I'm sorry what.

I understand that compatibility issues would likely be sorted out but think of this - what if everyone loves a game but it doesn't work on Windows 10, 8 or 7, or perhaps crashes far too much on those versions. But that's a compatibility issue, so they give it 5 stars. An unsuspecting buyer sees all the great reviews and buys it immediately, only to be greeted by a broken application.

If we write a review and decide a score upon both the game itself and it's technical problems, then people would know when to steer clear of the game. Besides, when it's fixed, the new positive reviews would start to pour in and would bury the old ones. It would also then be clear that the reviews highlighting the technical problems is an old review.

Reminds me of when I was looking at the GOG reviews of Warhamer 40k: Battlesector. Almost none of the reviews are about the game itself, it's all just this autistic shit about the game having telemetry.

While I agree that the complaints of telemetry and EULAs are a waste of review space, I'd greatly prefer if you used alternative phrasing. We aren't in a 2007 goonthread.

Though I feel there's a difference between technical complaints and closing the hood of a game with, "It took me several workarounds, so here's what worked for me to get this thing running."

If the complaints are at least competent or offering a solution, I'd find them of more use.

Of course I can agree with that. But that means that at least there is a review and a possible solution for his problem, not a categorical spam short message.

Anyway, At least there is a rating option to mark if that review was useful or not, so if the complaints are competent or accurate, as you comment, the review use to be more visible. So, well, competent or not unfair or not, the complains or trolling reviews use to be self evident.
The non perfect review system apparently is ready to deal wth all tose things. But honestly I do not understand the desire of so many peope to convert every place involving reviews in a toxic place.

Except that marking reviews as helpful or not can be ratioed easily into creating a gap between the most "helpful" review vs a review that actually is helpful. Steam may not do a lot of things right, but I've often found I'm able to find more conclusively what a game's issues are within a few reviews instead of GOG's sandwich stack approach.

Often the case on GOG here; the most "helpful" review will be a complete glurge/sugarbomb instead of something more levelheaded.

Yes, The GOG review tool is not the best of the best, but is a rough guidance. And contradictory and complaining focused reviews do not help.

I always end up reading the "edible" GOG reviews, some of the reviews on Steam and other ones supposedly more profesional in videogames web pages. The idea is to have the widest general view of the game.

How about no, OP.

How naive do you have to be to not want people to review a product based on their actual hands-on experience with it?

First impressions matter, and patching is never a guarantee, not even stable OS compatibility, if you don't want people to shit on your product, then don't release it in a broken ass state.

Erm, cyberpunk? From metacritic “ Magnificent, confident and loaded with content that other games do not offer. Such is the action blast called Cyberpunk 2077. All the expectations were more than met.”
It’s not naive, it’s just vast amounts of backhanders, NDA’s, lies etc.

I'm sure there are plenty of 'No Man's Sky' game reviews that have a lot of out of date stuff...

GoG needs to revamp their reviews, maybe have some boxes that includes 'may revise after updates' or something, or let you edit your reviews so games that phone home or that had something quite bad fixed can be marked out as 'old' and replaced with a new review linked to the old for good measure...

But until GoG does that, i'd rather the reviews be blunt and honest. Not with 'the perfect expected interpretation' of the game which may or may not come to pass...

There are situations where this is completely warranted. I considered writing such a review for the dumpster fire that is Might & Magic 9 after having to get a refund on it, but the game already has enough reviews citing technical problems such that one more review on the subject isn't going to matter. Anyone buying it should be able to figure out without my help that they need to check it out right away to see if it works... or not.

Also in this case, the game was released in 2002 where the developer (New World Computing) was run into the ground and put out of business by the parent company (3DO) who later sold off the rights to everything Might & Magic to Ubisoft. The game is borderline abandonware only in the sense that there isn't a development team specifically working on fixing any of its remaining bugs.

Technical issues are just as much a real review as any other aspect.

It is very common now, for games to be rushed to market ... incomplete in many ways, and often riddled with bugs.
So see technical reviews as a reasonable response to that.
If we lived in an ideal world, I could agree with you, but that clearly isn't the case.

That should be seen as a last desperate measure, and not part of usual purchasing ... it should never be counted on.

If this situation was to be dealt with properly, a version number would be assigned to a review and current version number would be displayed prominently, with a link to see what has been fixed or updated.

So reviewers shouldn't be taking the blame here, though many for sure need blaming for all sorts of things.

P.S. And in any case, unless you buy a console game, there is likely to always be some kind of PC issue, due to all sorts of hardware reasons or settings. So there is some validity for making those clear issues separate. But once again, the store and DEV need to cater for that openly on the game page, with links to a forum page for specific details.

P.S.S. Maybe, just maybe, a technical forum could be provided, that solely deals with technical issues and not other questions like those in the game forum now. Each game web page, could then have a big button that says - CHECK TECHNICAL ISSUES. GOG staff could then ensure only non tech issues exist in the game page reviews, and tech issue in the reviews on the tech forum for a game, splitting reviews apart as necessary. Fair bit of work though, and as GOG always seem understaffed, never likely to happen.

Hm? I'm not referring to the shill critics, I'm rebutting the OP's nonsense request for user reviews to censor themselves because of the naive assumption that a buggy released product will "get better with patches." We all know how many games, even re-releases of old games, that just get shat onto shelves and then abandoned.

I'd much rather see the nostalgiatards stop spamming the review section. The recently released Star Trek games are a good example. Yeah, yeah, it's great to hear how this was your favorite game when you were a child and how happy you are that it's finally here - but I don't really care. All the while substantial reviews (with actually useful information such as "Is the expansion pack included?", "Does the gog version run well?", "Are there any game breaking bugs that may have been missed?" get buried by nostalgia goggled inanity. Horrible!

Yeah now those are unhelpful, "omg thank you, this gaem was my childhood!1!" is not a review.

I (somewhat) recently reviewed the review system, and several points were discussed.

Sugarbombing was indeed a topic tabled.