The best was on PC anyway!
Voted for sharper and jagged because it was the 3D style of my fav games of those times, but N64 graphics were impressive for their times.

N64 trounces the PS1 in terms of graphics, especially when we consider which one's aged the best. The lack of texture filtering and the jumpy/wobbly vertices and warping textures really make things look bad. Emulators somewhat close the gap on this, but not fully.  Even those games that people point out as looking really good on the PS1, they would have looked better on the N64.

Of course, none of this means much of anything when the PS1 library completely destroys the N64 library.

I don't know but for some reason I prefer the sharp textures that a wealth of PS1 games and Saturn games had. Most notably the RPGs. Grandia, Xenogears, Dragon Warrior VII, Breath of Fire III, IV, Wild Arms 2, etc. had 2D Sprites, but the 3D environments to me benefit more from the clarity of the sprite work than the newer texture style spearheaded by the 64.

I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the 64, although it is home to some of my favorite games. However, Saturn and PS1 games done without warping textures just have a charm that I favor to the 64.

64 looked more "there", while the PS1 as others have put it, looked rather pixelated. In my opinion both still look terrible.

Yeah, most PS1 games have aged pretty badly in terms of graphics.

The N64 was more powerful this is not open for debate. That being said it was also harder to work with meaning companies with higher budgets produced better results so some individual games on PS1 look better than some N64 games. It's worth noting that a lot of the PS1 games mentioned are prerendered backgrounds which are basically 2-D. But we also aren't mentioning some of the best looking N64 games Turok 2 was outstanding for its time and Turok 3 was close to looking like a dreamcast game and the of course conkers bad fur day and (even though I hated it) Donkey Kong 64 all graphically great games for their time.

I liked both. I think the jittery polygons and warped textured had a charm to it.

But in the end, N64 wins to me. It just looked better overall, especially in games like Zelda OoT and SM64.

We don't have to choose because with modern day emulators, we can take those games and render them at 16X AA and 4X the original resolution. OoT and FF look sharp as hell on emulators.

I hate blur and have always turned AA off on PC. CRT does enough blurring on its own and TR looked a lot better than OOT. I also preferred ps2 over original xbox as the later appeared to have everything smeared over in vaseline. Nowadays it's mostly motion blur that bugs me, AA has gotten less intrusive since resolution has gone up. Still some games look overly soft.

All those shimmering pixels created the illusion of there being a lot more detail than their actually was. Blur only removes detail.

The battle sequences in Final Fantasy 9 were fully 3D, not using a 2D background, hence why I used them in the comparison. (You must not have watched the video.)

Geometric detail of Perfect Dark was certainly a step up overall, there were far more polygons on screen at any one time.

Shadows weren't the same, Perfect Dark had some dynamic lighting thanks to it's TnL engine and baked shadowing.
Carrington Instute level actually showcases this really well with shadowing on various surfaces, even some reflectivity, the PS1 just doesn't hold a candle to these effects. - These are "clean" images, but it showcases the detailing of what I am trying to point out... But hey, if you can point out a PS1 game with texturing that is on Par, with shadowing detail, lighting details, transparencies, reflections and so on all in one scene... By all means, please showcase it.

And like I said. Perfect Dark wasn't even the best N64 game visually, but it was certainly a step up over Final Fantasy 9, especially with the effects she was pushing.