That comparison doesn't make any sense. The first picture has more effects, a bigger draw distance, a focus on environments rather than characters. The second picture has... the opposite. The environmental textures are nothing special, the only nice thing is the fur shading on the characters, which Super Mario Galaxy does better (as some previous screenshots show).

By the way, any graphical comparison must take framerate into account. Super Mario Galaxy runs at 480p 60 fps (Ninja Gaiden Black also runs at 60 fps but some other Xbox games may not). According to this review, that game runs at 30 fps (and 480i perhaps?):

http://www.armchairempire.com/Reviews/XBox/conker-live-reloaded.htm

@NJ5

On top of that, it is not like the Conker shot is drastically different from games on the Gamecube when you have similar conditions either:

The difference between wii and xbox is less than between xbox ans ps2 in terms of power

Actually its funny, I lost the link but an interesting thread popped up on the TEV a long time ago on b3d. Essentially the GC could not produce most of what it was theoretically capable of (Specifications wise) because the GPU was not clocked fast enough to let the game produce the effects without causing a stall in rendering.

Btw: Those Doom/Conduit shots? Ugly!

Those Ninja Gaiden shots? Lovely!

Also that Petz shot is the nicest i've seen on the Wii to date! Too bad they were already working on it before the Ubisoft toilet pictures had to show up in signatures! ^^

@Happy Squrriel: I believe Concer Live and Reloaded and Starfox Adventures use pretty much the same toolsets. With the difference of Starfox having Open GL and Concer Direct3D.

Wouldn't surprise me being that they were both N64 games that were somewhat similar in style that were ported to consoles with similar capabilities ... The point was that in an apples to apples comparison the Gamecube and XBox were pretty similar in capabilities. Personally, I don't think that you could find XBox games that looked better than the the best looking Wii games in an apples to apples comparison; but being that they really wouldn't be dramatically different in processing power, I don't think the Wii's visuals would "Destroy" the XBox either.

Only a multiplatform game can make a fair ciomparison, but it ain't happening.

But come on, guys! Enough with the silly excuses! The XBox had come and go. It doesn't have to prove anything anymore.

To say that a 3rd year XBox game has to be compared to a 3rd year game on a console that is supposedly more than 4 times powerful is really silly. To say third party Wii developers are lazy is silly, too. What, all this time and all they do is lazy around?

The XBox had excellent graphics for its time. If fellow Wii owners brag that the Wii's graphics is better, then what's our difference from HD fanboys?

record direct feed. Basically have the console hooked up and have a pc hooked up that can record anything happening on the screen..

That doesn't answer the question of how this game is outputting 720p graphics for the PC to record while running on the Xbox... If it did that at 60 fps and with such good anti-aliasing as these shots show, I would conclude the Xbox is nearly as powerful as the 360/PS3 which is obviously not the case.

The problem is that Nintendo is extremely scare as to any details which explains what kind of performance the GPU is capable of. If anyone has any useful links could they please share them?