Single Comment

'I think what Robert and George are arguing for is: quantity with
quality.
Whereas, Fergus, Roberto and Michael are arguing for is: quality with
quantity.'

Yes, this summarizes the main argument elegantly.

When dealing with reasonably small numbers, it remains possible to
overcome the inverse relation between quantity and quality thru much hard
work (playtesting, analysis, research, theory, invention, etc).  In fact,
some [but not all] so-called prolific game inventors (usually less than
50
games) have done admirably well at maintaining quality throughout their
body of work.

Unfortunately, when dealing with astronomical, combinatoric values such
as
8!-10! or even much greater, the people who have undertaken this work
(even
though they comprehend the mathematics behind their craft) are, by their
own realistic admission, helpless to adequately playtest and analyze all
of the individual games they nonetheless encourage people to play.

At this extreme, the inverse relation between quantity and quality
becomes
inescapable and uncontrollable.  Furthermore, quality will exist at its
lowest possible average within the greatest permutative set (quantity).
A randomization of quality itself actually occurs with a maximization of
quantity.  Contrary to popular belief, a randomization of quality does
NOT
approach an average.  Instead, it approaches the lowest possible value
since the definable nature of quality involves order and structure. 
Chaos
and statistical randomization are the opposite process- inverse or
destructive to isolated existences of order and structure.  Finally, it
is
prohibitively labor-intensive to filter-out the works which are defective.

So, they must remain as hazards for gameplayers.

My final conclusion- I think it is wise to avoid this unmanageable,
permutative extreme of game invention entirely and forever.

'I think any conscientious game developer is concerned about quality.'

Yes but to varying extents.

On one's list of priorities, if quality is not #1.  Say, for example,
quality is considered important but ranks #2 with quantity ranked as #1
... in practice, quality may suffer greatly.