compare that to anygame on the ps360 and you will quickly notice a huge difference.

lol@ people saying wii looks good on a real HD TV.

Yes they look better then wii on it but that's not the point here, the point is that Wii graphics don't "suck" or look "nasty".

So, since the XBox 360 is less than $300 NOW, Sony should have made the Playstation as powerful as the XBox 360 back in 1994?

You're not considering the time of the release of the console. The fact of the matter is that a console released in 2006 for $200/$300 where a console manufacturer didn't take large losses on would not be in the same league of performance of the PS3 or XBox 360 anyways. The fact that this wasn't obvious to you is actually a fairly sad statement.

If I took the exact same games with the exact same models, textures, lighting and material effects from the Wii and rendered them at 1080p would you consider them HD games?

The fact is that when people are talking about HD games they include the advanced shader effects as being a key ingredient. As I pointed out in point 4 developers did have the option to not include these effects, but they weren't taking this route. When you look at the number of massive publishers who have had amazing success on the HD consoles and are yet barely profitable or taking large losses, I don't think you can argue that the industry was ready to take on the massive budgets that are associated with HD games.

So ... Because a handful of developers have shown an ability to manage the development teams and budgets required to produce HD games, then developers as a whole are ready? EA and Capcom have done amazingly well on the Wii, but I don't think you'd argue that third parties have excelled on the Wii.

If you look at Factor 5's failure with Lair, and Free Radical's failure with Haze, along with the massive number of games on the PS3 and XBox 360 that have been delayed by 6 months to a year (or more) it should be obvious that developers on the whole are not managing with the complexity all that well.

Points (1) and (2) I agree with, and I argued them (or something similar) in my original post; although "Going Casual" had nothing to do with it being that the majoirty of their Million selling titles (and the majority of Nintendo titles released for the Wii) could hardly be called "Casual".

3) With how it is done today, it is not hard to produce a high performance console. Nintendo has been working with IBM and ATI for longer than Microsoft has, and I find it difficult to believe that the same companies that produced the XBox 360 for Microsoft could not produce a similarly powerful system for Nintendo. As far as game development experience, Nintendo is one of the oldest and largest companies in the industry and is one of the companies I think could have handled the shift towards HD development better than most.

Had Nintendo taken this path securing third party development would have (probably) been far easier because the success of the Wii would have ensured that games like Call of Duty 4 would have been ported to the Wii (assuming the Wii was as successful), and seperate development teams would not be required to produce different versions of a game specifically for the Wii.

I agree with most of squirrels points but the way he put's his point of view across as fact is simply annoying.

1) You mean the 360 Arcade without a hard drive? The one that can't go online, only has half the storage space of the Wii, and has no backwards-compatibility? The one with no motion controls, no Wii Sports or other "blue ocean" games, no Mario or Zelda, no RE4 or Okami with motion controls? The one that MS are taking huge losses from, while Nintendo continues to rake in the dough on every Wii sale? Yeah, while that may be true, I'll submit one vote for, "Who cares?"

2) And look at the state the PC games industry is in, in terms of big-budget "core" exclusives. The only exclusives selling on the PC nowadays are The Sims expansions and World of Warcraft - neither of which are graphical powerhouses.

3) Care to pick a few more cherries while you're at it?

To the costs on that graph, I'd like to add that Grand Theft Auto IV tied up 150 staff, and cost $100 million (cue pinky to the lips) to create.  If it had anything less than record sales, Rockstar would have been completely wiped out.

 no the point is do they look good on a HD TV and that is a NO. Read the underlined please.

Most people still don't own HD TVs.

So anything that doesn't look good as something else doesn't look good at all? I don't see a problem at all with my Wii's graphical output on my tvs. Also its funny how it started with somebody who doesn't own a Wii saying it looks like crap on an HDtv. Yet most games that run at 480p, and Widescreen look fine on my tvs. THere area a few Jaggies here and their, but that was expected, and don't really hurt the way the game looks. IMO