Now, a measure people are yammering about as being VERY important is the "total number of exclusives".  And this exclusive is not supposed to include handhelds, past generation systems, or PCs.  There are reasons why I see this as a flawed argument:

1. If the exclusives are BAD games, does it matter if they are exclusives?  Isn't the point to buy a system to have enough good games for it that you want to play?

2. While it is true one may be able to get a PC version of a game, or one on a last gen console, or a handheld, do we seriously want to consider these as options?  A PC version implies a person owns a RIG that is more powerful than the console, is able to run the game right, and also has the best version of controls.  Let's say that Street Fighter 4 was a PS3 and PC title (no XBox 360 in this case).  Do we discount the title as being a good game on the PS3, and a title for the PS3, because it is also out for the PC?  So, thus, Street Fighter 4 is not supposed to enter into the discussion as a reason to buy a PS3, because the PC has it?

3. And what do you make of Nintendo?  Isn't the Wii the king of exclusives now?  The bulk of the top Wii titles are by Nintendo and for the Wii alone.  So, if exclusives are that important, does that mean that someone should buy a Wii, just because it has more?

4. And do we discount a fact a game came out like a year before on a given console, and now it is released on more than one console, it is not supposed to count as a reason to buy a console?  Now you can get Bioshock on the PS3, for example, it means that it is not relevant to the 360, where it is less expensive to purchase?  Same would go with MGS on the PS2 and it making the jump to the XBox and Gamecube.

How about, instead of this exclusive talk, you look at TOTAL number of games across ALL genres, or at least genres of interest on each system, and see how they stack up, and compare total library vs total library?  And look at how good the games are and when they release?  Isn't the total library size, and its quality, the most important thing?

Commenting on bolded:

Well if the rest is the same, then all that's left to discuss to compare systems is the exclusives. Comparing total game library once for each doesn't make sense because probably a lot is redundant and the same across two platforms.

When buying a system, do people look to see how many exclusives a system has, or if it plays particular games, and they are well done?  I will say, if all things are equal, then people buy the cheaper system.  The only time exclusives become relevant is if they are the top game in a given niche.  In other words, it is a killer app.  The system which has the most exclusive killer apps, can do better.  But, beyond this, you do want to look at the total library.

Let's go with a hypothetical system that has NO exclusives, but what it does have is EVERY SINGLE GAME on EVERY system that is not across ALL systems.   And these games are games people want to play.  Why would this system do worse than a system that has a bunch of mediocre or poor exclusives no one knows about or cares about?

Again, does a system play enough of the top games, at a price people are willing to pay.  Isn't that the deciding factor?  Not just the number of exclusives?

i still think the 360 has the best library, the most balanced of the 3 consoles.

You and I are on different pages right now, which is funny because I can tell you think exactly like I do. Multiplatforms games are just as good as exclusives are. Most of the time, I think they're better. My favorite game from 2008 was Burnout Paradise. I get what you're saying that there is too much emphasis put on exclusives like nothing else in this world matters. I agree, and I've pointed it out in the past with how flawed that thinking is.

What I was talking about though is that if you're considering two consoles, let's say the 360 and PS3, and you know you're buying one, looking at the titles they share doesn't matter. Regardless of which you buy, you know you have access to that sector of games. You need to look at the titles they don't share to see which is the better buy software wise and in that case only the exclusives do matter.

"total number of exclusives" that you want

I am not sure there is much disagreement, maybe a bit of a different focus.  

What I do see exclusives doing is ending up potentially being a tiebreaker, all things being equal, INCLUDING PRICE.  And this is provided that the title is good and in a genre that matters.   Well, in the case of niche titles, the last Katamri ending up only on the 360 did matter some.  Titles going multiple platform will end up causing someone to take pause and decide they won't buy the other console just to get a certain game.  And it goes on.

I guess what I originally wrote was more of flaws in the reasoning why the exclusives argument can break down.

Actually, I think that is total number of GAMES that you want.  Exclusives can lead to the total count being less on one system than another.  However, there also is a price factor in systems also that is important to.  If a system has some exclusives you want, but the system is several hundred dollars more, you may decide to wait on it, and pass.  Then, something else comes along and you forget about the prior title you wanted.

 Yes, but my way only took three words.

its true if a game is crap it doesnt make that game better for a gamer that its exclusive.