HD != super realistic or life like. For example, if The Simpsons comes out on Blu-Ray disc, Homer won't look anymore human than he looks on DVD. Another example is Geometry Wars on the 360. That's in HD, but it doesn't look realistic in any way. Just nice and crisp compared to the Wii version, and yes, I have both to be able to compare them before anyone says anything. :P

Mike was referring to far more than just resolution.

 What he said was: -

The point being, he doesn't have to have a 5 o'clock shadow just because it's in HD. When "Super Mario Jump On Heads Yet Again Part 95" is released on Wii2 in HD, you'll be on it like flies on shit and you know it.

Yup we'll be jumping on super mario jump on heads yet again part 95 in wii HD but not because is HD but because IS MARIO!

Don't overeestimate Nintendo users. We have been more around in this industry than PS and Xbox users.

 hold on i stopped readin right there. if graphics makes games fun id still be playin far cry but after a week of playin it i got bored and went back to *duh duh duuuhhhhhhh* the 1999 counterstrike. now if what you jsut said is true then why isnt far cry much more enjoyable to play then counterstrike?? that is cause its not the graphics tha tmake the game fun it is the gameplay period. for some strange reason even though you claim to have a wii you do seem to lean towards a sony/microsoft fanboy. i myself i own a wii and a pc and guess what i play both, and graphicly on both i like. what your not understanding from what everyone else is trying to tell you is that the graphics now a days are at the point where people dont care if you can see the hair on a gorilla move as long as you can make the gorilla dance is what matters. its easy and to the  point. if i want to see real life graphics as one person said earlier ill go outside and do stuff, and be able to really touch teh objects not jsut look at them.

you keep bringing up mariokart wii, why is that? the additions to the gameplay of it makes it the best version ever of the game. in the next few months ill be building me a new pc that will be more powerful and have better graphics then teh ps3 and guess what game i will be playing most on it? counterstrike source which teh graphics are much less then that of bioshock and crysis. now tell me this why on earth would i be willing to build a new pc to play a 3 year old game? its the gameplay of the game that shines not the graphics. ok teh one genre that was brought up was fighting games. lets take mortal kombat for instance back in teh mid 90's its was awesome parts 1,2,3 and trilogy was great but compare its graphics to the last three games. the graphics actually suck. but time and time again i hear the same thing over and over again people are still playing mk2 and i play trilogy still as well. not cause of graphics cause it was fun to play and the gameplay was almost flawless. so to stop with the ramblings now ill leave ya with one thing. open your mind to new gameplay and stop thinking "awe man that game looks horrible, so im not gonna try it"

Key Weakness is everything looks like an arcade game.

 qft qft

Yes, that is exactly the problem. And when it turns out that everyone is down the street at a Mom and Pop restaurant, it makes the people wanting to be seen very sad.

Didnt read the rest of the thread, but I have to say you kind of come off as under handedly saying that HD games lack Unique gameplay or engaging gameplay with talented execution. tsk tsk

as for the topic, I think its far worse for the system that a very, very large portion of the games released for it are sub par shovelware. If people could reliably buy a game for the Wii and get a great fun time with it, graphics would be a moot point.

@Viper; seriously, drop the PS3 hate. 300 dollars wont buy you a PS3, thats 360 territory. Poor territory.

@horriblebastard: My post was rehashing the same arguments and that was because you just argue agains, but you don't have anything counter them. You just skip everything that doesn't support your view or you can't counter with anything, but you still argue.
The debate goes like this:
people: After the system is maxed out with graphics, devs compete with gameplay.
You: But teh grfx SUX.
People: In order to make money, the devs need to jump to Wii and make games that compete with other games.
You: But teh shovelware.
And then we repeat it. Look, it's you who runs the circular discussion.

You said that you don't want to get into circular discussion, but that's what happens when you keep claiming something and have nothing to back your claims. It's usually considered as trolling.
You also called out Sky Render for not to answer to you, but in case you haven't noticed, you're just doing the same.

The examples i made, aren't rehashes of old games, they're new standalone games in the series. But maybe you could explain what was Nintendos incentive making the games great, since, according to you, Nintendo would have only needed to put out shovelware?

Did the last gens games suck right after the current gen came out?
Why would the devs put out shovelware, when you can have sales numbers multiple times of shovelware, with good games, as shown by Nintendo?
Why should any of the publishers release anything on PS360, if, according to you, shovelware on Wii pays better?
What made you a Nintendo fan?
What's wrong with Carnival Games?

@dib8rman: The reason for the claim, that shooters aren't appreciated on Wii, is because of the genre itself. Since shooters are the most heavily graphics driven genre, instead of gameplay driven, at the moment, even the people at High Voltage know that they need to implement different values because Wii isn't capable of generating the level of graphics that todays shooters have by standard. Of course, High Voltage is trying to make the most graphics intensive game on the Wii so far, which may eventually be seen as a bad gameplay, but the game that will compete Conduit, will compete with gameplay values, instead of trying to top its graphics.