Quantity vs Quality

Would you rather have a system that has a smaller library, but has a lot of games that you like playing, or a system that has a bigger library, but you only really play a handful of games anyway (due to time). Does that make a difference for you, SW? Or do you like knowing that your system has so many games that you can play at any time?

For me, I love having lots of options, but I don't have as much time, so I tend to stick to what I really enjoy, which limits my time from playing other games.

Blog it

/Thread

Lets be honest.

Aside fanboys, where even for them is questionable, we cant like every systems AAA ( or not ) exclusive. Period. Thats fact, i dont give a shit what fanboys telling me.

So more options automatically wins. Its for a reason why sheep themselves, let alone everyone else, calling platforms with the least options as secondary platforms to game on. Thats another fact.

With that being said though exclusives matter. Because we can debate if X1 makes more sense than Switch since X1 can play all multiplatforms therefore on paper has more options, but missing exclusives is a big deal and X1 has none as we speak which makes system the least appealing if you get what i mean.

So yeah options make sense but we need to take into consideration exclusives big time as well. Switch makes way more sense to me than X1 as a console because of its exclusives even if its options are far less than X1 since i own a PC for example.

In general more options is always the way to go except the rare occasions where someone dislikes or dont give a crap about every single option a platform can offer. Very rare but you never know. Since majority of gamers own a PC already, consoles becoming more of a secondary platform for exclusives and to me, more exclusives options >> less.

I game a lot so i would want the system with more options.

Fewer quality games, and it's not even close. Give me some fun single player action/rpg's and driving sims like Forza with great graphics and sound and I'll pay more than $60 for a game. Give me online only crap and games with awful graphics and I don't care if they are free, I won't play them.

I choose quality myself. I’d rather play games that I really like then have a bunch of games to choose from that I’m not as interested in playing.

Tried to think it through, but a bit too hypothetical for me. Looking back at all of my primary systems of each gen, they had a good quantity of quality lol. The two tend to go hand in hand. And of course I'd pick up other systems for whatever quality titles they had, even if only a few.

But for a real world example, yeah, I'm the kind of guy who would roll with a PS2 over a Xbox or Gamecube, even though I enjoyed them all. Or this gen, a PC over a PS4 or WiiU/Switch even though I'd rather not go without either.

In some extreme hypothetical situation, yeah I'm not going to choose a platform with a thousand mediocre games over a platform with a couple of dozen good/great games. But of course that's never how these things work.

So I guess I'd choose quantity as historically the quality always follows in regards to game systems.

Quality, I guess. I've currently played Zelda: BotW for 320 hours. When I find a game I like, I play it a lot. There's not much time left for the games that may look pretty cool, but that I'm uncertain of that I would like.

So if a system has 3 awesome games that I love, and another system has 50 "pretty good" games, I'd take the one with the 3 games anyday.

This again?

:P

Quality, I don't have a lot of time for gaming so the ones I do play I have to love.

Quality > Quantity

My favorite console of all time is the N64 so I think that makes it pretty obvious that I’ve always been a quality over quantity kind of guy.

I don’t have enough time to play more than a few games per year anyway so I want those few games that I play to be amazing games that I will love a lot. Even though the PS4 has a lot more games than the Switch, if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the Switch because it already has a handful of games that I love more than the entire PS4 library.

Quantity leads to diversity in games and where not all games appeal to me, they do appeal to others. Life, and gaming, would be boring if we had limited choices and limited games.

Personally I'd rather have lots of quality games.

I don't get it to be honest. Why can't we want both, that is the aim of the console manufacturers. In fact every system is succeeding, I think even the Switch will, it seems to be attracting a lot more 3rd party than what Nintendo is used to with their home consoles, and part of that is because as a handheld hybrid, it's getting some of that handheld support I hoped it might.

No one's really losing out, so I'm not sure I get it. Have to say PC is going to always win this though. fantastic games coming out if it's ass.

Your last sentence that I highlighted says it all, why the choice? There are thousands of awesome developers now, especially with the way they release games on multpiple platforms, they're not really bound too much by any one platforms limitations.

Doing this never, ever. In the history of the internet, actually ended a thread.

If anything it has the opposite effect.

If I could only choose one system to own, it'd be one with quality and quantity, both subjective unless you base quantity as an amount and not just an amount of games you like.

Quality games has to always be the choice. If you can somehow get quality and quantity then that's even better

The issue i have with this question in general is that we already having platforms that having quantity AND quality at the same time so i dont understand to whom this question reffering to.

I guess in short TC tries to say Switch or PC/PS4/X1 or something. And the answer to that is simple. PC and having everything else as secondary. Whys PC first choice ? Quantity and Quality at its finnest, thats why.

Quality all the way. More games doesn't hurt, sure, and I like variety, but since I don't get a ton of time to play videogames (except on the weekends,) I like a slew of, small or not, amazing games that I can play in my free time.

Both

But I see it this way

Would I rather have a system with three 10/10s, a system with ten 9/10s or a system with twenty 8/10s? The later, obviously. Both parameters are valuable imo. The 8/10s may not be as "good" as the 10/10s but even the best games eventualy get boring so I'd rather have a good variety of good titles than a couple of amazing titles... thats how I see it anyway

Quality all the way.

Both. So I can have the biggest variety of quality games to choose from and not have to worry about missing anything I want to play.

Which is why I'm pretty much devoted to PC at this point.

It sounds like we should assume the "quality" games are all ones we personally will love. Because there are tons of finely crafted games that others love which I do not - and vice versa. You could, in theory, present a system with nothing but heavy hitters and have the whole thing be pretty worthless to me

I prefer both?

That's easily done on the PC, where great games come out every few weeks.

That's also easily done on Nintendo platforms, where most of the major releases are real winners. I usually end up with more Nintendo games than games on any other console each gen (excluding the PC).

There are platforms available that offer both quality and quantity to me.

If I had to choose on a hypothetical brand new system whether I would like quality games that appeal to me over a quantity of games, I guess I would go with quality?

I like games.

I also like quality.

These days I must favor quality over quantity, and it's totally fine with me because I have a very active professional and social life these days I just don't have the time anymore to buy every game that comes out on the market other than a handful on a yearly basis so I'd rather play the ones that matter to me.

The Nintendo Switch, or really and handheld device, really suits my lifestyle more than anything these days. The Switch in particular, I love the hybrid style. I've had some wonderful plays with the Switch docked on the big screen, but if I couldn't take the Switch out with me and play it anywhere I desire, I probably wouldn't be able to play as many games as it has allowed me to this year.

@uninspiredcup: I'm glad you see the irony.

I would take a system with better graphics and fewer titles.

My backlog is so great now I would never finish all the games anyway. Bring on the eye candy for me.

@SolidGame_basic: Games sell consoles , consoles does not sell games.

So despite your clearly bias judging from your avatar.

What do you rather want a Chrysler truck that works or a Porsche with 2 wheels and no engine.

Ideally both like you find on the Playstation 4.

@Jacanuk:

In the past, maybe, but today? I don't think so. Ps4 was hot since the moment it was announced. The console sold on hype alone. The installed base was there even before the games arrived.

@heirren: Also today. Take the sales of Xbox and PS4 , they both have a big library and have the sales .

Switch have a small library and compare it to the WiiU it´s not a huge leap and it also shows in the sales.

PC. The system where you have a massive library of pretty much every game ever created. If you can't find more than 50 handfuls of great games to play on that then you need to buy some gardening tools, put on some sunscreen and end your gaming hobby.

@Jacanuk:

Ps4 had the sales before the library. I'm not saying the growing library hasn't helped since, what I'm saying is the Ps4 sold on hype.

Switch is selling because Nintendo is delivering the games from the outset, and they were smart to launch it with Zelda to perhaps pick up the crowd that skipped the wiiu.

Why not both? PS4 has both.

Quality, but I guess it depends on just how much the other games suck for quantity, lol

I prefer quality and quantity. Sony systems tend to offer both.

@pimphand_gamer: but that's the problem. No one has time for 50 games. So you stick to the small group of games you do like. If that small group consists mostly of games from one system, then the quantity argument is moot.

Well, sure a new console always sell on the hype and everyone knows the upcoming titles and that Sony has the support of 3rd parties.

But let´s say it this way 3rd party support is what sell a console. WiiU failed on getting the backing of those 3rd parties , and while Nintendo makes some ok fun games that hits all the right spots on the Nostalgic dashboard.

No 3rd party support and it will not bode well for the console.

But with that said hardware can also sell a console, the Wii with the motion controller , the Xbox one X with it´s powerful setup. But it wont get the mainstream group like games does.

I don't game as much anymore so I'd want a smaller library of games that I like to play.

This is why i prefer PC that has both. No dilemma here. But seriously, if a system is goot it will have both eventually as the history shows: sega, snes, ps1 and ps2

Quality depends on how often it gets released, waiting a few years in between releases is not worth it.

If "quality" can mean just games I prefer then that.

Even if you had a lot of time, you can sink that into infinite amounts onto the "quality selection".

For an SW flavored answer: PS4.

Got burn with buying the OG XB1. I shouldn't have traded in my PS3. XB doesn't have enough exclusives.

I ain't spending another $ 350-400 for the 1X and rather go for a new GPU because that is way more likely to assure true 60 FPS because I can dick with settings to maintain a framerate.

I'd probably rather get an NS than a 1X.

Not gonna lie though. It's only because I have little resources. I'd love to own all these shit.

Games should all strive for quality. As for quantity....no one will ever play every game on a given system but with quantity you tend to get more variety in the games and that IS important.