It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
tinyE: Weird. It was a metal song about cars. :P
avatar
anothername: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ide3eVNxQ that one?
Yes Sir. :D
avatar
tinyE: Yes Sir. :D
Awesome earworm potential :D
avatar
babark: Now, as a completely side topic from this discussion, I too would consider it better if only those who own a game on gog (perhaps even only those who have downloaded the game from gog) can post a review of it.
For the purpose of keeping reviews honest, downloading the game is a better standard than purchasing it. It might not make a big difference when the majority of false reviews come from non-buyers, but it would help in cases where buyers assume incorrect things about GOG's version of a game based on other versions they played previously.
avatar
feda6: Question: why does GoG let you review games you don't own?
avatar
rtcvb32: I have a copy of NWN platinum on DVD here physically in front of me. Are my thoughts completely irrelevant if I haven't bought the game on GoG? And if that's the case if I buy the game and never played the GoG version, does it make a difference since I'm still reviewing the original game?
It's of limited relevance to me when it comes to old games. Chances are that I already know and love that game and played it to death decades ago. What I really want to know is if the GoG release is stable and contains everything that was in the original game. You can post a glowing review of your DVD copy of NWN, but if it turns out that the GoG version is missing music and the quests are broken, I'll be a little pissed. For example, the GoG copy of the original Rainbow Six is, as far as I know, broken to this day: terrorists and hostages are invisible in some missions, making them impossible to complete, and the music doesn't work. But 5/5 stars, say the reviewers! So you shouldn't be just reviewing the original game, you should review the version posted on this platform.

avatar
Martek: Regarding the "harm" factor - one other reason (beyond "what you already reveal by posting an informed public review of that game") is been evident in this very thread - so-called SJW issues.

SJW issues tend to bring out fervent attacks between forum members (and, extrapolating - nearly everywhere on the internet). All it takes is some "social justice" issue to become a focal-point, and you can have people begin "bullying" others that don't "conform" to how they see the issue. That happens every day, all over the net - it's a pervading infestation that seems to be spreading.

Enabling those SJW's that like to "attack" others for having different stances on some SJ issue by providing "proof" that they own a possibly "controversial" title on GOG, from which they can launch a "verbal" assault on a person is just a bad idea - a really bad idea.
I wish you realized how extremely paranoid and ridiculous this sounds. Nobody in the world gives a damn that Joe Shmoe bought Postal on GoG. Not even "SJWs".
The only side-effect that retroactively marking reviews by non-GoG-copy-owners would have is that it would look weird on old games. So yeah, I agree that if they decide to start doing it, then it should probably happen going forward.

avatar
Shadowstalker16: Did you even read the link? It says the FTC responded that some suggestions from GG had a role in their updated requirements.
No, actually, they didn't. The FTC said nothing of the sort and has never mentioned GG. They said they have received many complaints. The issue of disclosure in online content was known to the FTC years before GG happened and they started drawing up new guidelines well before you guys suddenly became fond of the word "ethics".
Post edited April 07, 2016 by feda6
avatar
Martek: Regarding the "harm" factor - one other reason (beyond "what you already reveal by posting an informed public review of that game") is been evident in this very thread - so-called SJW issues.

SJW issues tend to bring out fervent attacks between forum members (and, extrapolating - nearly everywhere on the internet). All it takes is some "social justice" issue to become a focal-point, and you can have people begin "bullying" others that don't "conform" to how they see the issue. That happens every day, all over the net - it's a pervading infestation that seems to be spreading.

Enabling those SJW's that like to "attack" others for having different stances on some SJ issue by providing "proof" that they own a possibly "controversial" title on GOG, from which they can launch a "verbal" assault on a person is just a bad idea - a really bad idea.
avatar
feda6: I wish you realized how extremely paranoid and ridiculous this sounds. Nobody in the world gives a damn that Joe Shmoe bought Postal on GoG. Not even "SJWs".
The only side-effect that retroactively marking reviews by non-GoG-copy-owners would have is that it would look weird on old games. So yeah, I agree that if they decide to start doing it, then it should probably happen going forward.
I don't really care what some person on the internet thinks when they have the opinion that it is just fine to play fast and loose with other peoples data. Play fast and loose with your own data. NOT MINE.

I've already said that I'm (grudgingly) fine with FUTURE reviews sharing that info as long as there's a notice and disclaimer and consent.

Other than that - you have NO BUSINESS telling me how I should feel about MY DATA. Concern yourself with your own data.
avatar
Martek: I don't really care what some person on the internet thinks when they have the opinion that it is just fine to play fast and loose with other peoples data. Play fast and loose with your own data. NOT MINE.

I've already said that I'm (grudgingly) fine with FUTURE reviews sharing that info as long as there's a notice and disclaimer and consent.

Other than that - you have NO BUSINESS telling me how I should feel about MY DATA. Concern yourself with your own data.
Calm down. You're already given out tons of data by buying stuff online or even just googling. And no, the illuminati aren't going to use it against you.
https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153299495021534

https://archive.is/20160408054700/https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153299495021534%23

Ed Greenwood
Yesterday at 7:06pm

As the cut and thrust over Siege of Dragonspear continues, it seems to me that many posters on the matter have wildly (in some cases, perhaps willfully) misinterpreted what I've said.

I have NOT commented on how the game is written or plays, because (for years now) I have not been shown computer game licenses for my approval/lore input...including this one, so I CAN'T ethically comment on it (as I haven't seen it).
I posted what I did in response to online gamer comments that claimed a trans character, or lesbian or gay characters, weren't in keeping with the lore of the Realms, and that there was no canon basis for them. That is BS, because such characters have been in the setting since before D&D or ANY computer games existed (yes, I created the Realms in the mid 1960s, before any roleplaying games had been crafted).

So no one "misled" me, and no one is muzzling or directing what I say or can't say. I spoke out against some false arguments within my area of expertise (want "the" master of Realmslore? well, that'd be me), and went farther reacting to the hatred and vitriol expressed by some against people that in some cases they've never met and never will.

I have not defended the writing or coding of the game, because I can't, simply because I have not personally seen or played it. And, no, I'm not avoiding this or any computer game deliberately; I simply have no time in my life for playing computer games except as part of paid work: I have a wife to nurse and a day job to hold down; writing, game design, and publishing are all "second job" work for me. Yes, really.