Diomedes, System A being x times more powerful than System B is really not a valid or verifiable metric. I'm saying that it's pointless to say GC was only 5-6 times more powerful than N64 because a consoles power is not an easily quantified numeric metric.

Far too many factors with the various architectures and system components to provide any real meaning between such comparisons.

Let's look at actual output, for one. The N64's polygon record was 180k with effects active (there was a 500k potential, but would mean no shading or mapping). The Gamecube's was of course 20 million with Rogue Squadron III.

So that's over 40 times right there. And that's not even taking the full degree of effects growth, texture sizes, framerate, and other things.

The real problem with Diomedes 40 times performance claim is that it is a number that was picked up off of maketing material ... and sadly enough, I think he inflated it from the 32 times Sony was claiming. The unfortunate thing is that most marketing claims are the result of cherry picking a single benchmark to make the performance sound as impressive as possible. When you move into real world performance, and multiple areas are demanding that extra performance, the benchmarks become less impressive ...

Polygon performance is a good example of how this works out ... The PS2 had theoritical polygon performance of 66 million polygons per second and the best looking games tended to achieve performance of 6 to 9 million polygons per second on the PS2, while the PS3 has seen a dramatic boost in real world polygon performance it sits at about 60 Million polygons per second which is far below the 240 to 360 Million polygons per second the 40 times processing power would imply.

Wow, that Conker shot should end any arguement.

I had no idea SMG looked as bad as it did, poor textures, poor lighting affects, and no anti-aliasing. I'm sure the game is fun, but from a purely technical graphics standpoint,  it is certainly sub Xbox quality.

@Tyrannical: You're right, it should have, since Happy Squrriel posted comparable pic from Starfox Adventures, with virtually no difference to Concer.
If you want to go with the argument as far as Kwaad did, claiming that Gamecube was powerful than Wii, then go ahead.

@Tyrannical: Forgot to comment on the SMG.
It has good lightning effects, it has AA and the textures aren't bad at all. Besides, the game runs very smoothly and is visually very impressive in motion.
In the end, you were comparing different artstyles and making comparision between them.

Wii owners shouldn't care too much about graphical power. Stop wasting your time and get an HD console if you want great graphics. Otherwise, just enjoy the games. It doesn't matter that the Wii is about as powerful as the Xbox if that's all you want.

Yeah, and HD consoles shouldn't care about graphics, either, since the PC offers better, right?

How many times has this been said?

 I'm guessing you don't know what AA is.

Notice the staircase effect around the window sill, or the triangle banners, and pretty much every where else?  That's lack of anti-aliasing.

Textures? That grass to the side looks staright green. Like someone used the paint bucket icon in MS paint. There isn't a lot of texture detail any where you look.

Lighting is hard to judge from screen shots, so I'll suspend judgement on that.

Ninja Gaiden Black (Xbox)

The Conduit (Wii)

Doom 3 (Xbox)

House of the Dead: Overkill

Ninja Gaiden Black (Xbox) (sure number 2 ain't a bullshot?)

Red Steel (Wii)

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from butcher bay

The Conduit (Wii)

Fatal Frame (Xbox)

Fatal Frame II (Xbox)

Fatal Frame 4 (Wii)

Thats all for now with screenhunting, more time consuming and hard then I thought. Hard to find good screens. Wish I new more good looking Xbox games to compare with, there is so many more on my mind with Wii and when Red Steel, next Zelda and so many other games comes out, Wii should be beyond the Xbox ballpark (graphics wise) with some games.