Krogan32: First, you're agreeing with yourself? (see that you replied to yourself).
Second, it's well known that there are an army of bots that secretly downvote all posts on specific threads. The Rep system is completely useless on GoG due to these bots.
I wasn't replying to myself, the words are clearly JuWalk's, not my own. I accidentally deleted the wrong quote number. That being said, thanks for pointing it out, fixed now. Still getting used to this formatting.
Yeah, you may be right about those bots.
JuWalk: Take a look at the game with id 584780 on Steam, for example. Is it possible to say that I call it bad just because I don't like shooters in general? Unlikely. After all, its quality is really extremely controversial. Or here is another example. I'm opposed to the removal/rejection of AO-games that many here are demanding, but I myself would be opposed to adding something like id 1036750. Because it's really not a GoG level. If curatorship is completely abolished, we will have a lot of such "masterpieces", as at Steam or on itch.io. Despite the fact that many of those present on this topic have very different points of view, I think we almost all agree on one thing - such a future for GoG would not make us happy.
Ok I see what you mean, those are asset flips that are trying to be taken seriously, so I would not miss them either. What about games that are aware of their status? Check out 882250 and a more controversial 1141550. At first glance they look absolutely terrible as well, until you realise they are on the same level as Postal'ish Goat Simulator. The goal is bad-taste satire and thus the reviews are actually positive, they know what they are and are not trying to trick anyone. There will still be loads of people against such titles though.
JuWalk: Personally, I see such a compromise option as the most optimal: GoG employees, guided by some internal instructions that we do not know (unfortunately), conduct the first wave of screening. Users, if they see something interesting for them among the rejected games, let them know about it. And if more than 2-3 (not literally) people show interest in a particular game, the curators give it a second chance. This way, we could not be afraid of an influx of games of really questionable quality, and at the same time avoid the fact that curators cut off quite good games every now and then. Some kind of balance
Yeah that seems pretty reasonable, but I can totally imagine a scenario where a game is rejected and then another flame war starts where some users want a re-review versus another who want it to stay rejected. Who's in the right then?
The issue is that on some level both sides of the argument are right, BUT the effects of denial will affect everyone with no workaround, while if a trash game is allowed, nobody will be forced to buy it, so there's still choice.
Maybe they could add a filter to hide games with very bad reviews, unless the user disabled such a filter?
JuWalk: As for reputation - this can be seen in many topics. Moreover, even in the middle of the night, a post almost immediately after creation may turn out to be with a low rating. So the version about the use of bots looks pretty convincing.
Yeah, it may be the case.