"I said the PSX's success over the N64 was no fluke and I outlined specific reasons. I know you focused on one of my reasons (quite frankly the weakest: "long and involved games"), but are you now saying that you didn't read my other, more substantial reasons?"

I said nothing about not having read the other reasons you posted. Really not sure how/why you so often come to such outrageous conclusions. Perhaps I agreed with you on all other points, and that is why I did not comment on them. I certainly don't think that would be an unreasonable assumption to make.

But the idea of PSX games, which I personally have always found to be rather shallow and absolutely awful looking, being considered longer and more involved in general than N64 games really stood out to me. I have always felt the exact opposite way. I always stuck with the 64 because I liked the depth, length, and complexity of those games, which was something I never found in any of my friends PSX game libraries. I have always seen the N64 games as unique experiences not available elsewhere, while the PlayStation never felt like a unique experience to me, it felt like a silly little machine that played PC games on your TV set in inferior quality and longer load times.

I really do need to play FF7 sometime though, perhaps that would change my mind to some small degree. I have always felt that complex games are far from rare on the 64, but quite uncommon on the PSX. That is why that part of your post stood out to me, and why I commented on it.