Not in the opinion of +/- 130 million PS1 users.
Just because something has a bigger library...
If you're trying to say that +/- 2400 games is somehow worse then +/- 370 games then I have to warn you that the probability of finding "good" games is much higher when you have a larger library.
I was convinced that it's humans who buy consoles - sales don't just grow on their own. If a console sells it means there's a market for it.
does not mean it's better lol
"Better" is a subjective term. If it's any consolation to you then judging from the ammount of PS1 users the N64 was shoeshining PS1's shoes.
you should have learned learned that before the N64 came out.
Before the N64 came out, the SNES and the Genesis were going head to head when it comes to sales, and guess what, they offer roughly the same quality of gaming. Their "console war" was never resolved and up to this day you'll have hardcore Genesis fans and hardcore SNES fans, their numbers are roughly equal too.
Yes, the disc media had a larger capacity, but does that mean that it was still used best?
Yes, the CD's have higher capacity, but does that mean that it was utilized worse then in the case of cartidges? Butter is butterly - that's a stupid argument. You either have capacity or you don't, the rest depends on the developer. The horrible thing about the N64 is that it was more powerful specs wise but all the content had to be compressed to fit the cartridge - the games on the console would be twice as spacious and twice as pretty if the ROM size limitation wasn't there.
Personally, I think Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 looks like shit, same with Silent Hill and others just to name a few.
I personally like pepperoni, I also prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi, unfortunatelly my subjective feelings are not influencing the argument, nor should they even be included in it. We can only consider the factual pros and cons of each console, and in that kind of a comparison the N64 loses flat out on the first lap, sorry.
I'm not saying that the N64 had better graphics,
Actually it had in some instances simply because it was beefier, unfortunatelly the RAM issues and the medium were slowing it down. Were it released with a CD drive and with the "Expansion Pak" stock, things would look dramatically different.
but sometimes trying to do too much makes it worse.
Judging from the sheer ammount of add-ons the Nintendo 64 had, I'd say it's Nintendo who tried too had at times. This isn't even limited to the N64 - they've always released a bunch of useless crap for their consoles, Nihil Novi.
The N64 had a ton of great games and even just a few of them were far better than the entire PS1 library.
With which you are of course familiar with and thus you have a say in the matter...?
I'm not denying the shortcomings of the N64, I'm saying, that a lot of times, they worked out better than what the PS1 had in a lot of cases.
A short-comming can't "work out better" - it's a flaw. You just deal with it.
Graphics aren't everything,
N64 had better graphics then the PS1.
that's why Nintendo is still around.
Nintendo is actually known for releasing powerful home consoles - the NES revived the market single-handedly and ate ATARI's for breakfast, the SNES was on-par with the Genesis and sufficient specs-wise, the N64 was more powerful then the PS1 but sold less and had a smaller library due to certain design flaws, in other words, it was released before it was well thought-through just to compete, the Gamecube was also way more powerful then the PS2, it's just that some jackass thought it's a great idea to use a format as weird as miniDVD and cut multimedia functionality when "media hubs" were at the peak of their popularity. The only instances where Nintendo hardware was "poor" spec-wise were most of their handhelds and the Wii, and it's just like that to this day.
They don't focus on that, and instead on rely on giving us the best experience possible.
Graphics and size of the content are parts of the experience. Moreover, Nintendo has only influence over first-party and second-party titles - the rest of your so-called "experience" is created by third-party developers, that being the great majority of developers by the way, who have to make-due with what the hardware company offered them to work with. This is why you have Dragon Age and Skyrim on the 360 and not on the Wii - because the Wii isn't nearly as capable and Nintendo knew they're releasing obselete hardware on Day 1. What they also knew is that there are people out there, people like you, who will buy the console anyways. They were also aware of the fact that if they market it as a family-friendly platform, it'll be #1 on every single parent's list on Christmas and other holidays, and thus they made humongous sales with hardware that was 5 years behind its times. I'd know - I bought one. Fair play, I enjoyed what it had to offer but soon enough after the developers stopped being all crazy about motion controls and the novelty factor was gone all that was left was shovelware - nobody wants to develop games for a console that simply doesn't give you wiggle room. If you can't spread your wings, you ain't gonna fly.
And if I have to accept a little graphical drop but it still looks amazing, in turn for blazing fast load times and amazing imaginative games, I'd gladly accept.
Consider this - graphically amazing and imaginative games. Welcome to the world of PS1 and PS2 - where were you all this time?
I'm not really going to argue with you further - there's a saying around here that you don't dispute about tastes, I just want you to be truthful to yourself, compare the two consoles objectively looking at them from every angle and not through the pink glasses of nostalgia and loving particular franchises but look at them for what they truly are and then determine which one was the superior at the time. You can't just look at one aspect, you have to look at all of them - specs, library, sales, controls (oh yeah, dual analog on the PS1, did I mention that? And a controller that's not a batarang), graphics, multimedia capacity (CD medium ---> CD player. No CD medium, no multimedia capacity) and so on and so forth.
