I dont know which curation team set it up but its a complete joke. More than half of the games there have recieved terrible ratings from GOGers and the gaming community in general.

Games like Frostpunk, Dragon Age, Kingdom come, ELEX, Witcher 2, Doom 3 and worst of all, Pillars of Eternity I & II.

I dont see the point of tagging them classics when they will all be long forgotten in 10 years. The actual classics are not even named as such, they are merely 'good old games'.

EDIT: A few examples of games that deserve the contemporary classic tag: Cuphead, Undertale, Terraria, etc..

Well, MooD 3 has been around for well over a decade and people still remember it.

Dragon Age is despised by most RPG fans that have a critical opinion. Its bland and generic. Maybe it still gets mentioned in younger debates where people are mostly unaware of the RPGs that came out before it. I recieved it for free and couldnt force myself to even finish it.

As for the historical importance of Doom 3, Im sure its impact on tech progress was nothing compared to older 3D games. Critical GOG reviews are still pretty negative. I have tried the game myself and uninstalled within the first hour because it was so bad. Historically important =/= Classic

Witcher 2 has also recieved terrible critical reviews due to its dumbing down to fit the console market. It is seen as the worst game of the series both by oldschool fans of W1 and modern fans of W3.

Maybe the word 'contemporary' is fitting, but then I would invite you to reflect on the use of the word 'classic'.

By googling the definition

"judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind"
"a work of art of recognized and established value"

First it implies a certain level of quality, which the presented games certainly dont have.

Second it implies that ratings were given over a certain time frame, as in, not those earned by the early hype and popularity.

Games like PoE 2 are way too recent to be fitting in the second category. Even the verified buyer rating is no higher than 3.5 stars. PoE 1's writing is objectively flawed and full of bad English, like it was written by a high schooler and was criticized for that. The very first page of Kingdom Come is all negative.

As for other bad ratings, all the games I mentioned have some very negative critical reviews if you browse past the first page, and its not all related to compatibility issues or the GOG version.

Guess who doesn't know what the word contemporary means.

I want the OP's life. Must be really easy going if he can stress out so much over a complete non-issue.

And you point is...what?
No, really, what is the point of opening a thread like this?

Actually Dragon Age Origins is liked by most RPG fans. Dragon Age II was pretty much hated (I liked it though.)

He's been here less than a week, hasn't bought anything, just hangs out and bitches about the site.

I thought I needed a life. :P

And Dragon Age is AN AMAZING GAME! Who cares what genre it fits into?! Just play it.

Guess who misread the whole post rofl. My criticism is more about the the word 'classic' Reading comprehension seems hard for you as well. Those with a critical opinion call it bland and generic. The real classics dont get such harsh critical reviews.

Sir, I believe that giving value to a personal point of view like it was an objective fact is in fact a badly thought jest.

But these games are objectively bad if you analyse them.

Also isnt it exactly what GOG is doing? Subjectively promotive games with tags like 'classic' like it was objective?

Validation.

Contemporary Classics, as a term, is a bit bollocks. There really is no definition and it's bound to bring up arguments. If you're not on board with the picks, you either perceive them as wrong (and objectively so) or as what it actually is: a meaningless marketing term. Since the picks are presented matter-of-fact and without explanation, it is implied you're just supposed to "get it".

Basically, if you're a bit thin-skinned or already feel left out for some reason, you're going to feel alienated further and jump on this disagreement, because it is wrong and if others can just see how wrong it is, you're back in and things will make sense again.

In general, this is is also easier than addressing the growing chasm between the other entity and yourself.

Please, provide the objective parameters on which you base your conclusions.
I will be more than willing to agree with you if you provide me at least a few examples of games measured with the International Standard scale of Awesome™.

So who are these people with such a critical opinion then?