Why do most third party publishers ignore the Wii completely ?

[theRepublic]

demonfox13 said:

theRepublic said:

demonfox13 said:

theRepublic said:

demonfox13 said:
Oh yea here you go, Wii from a technical standpoint is inferior to the original Xbox
http://wii.ign.com/articles/699/699118p1.html. Ati Hollywood custom video card is roughly equivalent to an Ati R600 and just like it, it is capable of HDR+AA http://www.gpgpu.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22227, whereas the 360 card is closer to a x1900xt while the PS3's card is a beefed up 7800gtx that can perform closer to an 8800 but not quite.

Oh...my...god.  I thought we were done with this shit years ago.

So did I but people still show to be clueless as far as the Ati Hollywood vs the PS3 and 360's cards along with the CPU comparison. Loving the brand is one thing but .....nah, I can't say it, I'll get banned again rofl.

If you think the Wii is inferior to the original Xbox, you are clueless as well.

Seems you didn't want to bother with the link, but that's ok. Oh and don't forget to take off the period after the html, that was my mistake. 

I did look at your links.  The first is from eight months before the Wii was even released, while it was still being called the Revolution.  Did you read this part?

However, it's important to remember that there is no way to accurately gauge the performance difference between GCN's PowerPC-based architecture and the the Intel-based CPU of Xbox.

If you just look at the clock speeds, as do most of the people who hold your position, you will come to the conclusion that the original Xbox was more powerful.  However, if you actually look at the results, it is clear that the Xbox and GameCube were on par last generation.  To think that a console at least twice as powerful does not surpass the Xbox is ridiculous.

Your second link is a forum post with the only responses being along the lines of 'you don't know what you are talking about'.

EDIT:  I feel like this is 2007 all over again.