While I agree with you in part, surely it's better to have a large number of "OK" games, than a staggeringly small number of "great" ones?
The problem is that those "Okay" games are really not okay. Take Challenge of the Horse, for example. You literally press space at certain points of the game. Would you consider it to be fit for release? It's incredibly simplistic and just tries to piggyback on the enjoyment the community sees when it comes to runners. The game about Pizza, same developer, was a mess as well, though it was slightly better. Still, it had few fully thought-through mechanics and was mostly mash the space key game. So, to answer your question, I would be perfectly fine with a small number of great games because of the thought put behind them and their mechanics.
Also, are you saying new developers shouldn't be allowed to release anything or be recognised for releasing sub-par games? How are they ever going to get to swamp level if they don't write guess the number and Hangman?
I think we can both agree that a sub-par game can still be thought through. I do not expect perfection. I do not expect mainstream quality from new developers. I do expect the necessity for the recognition of what should and should not be released. People should totally write Hangman and Guess the Number, but they should not release them to the community unless the game in question is akin to icing on the cake (boy, here goes the food analogy. I need to find new comparisons). To put it in perspective, Sammy Center, a game from what one could consider new and inexperienced developer, had Guess the Number. However, it was one of the 10 or so games packaged within the application. Sam did not release it as a standalone app and said "Hey guys! I have a game!" An even better, if more nonsensical, example is Judgement Day. Liam packaged simple minigames on top of the main space invader mechanic, and it added to the appeal of the final product despite its simplicity. I can go into detail about Super Egg Hunt as well, how such simple mechanics were made into 92 trophies and hours of fun, but I'm sure I made my point: Sub-par does not possess correlation with game complexity.
By the same token, I do not believe that the individuals releasing those tiny programming exercises deserve recognition precisely do to the simplicity of such programs. You could argue that the effort taken to create an application varies with the individual, but here is where my last point comes in: The ability to regard your product as a customer. Take Rhory Arcade, for example. The developer came up with 19 or so games that boiled down to clicking buttons and hoping that luck is with you. While it was complicated to make (He actually had a GUI which was recognized by the screen reader), it quickly lost its appeal do to the lack of control the user could exhibit on the game.
Before I finish, I would like to point out that we should not be downright hostile to new developers. I believe that there is a fine line between giving undue praise and being extremely rude. Unfortunately, the community tends to fall on the undue praise of the spectrum.
I hope this clears a few things up for you.
