could be applied to a review, not any kind of a reporting system.

hmm okay i misread, so it would be somthing the reviewer decides to mark their own review as? Hmm.

Facetiously, yes.

And since, clearly, we can trust users to leave biased reviews, we can also trust them to properly label their reviews as pointless, content-less, and biased.

I ALWAYS think GOG reviewers are wearing their rose tinted glasses and those who give 1 star reviews are probably wearing their hate filled ones as well. It's upon reading some of the reviews and ignoring the "Oh my GOSH!" comments that you can find why some games created such fans who still remember the game so fondly. Recommendation reviews are somewhat useless unless the reviewer explains why the game rocks so much in their opinion.

I partially agree here. I think it would be better to have some sort of visual indication on the review showing whether the reviewer owned the game on GOG at the time of review. Then you have a better chance of knowing who's talking about the GOG version and who's talking about the decade old experience they had with a buggy, unpatched copy.