Almost. Texture resolution is the same. I looked. A lot. This is because the texture compression, that the GC had and the PS2 lacked, is color based, so the systems could use the same texture resolution, but the Ps2 had to really cut back the color depth.

And the resolution is higher on the PS2, because it actually has a larger frame buffer and more pixel pipelines. That is why the PS2 version has widescreen, while the GC is the actual one with 240 vertical resolution.

Finally, the GC version does have framerate issues, just slightly less than on the PS2.

I said it can't UNTIL this licensee or another proves it wrong. There's no guarantee this licensee will successfully do it. Those no guarantee they won't. All we have to go on is that right now the Unreal Engine 3 does not run on the Wii and an attempt by a third party licensee is underway. Considering that we don't even know who this licensee is, or how serious this licensing job was to actually produce a working Wii-version of UE3, we don't know anything will actually come out of it. They could easily about-face and just use it towards a PS3 and/or Xbox 360 project if the results are substandard. Considering that Epic doesn't want to take the challenge themselves, should say something about their hopes of it working properly on the Wii. Mark Rein has been vocal about his negativity of having UE3 on the Wii.

What I was illustrating is that there are more barriers now to have it be that easy for the Wii to be the lead platform for multiplatform titles. As of today, as far as we all know, the middleware engine that is running a good majority of multiplatform titles, with only growth in sight, does not support the Wii. That is reality right now. Until that changes, that will stay reality, which will mean very many 360/PS3 titles will stay between themselves and a separate Wii version will be developed from the ground up if UE3 is used. 

I didn't see the "until" part. My bad. Yet it will still be interesting to see what happens.

Edited your post because you couldn't find any screens where MKWii looked worse than MKDD I see.  Well don't worry, I was kind enough to grab a comparison for you...

Mario Kart Double Dash

Mario Kart Wii 

I have to slightly disagree on the Wii portion. The games released so far have all been at 60fps. Chopping that in half will allow developers to push the system a bit further. I don't expect it to be dramatic, but definatly noticeable. Or am I wrong in assuming that dropping the framerate in half will give a large increase in power available for other graphical tasks? It won't double it, but 15-20% more power seems reasonable.

, I cant post, but if you read any previews instead of posting ridiculasly biased pics, you would know that WII mario kart does not look as good as its GC predeccesor.

That seems to indicate that ligting and effects are one of the main advances of the Wii over the GC, but those putting the Wii down claim the Wii isn't advanced in lighting and effects.

A pic can be biased? Like reality has a liberal bias? 

The fact is you are using unconfirmed specs for the Wii, and even if the specs that we believe are correct, are in fact correct, they are still more powerful than the Xbox, simply because newer technology is more efficient and faster than older technology. A Pentium 3 processor at 500MHz is faster than a Pentium 2 processor at 500MHz, same with Pentium 3 to Pentium 4s. I wish I could find the comparisons that showed this, but alas google is failing me tonight. Yuo can't just look at numbers and make a fair and complete comparison. It just doesn't work.

Link to the previews or stop trolling.

 Oh leo-j. xD

Dude, MKWii looks great, and its graphics are severly underrated, imo.  Why on earth would it look worse than MKDD?