Well, technically speaking the Gamecube had roughly the same ammount of power as the XBox ... But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. In raw processing power the Wii simply isn't in the weight class of either the PS3 or XBox 360 but that doesn't mean that it is in a bad position.

A very extreme example for you: 

Produce the same Sprite based 2D RPG for both the SNES and PS3 ... The PS3 version is far prettier because the higher resolution allows for greater detail in each sprite, the PS3 sounds far better because it has a full orchestral soundtrack in 7.1 surround sound while the SNES version is in Midi, but the core game remains the same; even if you jump up to a full 3D game with the PS3 the core gameplay between the SNES version and the PS3 version would remain the same.

The previous example is not true for most games and genres but I believe that the PSP, Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube and XBox all are powerful enough to deliver the core gamplay of most PS3 and XBox 360 games in a very unrefined way. To quote Shin'ichi Okamoto, Senior Vice President and CTO of Sony Computer Entertainment "Real-time rendering was great, but genuine world simulation would require something even more powerful -- 1,000 times more powerful than even what the PS2 had to offer." Neither the PS3 nor the XBox 360 offer the kind of power Okamoto was taking about, the kind of power necessary to bring games to the next level.

I guess they are a little more hardcore than average.  They expect games to be fun to play AND to have good graphics.  My wife's favorite is Dynasty Warriors 4.  My daughter is pretty fond of that one as well but she is all over the map.  She'll play an action RPG like baldur's gate, a round of DDR, and then fire up animal crossing.  We're a pretty diverse gaming bunch and play everything from "kiddy" like mario kart to something like dynasty warriors.  We stay away from M titles (my daughter is 9).

The problem with the Wii games is that they are all rushed out projects to try to capitalize on the wii controller's buzz.  So far, nothing I've seen really impresses me over my cube and PS2.  Super Mario Strikers is a good example.  It doesn't really excell graphically over the current one and I'm not really sure how the wiimote makes mario strikers charged a "better" overall experience.

The games on the Wii, at least for my family of gamers, are going to have to prove to be quite unique and innovative.  Most everthing at this point is a version 2, 3, 4 of something previous...

You've said FF12 is the best-looking last-gen game in about 15 threads now. Is this really what's so great-looking?

http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/488/488222/img_4028604.html

If you're talking about FMV, who cares, if you're talking about in-game performance, I don't see what's so spectacular about it. I think Metroid Prime and Rogue Leader have it beat by a longshot.

Either way, you're right about the MHz, you cannot compare apples to oranges. Xbox CPU = Intel Pentium 3 (or Celeron depending who you ask), Gamecube/Wii CPU = PowerPC with a few tweaks. You can't even compare Athlons and Pentiums on a MHz to MHz basis, since one performs more instructions per cycle than the other, and they even use the same instruction set! Comparing two processors using different instruction sets by MHz is even more meaningless.

Eggebrecht from Factor 5 has already expressed his disappointment in the graphical prowess of Wii games so far. Rogue Leader was actually in stores before the Gamecube launched, and it looks better than most, if not all, Wii titles so far. Whether you can compare the Wii to the Xbox doesn't matter, you can definitely compare it to the Gamecube, and it's undeniably faster. So it's obvious that we haven't seen what the Wii can do if developers haven't even matched a launch title for the Gamecube.

P.S. Good to have you back.  Stay out of trouble this time, lots of us want you to stick around.  :) 

the Wii is weaker than the Xbox? wow it really was ahead of it'd time. well in terms of mhz.

Pick a better screenshot.

http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/488/488222/img_4028622.html

Unless it is full screen, and in motion, it dont look that great. It really looks amazing in motion.

I never said it was the best looking game last gen. That's why I say almost any x-box game. I think Chronicles of Riddick for the x-box was one of the best from last gen.

Anyways. :) 

Its still a new gen system struggling to surpass the power of a old gen system. Any one else see how sad and pathetic that is ? come on people has that ever happened before ?

do you guys forget that the focus of the system is the wiimote? If I had the choice between a game with Gamecube graphics and awesome motion controls, or launch title 360 graphics with awful controls (both of these types of games are possible) I'd have to choose the gamecube graphics with awesome motion controls. also, on the topic of power... wouldn't the wii have better looking games due to the easier development of the system? From what I understand, the XB wasn't a very dev. friendly system whereas the wii is... so technically, even if they have the same "power" wouldn't it be easier to get it all out of the wii then it would be to get it out of the XB? I think the whole philosophy behind the Wii can really be summed up into this: Would you rather play Fight Night round 3 with realistic graphics and button presses, or XB graphics and 1:1 motion controls? If you choose option 1, the 360 and PS3 are your systems... if you choose option 2, the Wii is your system. I personally think the graphics last gen were good enough... the fact that the Wii's are a smidgen better (well, they could be if dev's would stop being lazy) and I get motion controls seals the deal for me... for others though, they want the HD visuals... it's just a matter of opinion I suppose.

wii_are_better_than_

I would perfer 1:1 motion controls. However The wii is not that, The wiimote functions more like a button that you have to punch your hand, than 1:1. I'll stick with a smiple button. 

And the PS3 has motion sensors too.  Works very well for motorstorm (first person view).  I can't wait for Lair and Warhawk.  The Wii has yet to get a FPS correct, so we'll see how that goes.  Otherwise I'm not sure it has made games easier to play and that's what I'm looking for.  I prefer FPS on PC for that very reason.

Also, I understand MHz is not the end-all and you can always argue architecture of CPU and GPU and memory structure, but there is only so much you can do with low MHz no matter how it's set up.  The new Core 2 Duos from Intel are lower MHz than some P4s but they overclock to 3GHz already.  It's not like the clock speed is going to start decreasing.

I think most people agree that the evidence shows that the Wii is not much more powerful than last gen, no matter the architecture.  Also, if you want to argue that...there's a reason that Apple switched to Intel chips, their architecture is better anyway.  Apple has been slower for years, so I'm not sure how you can argue that the PowerPC is that much better than the P3, but it really doesn't matter.

Well, I for one will buying RE4 for the Wii, not because of any increased graphics, but because the controls look pretty fun, and it's a great game anyway.