Yeah I dunno, man. The argument of the video is that the architecture drove the games when it's the games that drove the architecture. Yeah - playstations didn't handle sprites as well as Nintendos because sprites weren't something you used in CGI and Sony decided that a baby CGI workstation was where they wanted to go with gaming: Meanwhile Nintendo was a company whose fame grew out of pinball and platformers. Their entire culture was about 2D games. That was very much why Sony drove hard in a direction Nintendo had never bothered, and doing it changed the gaming industry. 3D had belonged entirely to the PC universe up to that point. The principle crime of this video, though, is putting two consoles side-by-side when one was a response to the other. The N64 was deliberately designed to do everything the PS1 did only better while the PS1 was designed to do all the stuff Nintendo didn't think video games needed to do. That culture hasn't changed in 25 years, either: you buy a Switch so you can play Smash Bros. You buy a PS4 so you can play Death Stranding.
No, you're good. I'm not arguing for or against anything, just talking about my personal experiences with the systems. If you asked me though, I wish those some of those arcade games were ported to the N64, cause while I don't have any technical knowledge to back up my assumption, the system just felt more responsive all around. If I had to guess though, the reason most ports went to the PS1 was because A) optical discs were cheaper to manufacture and B) Nintendo took pretty big cuts out of each game sold on their platform.
There's a major economic undercurrent not mentioned: Sony sold the PS1 at a loss to get the gaming infrastructure built. Nintendo sold at a profit because they were a company that sold games for a living. It's a testament to Nintendo that they still exist 20 years after Sony and Microsoft launched a war of mutual destruction. The original XBox cost $200 more to make than it was sold for; the first-edition PS3 cost $1100 to build and sold for $499. Meanwhile Nintendo spent $40 on the Wii and sold it for $150 and ended up carving out a niche that they still hold. If you look at it, the N64 was where Nintendo decided that they couldn't fight the console wars because they simply lacked the resources so they doubled down on a winning formula of doing more with less to create games that were fun instead of games that were Warcraft. The reason most ports went to the PS1 is that Sony will throw money at anyone who will give them an exclusive. Microsoft will, too. Both companies love to buy up the firms that make their content and ruin them - while Nintendo does their level best to come up with fresh ways to enjoy their intellectual property. It's a fundamentally different approach to gaming and commerce and looking at it as spec-driven misses the point. If Sony wanted sprites, they would have had sprites. If Nintendo wanted polygons, they would have had polygons. Fundamentally? there was no internet video. If you were trying to impress people who hadn't played your games, a static image of a Playstation game looks much more impressive than a static image of a Nintendo game. But if you're in the living room of a friend, the Nintendo game is a lot more dynamic. Even now, Nintendo games are the ones that emphasize group play in the same room while Sony/M$ are much more about lone gamers separated by time and space who meet in a virtual universe that costs $80 a year to subscribe to. There are very real psychological and marketing choices that drove those specs. That those specs emphasize one style of gameplay over another is by design, not by accident... and comparing two systems from different generations doesn't illuminate that choice. Hell yeah the N64 was more responsive. There was a time when every succeeding generation of chips was radically faster than the one that came before and those two consoles are from the golden age of Moore's Law.