This

One of the problems is, as mustermumbles pointed out, that the first reviewer, usually a fan, has a very biased opinion. The people who come along and do the subsequent reviews are also fans and not only make biased reviews but also boost the ratings of reviewers with similar biases who came before them. Or sometimes there are just trolls who make reviews without even playing the game. Example: check the date when the first review was posted for Legend of Grimlock vs the release of the game. In this case it was just trolls and their troll friends being trolly and so many trolls voted for other trolls that actual reviews for the game are languishing on page 3.

I like metacritic where you can see the range of reviews and chose a specific rating to read, I always go to the middle section because I find those ratings are much more balanced (it also gives me time to laugh at how corrupt is the professional games critic business). It would take a major redesign to bring a similar system to GOG but it is necessary and would help people make better choices. Two points of this site are to bring classics to people who loved them and to introduce those classics to a new generation and without good unbiased reviews they cannot accomplish the latter.

Oh, you are talking about reviews on GOG.

They were better before. Now, many users see this just as a comment section and it's no longer useful.

What would be nice, if GOG introduced some feature, like "GOG badge" if a reviewer has purchased a copy on GOG it would be stated near the review.

I agree with you. Allowing people who haven't bought the games to post reviews is not a very good idea. Most of these reviews are filled purely with nostalgia, which really doesn't help any potential buyer. There are many reviews like this "I played this game when i was a kid and loved it, thanks GOG for releasing it again", which are not helpful at all. And to make things worse, these are the ones displayed on the front page.

Another problem of allowing anyone to post a review is that some of these are not written based on GOG's version, but on the retail one. GOG's games are sometimes different to the retail versions, which makes some of these reviews pointless. I mean, out of the 3 reviews for Gorky 17 on the main page, NONE of them mention the well known bug with nvidia video cards. And, well, nvidia GPUs are not exactly that rare, right?
Yes, it does, because of what i explained above. I think the reviews should be made especifically based on GOG's versions of these games.

Gamesgate already does that. You can't review a game there unless you purchase it. If you look at it, the reviews there are actually more helpful, especially at pointing problems with buggy/broken/old games (every review for Thief mentions how hard it is to get it working on a modern PC).

That would help a lot, especially if the sort order was for those that bought the game and then how helpful it was.

It's also worth noting that reviews online in general aren't of much use as it's quite common for people to write them for pay to either hit the competition or puff up ones own products. It makes the whole notion somewhat less reliable.

But as far as nostalgia, there's a game specific subforum for ever game here or at least one for the series, I wish people with nostalgia would keep those posts there. Or maybe in GD if it's a notable game.

Reviews here are a joke anyway, probably high rated cos fanbois are high fivin' each others "reviews".

I can´t understand why GOG doesn´t have the option to see more reviews written by the same user.