Look, I know I`am going off-topic but Gog does not developing CP77, neither producing it. It is CDPR game.
This https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?forums/cyberpunk.21/ is a forum of Cyberpunk 2077.
I am starting to dislike policy to dislike Gog for noGog issues. Where is fun in this? All game shops 7? 9? have same situation.
If you aren`t sure how this company works read this pls

Reviews, yes! Once I made 200 or more posts Seb7 is moving to Game reviews lol

Either this or if you edit it, it resets the "is this helpful?" count to zero "yes" votes (maybe the "no" count could stick around, which would make editing a disencentive for older and crummyer reviews). In any case it would be nice to see the unedited review too, so you could see if the edit was a typo or a major revision to what had been said.

GOG is champion windowdressing; champion in the world of makebelieve.

It's one of hundreds of features that are lacking from the site which could be implemented in the future. GOG has a limited number of developers and they prioritize implementing new features based on what is best for the business at a given time, so there will always be dozens of features that could exist but do not yet exist based on prioritization of the business.

They are still a small company overall compared to the other online giant stores out there, but have been growing over time with varying degree of success. The cash injection that they will receive from Cyberpunk 2077 should no doubt offer them a lot of leeway for hiring new developers, customer support reps and other areas where they are currently lacking however so hopefully we'll see big changes over the next year or so on the website adding new features that have been lacking for a very long time now.

You can't even sort search results by date in the forum, I'm surprised the review feature even works at all.

Well ideally, you should be able to edit in the first 24 hours after posting, for typos etc.
After that, only additions (inset) should be allowed.

'Is this helpful' is not something I pay attention to really, so to me it is pretty worthless, but you could do a separate one for each additional inset.

I'm not in favor of the archiving suggestion, as I fail to see the point. While I game state may be more volatile than a movie, most of what a review should be referring to wouldn't change, only stuff relating to bugs that have been updated ... or in some cases, a personal view that has changed over time for whatever reason.

A review when posted should be seen as relevant to that moment in time. That's certainly how I see them. Another way to look at it, is it was true then, but might not be so later. Being true at any point, means it was relevant and should be viewed in that context, not as a totally definitive statement, so it can be subject to change.

As I have just said in another post, I am not really in favor of archiving. If a game hasn't essentially changed or hasn't changed much, then why would a review no longer be relevant?

How many games get major changes after release? Not many I would imagine, with most changes being related to bugs being fixed or introduced. Only a bad review would just focus on bug related issues or ignore them. A review should be holistic ... include all aspects, and most of those aspects would never change.

Sure, changes related to bugs are a given, if any exist, but a change like a personal view can be helpful in a contrasting context, so an earlier original review can still be very much relevant and helpful in that regard.

So if you could add to a review and it was inset, so clearly defined, then your review has changed and the evidence of how then exists for easy comparison, and could be quite helpful.

I understand your perspective, but games are simply not as static as you seem to think they are.

Take Factorio. If I made a review mentioning "Alien Goo" or "Purple Research", those would be two things no longer valid to anything today; they've both been streamlined out.

Forager: Wishing for a better means of accelerating production; this wish has been monkey pawed post-nuclear update.

Windforge: Being excited for the potential future updates. Surprise, the game tanked and they moved on from the project.

I admit that the fact that reviews can't be edited is the reason why I haven't reviewed any games. I don't like the thought that whatever I post can only be changed if I get Support to do it for me.

You need to qualify what you consider static and not.
I thought I was pretty clear and right on the money.
Sure there may be a few exaggerated exceptions, but most changes would come within what I mentioned.

Of course, I thought there was no need to mention games that were released while still in development, as that should be a given that they could change significantly, but most games in my experience don't change all that much once released, outside of bugfixes and fine tuning or optimising.

Sure, you also get games that gain later bonus material, but the core game in most instances, doesn't ever change that much, not to the point where a review is then irrelevant. Bugfixes aside of course, but that is another issue, and if that is all a review is about, then that game has a serious problem anyway, and I don't believe in whitewashing history. Even if all major bugs have been fixed, it is still important to know it has a bad bug history ... I believe in being informed.

P.S. Being informed, should cover the examples you gave.
P.S.S. Of course, how you feel about a game might change a lot, but that doesn't make earlier comments irrelevant ... they were right for you at the time. If you wrote too soon, well that's life.

Mods and community patches make a big difference too. An easily fixed flaw in the base game could make it a 0/5 game for me. A simple fix or mod from the community can allow me to enjoy it as a 5/5 game. How do *you* rate such a game? I wish games never had such issues that need fixing, but this is the world we live in. I don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss all community fixes and rate a game for its built-in flaws.

Thing is, you don't always have these fixes the time you first play that game.

Totally.
But I think all earlier comments at various stages will always be relevant to those times and maybe as a lesson etc.

I guess I see reviews as more important to devs/pubs/GOG than me. I often find they are so full of bias and just so subjective to the point of being almost worthless much of the time, they also often contain some element of spoiler, so I am not really much of a fan. For some media I never read reviews ... games are a bit of an exception, for a few reasons.

Often though, game reviews are so mixed, that I just ignore them and go it alone ... price especially may then be a big factor for me. I often take a gamble due to a very cheap price, but at that point I have checked out the screenshots and usually any video.