This is a pointless and arbitrary analysis, as others have already pointed out.
Consider two hypothetical systems, A and B. A has a library of 1000 games with an average review of 80%. B has a library of 3 games with an average review of 95%. By this methodology, B would clearly be a better value than A, despite the fact that you'd get bored of it after playing those 3 games.
Also consider two hypothetical consoles, C and D. Both are equal in terms of the number of games in their library. System C has an average review score of 75%, and has a large variety of games from different genres. System D has an average review score of 85%, but has only shooters and sports games. By this methodology, D would be a better value than C, despite the fact that you'd probably get bored with the library quickly if you're not a hard-core shooter or sports game fan.
See where I'm going with this?
"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."
-Sean Malstrom
