Don't review the game on GoG unless you played the GoG version of said game or at the very least you are 100% certain that the different versions plays identical.

Also don't review a game based on nostalgic memories of how you remember playing the game 25 years ago. If you review the game then you really should play it right before reviewing it.

What amuses me the most is that 11/15 people found that review helpful.

Don't leave reviews for early access titles too early. It may affect sales, yet the you can't edit it later with more info as the game progress.

in here that actually doesn't surprise me AT ALL.

1 out of 3 on this one:

I agree that the "didn't even try compatibility mode" reviews are unhelpful, but reviews that describe the hoops that you had to jump through.and the end results are still worthwhile.

I would appreciate reviews along the lines of "I did this, this and this and it still plays horribly".

Anyone that plays Project Eden is going to find that mouse acceleration makes it unplayable. Anyone that plays Prince of Persia Warrior Within will find that frame rates > 30FPS will cause audio to lose sync. Even if the reviewer didn't solve the problem, detailed descriptions of the problems encountered gives me the opportunity to research if the problem is solvable.


What I don't like are the score reductions for extras missing from the GOG release. The second class citizens google doc/forum post (or the gog mix from the old website) is enough to educate people. The absence of an OS that I don't use, or a language that I don't speak is unimportant.

Yep, I don't want to see five star reviews based on wishful thinking "if the game were good, I'd rate it this high."

Technical issues can ruin a game, and there's no reason not to mention them in a review.

So far I haven't been able to enjoy FEAR because mouse sensitivity is errant and that ruins the core mechanism of a first person shooter. Without a fix, I can't enjoy the game, and if I can't enjoy the game, then there's no way a 5 star review is warranted no matter how good the game would be if the technical issues were fixed.

Dont use overly big or complex words - plenty of users/buyers do not come from an a country where english is mother tongue

Dont write a review like a story essay waxing lyrical. Get to the point.No need for flowery language

Don't list pro's without there being some cons (no game is perfect)

I don't want to spam with another rant to discuss stuff, just wanted to post a lot of do and don't myself so I at least contributed something other. I leave the already established GOG guidelines and rules out because they're mandantory.

My GOG Do's:

- Answer your inner-head why-questions: This is most important, always explain your reasons why. For instance, why don't you like the item variety? Why is this feature useless? Why do you think the story is amazing? Why do you think the characters fit so well within the world?
- Always contextualize: Besides likeing or not liking a thing, explain yourself how you came to such a conclusion or at least elaborate regarding to your feelings so people understand you a bit better.
- Be pationate and thus honest with yourself: Everyone browsing GOG love games regardless whether or not a specific game is good or bad. You do good to the world by showing how much you like a certain game or don't like a certain game. Even if you don't fully elaborate the reason, people might feel your passion in the same way you do and on the other hand can easily see you're lying if you're not.
- Use metaphors if writing something up becomes too difficult: Whenever you want to discribe a complex idea on why the game stands out, use an example you've experienced in your life in order to make people understand your point. Using personal experiences can be important to others to understand your abstract point of approach.
- Understand your audience: Everyone who browses GOG browses it because they want to buy good DRM free games. So if you're someone who feeling feels specific about a game you like or you don't like, you should do your part in explaining why a game is good (if you like writing positive reviews) or explain why a game is bad (if you enjoy criticising games). With this said, not one person goes reading a simple 4 sentence review within 10 seconds and goes "This is a good review, I can spend 50 dollars in good concious now". Everyone who reads pages of reviews of general consensous/reviews (which is why giving stars is important) does at least spend some time with them. If these considerations are reflected in review the ratings that declare whether or not people enjoy your review will also reflect this. The people reading your review are, or to the very least should be as honest as you writing your review. I mean that we're all sharing the same passion after all :)!
- Don't just type then publish the game review but rather take your time: Try to type it up via an word-processing programm first, try to think of a way to make your review more readable. Perhaps shorten some sentences and make the more important ones slightly larger to give your reasoning more importance. So basically, think through your review process enough until you're statisfied.
- Understand your perspectives: Last but not least, every gamer has a different concious on how they approach games. Some people like RTS games, some people like Roguelikes, while others enjoy Simulations or Action games more. Theres also people who only enjoy playing older games. Knowing what you like and what you want is one of the most important steps to take before writing your review. If you like being pasionate, fully commit to that and people will understand as well. If you like stating objectively quantifyable elements and don't like too much disagrace or positive passion, commit to simply state what the game offers. The more you can think of, the more your review will stand out. The "like" rating compared to others will reflect this, use that as data to further built your style of reviewing games.

My GOG Don'ts:

- Don't make a spam review: It is counterproductive regarding all the positive "do" points I've made while also against GOGs code of conduct. Above all, a simple but strongly worded sentiment that lacks basically anything helps nobody. Contact GOG support to delete any one-sentence review or to vote them down.
- Don't make impulse reviews: Even slightly elaborative "this is the best thing ever" reviews are bad as long as you don't apply the afformented Do rules. If you want to make a impulse review trying to describe why a game is better than sex, try at least to be a nuanced about it :P!
- Don't skip through your own reasoning just so things are "more readable": Writing more is always better than writing less. People who read reviews are the people who would also spend 10+ minutes watching YouTube gameplay videos. People wan't to be intellectually stimulated to form an educated opinion. Remember that most people don't just buy the game but make the concious decision to purchase the game on this specific platform. Don't just assume that people are impulsebuyers, those people aren't the type that can be bothered to read through reviews anyways.
- Never fall into bandwaggon sentiments: Liking or hating a game because others do and say so is not even a feaseable reason to come up with a review. Every writer/reviewer should try their hardest to reflect their own honest sentiment.

One very specific thing not regarding GOG reviews alone but is still very important:
- There are exceptions to any rule, but be reasonable about it!: Lets say you've bought a game and tried really hard to make it run but you simply couldn't? Since a review describes your experience with the game regardless if working as intended. So if a game is broken, still try to apply each and every rules that makes reviews stand out. You could add your system components and describe your experience in how you tried to make the game run. A review is nothing but your own jugement regarding a product. However, this doesn't apply to GOG reviews becaue you cannot edit them. Typing up this stuff makes consumers know whether or not they can make the game run, or to the very least they can take further steps to research about any specific issue. Should the game run, either because of a user mistake or a update, the reviewer is obligated to edit their review in accordance to the new situation (so don't do this if you don't want to edit your review after the issue is fixed). Unfortunatly, a review edit feature isn't implemented on here, which is a huge shame, because these sort of things help tremendously. You can apply the same rule with updated games. Lets say that a game that came out as version 1.0 was bad but it changed dramatically over recent larger updates (as an example you can look at No Mans Sky). So if your opinion regarding a game has changed, your review should reflect that as well or otherwise you mislead people. Try to be resonsible about it (don't put too much effort into this if you don't want to spend too much time of course).

Note that these are just some examples I can think about. Some this stuff is already implied within the established GOG code of conduct, only applied in a more contextualized way (see what I did there?) because the GOG rules describe things more general than what reviewers should do when they write a review. I mean this thread already proofs this.

Don't review a game (the reader never heard of) by comparing it to another game (the reader never heard of). Even though the mentioned games are famous and everyone else in gaming-universe knows about them. Review the game on its own merits and take the effort of describing its content.

That was incorrect in your first thread that you call dumb in the OP, and it's equally as incorrect now. You say you've taken criticism to improve this thread over that one, yet this thread ignored that criticism which was given in your first one, and proceeds to make the exact same mistakes as the first one did by repeating and re-asserting that same incorrect information again here.

99%+ of modern games are still trash, and criticizing them makes the review(s) more credible and attractive, not less. To do as you suggest, to praise modern games, would actually be to put many people off and to make the review(s) unhelpful.

And the industry hasn't "come a long way" or "progressed" in recent decades. On the contrary: it has devolved and regressed, and became much worse than it used to be.

Reviewers should keep right on pointing all of that out, frequently and emphatically.

Thats actually a extremly good "Don't" and one I've also done by accident (but also because I thought everyone knows about the game in the first place as you've mentioned, which was honestly not a very reasonable stance of mine). I'm glad that I don't really do that sort of stuff anymore and try to review a game on its own, rather than to force a general comparision between two points of data that the audience may or may not know anything about.

In my humble opinion, if people really most compare the game with another one, I think multiple games should be named, but even then I wouldn't recommend this approach. The only factor that comes into consideration in allowing comparisions is with sequels but even then you should at least be a little bit specific about this sort of thing (for instance, comparing features for instance if you assume that people who play the sequel already played or are intending to play the prequel).

At any case, we certainly need more posts like these. The most people post here the more it may help others.

Do not write: "Just buy it!!!"

Re: "keep criticism of modern games to a minimum"

Maybe I am talking past the point a bit but imo there is something to be said for "writing for your audience." In other words, many (not all) users who are attracted to a site like GOG are curious as to which games are more in the vein of the classics they love, versus being modernized. I would say for some genres this is particularly relevant, like FPS and Adventure. The older and newer games in these genres are vastly different.

Newer games are sold on here alongside the older games. Why wouldn't it be relevant to criticize the modern mechanics that one feels are inferior to the old? Particularly given that there is a dedicated audience of older gamers who at least appreciate, if not outright prefer, the older mechanics? Wouldn't the older gamer want to know what the game is like, from someone else who at least appreciates the older mechanics too?

In short, I see the negativity towards modern gaming trends as a "signal" that this review might be more aligned with my tastes, and thus, more accurate as to determining how I'll like the game.


----


Re: "technical problems"

I agree with others here that this is unhelpful to just say "doesn't run" (leaving the reader to wonder what steps were taken, did support help, did other users have a solution, etc). To be fair, there are some reviews that go the "opposite" way and explain to users how to resolve problems, even potentially getting games to work on Windows 10 when the store page does not list it as supported. I'd love to see more of those!!

One "technical" problem I think should ALWAYS be in a review is the implementation of DRM or DRM-likes. Some of the storepages strike me as a little lax on detailing what multiplayer modes are available (I look at things as they are and conclude many multiplayer modes are not what should be considered DRM-free). Similarly, there is information on the F.E.A.R. subforum where iirc a user apparently found remnants of Securom DRM in the expansion.

I agree; there exist some instances where the mod (or User Generated Content) is as good or better than the original game. In such an instance it would be churlish to ignore the fact; simply make it clear what is being reviewed (most mods are free, after all, and so no further purchase is required, but certainly a working knowledge of where and how to obtain them is).
Quite a good list.

For my part I like reviews that explain why the player is frustrated / pleased with a particular attribute of the game. ("This annoyed me because …"; "In >another specific game similar to this one< you can do this, but in this game you cannot." are both useful comparisons for those who have played —— or read the reviews of —— the other game mentioned.)

[1] This is good advice for anyone publishing anything on social media.
[2] Yes and no. In line with your earlier point (my note [1], vide ut supra) I would recommend a short opinion then a detailed explanation. If I find your opinion interesting I will be pleased to read more. Just writing walls of text is lazy and a chore to read through. Have the good grace to think about what you are trying to say and making that point first. Then you may elaborate, as necessary.
[3] The lack of edit functionality is a real concern. I assume the Gog staff would be able to provide a means for one to edit their reviews (through the Technical Issues link, if nothing else).

I agree, that was my problem with Morrowind. Morrowind with mods is fantastic, but without them it is a considerably more frustrating experience. I do think mods should be mentioned, but if a game NEEDS mods to be good that only highlights the game's design flaws. I agree, I more meant that if someone thinks a game is innovative or unique they should elaborate why they think it is.