That really does not meet the wants or needs of most Wii players.

Also, since the "eye candy" can't match the HD consoles, a short game that "looks great for the Wii" would get pummeled in the gaming press. It won't have that "wow" look that saved games like Heavenly Sword.

As for the OP, the Wii is more powerful than the Xbox. But most third-party developers have not pushed it -- so the graphics have stalled much more than they should have.

Mike from Morgantown

The fact that this is even a discussion is a lose for the wii. The fact that screenshots have to be exchanged, examined, examined closer, details brought to the fore, and debated over is a lose for the wii. The fact that I posted direct feed screenshots captured on PC from IGN of Super Mario Galaxy and fanboys said "You're just trying to make the game look bad by picking out bad screenshots, it doesn't really look like that" is a lose for wii. The fact that the argument has been used "it's not fair to judge a game from a year ago with modern wii games, you need to judge them against games from six years ago" with a straight face and no hint of irony is a lose for the wii.

But the thing is, that doesn't matter. The majority of my wii games are not technologically impressive even by wii standards. But that doesn't change the fact that I love Boom Blox, No More Heroes, and Super Paper Mario, or any of the other plethora of Wii games I have. The wii is not a technically powerful system, it never will be, it will always pale in comparison to it's brother and sister systems of this gen, this type of topic will pervade for the entirety of the wii's life. But the wii is not designed technologically for the realistic looking, gritty, high end games that some people want. It's tech is designed for the games is has, and yes some of them look good. But they are never going to look great by modern standards. They can look great by wii standards in the way the winner at the special olympics ran real fast. It's good enough for it's context, it's still a good time, and they can still be enjoyed. Just don't delude yourselves about what to expect from the wii.

I'd say the fact that no one has posted a screenshot of a cartoony Xbox game which can compete with Super Mario Galaxy is a win for the Wii. Comparing NGB with SMG is not very useful or informative. NGB is actually comparable with some PS3/360 games.

By the way, that part I bolded in your post doesn't make any sense.

So it's a win for the wii that a last gen system actually has games that look as good as 360 or PS3 but the wii can't?

As for the bolded part, I posted most accurate screenshots you can get of Super Mario Galaxy and was accused of picking poor quality screenshots to try and make the game look bad, and then the claim was made that super mario galaxy doesn't really look like that.

"SMG looks nothing like that, either you have seen it and are trying create a false impression or you have never seen the game. Because if you had seen the game you would know it looks much better than those pics."

If that is the response to showing 480p directfeed screenshots of the most graphically advanced game from a fanboy of that game, that's not a good thing.

A. It does have better graphics, Mario galaxy prooves this.
B. It is still young, the graphics will get better, look at the conduit.

I mean this is ridiculous. If this is a conversation that lasts this long, and comes up this often this that should say something about the wii's tech.

The answer is no, so a SMG vs NGB comparison proves nothing about the Wii hardware.

The conduit is supposed to be pushing the tech hard, that's been High Voltage's entire goal and selling point, and it's yet to produce anything particularly impressive. Unless you count that somebody might mistake it in passing for an early 360 game on a 12 in SDTV in a hotel lobby. (which was the bragging point in IGN's preview sometime back during one of those games shows.)


This whole argument is sad for the wii. Imagine a marathon was run and the guy that came in last had all his buddies arguing whether or not he'd be able to beat a guy in a wheelchair in a race. Not doing it out of mean spirit, but genuinely just curious if he could be old mister jones from down the hall in a race down the block. And they debated about it for days. "Is it downhill?" "Well what kind of wheelchair does he get?" "Under what weather conditions are they racing in?" The fact that there even has to be a serious discussion about it is terribly unflattering for the runner, even if he eventually wins in his buddies argument.

The fact that there is a long honest debate about whether or not the wii can compete graphically with a system that came out in 2003, with so many on the wii side saying "well this isn't a fair comparison, you can't really tell" is really sad for the wii's tech. Where is the argument about whether or not the Dreamcast looked better than the N64? Or whether the SNES really looked better than the NES?

Petz Sportz looks much better than any Xbox game but anyway

Monster Hunter 3 looks better than any Xbox game as well

even if Xbox graphics are better so what?? since the Wii beats Ps2 in graphics, there's no need to care about Xbox since it's amazing graphics couldn't allow to sell beyond the GameCube!

The argument about the Wii is more similar to the argument that a marathon was run and the guy in wheelchair during the last year's race had the same time as Mr. Jones this year, who just walked the entire way.  And we keep asking, why didn't you run?  I know you had no chance of coming in first or second, but did you have to not try to do your best?