[Athas]

Interestingly, I feel the opposite. The inferior texture memory means that many games just used Gouraud shading (or sprites) instead, which was quite clean. At the time, I felt that N64 games looked cleaner than PS games, mostly because of the textures, and I also think they have aged (slightly) better. At least those games that didn't aim for realism - Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time are still quite playable, while the looks of GoldenEye 007 are probably more of a hurdle.

[bartread]

I agree. I remember thinking at the time that N64 games tended to look significantly better than PS1 games simply because the N64 was capable of shading/smoothing and the PS1 wasn't. The pixellated PS1 textures are a big part of the reason many games on the system have aged so poorly even as compared to the 8 and 16-bit sprite-based consoles of the 1980s and early 1990s[1].

[1] There are other factors of course: SD TV resolutions are low so when you hook a 32-bit 90s console up to a large modern flat panel HD or 4K TV with games running at a resolution of around 320 x 240 the pixels are MASSIVE. In addition polygon counts are low, draw distances are often low, and so it goes on. Depending on your setup games can look considerably worse on a modern TV than they would have done on more modestly sized 90s CRT screens. To be clear I'm talking about SD TVs here, not CRT monitors, which could support much higher resolutions and would therefore suffer from some of the same problems as modern flat panels in terms of making the graphics look too sharp.