This is because the output resolution of those N64 games was 320 x 240 but the Wii has a default output of 640 x 480 which gives an AA-like effect.

Both of these problems are not so much about devs being lazy but tradeoffs in some form.  I'll explain a little more below.

Jaggies: This is a problem with angled objects having a staircase appearence on their edges.  This can be visibly reduced by either an increase in resolution (naturally this can only be done up to the highest output resolution of a console and also the limits of your TV/monitor) or with anti-aliasing features (but it eats up system resources).

Being able to apply AA by a developer can be difficult if the developer is already taxing certain aspects of the system.  It's not simply a matter of getting off their asses and writing the AA code into the game.  If they've already pushed things to a certain point, AA simply can't be used without encoutnering slow down.  Which brings us to ....

Slow Down:  Slow down occurs when the system has difficulty rendering a scene with fluid frame rates.  Frame rate is the balance what the system can do at full speed and how much you are pushing it.  For simplicity sake, let's say the system can render 100 polygons, 10 textures and 2 effects at 60 frames per second.  If you tried to up that to 200 polygons, 20 textures and 4 effects, you might only get 30 frames per second.   As you can see, no matter how good a developer is, if they push the system too hard, it is impossible to always have high frame rates.  And with today's games that have many moments with huge explosions, lot sof sudden physics calculations, etc...you can easily see why at times a game might slow down.   OR they could have simply pared back on how awesome that scene was to keep things are 30 or higher frames per second.  Game engines play a huge role in this as well. 

As you can see, even with the most powerful of computers or consoles, we can and likely will still encounter slow down.   Jaggies may eventually be done away with thanks solely to increases in resolution (unelss you have a very, verly large monitor/TV).  

Thank you. I'm starting to wonder if you can even point stuff out like that if it relates to Sony. The bias I encounter is almost unreal.

I still remember when people were slamming the 360 and saying it lead to the graphics of FFXIII being "downgraded" because the design wasn't as good as the early trailers. Nothing you said could convince them that those early trailers were CG and that no aspect of it being ported to th 360 would lead to them going back and putting such a huge downgrade on the already finished PS3 version or completely redesigning it to have towns taken out. They were certain that the first trailer was actual PS3 gaphics. I would say they didn't know what they were looking at but making that observation about a Sony game is considered trolling by the mods on here apparently. Honestly, I would be scared to make the comments you gave given recent events.

It was the same with MGS4 and its early trailers. People thought the system's graphics would look like that but it was just target rendered CG just like the FFXIII trailer. If you read the comments, you can see that some people still think that the 2006 trailer was in game graphis being rendered, but I see geometry, effects and high quality lighting/shadows that were completely removed in the actual game. Like on the tomb stone at 0:46-0:50 and his collar at 0:57. The collar protruted and you can see shadows under it on the 2006 target rendered build, but its flat and drawn on in the final version. Then there is more the fluidity and frames of animation when the Gekko moves from 1:25-134.

The final build does have some things that look better design wise and I prefer it overall, but on technical level, the video on the left would be impossible to produce in realtime on the PS3 in the same manner that the final game was delivered. Its too much for the pool of resources

Same with this one. I wish the guns in the final build of MGS4 looked as good as they do in the trailer to the right and the dust effects. There is no shift in lighting on Mk. II from 1:27 to 1:30. The shadow the gun casts on his leg at 1:35 and all of the animation that the Mk. II makes right afer is just gone. It was all scaled down or removed.

There are a few games that had AA to my knowledge Red Steel 2 and Monstr Hunter Tri being the most notible examples. Red Steel 2 is particularly impressive as they managed to get AA and Anisotropic filtering while running at 60fps, Ubisoft must have had some wizards working on that game. 

Actually, it was 85 FPS if I recall correctly, so it was even more impressive.

Not quite, the game normally the game is locked at 60fps, but in some conditions when there isn't much going on, onscreen it can run as high as 85fps, like if you are looking at a wall for example.

But it's no less impressive, as it allows the game to run a rock solid 60fps. A feet that very few games outside of the fighter genre ever achieve on consoles. 

The devs themselves said that the standard frame rate of the game was set to 85 FPS. They did it to help with the accuracy of the motion plus controls or something like that.

The Conduit 2 also constantly exceeds 60 FPS though that is because they put no cap on the frame rate. Frame rates aren't set in stone. There is nothing really  special about 30 or 60 FPS technically. They are just the preferred standards. For a long time, the standards were 25 FPS and 50 FPS in Europe, though that had something to do with the limits of PAL T.V. I believe.

Most games have it locked to those because of the refresh rate limits of the average television. My T.V. can display above 60 fps so I can see the huge jump in fluidity failry well.

"Similar to the first level I saw, the canyon stage sports stylized, quasi-cel-shaded graphics drowned in particle effects like fire and distortion and everything runs at 60 frames per second. The game never so much as hiccups. In fact, Vandenberghe noted that in some cases, the fluidity is locked at upward of 85 frames per second."

http://wii.ign.com/articles/101/1016202p1.html

How does bolding that override the end part of your quote? "the fluidity is locked at upward of 85 frames per second."

Yes, it runs at 60 FPS but its locked at 85 FPS. At least that is what I read. The 60 FPS comments were compliments on the stability as that is a judging stanard, not the limit.

You claimed that the standard framerate was 85fps, the first bolded says that the game runs at 60fps,the seccond bolded says "in some cases" it runs at 85fps as in not normally.

I see nothing along the lines of "in some cases". That statement is pretty direct and to the point. He says it runs at 60 and that limit is 85. 60 FPS is a standard for judging graphics but the technical performance in this case is said to be above it. The 60 FPS was more of a technical compliment than a statement of the limit of the standard performance.

The keword is "locked". The frame rate that something is locked at is the frame it runs at on average. Locked, I repeat, locked.