Never said they would do it quickly just that they should be able to do it.  I think the issue is that some of these teams are not given a full cycle to produce their product...so when they have to learn these nuances on the first project something has to suffer...so yeah corners get cut.  They don't do that to experienced teams because they know when a respected dev tells you he needs more time he knows wth he is talking about.  As far as your PS3 example that is completely different.  There is a big difference between hardware nuance and completely different architecture.  The wii is PowerPC based which is a known quanitity.  The exact hardware setup and limitations have to be learned and then they can move forward. The PS3 is new from the ground up, there is much much more learning involved.

As for what information was lacking: How about the fact that there were no games out to say they were going to be bad looking?  Seriously the statement makes no sense.  How you could ponder the appearance of 3rd party games that aren't even out yet?  

As for your example on the Wii-mote programming.  That is in no way complex math compared to some of the stuff required to program an engine.  The only reason it would even begin to give them a problem is that it wouldn't have the in depth research to reference.  They would have to approach each new challenge with new ideas rather than falling back on existing solutions ...although there would be some overlap.  The math for the controls is complex to the average person, no doubt. However, programmers don't just learn calculus.  They are usually well beyond calculus....Anyways, I'm not gonna say its simple math, just that relative to what these guys work with it should be well within their capabilities. 

@sprl
Getting a little too long to directly quote. We've both made our points so not too much more to add. I'll just say first, we had no 3rd party games to look at when the Wii launched? Really? 18 3rd party games were released at launch with another 12 soon following. In addition to that videos of the final builds were availible for at least a month prior to launch. That's how it was possible to ponder why they looked so bad last November.

Other than that the math issue I've already argued before and yes I am in the Electrical and Computer Engineering program at OSU so I am aware of what math CSE majors take (the same as me, actually less since I'm in the Nuclear Engineering and Economics programs as well). I am also well aware of the grades they get in those classes. Anyways, I'll just say that you seem to be grossly overestimating the ability of average workers which I've thus far found to be less than encouraging (as the article about devs struggling with the math further showed).

That's about all that can be said about the issue since it's just an idea that I'm basing on a low view of average workers that has often worked in the past and you have a differring idea based on a higher opinion. Not much possibility of working around that I suspect.

Far Cry 360 + Layer of Vaseline= Far Cry Wii

bwahahahahahahaha

You forgot Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and Mario Kart Wii.

This is a flamming thread. The wii graphics arent bad at all. Not 360 or ps3 graphics but they are good.

Care to post some facts or links?

Show me a GC game (esp. a 1st-gen gamecube title) that looks better than one of the titles I have quoted - picking only the best screenshots/movies from anyone.

How many GC titles do you own / have finished by the way? I own around 30, and have finished most of them. FF:CC was the prettiest GC title in my opinion.

...

(PS - the thread is about "Why Wii games look so bad" - not - "Why Wii gfx are so much better than GC gfx"...)

@shams, Ive seen ps2 games handle graphics like those images above.

 I have 2 of the games you listed, Sonic and Rayman and have played Red Steel.  None of these games come close to some of the best work done on the cube sadly.  Factor 5 made some great looking games on the Wii, as did Rare, Capcom, Sega and Nintendo.  For example, look at F-Zero GC, Metroid Prime, Star Wars Rogue Squadron, Star Fox Adventures, Pikmin etc.  These games look great and while playing Wii games you may forget these games existed but they did and they do look much better.  Wii devs have been either lazy thus far when developing graphics or have been rushing etc to provide us what we have.  Sonic looks at best like a late GC game, Rayman looks like a run of the mill GC game.  Redsteel looks horrible compared to some of the better shooters on the GC.  

I realize better looking games are on the way and I'm not complaining but I will admit that something hasn't been right with some Wii games and visuals.  Metroid Prime 3 should look pretty damn good as the other 2 are still amazing looking so that will hopefully start a trend towards better looking games.

Wii and DS both seem to suffer from inexplicably poor screen shots but manage to have much better gameplay graphics. Some screen shots seem to do the Wii better justice than others but there is no arguing the fact that GC screenshots for RE4 look much better than those for the Wii, but in game graphics for the Wii version look much better than GC version in RE4. It's one of these inexplicable oddities that few have yet to find explanation for.

We know Wii games looks good when they're done right, so throwing around a few screenshots doesn't really do anygood to those who know the truth. Obviously PS2 ports will be mediocre but the fact remains that there is a bazaar phenomenon that occurs when ever screen shots of Wii or DS games are taken.

and Zelda.