Playstation 3 easy. I think i played my PS3 more in the first 6 months of owning it then i ever have played a N64 throught out the whole of its life

This is... pretty subject, dude. Really don't appreciate the generalization. I didn't own a N64 but my brother did and I played quite a good deal of what most people consider the best on N64.

Also, interesting when looking at what D21lewis' and twesterm's posts. You point out games that were supposedly "genre defining/creating" but critics and PS3 gamers were saying the same about 2 PS3 games if i'm not mistaken [Heavy Rain and LBP] and this gen isn't over yet. One could argue that advancements in technology are the drive behind what's impressive about those games but so was popularization of 3D visuals--a tech based innovation--for those games that you mentioned. Everything felt new and refreshing back then.

The two systems are more comparable than you think and I think you're really undermining the PS3.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm   

Look what N64 did for games. What I want to say is,  you can't doubt the quality of games such as Ocarina, Goldeneye and Mario64...

even so i hate myself for voting! PS3 and N64 are still my most played consoles (PS2 a close third) so its the hardest thing to chose between the 2.

i'm going to have a bad taste in my mouth for wk's! maybe even months for this one?

N64 had some of the highest rated titles ever.  However, this is the same situation that resulted in the PS1 smashing the N64.  N64 had a handful of freakin' amazing games, but then there was a drop off.  It's overall library cannot compete with the depth of the PS1, PS2, or PS3.  The PS1 and PS3 had too many great titles, the N64 cannot win off a few amazing ones.

I choose the N64 since Mario Kart 64 is STILL a better racing game than Mod Nation Racers.

Guys, I'm a sony fan as well, and I agree that ps1 is one of the greatest consoles ever,and that ps2 had major titles , but apart from Uncharted 2 ,I dont see any "great" titles on the ps3...they are many that are very good, but great is a big word...

Not sure I can explain Zelda. But Goldeneye? It pretty much brought shooters to consoles successfully. Can you name me a PS1 shooter that matches it? I mean, games like Disruptor and especially Medal of Honor were great, but they didn't replicate the success of Goldeneye.

OT: It's funny. I think the PS3 has a great variety in its exclusive library, much better than the N64. But in terms of just quality titles, N64 wins by a mile.

It showed FPS' can be popular on consoles, but it did virtually nothing for the FPS genre beyond that and certainly not in gameplay mechanics. The controls (on consoles) were superceded by dual analog, the single player was nothing special, the health system was simply a sideways evolution of the health and armor bar in PC FPS' etc.

What it did well was a superb split screen multiplayer unmatched by anything at the time (and actually I can't think of anything that's really matched it). Revolutionary and influential though? Other than showing FPS' can be popular not so much. A revolutionary game in the genre would probably be Halo which came a generation later but which greatly influenced the mechanics, and gameplay experience of many FPS' after it.

Well yeah, it's the root of multiplayer gaming on consoles, that was my point. I am fully aware it did nothing new that PC shooters haven't.