Given how subjective good is, that ultimately means: 1. not completely broken and/or horrible gameplay. 2. Not universally hated by everyone. Hell, even Earthworm Jim 3D and Simon the Sorcerer 3D fall foul of the second definition, if not the first. Those have been here a long time.

There were probably periods, especially towards the beginning, when GOG barely had any publishers signed on so they couldn't be too choosy about the games they sold. You can pretty much get the "Criterion Collection" version of the site by just viewing games that have 5 stars or more though. And even the Criterion Collection isn't perfect, they have Armageddon in their collection.

Haha, I was going to say the exact same thing.

I think we shouldn't be so harsh. One man's terrible game is another man's gold mine. Look at Phantasmagoria: it's one of the worst "games" I ever played yet plenty of people bought it (and, I assume, enjoyed it).
The releases lately have been quite good aside from Phantasmagoria and while most of them were not "forgotten gems" (considering other digital sites already sold some of them) they're still good games worth being on GOG.

http://www.gog.com/en/about_us/

I'm a publisher and I want you to sell my rusty, old games. What should I do?
Hmmm, I hope you’ve figured out that GOG.com stands for GOOD old games. If yes, then feel free to drop us a line and we'll figure something out together.
---
Long as it's loved by some, it's worthy of being here, regardless of whether or not I think it's crap.

Honestly I don't want to get a majority of the games on GOG, I pretty much own all the ones I like (20 or so) and past that if someone buys it let it stay.

like few already said good is a subjective thing...
Good might be Beyond good and evil and good can be bloodrayne 2.
good is not only AAA titles but any fun game.
Don't pay attention too much to reviewers and their scores to decide whether something is good or not. Pay more attention to what YOU like and whether the game sounds good for YOU.
You will be surprised how many great games are out there which got scores below 80 on metacritic.

I bought Phantasmagoria even after reading how much Red Avatar hated it. And I enjoyed it immensely, even though a lot of what was complained about was accurate. I just like bad FMV games and I like games with original setting and storylines. Phantasmagoria was both. I'm more for inclusiveness rather than exclusivity because I don't want anyone else deciding what games are good enough for me to play. There are some more crappy FMVs I'm hoping to be able to get through GoG, with Ripper being number 1 on my list.

Ripper and its sequel, Black Dahlia, are quite good game actually. As long as it still plays more or less like a standard adventure game, I'm fine with FMV games.

Well, whether it's good or bad, it's got Christopher Walken, and that's good enough for me. :P

Black Dahlia is not a sequel to Ripper. The stories are completely unrelated.

True but I meant sequel as in, very similar games made by the same developer. Both feature well known actors and both are detective stories after all. Also, may I remind you that Phantasmagoria II was not true sequel either?

A sequel implies some kind of relation or continuity between storylines, and there's none between Ripper and BD, but i understand what you meant now ;)
I never got around to playing PH2, but just because there's a II or a 2 in a name that doesn't automatically means it's a sequel.

So we can drink their blood?
But food is not a topic of this thread so...
EA: So we have this thing called System Shock 2 here. You want it?
GOG: Sure, we'll take it.
EA: OK, but first you will have to release... what do we have here? Oh yes, Catwoman.
GOG: But we cannot do it. It is a bad old game.
EA: You want that System Shock 2 or not?
Exactly. You want that System Shock 2 or not?
I will quote Marcin Iwiński on this:
"In some cases, if we really want a publisher on board, and they have a few games that aren't amazing but several that are... well, we want the amazing games. Sure, there are a hell of a lot of bad old games, but nobody really wants those; and if we have something that's not great in our catalogue, users can vote with their wallets."
Taken from the interview here:
http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2010/01/28/gogs-marcin-iwinski-activision-deal-why-drm-still-sucks
And there was one interview earlier, that I can't find right now, where they said that they actually did refuse selling some unnamed games here.
More importantly - there is no such thing as a game that everyone will like. It's all about tastes. A good example:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/tombraidertheangelofdarkness
So which of these reviews were "right"? Some people love it, others hate it. Does it mean that a game should not be sold here becausesome people won't like it?
I for example never understood why Metal Gear Solid is praised so much (it wouldn't make it into my top 100), and many people consider it to be the greatest game ever created. Does it mean that I am wrong and should tell myself that I like it because so many people do?
Or let's take a look at a game that already is here: Gothic. It is one of my favourite games but there are people who consider it to be an unplayable mess.
It's all about tastes.

What I noticed with regards to GOG's standards is that their support for the games seems to be falling compared to last time. In the past, games like DN3D have lists of mods/fanmade patches or tools posted up instantly upon their release. GOG was also more outspoken and posted more regularly on topics seeking help. However, lately it seems that a lot of recently released titles suffer from playability / compatibility issues, and GOG seems less responsive on that end.