I'd say a game with nearly 80% positive rating is not really low rated or could be considered as bad by many.

76% **IS** "mostly positive", it's not a matter of opinion, it's about definitions. Don't get weird about this.

Also a cautionary note about your intended deeper point: it is typically a misuse of statistics to use averages for anything at all, due to unknown effect of outliers. It is typically more revealing to use the median, if one must try to summarize with a single number.

I don't personally have statistical data, but my personal experience on Gog is that a 3.5 star rating tends to mean "okay", while 2.5 stars means "has a good side but pretty flawed". I prefer to buy games rated 4.0 stars and up, but that does not mean that 4.0 is "half and half positive and negative", it means that I prefer games that are mostly positive with very few flaws.

You are confusing those two things.

However you provide a fantastic service on a regular basis to us here, so I forgive you. :)

And the median game on Steam is an 81...

Your point is?

The game is rated in the bottom half of Steam games no matter how you cut it. That is why someone called it "low rated" because it is. Why? I don't know. Haven't played it.

Funny, the way you don't have the statistics in front of you...yet here you go accusing me of misusing statistics. You obviously haven't done your homework, or else you would know that averages in this case are not misleading at all and track quite well with the median. Frankly, in most sets of data, averages (or median or percentiles) track very well. It's the rare set where it doesn't. Hence why so many statisticians do, in fact, use averages.

Steam "Mostly Positive" really means "Below Average" in truth. (Or substitute "Below Median" if you want). "Very Positive" means "Above Average". Astute Steam users know the difference...think of it as Steam's rosy spin on their rating system. It wouldn't be the first time a GoG user has seen "Mostly Positive" and things that is a good rating. I'm sure Valve does that intentionally.

If you read extremely carefully, you would see that you are being defensive without refuting any of the literal things I said.

(Except your totally wrong claim that statisticians think that average as is good as median -- go ahead and try to find a textbook that says that; I'll wait)

Objectively, 51% is more positive than not -- which doesn't mean that you or I would want to buy a 51% game, which I granted as your deeper point.

So if only 20% of buyers disliske the game it is low rated and not good? I was always bad at percentage and statistic so excuse me if I might sound silly, but for me everything about 50% "positiv" would mean that more people like the game than dislike it ... or am I wrong here?

Both of you...

You were the one complaining that someone called it "low rated"...but that is true...
You wondered why, so I answered and now you are trying to attribute more to what I said than what I said.
The game is probably somewhere in the 40 to 45th percentile of Steam games, meaning 55 to 60% of games are rated better than it. Take of that what you will.

Faroot, you didn't argue anything. You claimed to be ignorant of the facts but still attacked my premise over a technicality, a word that was not actually misused. You had no real argument.

As to median vs average, statisticians use both regularly. They both have different meanings and different meanings. I doubt you'd find any real statistician claim that average is meaningless nor that between median or average one is necessarily better than the other. How about you prove that median is "always better"?

But I'm sick and tired of people just trying to poke holes while being clueless about the subject at hand...while bringing absolutely nothing new to the discussion...

I just try to understand - nothing more.

So "low rated" is not meant concerning the game itself but just the ranking considering all games available on Steam? Such an indicator would be completely useless for me. I always thought that "low rated" only considered the product in question and not their rainking regarding all products available.

How does one measure "low" vs. "high"? It would be quite meaningless to use such a term in reference to a single title itself. Of course it's in reference to other titles. It's how it stacks up against other games available. What is the point of any rating without the idea that it is meant to be a benchmark or comparison to other titles?

What I get from all of this is that people rated games way too highly. Wonder if it comes from that trend of pro reviewers to rate a poor game that they weren't allowed to trash due to contracts as 7.9, and using 7, if not 7.5, as average and 5 as already bad. On the other hand, look at movie ratings and 3 stars is already quite good, 4 excellent, 5 a masterpiece, and very rarely seen. (Personally I kind of apply that to everything I rate. GOG games I played that I'd give a 5-star personal rating to? Can count them on fingers. And if you add technical aspects too... there may be one left.)

I never look at stars, or rating(s) , thats why a demo is a must, every classic game i ever bought had a playable demo
thats how i decided when buying games. (⌒o⌒)

I may have some games that had only one star or even no star at all, but i don't care , if i like a game i buy it, reviews help me too a certain degree, but thats all, i always decide if i buy a game.

Anyway, even if a game is very popular it doesn't mean i will have to buy it , merely because it has or had excellent reviews (¬‿¬)

It has been very helpful, thank you! Exactly the kind of advice I was looking for :-D

Everywhere I looked, people seemed to enjoy bashing the game that was not of their preference. Why in the world they do this? Both games are good news for anyone who likes games in the vein of Baldur's Gate.

I got Pillars of Eternity. Got a bit overwhelmed with all the options for making the playing character. There is an obvious love for RPG. In the system and lore they pay homage to the classics while giving a twist to just about everything, from lore to classess and races to combat system. Similar enough to the classes of D&D as to not get newcomers completely lost but also providing a new system that IMHO is rather flexible and works well and overlall strikes out as refreshing. Everything makes sense in new ways.

Concerning the lore in particular, it is as you said: the lore is really interesting. Read the Almanac even before starting the game. Nice read. Time well spent. Also it makes the game give you more.