If you spend $10, you get something shoddy.
If you spend $100, you get something better.
If you spend $1000, you get something good.
If you spend $10000, you get something great.

You can count the great games with 1 hand and still have some fingers to spare.

Those are some truly impressive visuals! I can't remember having seen a single Wii game that is equally impressive, which speaks more of the developers than the hardware.

You are being facetious, yes?

No, those graphics are not impressive.

Look what is actually being rendered there, a flat sea, a flat back ground and a few shipsthings with very basic polygon shapes. So yes, artisticly they can make those few things being rendered look quite good. What it does do, it does well. But it's really not doing much is it. Floor textures are heavily and obviously repeated, ships are repeated, geometry is more basic than many n64 games. It's making very good use of limited hardware and it ran at a high resolution because it didn't need to use the grunt on texturesgeometry. Skies are generally pretty empty you know ;)

Very ignorant comments here. Most Wii games are clearly doing a lot more, I would have thought that was obvious. It reminds me more of a tarted up version of a 20 year old wire frame untextured space shooter from the 80s. Of course this is not an insult to the game but a spade is a spade, and you guys are talking about spades. If your talking about teapots, then that's great, this has great teapots = teapots being very good good game design to hide shortcomings of a console and make the most of it.

Another note, it's looks good also because those images are 640x480, which is the same resolution the game was rendered at, so yes it did look sharp. Those backgrounds however are flat textures. Most games are rendered at a much lower resolution on the Gamecube and the Wii because there's more to process.

Final note, launch games, when looking back often look better than games released much later because as a generation progresses (not this but PS1 and PS2 era), resolution is lowered, frame rate is lowered to make more happen on screen. Gran Turismo 2 and devil may cry 2 for example rendered at lower res than dmc1 and gt1, albeit with more going on.

In a still picture, you can't actually see what's going on and how much action is taking place so come to this conclusion, couple that with your nostalgic eyes and love for all things star wars and being shocked at the first "next gen" game that was actually quite good...and you get the point.

i do not know that game but it looks great!

How can you say it looks great, it's basically pong but in the sky, with textures and some shadows, there's virtually nothing on screen.

teapots rock, and if they make a game look good, then I couldn't care less how the graphics were offered. True, to the discerning eye things may appear like paper art, but for the less savvy, a few games like this on the Wii wouldn't have hurt a sinch.

I just asked Chrizum if he was being facetious.  Now I must ask the same of you.

not sure, and i doubt we'll get the chance to find out.

No, but your problem is probably with my use of "true" in combination with "N64 shooters". And yes, I may have used the word "true" incorrectly, but my gripe with Conduit's lighting engine is that objects in the world are not being affected by lighting sources and shadows, while a game like Perfect Dark or Turok 2 had much more lighting sources which influenced the objects around them. Sure, the lighting may be pre-rendered to some extent and but it at least looks miles beyond Conduit's lighting and that is inexcusable to me.