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.

Your Volkswagen and Bentley comparison is flawed ,Bentley was never in competition with Volkswagen and I'm sure that many Volkswagen buyers would say that for them it was a better car based on,sale price fuel,repair and insurance costs and many other factors, now why things like the best are subjective the volkswagen owners at least can demonstrate reasoning better than PS1 was a pirate haven and scores from critics don't tell us much about a game.

Being on the market for at least double the time should sell by default twice as much units. Being a cheaper console world wide also means you are intended to sell more by default. Quality has nothing to do with it. 

You are entitled to your game preference however many games that are considered some of the best games ever created came from the N64 and are still looked up to today. N64 was a success, it never lost, it did what it needed to do. Many games hit the 90s, doesn't mean there award winning, or genre defining etc.

It makes perfect sense. A cheaper car should outsell a more expensive car. A cheaper console should outsell a more expensive console.

Being on the market for 12 years should by default outsell a product that's on the market for 6 years. 

Bentley makes cars, Volkwagon makes cars.

Nintendo make game consoles, Sony make game consoles.

I just use Bentley as an example, I can use another brand, the concept remains the same.

And it sold three times as many units, so what's your point? That the N64 underperformed? Many of the best games ever created came from the PS1 as well, which are still looked up to today, so that's no different from the N64. Again, I never said the N64 wasn't a success, but arguing that it didn't lose against the PS1 is kinda pointless when the numbers tell the opposite story. It lost to the PS1 on every metric, from sold consoles, to number of sold games, to number of critically acclaimed games. That doesn't mean it's not a great console, but you're arguing against obvious facts here.

Nintendo lost the home console war that generation, just as it won the previous two with the NES and SNES. Or if the N64 didn't lose are you saying that the Sega Genesis, the original Xbox, or the PS3 didn't lose their respective generations either because they did what they needed to do as well?

Probably, he was implying that Japanese RPG fans who migrated to PS1 en masse were a bunch of hikikomori.

Nintendo's PR was notoriously salty during 5th gen. Nintendo of America wasn't much better, they were just quieter about it. I remember them trying to pass off games like MACE or Fighter's Destiny as being just as good as Virtua Fighter, Tekken, and Soul Blade.

But that was nothing compared to their salt over Final Fantasy VII, which pushed the PS1 into the lead in the US as it had in Japan (up until then the N64 was actually catching up in install base in the US). Quest 64, a thoroughly mediocre, bare-bones game in every way, was proudly touted as, "hey, we've got RPGs too!" Mother 3/Earthbound 64 was the great RPG hope of the N64, until it went deep into development hell and never escaped from it. They took a few swipes at FFVII itself as well in Nintendo Power, though they didn't have quite the same audience reach as the big boss in Japan did.

US Saturn owners were pretty lonely and depressed. :(

Us American Saturn owners were the bee girl until we found one another.

Ill never understand this metric you people use to justify a products success with what wins and losers. This is a business not a sport, there is nothing set in place for coming last in this so called sales race, in fact the sales race doesn't even exist. First to 100m, who sells more at the end of the generation etc, its all made up.

Sorry to bust your bubble here, companies make products with estimate sales goals etc not based on there competitors. If its that important about beating the other in sales than these consoles wouldn't stop being manufactured and will continue to sell way beyond there life spans just to win or to hit that 100m mark or whatever metric you use to justify winners and losers.

The Sega Genesis was a success, it definitely was no loser, it just didn't sell as good as the SNES. The N64 fits that same bill. It didn't outsell the PS1 but it was still a successful console and is not a loser. Consoles don't need to win a imaginary race to be justified as not losing. Honestly when I was 10 I use to say these things about Nintendo beating Sega.. today I look back and see the industry for what it is and not what we think its about. 

There is no gold trophy at the end of these races, there isn't even a finish line, hence some consoles stay on the market longer than others etc. They are products with sales expectations and targets, like anything else in the world. Look at Car brands, Lets say BMW sold less cars than Mercedes in the past 5 years, does that make them losers? No.

The terminology of these winners and losers need to change. 

I want to say yes, he's right, but I haven't played most of the acclaimed RPGs of the 90s. At the very least, I'll give him that one of the bigger successes of the decade, Final Fantasy VII, has an emo template written all over it. The other Final Fantasy entries also have passages that deal with depression, especially IX... And Xenogears is just pure sadness.

Good 'ol Yamauchi. He was always something of a cold and blunt, give no shits type of dude who loved to bust out controversial statements. He was like the Trump of the games industry haha.

I wouldn't quite call them "depressing" as much as dark. And there's nothing wrong with that. Dark is rad. I'm a big metal fan after all ha. 

Also that comes across as an excuse.

N64 lost because of:
- Carts vs the more versatile and flashy CDs
- Lack of software
- Weird controller
- Strict adherence to full 3D games rather than the more diverse PS lineup.

I was never a Sony fan and obviously prefered the N64 but even I can see its immense flaws and weaknesses compared to the PlayStation.