viranimus: It really does not matter if it has some measure of replay value or that there are multiplayer elements to it. You can absolutely still see that present in streams/lets plays. There is no actual advantage of playing it yourself over seeing it played that is going to give you any additional insight to the game. Especially when it is streamed via by multiple players. Functionally there is nothing in those mechanics that you cannot readily discern through watching others. Try as you might you are not going to be able to explain how adding your own personal play through customization and directly imputing the menus is going to add anything to experiencing the game compared to seeing it done in similar conditions because there is no difference.
erephine: I think you've missed the point of party games.
viranimus: You can completely understand the complete mechanics of the game regardless if you are watching it or playing it yourself. The only difference is how much "fun" you have with interacting with it. But you can look at something and know if it would be fun for you or not without having to do it first. Its no different than a sport. You can observe it, pick up on the rules, see the types of interactions involved in competing in it to know if you are going to find those actions fun before you ever try to do it yourself. There is no intangible factor at play here that your direct involvement with it is going to make it a better experience or not that requires you to do it to know it.
erephine: If I'm following what you're saying, it's difficult to think of a game where that isn't the case. Yes, you can have a good idea as to whether a game is for you or not by having seen it played, and yes you can have a good understanding of its mechanics before playing it. Arguably that's not the whole story to what makes a game good or fun, especially a social game, but I don't dispute what you're saying here.
What I don't do is go to games releasing on GOG that aren't my cup of tea, that I haven't played and am not going to play, and clicking the one star button.
Nor do I personally but I also do not see why people are so up in arms about those who do. There is a Verified user score and an overall score. Both scores present usable data. Verified owner score (especially on day one) is undoubtedly going to be both biased and higher given that if you are buying something on day one you are either not giving an objective score because you've not had time to properly evaluate it, Or you have played it elsewhere and functionally rebought it. That represents a score every bit as problematic as "review bombing" overall score.
When used together you can make your own score on the metadata between the two scores. For example MPs 4.9 verified rating and overall 3.3 rating average out to a 4.1
Honestly even as much as I have said that sounds negative and attacking MP, that score seems to be a much more representative score of what the game actually is. Its well made for what it is, but its got its problems. Seems like a reasonable score to me. Especially given how generous it is to count in verified users ratings in both scores.
If anything I think the only thing that should even be considered for adjustment is simply adding to both categories a "out of X number of votes" That way you can better assign proper weight to each score.
Anyway, thanks again for the discourse. Its been fun and found a lot to consider.
