You see that's the fun thing about opinions, you can never be wrong. I think Riddick, Ninja Gaiden, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Dead Or Alive 2: Ultimate, and even Halo 2 are more impressive than anything I have seen on the Wii.

More impressive artistically, but technically speaking, no, they are not.

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than anything on the ps360.

But I would be a fool to argue it is technically superior.

Depends on what you mean by "technically", Splinter Cell and Riddick use better shader efffects than anything I have seen in ANY Wii game. Ninja Gaiden and DOA games have higher poly models and higher resolution textures than most Wii games. I still haven't seen a graphically impressive FPS on Wii that has as much going on at the same time as Halo 2.

shader dont compensate for technically inferior looking games.Which looked great back then,granted.

People are still debating this?

now you are trying to change the subject altogether into parts of the machine that might be able to do something better even though it's bottlenecked by other parts of the machine, in your own theory, rather than the original topic, there is no middle ground here, the Wii has higher potential than the Xbox at producing more visually pleasing games with better AI if you give them both 10 years of concentrated dev which is the number of the years you wanted to give it. twisting arguments, putting words in people's mouths, and trying to change the core of the topic won't change that. I've always concentrated on the total power of the 2, it's also not that the TEV can do anything the XGPU could, they are very different by design, to get the same look, you code them differently, but people haven't bothered to exploit it(besides some very selected studios) until 2 years after the Wii has become successful, it's a proprietary machine rather than something more open to the PC devs like the Xbox, it's just not the same code and a pain to work with if you ask me, but saying something like the Xbox has higher potential than the Wii, crack cocaine. and uh, Xbox and GCN were pretty matched back in the days, the problem has always been Nintendo's storage solutions, 1.4gb is not a lot to work with as to the DVD of the Xbox which was a huge issue, hopefully people will start to do better now that those issues are gone as well.

btw, xbox doesn't have the power to "turn" everything on either(what are you trying to turn on anyways? I'm guessing current gen looks all on at once like HD consoels or PCs here,) bottlenecks all over the place with that machine not to mention it's really old tech by now too.

Wii hands down!

3 out of your 5 games were more about art design(DoA, which hasn't changed much since DC, and Halo 2, not a technical marvel by any means, actually, not at all. Gaiden is the same way.) one sacrificed character models, level size, and loading times for "the mood,"(and what happened to the enemies?) and Epic fails at their engine outside of PC like setups, it's been proven. Funny thing is I've seen better looking games on Gamecube vs the Wii, it's sad indeed and shows that it's not the Wii, but the people making games for the Wii.

so in breaking down your post, you either pick "effects and environment" or "model detail" with Xbox games, and hard to have both at the same time, I'm not too sure that's prove that the Xbox is more capable than the Wii, I also haven't seen a high budget FPS game for the Wii yet, how do you compare what doesn't exist?

I thought we disproved the "XBOX is more powerful than Wii argument a long time ago"

I believe it takes like 2 XBOXs and 3 Gamecubes to match the power of the Wii.

The people who claim the XBOX looked better are probably remembering how good it looked when it was new technology, but haven't played it for years. Go back and play a game on it and see how crappy it looks by today's standards.