"I think No More Heroes 2 is the last NMH, (No More Heroes), that is going to be developed on the Wii. To expand NMH to new possibilities, we need a new platform. Wii is a great platform, but we've done everything we can with it now." - Goichi Suda

/sadface

Welcome to 10 days ago. Try /happyface since 2 is not even released yet, to start considering the sequel...

All I know is those are big words, 2 better be something very special with none of the flaws of the original...

" Welcome to 10 days ago. Try /happyface since 2 is not even released yet, to start considering the sequel...All I know is those are big words, 2 better be something very special with none of the flaws of the original... "

I personally wouldn't want them to keep rehashing the same game. If they believe they need to move on to another console, that's probably a great thing for the series.

It's not like they exploited the Wii's abilities when it comes to free roaming. Unless NMH2 is focused on that, which I don't think it is from what's been said already, even if it's improved from the first. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. GTA(PS2)'s open world & sandbox gameplay is vastly better than NMH's, hell, they shouldn't even be compared with such a hugely more detailed world and so many more things to explore and do on a much larger scale. If there's no good open world in NMH, that's because it's a low budget, linear experience, in which they shoehorned some quick and dirty open stuff in for the hell of it or something. Not because the Wii can't do what the PS2 did, despite being at least twice as powerful, so in theory able to do much better than any past gen GTA. Would that be so bad, considering it would be stylised and cel shaded?

You disagree with what? I didn't express an opinion or anything. Well I guess I did say that GTA games on PS2/PSP do open world better than NMH but that's pretty factual, even for those who hate GTA... Which I personally don't like all that much anyway, but facts are facts.

Nope, that's pretty factual, considering factually weaker systems have done a lot better. Calling me a kid doesn't help your nonexistent points.

Again, there's no opinion to disagree with there. There's a factual statement (go check the systems' specs) and a (rhetorical) question.

Neck and neck? Even just looking at the hard numbers without considering the better, more efficient architecture, and the fact the GameCube was already better than the PS2, it vastly outperforms it in every aspect. These are the core elements.
 
Wii:
 

• CPU: PowerPC-based "Broadway" processor, made with a 90 nm SOI CMOS process, reportedly clocked at 729 MHz
• GPU: ATI "Hollywood" GPU made with a 90 nm CMOS process, reportedly clocked at 243 MHz

• 88 MB main memory (24 MB "internal" 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics package, 64 MB "external" GDDR3 SDRAM)
• 3 MB embedded GPU texture memory and framebuffer.

• System Memory: 32 MB(32 × 2 bytes) Direct Rambus or RDRAM
• CPU: 64-bit " Emotion Engine" clocked at 294.912 MHz (299 MHz on newer versions), 10.5 million transistors
• Graphics processing unit: "Graphics Synthesizer" clocked at 147 MHz
•  4 MB (4 × 2 bytes) Embedded DRAM video memory bandwidth at 48 gigabytes per second (main system 32 MB can be dedicated into VRAM for off-screen materials) 

So, first you say you've "seen the tech specs" and "they're neck and neck", now you say specs are tech jarbel? Lol. There's a vast difference in the amount of calculations their CPUs can do, and a vast difference in the amount of RAM, what they're actually used for will vary from game to game so there's no particular example, specs are responsible for pretty much everything in a game, what areas are the focus is up to the dev.