Adding an indicator whether the Reviewer purchased the reviewed game off GOG is something that almost needs to be implemented. Many User Reviews are written from nostalgia alone and that makes them somewhat unreliable. Even more so when the review is based off the console version instead of the GOG hosted version (generally the PC port). Sometimes this still makes them spot on; other times entirely off.

Having a backstory with a game is always interesting to hear, but when it becomes the whole point of the review it starts to get ridiculous. Much prefer hearing about the GOG version itself than anything else. Not all games in the catalogue can be fully emulated on modern operating systems, so certain features may be missing. It would be very helpful to know that before hand. Unless you dig to the bottom of the overly eccentric reviews, sometimes six pages worth, you'll never find out otherwise.

Sometimes the forums will reference the issues, other times they won't. Not suggesting User Reviews to be exclusive to GOG copies only, and doubt it will stem the tide of nostalgia based or sugar-coated ones, but adding that extra filter option will help customers out tremendously. That way purchasers know what they are getting and not what they aren't.

Well,there's certainly some sort of lock because I tried once to write a review on
game I have and it wouldn't let me because it wasn't in my library.
Purchased game long time before Gog was established..

More than once i've reviewed a game that wasn't in my library, but i owned or played it years before it came to GoG. One example is Sudeki. The only part that is fuzzy in my memory of it is the story, otherwise i recall how well it played and the annoyances i got and my impressions of the game...

And then there's games like Spaz that i played and beat MONTHS before it came to GoG, and as soon as it appeared on GoG i wrote a review even if i didn't buy/download it first.



Maybe it should also have an indicator to say if they played/beat the game, but with DRM-free software not phoning home, it's difficult to prove anything. And just because someone has a ton of hours doesn't mean they played it, quite often TotalBiscuit says 'Steam says i've played 18 hours of this, i know that's wrong and it's closer to 6'. Minimizing the game or other stuff not taken into account, or when the player isn't doing anything at all for long periods of time while in the menu system...

Hmmm... You know what... Maybe the reviews should have 4 or more ranks instead which either the reviewer can set, the community can set, or even the GoG staff can set. Naturally they can be filtered in/out by setting the appropriate toggle.

0) Invalid - Some/most points made in review aren't relevant due to patching, usually people complaining about features that were broken on early builds of the game, or reviewing the trailer.
1) Nostalgic - 'I remember this game' review and from memories 10+ years ago.
2) Non-GoG - Here's my review of the game i played on the Xbox or from HB
3) GoG - Normal review
4) GoG & Beaten - Beat the game recently and you have a fresh full perspective of the game.

Interesting to hear and hopefully that's the case.

Just tried it myself on a title that will probably never appear in my library - unless it was gifted - and that doesn't appear to be.

Didn't post the review, but was able to throw in a few sentences and give it five stars.

Ok,maybe it's one of those bugs and I did try it in the first week here.Haven't tried another one as yet..

Wouldn't help much, I think.

One reason - many folks will buy a game on GOG that they already own from a long time ago - and then NOT PLAY IT (they just wanted to get a currently-supported version of the old box copy they have; and don't necessarily want to play it right away or even ever). So these folks can then post "I bought it on GOG" reviews even though the review itself isn't based on that. (Not to mention the smaller metadata concern)

Some other system, such as user-voluntary flags like that noted by rtcvb32 would be better - as long as you realise that not everyone will set the flags (or will set them but incorrectly).

jmo

And then there's the issues with patching... NWN and NWN2 have some of the worst patching i've seen and heard of; Dozens of files named numerically, they have to be done in the right order and even then it might still break. Those types of headaches go away if you let GoG or another group just deal with them and you get a single installer/extractor. That's probably one of the main reasons i buy half my games (well besides loving gog).

And compatibility is a big one. I bought the physical CD of Creatures and it was for Windows 3.1, and refused to work and i couldn't see anything in order to run or play the game. Bought a GoG version when i was transferring over from steam and it works fine (although i have no clue how to play it).


There might be a third reason people buy games. They played/borrowed/pirated the games when they didn't have money or was a lot younger and feel like supporting the games/publishers/devs (or perhaps out of guilt?).

All in all, reviews can help you decide to get a game, but they shouldn't be the sole factor. Heh, with the current Insomnia sale going on, it's likely people would buy the game at 80% regardless what the reviews say...

Just having optional flags (from a drop down menu) that can be rated would fit the bill for me. One could cover your suggestion but you may have further flags for say, SP/Co-op/MP ratings, Difficulty, Bundled extras/dlc rating, Stability etc...