And that is your opinion.

Ok.........

I have to agree with you on this. Crash does look better than SM64 (but both are good games), and the 2D Mario games had an charm that the 3D game couldn't replicate.

In some interview I read in some magazine that I read years ago, Naughty Dog said that Crash was just supposed to be a classic 2D game in 3D. To do that, they had to copy some tropes from 2D side scrollers and pretty much all 2D platforming games borrowed from Super Mario.

They took some digs at SM64 saying things like "Crash has 3D trees" and that it was "instantly familiar" but yeah, nobody--not even Naughty Dog--denied Crash was an "homage".

I still have tons of video game magazines from the 90s and if I wanted to, I could spend a day digging through them just to find the article.... but I won't. You just have to trust me and my memory.

I strongly disagree, Naughty Dog did a great job with Crash on the psx, it was a nice looking game but I remember when I was a child, I play hell lot of Crash on my PSX and one day I saw a n64 on a shop for the first time in my life and Mario 64 was running, I played for 5 minutes and almost die of excitemente, until that moment I never saw graphics like those, never, it was vastly superior to Crash , they looked more solid, more clear, more complex and way more open and ambitious and it was very obvious in that time that Mario 64 looked better than Crash there was not even a discussion about it. Now people think in how they looked on emulators and on their memories and not how they really looked running on their original consoles, but I do remember the impact of the contrast between playing Crash daily and suddlenly playing Mario 64 for a few minutes when I had not a clue that N64 was more powerfull, and it was quite impressive and obviously superior, Crash was maybe superior on some textures and his design was specially thinked to have extremely poligonal graphics so the model design feel less outdated than some M64 models that struggle to turn some 2D characters in 3D (like Bowser...) but overall, M64 looked better.

I never liked mario 64 when I was a kid, couldn't get into it (now I like it but still I like every other 3d mario more), but since you ask which one is the best platformer... I love Crash though, 3 is on pair with galaxy if we talk about the fun I had with it

That is very true. For instance I got the destiny bundle for ps4. But I didn't particularily want destiny just the ps4

Mario 64 easily.

Crash was basically a 2D game stretched into three dimensions. The same kinds of mechanics we'd come to know since the NES, but now the goal is reached by going forward instead of right, and you can move laterally a little bit. And it was fun for what it was.

Super Mario 64 was truly revolutionary. It really defined what can be done with 3D controls. Now that things could be approached from multiple angles, you could focus on exploration, and platformers no longer had to be linear. Leaps and bounds above any other 3D game of the time.

Mario set the benchmark for 3d platformers, even though it might have not been the first, it certainly did it the best and by far. Fade to Black was also an early 3D exploration game and if you compare the two, it is night and day in terms of the fluid controls, ,level design, camera etc. Alot of it had to do with the analog stick but the game was brilliant in all aspects. Crash is awesome too, but different and not comparable. It would be like comparing Ocarina of time to FF7, both same genre but vastly different in their approach.

Clearly you misunderstood the purpose of this topic.  This is a place for extensive scientifically researched theorems on the relative quality of Crash Bandicoot and Mario 64.  Something as frivolous as mere opinions have no business in this very serious topic :p