a, I understand what your saying about the prerendered graphics. But wouldn't you say that graphics, prerendered or otherwise, are all about looks? If Final Fantasy VII used prerendered graphics for the cities, wouldn't they still be considered a part of the graphics? With that in mind, what the system is capable of producing seems irrelevant. I mean, who cares what the system is capable of when the graphics are clearly right there on the screen? If the graphics are there, why shouldn't they be a part of the comparison?
I understand what you're saying, and the prerendered graphics in FF7 do work well, and look good. However, it's a trick that only that game (or maybe other rpgs) could use. A platformer or shooter couldn't use pre-rendered graphics because you can't really move on those surfaces, they're just decoration. In FF7 they work because you really don't interact with the environment.
So in general, a PSX game can't rely on that trick, so they have to use the actual graphical abilities of the system. Thus, I only cared to compare what the actual polygons looked like compared to each other, as that's what most PSX games rely on.
On another note, I think with or without pre-rendered graphics, Zelda is a better looking game because the polygons in FF7 are just so horrendous. Although the cutscenes in FF7 usually look very good. Perhaps, though, it was unfair to put FF7 up against Zelda, because really, FF7 characters are much uglier than characters in other PSX games. I just picked it because they seem to be two games people like to compare when they argue the consoles.
I guess comparing the graphics is pointless, because it's simply a matter of taste too. I've never really noticed the low frame rate in 64 games, but I believe it's there. I mean, look at the different experiences people are having with the 3DS; clearly we all see a bit differently. At any rate, I feel like I've put too much of my time into this particular discussion, so I'm gonna cut myself out of it now.