He has a valid point. Alot of fans, maybe by Nintendo's own doing (world such as "gamers don't want good graphics"), have made it into a situation where waggle is considered revolutionary (irregardless of the fact that waggle might suck for that game, or is poorly implemented for it) and high end graphics are just about looking good (ignoring the gameplay that makes games like GRAW and Oblivion and Gears so awesome). It's an either/or mentality that totally sucks. Why can't you have waggle AND top tier graphics? Why the hell does gaming graphics have to stagnate to 2001 levels to implement motion controls? I didn't buy the 360 for it's graphics, I bought it for games like Halo 3 and Oblivions and the addictive gameplay, but the fact that they do/will look great doesn't hurt. I'm gonna be pissed if Nintendo does win this round, and doesn't bring graphics up to date with its next system, a decision I would attribute to their desire to primarily cater to the Japanese market, ignoring the western markets that seem to have a greater appetite for high end graphics in games.
I'm not bagging on Wii, but the either/or mentality that some fans have now. And on a side note, I agree that GC was underutilized graphically, but it's still hardware that at best was about as good as the original Xbox. Just because it was underutilized and had more potential doesn't mean it's going to compare favorably in terms of graphics (Zelda: TP for example. Played it on Wii. Satisfied my inner Zelda fanboy but I did notice that the graphics were just so...meh).
Edit: I am bagging on Wii's graphics. Heavily bagging on it. Doesn't mean I dismiss the ability for the system to pump out good games.