DMeisterJ, it is obvious that you are operating from a point of some bias here. Allow me to illustrate:

1. You continually bring up the fact that analog is apparently better than a point and click interface as seen on the Wii. This is a stretch in and of itself, but I can see how someone who has played games directly created for analog use (i.e., Halo or Warhawk) would prefer it, because those games are directly engineered with some level of aim assist, etc. However PC games lack these things and are based a bit more on precision and speed of aiming; something that the analog sticks clearly lack.

Regardless, as I said I can see that being a personal preference matter. However the issue is the stupid arguments you then continue to throw out there; your pulse affecting your aim? Really? You can't hold the pointer at the screen for any length of time? Really? I mean come on, unless you're 400 lbs or something neither of those is going to be an issue. It just appears as if you're reaching for straws here since the comparison of mouse + keyboard to wii remote + nunchuck is obvious on its face to anyone.

2. "I've nothing against the Wii's online. It's just that it doesn't seem that good in the wake of XBL and even PSN. "

"It doesn't seem that good!!" is hardly a compelling argument dude. As stated, you are continually getting "under utilized" mixed up with "shitty performance" or something. There is no indication whatsoever that the wii's wireless internet cannot support internet multiplayer in comparison with that offered on other systems. There are not lag issues, there are not restrictions on individual developers. It's true that there is no overarching architecture as seen on XBL where you can invite people not playing the game, but I hardly see that being a deal breaker for Valve, who, as we all know, is a primarily PC developer.

3. "WHY would you guys automatically assume that it would be profitable on the wii?!?"

Well, let's think for just a second to see if you're being purposefully obtuse, here. The Wii has an install base rapidly approaching 17 million consoles. Their internet multiplayer games are lacking at this point in time; essentially limited to a FPS with a name that reeks of "oh man ANOTHER Medal of Honor?!" This game hasn't sold all that well. Should this shock you? No. It's just a cookie cutter game with a decent control scheme, and no advertising. As such, the market would appear to be wide open if a high profile, well made game (that wasn't Generic WW II Sequel 14) was released on the system with some polish.

Orange Box is a fantastic FPS; this is widely acknowledged. The problem with the console ports so far has been the control scheme; a problem that may well be alleviated in a Wii version because of the similarity to mouse + keyboard set ups.

Additionally there's the fact that porting a game costs a fraction of actual development costs, and they already have teams allocated to port duties! The investment would be minimal when compared to developing a new game solely for the wii system, and at the same time it would let valve test the waters to see how these things sell on the system.

Finally, there is the performance claims. As stated previously, Valve develops primarily with a PC base in mind. PC's have no standards like consoles; games must be built to suit a variety of different set ups, and aging computers. As a result, Valves' games are always built with performance on a wide range of machines in mind. I have no doubt in my mind that if they spent a bit of time optimizing it for the Wii it would run just fine. It isn't loaded with shaders and things that clog up so many games, because as stated they know that they have a diverse user base whose computers may not always be up to speed. I am certain that the engine is flexible in this regard.

So, put 2 and 2 together here, man. It has a massive install base, which is hurting for top quality games, yet it has the full capacity for online multiplayer, meaning that the market is wide open. Furthermore, the costs would be minimal compared to the potential return, the engine is known to be widely flexible, and the biggest weakness of other console ports would likely be minimized by the Wii's control scheme. You don't understand why people would assume that this game would be profitable?

I don't care whether you disagree with whether it should be ported but you have got to be kidding, if you claim to not understand why people would assume it's profitable.

Wii FPS controls > control pad FPS controls

People can concoct convoluted fantasies as to why this isn't the case (see: pulse issues) but it will not change the fact.

I'm probably the biggest TF2 nut here, and I own it on both the 360 AND the PC so I'll say this on the subject...

Aiming with the Wii controls in any FPS would be awesome, provided the controls are done properly. The same would be true with Orange Box on the Wii and there's no graphical reason it couldn't be done. The TF2 graphics are very simple and can go to VERY low resolutions without issue.

Now, as to whether or not it would be worth Valve's time to so do, that's anyone's guess, but the qualms about "the Wii's online" are pure bullshit because the game would quite obviously use Steam for all online (the online application which MS ripped off to make Live with, FYI).

So the only REAL concern is whether or not it would sell enough copies to make it's money back, but that's hard to say. The Orange Box is an epic game in itself so Wii owners could flock to it, or it could be more like PS3 sales.

I've played MoH online with STRANGERS and 32 people, and it's really good. No lag, no hassle. AND it's made by EA. ELECTRONIC ARTS PEOPLE! So the argument "Wii online is bad" does not apply correctly.

On the controls department, as you should know I'm a M/KB supporter and dualanalog hater in FPS's... and I liked MoH's control scheme A LOT. It's really good, fast and if you try, it's very precise.

On the technical side (graphics etc.), as Grey Acumen said: it has already been discussed and we reached a conclusion that Orange Box graphics wouldn't be impossible on the Wii and even that they wouldn't need to be toned down by a lot. So there goes another argument against.

On the economic side, porting to the Wii should be extremely inexpensive, as we already have three different versions of the game. But for positive results, Valve would be the one to port it, not EA. And our favorite fatty Gabe Newell has already stated that he is very interested on the Wii.

Clearly I'm biased?

I'm not the one who can't play the game on the PS3, XBOX 360 or PC. I want the game on the Wii. Oh wait, that is the OP. He doesn't want it on any other platform than the Wii. But I'm biased? No my friend, I am unbiased. I am simply trying to get him to try it on one of the other three platforms it's on. So typical. The unbiased one is biased because someone can't play a game on their console of choice. Shouldn't have bought a Wii if you wanted to play Orange Box then.

@ APolitical

Wow, I didn't even read all of that post. No need. you said I was biased. Refer to my paragraph above. But I never said dual-analog was better than Wii-mote. I said that I personally didn't like it, because it picks up on very minute movements, for me, and I was used to analog. I didn't say analog was better though.

 I'm pretty sure you can buy a Wii and still play O-Box...just not on the Wii...or is there a law I don't know about? 

@ sqrl.

Exactly, play it on the PC.

O-box would be a title appealing to core gamers, and wouldn't really make Valve a lot of money in any case. I think the Wii will be flooded with casualware, and that titles beyond the typical "nintendo" program will be very few indeed.
That's just a consequence you have to face if you buy it, and probably why many Wii owners also purchase another console (or Wii as their 2nd one).

 Agreed, but I will say that if there were a console I would want to play O-box on it would be the Wii...I despise standard console FPS controls.

 Keep telling yourself that...