Does a larger library really equate to better games?

[Manhattan Sports Club]

There are so many factors than can define what makes a console particularly great to someone, that I don't know if a larger library can equate to quality for a person who owns said console. I always feel this way about some of the more mainstream consoles. I will take suggestions from articles listing overrated/underrated games as well as browse the entire GameFAQs database on certain days when I have the free time to become acquainted with what it has to offer. This rings true to me especially in the case of DS and PS2. A large portion of the library is dedicated to genres (like kiddie games or JRPGs) that don't appeal to me much at all. It seems to be a 'jack-of-all-trades, master of none' type scenario where they made just enough to appear that they cater to all, but at the same time do not really excel at any one genre, or in my case, not enough in the ones I like in particular. I do not want to knock people's taste who enjoy the stronger points in focus on these consoles, but that I am a firm believer in quality-over-quantity and understand where my interests lie. Please share any similar experiences you have been through regarding this.

[eskobar]

It's not a rule. Just check the Nintendo Wii library, it is full of crap and should have something close to 1,200 games. The Dreamcast Library has much more quality in just about 250 games.

[PapaStu]

In a broad sense, a larger library "could" imply better games. The better the system sells, the more games that will be made available for it, the better chance of either AAA quality games, or games that cover lots of genres will make it out. With those larger numbers also comes higher number of games that aren't good, have a very specific niche market and or are just general crap that pretty much gets made for every system.

The bigger question is, what do you consider a large library? The Dreamcast had just under 250 games. Is that a large library? The N64 somewhere in that realm as well. Gamecube's 550ish titles too large yet? What about the NES with those 750ish games it's got? Large enough yet? The PlayStation has almost 1300. That's large isn't it? But wait, the PS2 has almost 2k. That's large. The DS has somewhere in the range of 1500-1800 games. That's large. Those modern systems have lots of games too. Wii, PS3 and 360 all have in the range of 1k games.

The NGPC has 32 (US released) games for it. You'll be hard pressed to find a bad game among the lot, even the gambling/slots games. But those may not float your boat. The Adventure vision has what, 5 games? All of them suck.

What it comes down to isn't the size of the library but if there are games you like on the system at all. I can find PLENTY of games I like for the PlayStation. Mainstream titles, niche titles are plentiful to me. Same with the DS. Hell I've got almost 700 DS titles and while not all of those are good (far from it), there are plenty of them that are. Inventive games, good games are plentiful. Same with PS2 and I've got 450+ there.

Plenty of crap out there, but who cares. So say there are 5 PS2 games you like, out of 1800. That right there can be enough to own a system. Maybe you don't value that enough to buy the system at launch (when it's at it's most expensive), but maybe 5 years down the line, when the system can be had new for $100, or you find a deal on a used one. That right there could be the sweet spot.

ONE game was enough for me to buy both a PSP AND a Vita. Why? I love a franchise, it got games for it on those system that were new, so it was bought. Did I eventually find additional games I'd like on top of that? Yup. Was it ever a worry that I wouldn't, or that there wouldn't be enough? Nope.

[Manhattan Sports Club]

In a broad sense, a larger library "could" imply better games. The better the system sells, the more games that will be made available for it, the better chance of either AAA quality games, or games that cover lots of genres will make it out. With those larger numbers also comes higher number of games that aren't good, have a very specific niche market and or are just general crap that pretty much gets made for every system.

The bigger question is, what do you consider a large library? The Dreamcast had just under 250 games. Is that a large library? The N64 somewhere in that realm as well. Gamecube's 550ish titles too large yet? What about the NES with those 750ish games it's got? Large enough yet? The PlayStation has almost 1300. That's large isn't it? But wait, the PS2 has almost 2k. That's large. The DS has somewhere in the range of 1500-1800 games. That's large. Those modern systems have lots of games too. Wii, PS3 and 360 all have in the range of 1k games.

The NGPC has 32 (US released) games for it. You'll be hard pressed to find a bad game among the lot, even the gambling/slots games. But those may not float your boat. The Adventure vision has what, 5 games? All of them suck.

What it comes down to isn't the size of the library but if there are games you like on the system at all. I can find PLENTY of games I like for the PlayStation. Mainstream titles, niche titles are plentiful to me. Same with the DS. Hell I've got almost 700 DS titles and while not all of those are good (far from it), there are plenty of them that are. Inventive games, good games are plentiful. Same with PS2 and I've got 450+ there.

Plenty of crap out there, but who cares. So say there are 5 PS2 games you like, out of 1800. That right there can be enough to own a system. Maybe you don't value that enough to buy the system at launch (when it's at it's most expensive), but maybe 5 years down the line, when the system can be had new for $100, or you find a deal on a used one. That right there could be the sweet spot.

ONE game was enough for me to buy both a PSP AND a Vita. Why? I love a franchise, it got games for it on those system that were new, so it was bought. Did I eventually find additional games I'd like on top of that? Yup. Was it ever a worry that I wouldn't, or that there wouldn't be enough? Nope.

I agree with your point that what matters is if there are games that make the console worth keeping, though for me it has to be a fairly reasonable amount, at east 5 to 10 because I could use the money to get a multitude of games that are just as good if not better by selling the lesser one. That is, unless those few games are REALLY good. I think we agree though that quantity is not quality. PS1 had more games I liked than PS2. But then again, going back to the beginning, we only hold it in a more critical lens if there is more crap because we don't imagine what it would be like if the system had flopped and only had as many games as say, NGPC. Then size wouldn't matter.

[Flojomojo]

I think that most people are only going to have 5 or 10 favorites on any platform, regardless of the size of the library. If you're into niche areas, a bigger library often means more variety which means you're more likely to find the stuff you like.

People who say things like "vita has no games" are generally crying that the stuff THEY like hasn't appeared on the system.

For me, the Dreamcast or Saturn are more fun than Playstation or PS2 because that's where all the Sega games are.

[kupomogli]

The larger library will usually have more games that are better, but if you were to go by a ratio of good to bad the smaller libraries probably have a better ratio of good games.

While I own 86 PSP games compared to 72 DS games, and probably games I'd like or I do like for both systems that I don't own, the DS has more of a potential to pass the PSP than the PSP has in retaining its 14 game lead. That's not for sure though. There are some games that were never released in the west for both consoles that I was interested in, more for the PSP, only imported titles that weren't text heavy.

The PS3 and 360 also win over the Wii, while I think the market leader in every other gen has more quality games than the competition.

[Tanooki]

Larger library doesn't mean better games, but it does mean a better chance at finding better games I'd think just by the odds of it. Look at the PS1 and the 1000 some games it has. I wouldn't even say 10% of the library is good let alone excellent. Then take a look at the N64 with its just under 300 games and I could find 30 games very worth having on there taking it just a hair or so over the 10% mark. Sometimes quality wins over quantity, but sometimes quantity can get you enough quality too due to mass releases.

[Dangerboy]

It's not the size of the library; it's the popularity of the system. Everyone and their brother want to make fast cash on the biggest user base. This will mean those who care only on the bottom line and not actual dev time (see: Data Design on Wii and 3DO on PSX) will churn out garbage to go for the fast buck, while you have other companies spending time to justify the $60 price tag (see Konami, Capcom, Sony, etc).

If you remove the truly fringe stuff (Game.com, Laseractive, etc) I'd be willing to bet the rest of the consoles, regardless of library size will have an average of at least 10% true 'shit' games, but we have to have a huge * to that statement. When I mean shit - I mean there is a clear, absolute defining nature that the game was shovelware. Genre games, like the Imagine Series can't be considered as such because they sold; I've been in gaming retail 12 years - we may not be the focus of the Imagine games, but they sold like hotcakes, if they didn't, we wouldn't have 80 of them.

I'd be willing to bet that most systems have about 30% true system selling, AAA titles, and the remaining 60% are you average, good to great games, but not the ones you'd track down a system for to play again.

[bb_hood]

Look at the PS1 and the 1000 some games it has. I wouldn't even say 10% of the library is good let alone excellent.

I dont know about that Tanook, PS1 has tons excellent games. Some of the most popular Konami, Capcom, Squaresoft games were released on the ps1.
While N64 is far from my favorite system I think its worth owning even for just a handful of games like mischief makers and f-zero.
Any system with a large amount of games released for it is bound to have alot of crap, especially when you look back on it 10-25 years after its initial release.
Everybody says that the wii has tons of crap, and its true. It does have many titles that are great games though, and considering how cheap wii stuff is right now its worth it to pick up a few games.

[kupomogli]

Larger library doesn't mean better games,

No one who has posted has stated this, even the op. However one thing I'll debate about the comment I'm quoting. A larger library doesn't necessarily have better games, as in the best games, but having a larger library means that it has more chances.

Also, while the PSX had a lot of crap titles, it also had a lot of great games. One thing people like to debate when talking about the RPGs because people like me will praise the PSX as the RPG king, which it is, is that the system might have the most RPGs, but it doesn't mean all or most of them are good. With RPGs on the PSX, that's the area where the system shined the most and there are very few RPGs on the system that aren't good. I actually made this list a long time ago, RPGs on the SNES and PSX that were localized and released in the west to show someone a comparison of how many games each system included, and even split the list between non Squaresoft titles and Squaresoft titles. I included Terranigma even though it wasn't released in the US, and I left off games on both consoles that I didn't consider RPGs. although left off games that I didn't consider RPGs. I may have missed some RPGs as well. Anyways, while the PSX has many more RPGs than the SNES, it also has a much higher ratio of quality as well.

Games like Alundra, Illusion of Gaia, aren't included. I also didn't include Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Threads of Fate, and Brave Fencer Musashi, seeing those as more of action platformers with RPG elements that have less of an influence than Terranigma which I included. Benefited the SNES far mroe as well. Also included the limited western RPG line up as well. Anyways, listed everything seperate as Final Fantasy Chronicles isn't a game, it's a collection of two games. There are only eight ports on the PSX list though, three of which were never released in the US to begin with.

Arc the Lad
Arc the Lad 2
Arc Arena
Arc the Lad 3
Azure Dreams
Beyond the Beyond
Breath of Fire 3
Breath of Fire 4
Brigandine
Darkstone
Diablo
Digimon World
Digimon World 2
Digimon World 3
Dragon Seeds
Dragon Warrior 7
Eternal Eyes
Grandia
Guardian's Crusade
Hoshigami
Kartia
King's Field
King's Field 2
Koudelka
Legend of Dragoon
Legend of Legaia
Lunar
Lunar 2
Monster Rancher
Monster Rancher 2
Monster Seed
Ogre Battle
Persona 2 Eternal Punishment
Revelations Persona
Rhapsody(or Chrapsody
Saiyuki Journey West
Shadow Madness
Shadow Tower
Star Ocean the Second Story
Suikoden
Suikoden 2
Tactics Ogre
Tales of Destiny
Tales of Eternia
Thousands Arms
Torneko the Last Hope
Valkyrie Profile
Vandal Hearts
Vandal Hearts 2
Vanguard Bandits
Wild ARMs
Wild ARMs 2

52 games.

Chocobo's Dungeon 2
Ehrgeiz(Forsaken Dungeon)
Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy 2
Final Fantasy 4
Final Fantasy 5
Final Fantasy 6
Final Fantasy 7
Final Fantasy 8
Final Fantasy 9
Final Fantasy Tactics
Chrono Trigger
Chrono Cross
Front Mission 3
Parasite Eve
SaGa Frontier
SaGa Frontier 2
Vagrant Story
Xenogears

19 games.

SNES titles. Again titles that I wouldn't consider as RPGs won't be listed.

7th Saga
Brain Lord
Brandish
Breath of Fire
Breath of Fire 2
Dragon View
Drakkhen
Dungeon Master
Earthbound
Eye of the Beholder
Inindo
Lufia
Lufia 2
Might and Magic 2
Magic and Magic 3 (SNES version is slow, play PC version)
Ogre Battle
Paladin's Quest
Robotrek
Shadowrun
Super Ninja Boy
Tecmo Secret of the Stars
Terranigma
Ultima the False Prophet
Wizardry 5
Ys3

25 games.

Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy 4
Final Fantasy 6
Final Fantasy Mystic Quest
Secret of Evermore
Secret of Mana
Super Mario RPG

7 games.

*edit*

So having more games doesn't guarantee better games, but there's a lot more chances, and sometimes, like RPGs on the PSX, most of the games might actually be good games.

[Manhattan Sports Club]

Etc., etc.

In some ways I prefer the SNES RPGs for the fact that they rely less on fmvs, lengthy cinematics and drawn out battle animations, etc. that dominated the PSX ones. The PS1 era was good but sometimes people prefer a certain era more for a particular genre, like you see with Doom/Wolfenstein vs. CoD/Halo fans.

[kupomogli]

In some ways I prefer the SNES RPGs for the fact that they rely less on fmvs, lengthy cinematics and drawn out battle animations, etc. that dominated the PSX ones. The PS1 era was good but sometimes people prefer a certain era more for a particular genre, like you see with Doom/Wolfenstein vs. CoD/Halo fans.

You described most Squaresoft titles on the PSX. In terms of storyline, most of the non Squaresoft games had about as much story(FMV combined) as FF4-6, Chrono Trigger, or Capcom's Breath of Fire games. Some had more, Dragon Warrior 7 and Star Ocean the Second Story, others had less, Diablo, Brigandine, Azure Dreams, Chocobo Dungeon, Torneko the Last Hope, Monster Rancher, Dragon Seeds, King's Field, and Shadow Tower.

[bb_hood]

You described most Squaresoft titles on the PSX. In terms of storyline, most of the non Squaresoft games had about as much story(FMV combined) as FF4-6, Chrono Trigger, or Capcom's Breath of Fire games. Some had more, Dragon Warrior 7 and Star Ocean the Second Story, others had less, Diablo, Brigandine, Azure Dreams, Chocobo Dungeon, Torneko the Last Hope, Monster Rancher, Dragon Seeds, King's Field, and Shadow Tower.

Dont forget Einhander

[o.pwuaioc]

Hell I've got almost 700 DS titles and while not all of those are good (far from it), there are plenty of them that are.

I can't find 70 DS games I would ever want, let alone 700.

[BlastProcessing402]

What's better, a system with 500 games where 90% are crap, a system with 50 titles where half are crap, or a system with only a handful of games where one or two are crap?

I guess it would depend on the individual non-crap titles, and just how good they really are. In general though I'd like the one with the most good games, regardless of how many pieces of crap also happen to be on the system.

[Rickstilwell1]

The definition of what is good is never clear either. Some people like a lot of games that other people think suck and vice versa. You find yourself hating a game that tons of people love or loving a game that tons of people hate.

[Gamevet]

Larger library doesn't mean better games, but it does mean a better chance at finding better games I'd think just by the odds of it. Look at the PS1 and the 1000 some games it has. I wouldn't even say 10% of the library is good let alone excellent. Then take a look at the N64 with its just under 300 games and I could find 30 games very worth having on there taking it just a hair or so over the 10% mark. Sometimes quality wins over quantity, but sometimes quantity can get you enough quality too due to mass releases.


I'm pretty sure I can find over 100 great games on the Playstation and even more if you count every game within a compilation. I'd be hard pressed to find over 20 great games on the N64 and maybe another dozen or so that are worth having. I'd say the Gamecube has a better selection of great games than the N64.

[o.pwuaioc]

What's better, a system with 500 games where 90% are crap, a system with 50 titles where half are crap, or a system with only a handful of games where one or two are crap?

I guess it would depend on the individual non-crap titles, and just how good they really are. In general though I'd like the one with the most good games, regardless of how many pieces of crap also happen to be on the system.

Obviously a system with 500 games with 90% are crap. That system has 50 good games, the second one would have 25 good games, and the last one, I dunno, 5? To me, I'd be much happier with a system that had 50 quality titles than one with 25, and with one with 25 than one with 5, given the quality of quality games being (roughly) the same.


I'm pretty sure I can find over 100 great games on the Playstation and even more if you count every game within a compilation. I'd be hard pressed to find over 20 great games on the N64 and maybe another dozen or so that are worth having. I'd say the Gamecube has a better selection of great games than the N64.

N64 definitely has more than 25 games worth owning, depending on tastes, of course. But the dilemma is a false one. 100 great games on the PS1 is way, way better than 25 great games on the N64. Ratios mean shit. You're far more likely to get less enjoyment out of 30 games than 100 games.

[o.pwuaioc]

(Server crapped out.)

[PapaStu]

I can't find 70 DS games I would ever want, let alone 700.


Then you're not trying hard enough!

Seriously, almost all the Nintendo published titles are great, many of the mainline Konami, Square and Capcom titles as well. A bunch of good smaller franchises also out there by smaller publishers are also worth getting (Cooking Mama springs to mind), not even factoring in the likes of Atlus and NIS or the other J-RPG publishers.

[Gamevet]

N64 definitely has more than 25 games worth owning, depending on tastes, of course. But the dilemma is a false one. 100 great games on the PS1 is way, way better than 25 great games on the N64. Ratios mean shit. You're far more likely to get less enjoyment out of 30 games than 100 games.

I said 20 great games, plus another dozen worth owning. That equals 32 at best, which is about as many titles as I do own for the N64.

[o.pwuaioc]

I said 20 great games, plus another dozen worth owning. That equals 32 at best, which is about as many titles as I do own for the N64.
Ah, that's about right. I have 50 in my list of games worth owning. Then again, I only have 70 listed for the PS1 (would be more if I counted ports that I own on the Saturn instead of the PS1).

[Ze_ro]

The trick is learning how to separate the wheat and the chaff. Most of us could probably look through a stack of Wii games and instantly know which ones aren't even worth trying... while a random mom and her kid are going to go straight for shit they know (ie, movie and TV licenses) and get burned.

For well-informed people like us, yes, more is better.

On the flipside, for small game libraries, less can be exceptionally worse. For a system like the Jaguar or 32X or Virtual Boy, there are important genres of games that are entirely unrepresented (There's only 1 RPG between the three of them, and it's a crappy and rare one at that). People always mention the Dreamcast as having an excellent good-to-bad ratio, but even there, if you look at specific genres, you might only find 2 or 3 good games before the well runs dry. PS2, on the other hand, just keeps going and going.

--Zero

[otaku]

overall a large amount of games and developers should result in more good games but as others have said the DC while having a small library had tons of good games given that amount and likely could have had more

[Richter Belmount]

If its older systems it depends on what style of games you like , 100 different saturn games vs 100 n64 games is going to be radically different from each other cause of their libraries/markets. Like if you had a saturn collection its going to have more shooters , fighters and rpgs and n64 is going to have more fps , 3d platformers , maybe racing games? Is really depends on what the system focused on.

[thegamezmaster]

I choose quality over quantity after several years. Only buy games I know I'll play over again

[Manhattan Sports Club]

I choose quality over quantity after several years. Only buy games I know I'll play over again

How do you determine this without having tried it first, though?