This hypothetical has been bouncing around in my head for a while now.

Let's say a system supports 100 games. Game 1 is better than 2 is better than 3, and so on. Given the choice, would you rather have the top 20 games OR the bottom 80 games? And why?

Quality over Quantity.
I don't even play video games that often anymore, so i'd rather play a few gems.

Top 20. I'm sure the other 80% are on PC anyway. XD

Quality > Quantity.

So top 20 of course, 20 amazing games can last a long time and give great enjoyment and memories. 80 crappier games I might not even bother touching lol

If this is my personal 100 list, then definitely top 20. If it is the general consensus gamer list, then I would say bottom 80. I enjoy the smaller and more niche genres a bit too much to be loaded with just the critical darlings forever.

In order to not miss out on the best games that are of my preference, I would have to say top 20. If this is purely based on review scores looking back at previous generations top 20 games there are only a handful that I would actually want to play so would I really want to limit myself. It probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, and some of the games I miss out on, I probably wouldn't miss.

This

Without seeing the list of games impossible for me to say given subjective tastes.

If I could make my list definitely take the top 20.

Top 10 vs. bottom 90 would be more interesting. However, 20 great games is very good already, and at least one of them is bound to be a timesink (e.g. open world), so there's just no way I'd the bottom 80.

I'm surprised how lopsided the poll results are!

I figured at least someone would go for quantity over quality. Having 4x as many games is surely an attractive proposition?