Probably since it is not evolved much (visually) over the Gamecube, which was last gen.

Honestly, the lack of "Graphical Horsepower" is one of the only things the XBox 360 and PS3 fans can use to bash the Wii whilst seeming objective.

Personally, I may be getting too old but I haven't seen anything on the PS3 or XBox 360 that has blown me away like games did when we switched from the NES to the SNES, SNES to the Playstation/N64, or Playstation/N64 to the Gamecube/XBox/PS2. Certainly there is a lot of improvement in the quality of graphics but I haven't seen something that amazed me; this could be (in part) that I have been a PC gamer and have seen all of the fancy graphical effects before (whether it is in game or as a demo).

The Wii's graphics seem adequate ... certainly not anything to strive for but it isn't anything all that bad either.

People are stupid. Same reason people think the PS3 has worse graphics then the 360.

I have a Wii. I love the control but I'm disappointed that Nintendo didn't spend just a little more on the graphics hardware. $50 would have put quite a bit more CPU/GPU assets in the system over what is there now. (bought in bulk, of course).

Though the Wii does have > original Xbox hardware levels (according to some), don't discount the level of processing power required to accommodate the new control system. I'm guessing the overall processing power required for the Wii control scheme is higher than analog sticks. I could be wrong, but that could be where some of the horsepower is being spent...

Thus far, no PS3 game has topped the best 360 games. In the future, the PS3 will have better looking games but so far we haven't been shown much more than screenshots & fmvs that rarely actually represent a final product.

And yes, the Wii has upgraded graphics but because it didn't go to the extreme that the 360 & PS3 did, many people feel the need to compare. And then of course we get the stupid arguments about the PS3 selling better than the Wii if it was the same price.

The graphics between the PS3 and 360 look the exact same to me. People just like to act stupid over the dumbest things. For example, in the Call Of Duty 4 screenshots, there was quite a few things the 360 version didn't have. A tree, for example, was in the PS3 version but not in the 360 version. Because of this, people claimed that the PS3 version was better. Over a damn tree!!!! This is what I'm talking about. People find the stupidest resons to claim the 360 is better than the PS3 or vice-versa.

Soriku, how many threads on this topic have you opened? It's been debated to death a million times.

This is a quote from Eurogamer reviewer about Super Mario Galaxy Preview

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=81578

"This is not just the best-looking Wii title by miles, it's one of the best-looking games in the world full stop, HD or no HD. It's as smooth and shiny as silk, the colours are unbelievably vibrant, it's smothered in lustrous effects, and you feel like you can reach out and touch its chunky, cute and tactile designs. Super Mario Galaxy makes most hi-def games look about as solid and convincing as photographs pasted onto empty cereal packets."

TP looks about as good as Ninja Gaiden Black or Chronicles of Riddick not any better. And people say that it has last gen graphics b/c nothing has been overly impressive in that department besides TP. (games that are out.)

the only thing not "next gen" of the wii's graphics is the lack of 720p resolution.

with most of the current tv's in homes not doing 720p resolution, imo this is not a factor.