y

PlayStation vs. Nintendo 64-

          I have never once heard an intelligent debate on the topic of Nintendo 64 versus PlayStation. It really pains me to see bitter arguments where the word "sucks" is frequently used to describe the other system. Despite what any PSX or N64 supporter tells you, neither system sucks, they are both good machines, and there is an advantage to having either system. Arguments of this caliber are immature, and it is a shame that people must disagree so strongly about a subject matter like gaming. Games are supposed to be fun. The best solution is to have both systems, but at this point if you can only have one I would have to say that Playstation is the better choice.
          Which system is "better" is a trivial matter. The problem with arguing over which system is "better" is the lack of a good definition of "better." Some would argue that better is which system has more advanced technology, others would claim that it is which one has superior graphics, and finally, others would argue that it is which system has more quality titles. Specification wise, the N64 comes out on top. It is a more technologically advanced system, but this fact is irrelevant, as are graphics. Better graphics do not produce a better game. The third idea is the closest to "better." Better should mean that your system will give you more entertainment. This will differ with the individual, but overall, the PSX has more quality games.
          Sony has the better storage media, hands down. CDs allow for longer games in addition to FMV and redbook audio. CDs also allow for cheaper games, which is very important, because if games are cheaper you can afford more of them. N64 promoters may argue that cartridges do not have any loading times, but is no loading a very good deal? Carts have no loading, but cannot have FMV, have lesser quality music, less detailed graphics, and games are usually very short. Sacrificing loading time is not worth it if you have to give up all those extra features.
          There are more games for PSX, giving the gamer more selection. With the wide library of PSX games, N64 will never be able to catch up. Many developers are leery of the cartridge format, compared to CD, which is almost universally liked. This means that PSX will always have more variety and games to pick from. The worst part of this for the N64 is that some genres are non existent. N64 has very few fighting games compared to PSX, and only one RPG, Quest 64, which has not received good reviews (Zelda is not a REAL RPG). With this in mind, at this point the PSX is still a better way to go. You will never find an RPG on N64 that can match up to the brilliance of FF VII (also remember that FF VII is not the PlayStation's best RPG). Even if you could, N64 has nowhere near the RPG lineup of PSX. The genre of fighter on N64 is virtually screaming to be filled. The PlayStation has many quality fighters, yet most N64 fighters are just plain horrid. The N64 has no really superb fighting games. Mortal Kombat 4 is okay, but it cannot compare to the excellence of some of the PSX fighters. MK 4 is a descent fighter, but if you want real fighting games go to the PSX for the Tekken series, Bushido Blade, Soul Blade, and many more.
N64 has one big advantage, which is multiplayer. If you are big into multiplayer, N64 might be a better choice for you. I've heard that there is a multitap device for the PSX, but not many games make use of it. Multiplayer is becoming a standard feature in N64 games, whereas multiplayer games are not stressed so much on the PSX. The PSX has nothing in the multiplayer realm that can compare to 4 player Goldeneye. In the Playstation's defense, though, good multiplayer fighters on N64 are non existent.
          N64 has platformers than PSX. It really does seem to handle those types of 3D games better than the PSX. Mario 64 beats out any Playstation platformer. The entire Tomb Raider series is poorly designed. There is no camera control, making the series intolerable. The Crash Bandicoot series also does not compare to Mario 64. Crash is not real 3D, but Mario is.
          N64 has no shooters worth mentioning. Starfox 64 is fun for a little while, but does not provide a lasting interest. Compared to Colony Wars and Colony Wars: Vengeance, Starfox 64 is laughable. Rogue Squadron is good, too, but is not as good as the best PSX shooters. Besides, Rogue Squadron is only one game, the PSX has many good other quality shooters, but the N64 has none.
          If you like racers, you have to go with PSX. There is nothing on the N64 that can match the caliber of Gran Turismo or any of the Need for Speed series. I liked Mariokart 64 for a while, but like Starfox 64, it cannot provide a lasting interest. With Gran Turismo 2 on its way, PSX racers are looking better, but I doubt that anything good will come for N64.
          Both the N64 and the PSX have good and bad features. If you like platformers and are really into 4 player games, you may want to look into getting an N64. On the other hand, if you like racers, fighters, RPGs, shooters, longer games, high quality sound, greater selection, or FMV, then you should go with PlayStation. I really can't suggest picking N64 over PlayStation, although, if at all possible, you should get both systems, since the Nintendo 64 does offer a lot. Either way, before you purchase either system, you should investigate and weigh your options so that you can make the best decision for you.