Azzanation said:
I am talking about the best were on N64 and it turns out I am not the only one to think so either. Having a 90s meta score doesn't tell us much about a game however being critically acclaimed and winning awards were common on the N64. Keep in mind the PS1's also had a major piracy issue which also would have hurt many developers and was a major selling point for the system as well. N64 was not or very little losing money on piracy, cannot say the same for the PS1. So being on the market for twice as long with an added benefit of pirating your games for free and being cheaper overall are not examples I would say a system is more successful. PS1 numbers are not as incident as they look. Besides the N64 was a solid successful console, there is no loser when being successful business wise. Its why I brought up the Volkwagon and Bentley comparison. Selling more does not mean something is better. |
Uh, what? You literally wrote that the majority of critically acclaimed games were on the N64, which I pointed out wasn't true. Having a metascore in the 90s tells us exactly that about a game, that it is critically acclaimed, a point you brought up. I also never said that the N64 wasn't successful, but there's no question that the PS1 was the more successful console by a wide margin. It sold three times the number of units compared to the N64, and overall there were around 962 million games sold on it to the N64's 224 million, so even with it being on the market for twice as long, as you pointed out, the PS1 was consistently outselling the N64 on both consoles and games.
And you're right, selling more does not necessarily mean something is better as a result. That is a matter of opinion. For me the PS1 had the overall better games, but I've always enjoyed both systems.