There is something in statistics called amortized analysis. What this means is that two things are compared over the long run, instead of over the short run. Now in my recent rants here on System Wars I've been accused of bashing my own system when I say bad things about the PS3. The reason it might seem that way is that each PS3 game is mediocre. This is why I have so many of them, if that makes any sense. Let me explain.

See, I don't require that many 360 games to satisfy my needs, because the only 360 games that interest me are very, very good. Ironically, that means I only need Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Orange Box, and Gears of War to satisfy my immediate Xbox 360 needs. Any other game for the 360 had better compare very well to these heavyweights for me to even consider them.

In comparison, the PS3 has no good games. Ironically that means I have to get a lot of mediocre games to get the same satisfaction I could get out of only 4 for the 360. And so my PS3 library is significantly larger than my 360 library, despite the fact that I wouldn't rate my satisfaction with it any higher. Like I said in the beginning, amortized analysis is over the long run. Over the long run both pretty much even out to the same. Lots of mediocre games = a few good games, at least for me.

But for the vast majority of people, buying both a 360 and a PS3 is not an option, even if you opt for the cheapest setup (360 Arcade and 40GB PS3). For those people, it's important to get the best experience out of their investments. Lemmings like to say that the PS3 "doesn't have any games". That's not entirely true. It actually has a lot of games. The problem isn't quantity, you see. The problem is quality.

In comparison, the best shooter that the Playstation 3 is going to have for a while is Resistance: Fall of Man. If anybody imagines that RFOM can compare to Halo 3, or Orange Box, or Gears of War is sadly deluded. Everything in this world is relative. A room's only hot if there's another room that's colder. If there were no Xbox 360, Resistance would be amazing. But there is.

Similarly, the best that the PS3 can offer for any sort of WRPG action would probably be Uncharted. Can this compare to the massive world of Mass Effect? Let's not forget that Bioware has never created anything less than stellar RPGs in the past. I do have a few gripes with Mass Effect myself, not least of which is the fact that its creator deals with the devil now (damn you, EA Games!!!!), but still, Uncharted can't hold a candle to the incredible world of Mass Effect.

This is not to say that I don't like Uncharted, or that I think Resistance sucks. I happen to love Uncharted, and Resistance is a great shooter in its own right. But at night, with only 3 or so hours to spare to online gaming, and faced with the choice of Halo 3, Call of Duty 4 (for Xbox 360), or Resistance, guess what I'm gonna choose?

On a seperate note, I'm thinking of buying a Wii and/or a DS. The only thing stopping me is game selection. If I thought the PS3 game selection was anemic, well then the Wii's selection's positively insipid to the point of nonexistance (at least for someone with my taste of games). The only games that remotely hold my interests are Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. And while they may be fun, I'd feel jipped buying an entire console for only 3 games. It's a real shame, because I'd love to buy the console. It looks so fun, but unfortunately waving the Wii-mote around will get old pretty fast without some games to keep it interesting.