@Bolded The only official specs released are superficial things such as clock speed and memory amounts. There is no evidence that it hasn't or has changed. So please back up that claim with some evidence.

Also yes the TeV may be more taxing, but there are plenty of things that tax the Xbox much more than the Wii. One is memory bandwidth. That is one advantage the gamecube had. It was designed to work fast with limited hardware. If it wasn't limited to the amount of RAM it would have surely surpassed the Xbox by a good amount. The Wii on the other hand increases the gamecube's ram by a good amount. Just so you get an idea The wii has 24mb of 1T-Sram and 64mb of GDDR3 ram. The xbox had 64mb of DDR-SDram. Or how about the comparable clock speeds of the two, but the Wii being much more efficient. Like I said before, yes the Wii might have some resources used up by using the TeV to produce shaders, but it still has much more resources to start with. Seeing as you didn't quantify how taxing it is for the Wii to produce different amounts and types of shaders that the Xbox could produce, I will assume they are at least equally equiped in this area, and it isn't as you say where the Xbox has the advantage.

Good games require technology (hardware) and effort (software).

From this conversation, it should be apparent that the Wii has technology no less than anything from the last generation -- and generally accepted thought has it to be better than anything from last time.

Thus, under performing graphics represent a lack of effort.

Of course, in some ways, given the vast technological difference between the Wii and the PS3/Xbox 360, even if you put maximum efforts on the Wii, you can't get anywhere near equivalent results. So a lot of people did not even try. At least now, some are realizing that art style can make up for the inability to create perfect realism.

Mike from Morgantown

You are still thinking about PC and Xbox, it doesn't have to emulate anything, it's not emulating shader model effects, it's simply creating effects that would output something that you'd see as the samething if you know what you are doing due to the nature of the TEV(you can port any game from the Xbox to the Wii and even make them look better if you know what you are doing.) Wii's gpu was also improved upon, it doesn't work the same way as shader model directx standard. yes, they are rail shooters, because they have a lower budget, they can easily make it full fledged games given time and money, which most Wii games don't have atm, sad for the leading console isn't it? also, you seem to think shader model in any form don't affect performance for some reason, which is odd, because the more complex it is, the slower it is as well just like anything else. Given 10 years, the Wii would look better than Xbox easily due to it's sheer upper hand in power and the limitations of shader model 2 lol. 

lol

This is too much to reply to, so I'll try to touch on it all.

Viper1: Rail shooters use some of the simplest AI, since it's just you and a shooting gallery. The enemies don't need to be programmed with generic AI that includes environments outside of the tiny area you are in and they don't need behavior like flanking, chasing, hiding (outside of the immediate cover that is in the given scene) and many other reactions that come from an uncontrolled environment. Same with physics, you are limited to the area and geometry in front of you and you don't need to program for anything outside of the immediate scene. Even if you have the same enemy in a different scene, you can have strict AI and Physics for that specific scene and not have to use general purpose AI and Physics that have to take into account anything that can happen with all the possibilities of a particular level.

You can't possibly compare the kind of AI you would need in a FPS or a TPS with the many X factors, to a rail shooter where everything is controlled and limited.

If you really need me to explain this, I can't help you. When you get a better understanding of how it works, then come back and discuss. Or better yet, explain it yourself and tell me why you believe that a rail shooter doesn't need simpler AI and Physics as I seem to be the only one having to explain myself.

And Wii might have more pipelines, but it's still a fixed function pipeline that basically uses the same setup as the GC. I've been told that the transition guide from Wii to GC was about ten pages with no major changes, if you can prove otherwise let me know.

sc94597 you are arguing that Wii is more powerul, which I already stated. The point I'm trying to make is that it can't handle shaders as well, which it can't. N64 had certain effects built-in that PS2 didn't, that didn't make it more powerful. I have as much evidence to support my claims as you do to support your claims, otherwise let me see it.

dahuman no I'm not thinking about PC/Xbox, I'm talking about specific effects that are standard outside of DirectX as well. Direct X just simplifies the process, you're trying to make it sound like DirectX is more than just Microsoft's API. You need to understand that DirectX and hardware with built-in support will always be more efficient and give better results than programming everything yourself and doing it in software. Forget about Shader Model 2.0 for a second, Xbox's XGPU itself had more programmable pipelines, GC and Wii both have a fixed function pipeline so your theory about an ever improving graphics set is not valid.

The only real examples that look better are rail shooters, because those games require less programming and less resources and can give better results on lesser hardware. And even then I don't see better shader effects, I see better geometry and possibly animation.

nope, memory bandwidth issues with the pipeline, Xbox is a shitty PC, not a whole lot you can fit into it, it's limited by hardware power, you can simply do more with the Wii because you can also create custom effects using the instructions already avaliable to the pipeline, just with different methods to achieve the same means, in some areas, it will be much faster, and some, not as efficient but can be done via brute force and still be faster than the Xbox, it's simply more powerful.

it's also on the PSP, so both looking like a PSP game confirmed? didn't think so.

That has nothing to do with what I said. The Wii can reproduce pretty much all of the Xbox's shaders and even more. Evidence is games that were released like Mario Galaxy, The Conduit, and others that pull things off that were thought of as High End on the xbox. Yes it may require more power to reproduce this, but seeing as the Wii has more power to spend, there is no reason to state that the Xbox is better in this area. Which like you said in the post I replied to, the shader effects are limited by the Wii's power. Also all of my claims came from Official specs, yours didn't. Not only didn't they, but there is evidence to prove otherwise that Viper presented.

Shitty PC? So the Wii is like a shitty Mac? The Wii is slightly more powerful than Xbox and now you're saying it's going to make up for its' shortcomings with brute force? That's a good one, you're not talking about a PS3 here.

It would need to be at least 2x as powerful to do what your saying, it isn't. What part of fixed function do you not understand? Xbox has a programmable pipeline that means it is customizable, you can program your own effects but with more options and flexibility. There's a reason why GC and Wii get PS2 ports instead of PC ports.

And you can't say that it's because of Direct X, PS3 doesn't use that but it gets games in the same league as PC and 360. Not to mention that PS2 and GC/Wii couldn't be more different.