SMG?  You can't be serious.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/super-mario-galaxy-vs-super-mario-sunshine-326049.php

Just look for yourself.

^^ I think it is a matter of the effects available instead of resolution. Advanced lighting effects and filtering in the PS360 gives games a more realistic feel that is so important. Wii games seem to lack that effect that will move a game away from the cartooney graphics that all Wii games exhibit...

 That was a very interesting video, in most parts i could not even tell what mario i was watching.  And i even played SMG and got over 30stars.   Some parts of the video SMG looked better but for the most part Sunshine looked better.

Kyros said: will probably agree that the Wii is far closer to the midpoint between the PS2 and the PS3 than it is to either console. I think here you delude yourself a bit. Midpoint is as arbitrary a statement as xtimes better but the simple fact remains that the Wii is an enhanced Gamecube while the 360/PS3 have graphic cards that are only eclipsed by very few gaming PCs with all technological advances and CPUs to match. And I don't say enhanced Gamecube to play it down, its just true, the Wii got all the advantages of using legacy technology as basis: - cheap price - fast development (putting out all big N franchises like Smash, Mario, MEtroid and Zelda in a strong year wouldn't have been possible with a completely new architecture - full backward compatibility but 1/6 the memory of PS3/360, no real pixel/vertex shaders (which is "confirmed" AFAIK) simply put it nearer to the last gen than to PC/360/PS3. Size comparisons between chips are a bit desperate to contradict that . And if you take the best Wii games and compare them to the best PS3/360 games like Uncharted, Call of Duty, Gran Turismo which run silky smooth in 60FPS(Call of Duty4, GT) and for example GT have even higher resolutions than 720p I am really astonished how anyone can pretend that the gulf is smaller. http://wii.gaming-universe.de/screengalerie/5288.jpg http://wii.gaming-universe.de/screen.php3?show=http://wii.gaming-universe.de/screengalerie/5066.jpg&title=Metroid%2520Prime%25203:%2520Corruption http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/833/833298/super-mario-galaxy-20071107020423368_640w.jpg http://static.4players.de/premium/Screenshots/ea/6a/1778668-vollbild.jpg vs. http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/796/796450/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-20070613104409229_640w.jpg http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/796/796450/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-20070613104412307.jpg http://www.gameware.at/screenshots/Assassins_Creed_1.jpg http://images.amazon.com/images/G/03/videogames/features/assassins_creed_sprung_big.jpg http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/805/805900/gran-turismo-5-prologue-20070717071557845.jpg Of course there are better screenshots for Wii games and worse for ps3/360 games but come on. You can argue that graphics do not matter much but I think its hard to argue that the difference is smaller than people perceive it to be.

Claiming that die-size differences is desperate pretty much discounts your opinion ...

You can get a rough approximation of how powerful a processor is by looking at how many transistors a processor has and multiplying that by the clockspeed it runs at; this is by no means perfect but is far more accurate than simply looking at the clockspeed alone. The number of transistors a processor has determines its die-size for a particular manufacturing process. Being that the Gamecube used a 180nm process and the Wii uses a 90nm process, if the Wii used the same number of transistors it would have 1/4 of a die-size; the Hollywood and Broadway processors die size is 1/2 of the die-size of the Gekko and Flipper which implies that they have twice as many transistors.

Being that the Gamecube was already noticeably more powerful than the PS2, and the Wii potentially has twice as many transistors running at a higher clock speed with much more memory than the Gamecube it is fair to say that the Wii is far more powerful than the PS2. Now, let's look at the PS2 vs. the Wii ...

God of War 2 is considered by many to be the best looking PS2 game:

Compare the texturing, lighting, material effects, particle effects, and the quantity of geometry and it becomes clear that the Wii is far beyond the PS2.

Stop looking at this from one side, claiming that the Wii isn't as powerful as the PS3/XBox 360 and therefore isn't closer to the middle than it is to the PS2 ...

I have no idea what the lead platform for sonic is, but, I have said many many times that it is inevitable that the Wii will be the console where he greater majority of multi-platform games are developed, then ported to PS360.

I really can't wait for this to become the primary way all games are made as that will make the Wii games significantly better since they won't be based of off PS2 hardware.

PS360 won't be affected as much as so many of you think as they will still be better looking than their Wii counter parts as they would include many higher level graphics techs that the Wii can't do. Well, at least good developers would insure that is taken into consideration.

HappySqurriel said: Kyros said: will probably agree that the Wii is far closer to the midpoint between the PS2 and the PS3 than it is to either console. I think here you delude yourself a bit. Midpoint is as arbitrary a statement as xtimes better but the simple fact remains that the Wii is an enhanced Gamecube while the 360/PS3 have graphic cards that are only eclipsed by very few gaming PCs with all technological advances and CPUs to match. And I don't say enhanced Gamecube to play it down, its just true, the Wii got all the advantages of using legacy technology as basis: - cheap price - fast development (putting out all big N franchises like Smash, Mario, MEtroid and Zelda in a strong year wouldn't have been possible with a completely new architecture - full backward compatibility but 1/6 the memory of PS3/360, no real pixel/vertex shaders (which is "confirmed" AFAIK) simply put it nearer to the last gen than to PC/360/PS3. Size comparisons between chips are a bit desperate to contradict that . And if you take the best Wii games and compare them to the best PS3/360 games like Uncharted, Call of Duty, Gran Turismo which run silky smooth in 60FPS(Call of Duty4, GT) and for example GT have even higher resolutions than 720p I am really astonished how anyone can pretend that the gulf is smaller. http://wii.gaming-universe.de/screengalerie/5288.jpg http://wii.gaming-universe.de/screen.php3?show=http://wii.gaming-universe.de/screengalerie/5066.jpg&title=Metroid%2520Prime%25203:%2520Corruption http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/833/833298/super-mario-galaxy-20071107020423368_640w.jpg http://static.4players.de/premium/Screenshots/ea/6a/1778668-vollbild.jpg vs. http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/796/796450/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-20070613104409229_640w.jpg http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/796/796450/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-20070613104412307.jpg http://www.gameware.at/screenshots/Assassins_Creed_1.jpg http://images.amazon.com/images/G/03/videogames/features/assassins_creed_sprung_big.jpg http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/805/805900/gran-turismo-5-prologue-20070717071557845.jpg Of course there are better screenshots for Wii games and worse for ps3/360 games but come on. You can argue that graphics do not matter much but I think its hard to argue that the difference is smaller than people perceive it to be. Claiming that die-size differences is desperate pretty much discounts your opinion ... You can get a rough approximation of how powerful a processor is by looking at how many transistors a processor has and multiplying that by the clockspeed it runs at; this is by no means perfect but is far more accurate than simply looking at the clockspeed alone. The number of transistors a processor has determines its die-size for a particular manufacturing process. Being that the Gamecube used a 180nm process and the Wii uses a 90nm process, if the Wii used the same number of transistors it would have 1/4 of a die-size; the Hollywood and Broadway processors die size is 1/2 of the die-size of the Gekko and Flipper which implies that they have twice as many transistors. Being that the Gamecube was already noticeably more powerful than the PS2, and the Wii potentially has twice as many transistors running at a higher clock speed with much more memory than the Gamecube it is fair to say that the Wii is far more powerful than the PS2. Now, let's look at the PS2 vs. the Wii ... God of War 2 is considered by many to be the best looking PS2 game:   Compare the texturing, lighting, material effects, particle effects, and the quantity of geometry and it becomes clear that the Wii is far beyond the PS2.   Stop looking at this from one side, claiming that the Wii isn't as powerful as the PS3/XBox 360 and therefore isn't closer to the middle than it is to the PS2 ...

 I would also like to add that that is only the stuff from the first year while GoWII came out last year. SO that means wii games could still get better while the ps2 has to stay stagnant , because of how much GoWII pushed it. 

@Happy , I think you chose the wrong pics do demonstrate how "superior" the Wii is to the PS2 , the first thing I did was look@ the picutres , I thought it was some one trying to demonstrate how good the ps2 was in comparison to the Wii.

Your admiration for the Wii is blinding you , step back for a second , try and look at it objectivley and then the realisation will hit you.

I thought the same thing looking at the pics. I thought they were slamming the wii, those pics on the PS2 look amazing.