AA is one of the first thing I turn down in my settings on PC because it affects a lot to the stability of the framerate

Depends on the method; AA didn't stop games like 3D World, Captain Toad, and Xenoblade Chronicles X hitting rock solid framerates on Wii U.

Gimme sharp pixels any day. Nintendo were the kings of AA back in the N64 days. It was a blurry mess. Some AA on edges is appreciated, but there is an early cutoff most devs step over.

Sharp > Smooth. Think about how blurry those AA'd 1080p edges will be when 8K is the video standard for projectors.

There is a world of difference between the blurry N64 AA of two decades ago and modern methods. 

I can't believe people are using the N64 to argue against anti-aliasing. This feels like the 'human eye' 30fps debates. PPAA has leaped magnitudes in recent years. There are several solutions today with minor performance costs yielding substantial IQ improvements.

Or hows about both? Anti-Aliasing has been around for decades. There are no excuses. It's performance impact is a non-issue.

Anti-Aliasing, when implemented properly results in improved image quality, not reduced. - Regardless of resolution.

The PC is not a console.

Any modern mid-range PC GPU can do at a minimum 2x Anti-Aliasing without any performance penalty.

The Nintendo 64 isn't representative of Anti-Aliasing that we have today. And the reason for Nintendo games looking blurry overall isn't soley due to Anti-Aliasing.

For starters, the Nintendo 64 was rendering most games at 320x240 and a few at 640x480. Which was shit. It was always going to look blocky or blurry.

Compound that with a 4Kb texture limit, limited cart space, S-Video/RCA-Video output and things weren't ever meant to be pretty.
Plus, the Nintendo 64 applys a blur to the Horizontal lines, which is not part the Anti-Aliasing method... And the Anti-Aliasing method also adds to the blur by blurring the screen.

A proper, expensive and high-quality Anti-Aliasing method does not turn the image into a blurry mess, it enhances the image... However, because consoles are cost-sensitive devices they cannot always employ the latest and greatest and expensive rendering techniques that the PC gets to use.

Nintendo made a ton of silly decisions with the Nintendo 64... But that was with the Nintendo 64.

Anti-Aliasing should be mandated for all platforms, including mobile in 2017.
There really is zero excuses, especially with how efficient Anti-Aliasing is these days on modern hardware.

FXAA could work as the cheapest AA and least performance impacting one. Why they didn't applied any? I don't know.

Probably they have tried it with different settings, including different AA methods, but weren't happy with the AA results.

Could it have worked with AA if they put more effort in it? Maybe, but we don't know for sure. Would it have been rock solid 60 fps in 1080p even with simple AA? Maybe, but we can't be sure either.

FXAA is one of the cheapest. But it's also far from the best. (Also known as Morphological Anti-Aliasing on AMD hardware.)
It's a post-process filter where the areas that aliasing occurs are blurred. It's super cheap.

That should be a minimum.

MSAA would be a good method, however, it's harder to get working with deferred rendering approaches.

SSAA is way to expensive for consoles.

SGSSAA or Sparse Grid Super Sampling Anti Aliasing is also stupidly demanding.

TXAA will sample prior frames to try and improve the sampling...

Anything is better than nothing though. Can't believe people are defending Nintendo on the lack of AA in games though, like it's somehow a good thing. I thought I had seen everything.

What you just described for an AA option was FXAA or at best TAA. Also Platinum have AA in their games, just a rather poor version of one.

Also seeing aliasing all over the place is really not pleasant to the eyes compared to a well rounded edge that doesn't look jagged to hell.