NOTE: I originally posted this in the Fanzine issue of 2.5D which you can download in PDF form HERE
I hear it all the time from uninformed gamers. When talking about the PS1, they constantly attack it for having crappy games. They'll quote five or so games as the "only" good games on the system, and then proceed to tell me the rest of the PS1's library was crap. I'd be inclined to believe them if I didn't own nearly 200 PS1 games myself. Yes, as with any supported system, it did have it's fair share of crappy games, but I've never seen so much misinformation about a popular gaming system. Both the NES, and Snes had piles of crappy games. It comes with the territory of being the most popular system of the day. However, both of those systems are remembered for their great games, and not for the hordes of bad games. Why is there such a double standard when discussing the PS1?
Perhaps the worse defense I've heard to bash a system while defending a system that isn't getting supported is quality vs quantity. I have no problem if another system's games appealed to you more. I can understand liking another system better than the most popular system. I'm not saying that everyone has to like the PS1 as much as I do, but the excuse of quality vs quantity has always been a lame one. By simple mathematics, the system of the higher quantity of games also has the higher quantity of quality games.
Lets take for example the N64. I owned both a 64 and a PS1 at the time of their popularity. I had some great times with the N64. Goldeneye was my drug of choice, and I killed thousands of hours in the multiplayer. It was a good system, and is a good system to collect for now. However, throughout the system's life, there were massive gaming droughts. Some months the 64 would get 1 game per 10 PS1 games. Were all 10 PS1 games great that month? No, but even if there were three good ones out of those ten, then that means the PS1 had more worthwhile games that month. The pickings on the PS1 were never slim. The N64 would have a good month, and then four of slim pickings. Quality vs quantity means your system doesn't have the support it needs. No one was bashing the Snes for having tons of support during it's day. Why then does this idiotic argument still get thrown at the PS1 then? It doesn't make any sense.
Then name of the game is variety. The PS1 may not have had the best games in every genre, but it at least still had games in every genre. At the time, my main genre of choice was RPGs, and the PS1 was the king of RPGs for that generation. The Saturn had some great ones too, don't get me wrong, but I didn't own a Saturn until later, and now don't feel like selling a kidney to play some of those RPGs. Beyond RPGs, I played everything except sports games, and if you wanted a system with everything, the PS1 was the main way to go. I love variety, and I have very erratic gaming habits.
Variety is one aspect, but the PS1's library also had tremendous depth. Almost every system has gems that fall below the surface of the mainstream, but because of the sheer amount of games available for the system, the PS1 has tons of underrated, overlooked games. I'm amazed on how anyone who either never owned a PS1, or who never owned more than 20 games for it in it's lifetime can comment on the system's library quoting the same five or so games as being the only good ones. As I previously stated, I own around 200 PS1 games, have been playing the system since the summer of 1997, and I'm still discovering hidden gems that I overlooked. Games that got very little exposure, and that even I, being the avid seeker of the obscure I am, had overlooked. When a console can still surprise you over 15 years after it's release, then you know it's library had an awe inspiring amount of depth to it. I get the same way with the Nes, Snes, Genesis, PS2, and so many other great systems I still own and still collect for, and the PS1 deserves just as much a place of honor as those previously mentioned consoles. In fact from a personal standpoint, the PS1 is my favorite system of all time. Not that the Genesis, NEs, and Snes weren't great systems, but the PS1 has just been my most played system ever, and it bridges the gap between the 2D games I love, and the world of 3D gaming. The Saturn was better at 2D (and arguably better at 3D when properly utilized), and the N64 was better at 3D, but to me the PS1 will always be a perfectly balanced 2.5D system.
Love it or hate it, the system has forever left it's mark on gaming, so you should at least respect it for that.
NOTE: I'm not attacking the N64, I'm merely using it as an example of why the Quality vs Quantity argument is a weak one. If you get sensitive about it, then you're probably a fanboy who's not worth talking to anyways. I still own the system, and I still play the system on a regular basis, so before the fanboy accusations come out, you should probably look in the mirror first if you want to see who's really biased.
Comments