Same. Steam user reviews seems fairly positive though, which is surprising with how much games get trashed there by the wokeism babies.
Personally I think the trailers look horrid though and I was fed up with those cartoon graphic styles when they came out a couple decades ago already.
If you’re looking for a story about friendship & adventure, then I’d rather suggest CrossCode, which is highly “underrated” (not so much by ratings but its lack of exposure).
This is a demonstration of selection bias, if the game is your cup of tea, you’re probably going to like it. The game is really well put together for what it is, the promotional material tells you exactly what the game’s going to be. And if that’s what you like, you’re going to like it.
For the people who aren’t going to like the game, they’re not going to buy it. So no surprises
gog allows people that don’t own the game to review it, I think it makes sense for some of the older titles, where people who had the game decades ago can chime in, and others where people might have the game on steam but not gog.
It’s good that it keeps separate ratings, but would be nicer if verified owners had more emphasis, instead of simply listing the most recent review at the top.
Yeah, that just seems like an invitation for review bombing (the undeserved kind). I’d probably just disable unowned reviews for titles released past a certain date, assuming your hypothesis is indeed the original intend behind it.
Lol, this is my first time hearing about this game. On gog.com it has 1.8/5 score, or 4.8 from verified owners.
That would suggest that most people who’ve played it liked it well enough.
Same. Steam user reviews seems fairly positive though, which is surprising with how much games get trashed there by the wokeism babies.
Personally I think the trailers look horrid though and I was fed up with those cartoon graphic styles when they came out a couple decades ago already.
If you’re looking for a story about friendship & adventure, then I’d rather suggest CrossCode, which is highly “underrated” (not so much by ratings but its lack of exposure).
This is a demonstration of selection bias, if the game is your cup of tea, you’re probably going to like it. The game is really well put together for what it is, the promotional material tells you exactly what the game’s going to be. And if that’s what you like, you’re going to like it.
For the people who aren’t going to like the game, they’re not going to buy it. So no surprises
So gog reviews are from people who didn’t buy it?
gog allows people that don’t own the game to review it, I think it makes sense for some of the older titles, where people who had the game decades ago can chime in, and others where people might have the game on steam but not gog.
It’s good that it keeps separate ratings, but would be nicer if verified owners had more emphasis, instead of simply listing the most recent review at the top.
Yeah, that just seems like an invitation for review bombing (the undeserved kind). I’d probably just disable unowned reviews for titles released past a certain date, assuming your hypothesis is indeed the original intend behind it.
Unknown, I have no idea how gog works