I disagree that one cannot compare a live-action work with an animated one. It all comes down to the final result: how well does the work achieve its objective?
The animated Batman of the animated series and some of the spin-off films feel more like the original source materiel: the comics. Not necessarily the comics of the early 1940s, but perhaps the comics of the 1970s, '80s and '90s. They give the source materiel sound and motion and the viewer filters that into some interpretation/approximation of what it could be like if "real." The live-action films of the '90s forced/filtered the idea of Batman and his world into a warped idea of "reality." They were effectively spoofing how Batman was presented in the comics of the time.
And while the animated work was itself stylized it presented the substance as it was meant to be presented mirroring the approach of the comics.
So in the '90s which approach was more successful? Which approach was truer to how Batman was meant to be presented?
In the '90s it was the animated series and films that were far more faithful to Batman than the live-action movies.
It's interesting how this played out in the years to follow. For DC their characters have been better presented in their direct-to-video features than as live-action. Except for Nolan's recent take on Batman the DC characters have been unable to find the same success as Marvel has had with its characters in live-action films.