Just because something does not look impressive now, does not mean it was not impressive back then, and that's all I have to say on the matter.

@fillet

You haven't played this game have you?

I only say this because you appear to be judging it based purely on these couple of screens. When this game was released Factor 5 were boasting higher poly counts the the maximum quoted for the Gamecube by Nintendo themselves.  There are massive dogfights with dozens of fighters, not to mention large fleets including star destroyers etc, 60fps with hardly a drop and all with more effects than seen in the majority of Wii games.  The only advantage for Wii games is the slightly higher widescreen resolution sported by most Wii games. (both 480p though)

I don't quite understand your point about the dropping resolutions through the generation. As far as I'm aware most if not all GC games supported 480i (480p for some) whereas the majority of Wii games supported 480p (some 480i,  i think). 

I still have this game along with all of the best looking Wii games and while the very best the Wii has to offer probably is a little better, that is a very short list of games.  I would still contend that the Wii has nothing better looking in this particular style/genre.

I completely agree.

The output resolution of 480i or 480p has no bearing on the rendered resolution, same as Xbox 360 can output 1080p for all games but this is scaled from rendered resolution.

I assure you I have played the game and very much appreciated the silky smooth frame rate and high rendered resolution. I wish more games did things like this, I'm simply saying that it isn't quite as it seems, the impressive frame rate and resolution was achieved because of sparse environments and little on screen and the nature of space and baren wasteland type combat.

Nothing wrong with that, it's a good thing. But it's not technically impressive, it's just much more enjoyable to play.

I'm unaware of any hardware scaling done by the Wii or GC, the rendered and output resolution were the same.  Any scaling is done by your TV.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the sparse environs.  Probably the best looking game on the Wii, Mario Galaxy 2, has relatively sparse environs as well but it doesn't in any way detract from the awesome visual presentation and excellent use of textures and effects on display.

Yeah, Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike were beautiful games back then and, after looking at a couple of youtube vids, they still are great looking. I'm tempted to pop in Rebel Strike (which featured the entire campaign of Rogue Leader for split screen co-op!) but I remember being quite frustrated with these games, too. I'm not the gamer I used to be so I imagine I'd be pulling my hair out. Technically great, though--listen to the in game commentary and you'll see what tricks they were using to pull of such a nice looking game.

If you zoom out far enough, then any game can have great graphics. lol

Galaxy 2 is the same as the first one, same engine, same effects...it just looks "good" because the camera is zoomed out so far.  Monster Hunter actually looks worse than Star Fox Adventures in my opinion.  Metroid Prime 3 looked pretty good, I guess.  Muramasa was more an outcome of the old-school pixel art style than "good graphics".  I suppose that's an objective term, though.

I agree.  Luigi's Mansion was really impressive back then.  I remember my buddies and I were constantly amazed by how awesome the lighting effects were.  Luigi's Mansion 2 won't have the same visual surprise as the first one, so they'll have to make up for it by having deeper gameplay and more variety in level design.  I have faith Miyamoto can whip Next Level Games into shape to make an awesome game.

i think you were off a bit in your number of zeros.  not even wii dev budgets start out at $10.

Amazing!!! It's sad though I also think that the Dreamcast, Xbox, and the Saturn wern't maxed out either.