I think you make some good points, but I've said it before: Nintendo is not competing on graphics. They believe that the graphics are "as good as they need to be", and when you consider that it pushes XBOX 1 level graphics, I believe that is a fair statement.

Zelda is meant to look a certain way. Red Steel looks nothing like Zelda, Raving Rabbids looks different again. And Wii Sports doesn't look like any of them. If anything, the Wii is demonstrating itself as a pretty versatile graphics generator. Think of how Okami showed that the PS2 still had some tricks left. The Wii has shown that diversity in only its first generation of games.

Games do not have to look "photo real" to look good...which is really the only advantage that the 360 and PS3 will have over the Wii. Again, I believe Okami looks "better" than just about anything out there right now, and it is the furthest thing from photo real.

All that being said, I have no idea if the system will be viable in three years time. Like I said, you make some good points. But the fact is that Nintendo is competing on a different paradigm than the other two.

If the Game Boy taught us anything, it taught us that Nintendo can make a lower end system "viable" for a very long time, regardless of what the hard core market thinks about the graphics the system is pushing.