Ok well if we are only going off games that appeared on both systems let's talk about how the N64 was capable of handling ports of PS1 games very well but when companies would try to port the other direction it would end in disaster. For example take south Park 64. Not the greatest game, and arguable not incredible visually do to the simplicity of the art design, however the game was made using the Turok 2 game engine which provided more power than a South Park game could arguable need, but also more power than a PS1 could handle. The port is a hideous disaster and Acclaim even repeated the same mistake with armorines project swarm (not the most incredible game on the N64 either but a damn sight more playable than on PS1). In fairness though I believe the debate at hand isn't who was actually more powerful but if we prefer the blur or the population.

Not a very fair comparison considering how much stronger the N64 was, but stylized graphics will always hold up better than realistic graphics. Take a look at, say, Okami. That gem holds up even today thanks to its artistic style.

I think it depends on the games. Some art designs hold up better, some games were hindered by excessive fog or bad performance, etc.

Let me put it this way. N64 games like Mario Kart 64, AKI wrestling games, Smash Bros, Mario 64 and Goldeneye look amazing compared to most PS1 games. They look clean, run well, good draw distance, etc. Games with very blurry textures and fog really annoyed me. Its often gave a muddy picture that could leave people prefering the most crisp visuals of PS1.

Meanwhile games like MGS, Tekken, GT and other 3D games looked solid on PS1. They were crisp, ran well, that was good use of the hardware.

Hence, you gotta at games individually. But in many cases I may have prefered PS1 ports because less muddy textures, better sound (more music in some games), FMVs, etc.

Lastly, that was a very experimental era in 3D gaming much of which I didnt enjoy. Its worth noting there were many notable games relying heavily or entirely on 2D assets which were great on Saturn and PS1. N64 made a bigger push on 3D games to its detriment.

Some people prefer a different "look" even if its less advanced; after all, plenty of users voted here that they preferred the older PS1/Saturn look.

Like you say, presentation can matter more than technology; personally I think Muramasa the Demon Blade is still one of the most beautiful games I've ever played despite the fact it ran on hardware that was underpowered even at the time.

The best of the N64 looked better than the best of the PS1 but I like them both. The best of the 3D games on both impressed me though, developers like Naughty Dog and Rareware almost seemed to exceed the capabilities of those consoles. Both looked better on a CRT too, but I'll happily play PS1, Saturn and N64 games on a 4K TV too.

And I would agree with you. Muramasa's my proudest Platinum trophy on PSN.

This looks quite like System Shock 2, with a little less detail, but maybe a little smoother (and surely it was a lot smoother than SS2 on PCs of that period).

Perfect Dark did come out in the year 2000 and pushed the N64 to it's limits in many ways... PC games of the era were certainly a step up again though, no doubt about it.
We had Unreal Tournament, Quake, Half Life, Deus Ex, Soldier of Fortune, Homeworld, Dark Reign 2... List goes on.

Games from that era tend to look pretty terrible. I didn't think they looked good even back then. So, I'm gonna have to vote none of the above, and pretend that the 5th gen never happened.

Yeah pretty much how I feel too.

The likes of Conker, DK64, Banjo Kazooie, and Starfox 64 were, to me, the best looking 3D games of that era.

On the other hand though, PS1 and Saturn were no slouch as stuff like the original Crash Bandicoot and Spyro trilogies and Panzer Dragoon 1 and Zwei also looked great at the time.

I have a lot of nostalgia for both looks as I owned an N64 growing up, but also spent a lot of time at my best mate's house playing on his PS1.