Super Mario Galaxy 2 looked damn good that's for sure, I would expect that would be the max for graphics on the Wii.

This is a totally different question. Yes, for those that actually chose to actively seek the core gamer community on the Wii, yes you are right. If you're going that route, might as well do a good job on it.

I was thinking about the people complaining not enough PS360-like games were on the Wii. That's a whole other question.

Edit: And by core gamer, I mean the portion of the core gamers that actually look for high-quality graphics and graphic design. (That includes me)

Developers make games
Those games dont look as good as they should taking the hardware capabilities in count
DEVELOPERS FAULT!

basic logic

Business dictates that when your market is not actively seeking high-end graphics, there is no incentive to inject resources.

Business 101.

lol Rogue Squadron was built by an amazing team one that was efficient and had limitless assets. A small team with a massive bank roll. For Rogue Squadron II Factor5 also had Lucas Arts full support and used some of Lucas film and other divisions lighting and sharers and other technology. I mean this game was a work of art that was made with the absolute best talent available support from Nintendo and Lucas Arts.

Most third parties simply don't have those resources. A normal studio couldn't accomplish everything that Factor5 was able too. Even Nintendo struggles to offer similar quality software despite them being the hardware manufacturer and a massive budget.

I must say a publisher would have to blow 20 million or more making the Wii game. They would have to be one of the biggest publishers and best studios. It would not be cheap far easier and cheaper for a studio to just develop on 360/PS3. Though as everyone said they simply weren't willing to put that kind of money behind Wii and a failure of the game would crush them.

I will reply with equal respect.

Since we know that the Wii was propelled by titles that attracted an audience that did not seek high-end graphics (true, entertainment value is just as important if not more important than graphics, but not at the full expense of seriousness in theme), that set the tone for the platform as a whole. In order to cash-in on the trend and inject entertainment value, most partners followed Nintendo's lead by offering titles with little aesthetic quality (fun graphics, but not interesting as a whole). Examples of these are Zack and Wiki, trauma center, no more heroes, Just Dance, Namco GoGo vacation, and such. In setting this trend, Nintendo did not create a market for games that featured advanced graphics. They were lucky to have Monster Hunter Tri.

And remember Rol, as far as we know, Nintendo's sales pitch to their partners was that you didn't need to inject money into your games on their platforms since that's not what the Wii was about. Amiright? If not, where were the F-Zero GX, Rogue Squadron-like efforts and partnerships on Wii?

And let's not forget another very important thing, some games are just better suited for teapots (as fillet so well put it) than others, it seems RL is one such case. Maybe racers too? idk.

if games are cheap and graphics are subpar, whos to blame?

a. Nintendo
b. You
c. Me
d. Jesus
e. Developers

Jesus, because he showed developers the light.

Bottom line guys, Monster Hunter Tri and games like Xenoblade came out too late. Only now are they attracting graphics cores to the Wii. It just wasn't soon enough to set the trend. As much as the Wii wasn't maxed out, as much as we can't blame the devs. Honestly.