By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nu-13 said:
JRPGfan said:

N64 had alot fewer games, and while it hand some greats, overall I wouldnt say it had overall "better games".

The avg PS1 game was better than the avg N64 game imo.
Plus theres so many fantastic JRPGs on the PS1......

N64 has aged so badly, I can barely play any N64 games today without feeling like "this is too old, and not that well done".
While alot of those 2D sprite isometric 3D, PS1 games are still fantastic to this day, and look & play well.

PS1 aged much much better.
Overall Library and quality is by far in favor of the PS1 too.

Game quality can be subjective but visually most of the ps library aged poorly compared to N64 games.

At least that is the consensus from Nintendo fans.

I have only played Soul Reaver and FFVII from PS1 on the last 5 years so I wouldn`t really assume either of the platforms done better. N64 probaly have more games that aged better because of the type of graphic, more power of the console, etc.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."