Clearly the Wii is superior. Heck, developers don't have programmable shaders to work with, so using a fixed function pipeline they have less work to do (with all that engineering crap), and they have so much more time to do stuff *well*.
And yeah... the clockrate of the GPU is meaningless! Sure sure, the programmable shader architecture NVidia GPU on the original XBox ran at 233 MHz (nv2a chipset -- a variant of the GeForce 3 architecture), but the awe-inspiring Hollywood design ran awesome at 143 MHz, and it was so cool that ATI moved entirely away from its architecture, toward the programmable shader architecture pioneered by NVidia, and now their excellent flexible shader GPU architectures are found on... um... crappy-looking games hardware, like the XBox360. But don't forget that they upped the clock on the Hollywood for the Wii, and clockrate is everything, completely the opposite of what I said above, remember?!?
Give it a rest you guys. The Wii has a decent GPU architecture, that is, in some ways, comparable to the original XBox, yes. In other ways, no. Its not that much better, nor is it that much worse, from any perspective. There are PS2 games that looked easily as good as some of the "examples" posted here (take God of War 2, as an example), and no one regards it as some graphics phenominon.
Don't expect great things, technologically, from the Wii. Its competition (the X360 and PS3) blows it out of the water, in that regard. Expect great talent to come to the Wii, eventually, and make it look good, for what it is.
That's far from a bad thing.
Also, remember that having a fixed function pipeline, no stencil buffer (the GC didn't.. I dunno if the Wii's version of the GPU added one), etc. is a pretty major irritant to devs (engineers AND artists) who have been working with programmable shaders for years now. They're not lazy -- they have to relearn what works and looks good in that older style of GPU architecture. Artists used to bake shadows into texture maps to make them more 3D in appearance (which looks great in screenshots, like the GC ones in this thread, but much lamer in motion), whereas they're trained to use normal maps instead these days. The art of polygon reduction has been long since lost (its hard to find artists who can make a good looking low poly count model, it seems), etc. Developers have changed how they think -- they're not "lazy"... what an absurdly uninformed comment that is.
In order to have a game truly shine on the Wii, you'd have to hire a bunch of absurdly expensive old-school artists and engineers (they are exceedingly rare... the games industry has very high burnout) to do so. ...and there goes the supposedly cheap dev costs on your Wii title. All the masters of those arts are now the leads and directors of the current games industry -- they're not even available for hire as grunts. They have to retrain their grunts to understand the roots of 3D hardware instead.
