Elton John also have rose tinted glasses.

Now why did you have to do that? I like his music too.

Nothing will solve forever the problem of bad reviews. Doesn't mean that knowing the person actually purchased the game isn't helpful. Steam also adds play time which I find informative (even though it's easy to fake if you're that motivated to mislead people).

And I disagree that Steam reviews aren't helpful. Despite the joke or stupid ones overall scores tend to reflect rather well the quality of a game, and you don't end up with 87% of reviews being positive. Yeah GOG has a smaller catalogue with overall better games than Steam, but cmon... 87%?

There's also the problem of organized review-bombing which Gog hasn't experienced yet because it's not popular enough. Verified reviews make that kind of activity harder.

BTW, some of you which I won't name need to chill down and learn the meaning of a civil discussion (learning to write proper english would help, too)

The reviews are here for the sole purpose of helping people to decide whether or not they want to buy a copy. Reviews of games on Steam or bought in the past are just not relevant. It's not a matter of not being willing to pick through the reviews. It's a matter of having no way of knowing which reviews are based upon the game being sold and which ones aren't. It's bad enough that people leave reviews based upon a half hour of experience or experience playing years ago. But, there's no way of knowing when that happens.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond because you haven't bothered to read a word I've written.

And yes, these people should have their options limited. There are plenty of other places they can leave these worthless reviews that don't pollute the pool of reviews with ones that don't even belong. Free speech is nice, but having to wade through a bunch of self-entitled bullshit because people are too lazy and stupid to think about the people that are needing to read these reviews is ridiculous.
He's why we can't have nice things. I stopped looking at reviews ages ago because they were such a complete waste. Between the nostalgia reviews, reviews for copies bought elsewhere, reviews left before games are even available and whatnot, they've managed to make the reviews so completely irrelevant that there's no point in wading through the crap hoping to find information.

And apparently free speech, so we shouldn't consider that the reviews are supposed to be there to help us decide whether or not to buy a copy of the game here. I don't think the rather modest restrictions being proposed will result in the sort of sky is falling scenario that he seems to expect.

Funny, I could say the exact same thing. You did not get anything of what I was saying. I will try to simplify even more.

I do not want anyone else to choose for me what information I am to be given.

I do not use the same mental "filters" to choose reviews relevant for myself as you do, so I do not want either imposed on all reviews in general.

Is. This. Clear. Enough?

You want what is convenient for you imposed on everyone. That is not fair. Is THAT clear enough?

bump

Because i still find spam / inappropriate post in the review section of many games .

https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/add_a_verified_purchase_in_reviews_like_amazon_has

The only problem I can see with a "verified owner" system is it doesn't prove anything.

I'm not an owner of 'Shovel Knight' on GOG, but I own it on Wii U and on PS Vita and have played it to completion multiple times. I am an owner of 'Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura' on GOG and I've never even installed it... just not got around to it.

Owning a game doesn't prove you've played it or that you've given it a fair chance, and not owning a game on GOG doesn't invalidate an opinion because someone could easily have played it on another platform.

this

it would help to cut down on fan boy reviews not based on actual current gameplay, but you still have to deal with nostalgic 5 stars from owners.

I would be happier if they added a sort function so I can pull current/last in or sort for 3star, 1 star etc. As it stands now I plod thru the whole lot until I get to the end and work my way up from there before even reading.

Give me an honest 3star reveiw over fan boy 5 star anytime. been burned so many times by 5stars that dont mention current glitches, mechanical prob, irritating UI etc, or old school mechanics that just dont jive with current standards of convenience.

I often still buy a game from 3 stars as their deductions are about stuff I dont mind but I appreciate the honest review

Really, I think the best thing you can do is find users who's tastes you agree with and follow them. The same with critics in general. Find half a dozen game critics who's opinions are consistent; even if they don't agree with you consistent opinions are reliable ones. Use those to decide whether a game is worth your time.

The sad thing is, Fanboys and Haters are a thing we just have to deal with in gaming. It's pathetic, some people will go mad at an 8/10 review for Zelda because it's "too low" for a game they've not even played yet, while other people will rate a game 1/10 because it's a PS4 exclusive and they love Xbox... it's tribal behaviour at it's worst.

The problem really comes down to the idea of gamer culture. We've got people who identify so much with the games they play, they attach their ego to these franchises so completely, that they take a criticism of their favourite game or even a game tangentially related to their favourite game, as a personal attack. That's certainly not healthy; and it's something that the geek subcultures need to address. We see it with TV shows and films too. Sherlock fans, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, Dr. Who fans. Marvel vs. DC... it just gets so tedious and I think it's because we live in a generation that never really needed to grow up, and I include in that myself, I'm an overgrown man-child too. Not sure how we deal with that though.

What exactly is the issue at hand? I myself wrote the Bloodlines review, before i bought the game (of which i even held a giveaway of two copies, at different times). I own it in retail, have played it countless times thoroughly and my review isn't nostalgia ridden, but proportionate to the game.

I wrote The Suffering review, too and i still was not able to purchase it... Yet, i own the retail copy and the free one, from some time before. I also have played it excessively and thoroughly and my review was doing the game justice, like, totally! And i make sure to directly mention that in my reviews, at any time. For this one specifically, i also asked people who got the gog version and they say that the issues i was afraid of, were all of them fixed by gog, too!

Some users who bought games that they review, though, sometimes write invalid stuff about. Just like on Steam. So there is balance, at the end of the day. And don't forget, old nostalgeeks sometimes are more valid on a game they knew well, in comparison to latecomers who barked for clients, cloud-saves, achievements and fancy stuff, all on the expense of main gog features... GOG still stands for "Good Old Gaming", i though? Unless the forums', weren't the only changes around the block, of course...

P.S. If you want to be certain, someone reviewing something must be verified, on total "GAME TIME" that they spent on said title, instead. Not if the game they are presenting are of the GOG store.

I would like the features to sort by date so you can avoid early review that complain about bugs that are fixed in the latest version.

I see a few reviews where edits have been made by staff saying the issues discussed in the reviews have been fixed.

I'd link to some examples but since reviews don't have links....