I won't spell out what the Criterion Collection is for anyone who isn't familiar (Wikipedia it), but I have to say, GOG is a LOT like the CC.
Just think, both seek to preserve, update, and add extra content to classic titles which are oftne out of print, or otherwise unavailable.
Both focus primarily on the "foundation" titles which were influential in their particular genre.
AND, both have really reasonable, cheap pric....Hrmm.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Human-Condition-Criterion-Collection/dp/B0026VBOJM/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1250582171&sr=1-12
Scratch that last part!

No, because the Criterion Collection is filled with films that studios would be honored to give to the CC. As for GOG, the publishers don't care.

Nope. While the majority of games here are very good, there is some crap.

Fuck no.
Sorry to be so negative - I mean, it's a pretty idea, but just about any budget line you'd care to name has higher standards.
It's a damned shame that people need to eat, because I'm sure your description is exactly what the staff intended for the site. But, as it's turned out, it falls almost entirely on the users to separate the wheat from the chaff, just like in any other game outlet. There's little pretense of definitiveness.

where have you been? i missed your consistently changing internet personas.

While GoG is not, and should not be, a criterion collector, this is unecessarily harsh criticism of a games outlet that has stated that it does indeed filter out the goop to some extent. After a year, I'm actually surprised at how few universally bad games there are on here.

It was more fatalistic than critical. I don't have any problem with how GoG's turned out, and I wish them nothing but success, but it seems clear that they've had to rework how they do things. It happens. And it's a shame.
I agree that there is only a handful of truly awful games here (though there is a surfeit of mediocrity), but that handful is all it takes. Knowing that rubbish games will sometimes get through means that I can no longer buy games without first researching them - just like everywhere else.

There are plenty of Criterion titles that not every collector will want....there is NEVER a universal level of quality...what does quality mean anyway as it relates to entertainment? I feel that the entertainment medium is soo subjective to really apply such teriminology.
A "bad game" on GOG would have to mean one which didn't work for the term to have any sensical meaning whatsoever.

If GOG moved mountains and got Lucasarts and EA (Bullfrog, Looking Glass, et all) on board then I would agree with that. But the games industry isn't as mature or as cooperative as the movie industry... and that's saying something.
I also have to agree that some games seem to have been added here for reasons other than their being good old games. Maybe for the sake of completing a series or to not piss off otherwise cooperative publishers. Simon the Sorcerer 3D, Earthworm Jim 3D and Megarace 3* are all examples of this.
*Third time unlucky?

Yeah, I think it's part of the package deal; "If you want to sell game X and Y, then you have to sell game Z too." But if adding 1 horrible game in the catalog means that GOG can secure 2 good games, I don't mind it at all.

Well, it's not like we don't have user reviews, review sites, metacritic, et cetera. Really, it's up to the buyer to make an informed choice, as what is good will always be at least somewhat subjective.

I generally love Criterion, but they got into a phase where they started putting out some real crap, like Armageddon.
One thing GOG is like Criterion with regard to -- Criterion stops publishing a title sometimes. :(

I'm on and off the Internets, back to school is keeping me away from my computer.