The real answer is hell yes and people who believe otherwise need to get all of wii fits blame. 

The Wii's specs are only about 50% better than the Gamecubes, so I don't see how this could be true, and you can't say 30-50% of the power is lost because of the High Resolutions (what about registering the motion, and sending audio to the controller for the Wii? That takes power too), that's part of making a beautiful game, so that statement is false as well. I would also like to know where you got your "efficient" part at, everyone knows its up to the developers code, not exactly the hardware, so again, that statement is false. "wii games to look better than PS3 and 360" again completely false, compare multiplatform games, the low resolution and weak power of the Wii becomes extremely noticeable.

People are mad at Wii 3rd part developers because they can't code for the Wii, it's because they have lowsy game ideas. The Wii's potential as already been reached, due to Nintendo not using any new technology. Your comparison of the 3 consoles is very flawed.

The reason Nintendo didn't release official specs is because they knew many would feel ripped off when they realized how much gamecube is in the Wii. And that they'd realize $250 is way too much for it. 

Yep cause the wii mote uses as much power as high res and high res textures./sarcasm Efficiency is greatly determined by the hardwares architecture and how many bottlenecks are in that hardware not just how well a dev could produce something. Its like comparing a lower clocked 2ghz cor 2duo ot a 3.6ghz pentium 4 which is better. The more efficient one because it does twice+ of its power in the same time the other processor does one. The only significant multiplatform was CoD 3 and that was a launch game. Who ever said the wii was pushed to its limits. When the wii is running games at 30fps then I will say it is pushed to its limits.

 Wii IS only 1.5 as powerful as Gamecube. the specs show that.

The real reason I believe Nintendo went with a less powerful machine(Originally) was to save their own butts financially because at the time they could not afford to put out a machine to compete with Sony or MS financially as every console they sold since NES had had dramatic decrease in market share and it would have made them into another Sega.

So they were forced to be creative and find a way to compete in the market rather than just go to a few corps throw some money on the table and say what is the most advanced thing I can get with this much which has been the traditional market of console making.

 Nintendo's former CEO Mr Yamauchi's arrogance and old age started driving that company down the tubes and was unwilling to change his ways of doing things..thankfully he stepped down Iwata took over saw if this company didn't change many things soon it was done for.

What started out as a cleanup job for Iwata he took it one step further saw something no one else did  at some point had to do a Mcgyver and use the tools he had to churn out something great and that was the DS and Wii.

When backed into a corner amazing what you can accomplish. 

 If you read my post you would know that that isn't true. Please explain why the specs even show the wii as a gc 1.5. The specs show it at at least 2 times better than the gamecube and that isn't even the full specs and that doesn't take into consideration the other factors that determine how powerful a computer is. 

"This allows many wii games to look better than alot of ps3 and 360 games"  Can you please show me some wii games that look better then these shots.  But don't look to hard i includued a picture of the best looking wii game and it fails very short of these PS3 games.  Plus i included a pic of Crysis for the hell of it.

 I agree. 3rd parties are starting to get it, Zack and Wiki and Deadly Creatures (new for wii) are great looking games. 

^ Yeah we are seeing more games looking good and almost smg, mp3, quality and soon it will surpass them.

 I'm not quite sure I understand your comparison... Your comparing a 2.0Ghz COre 2 Duo to a 3.6Ghz P4, and your saying the P4 is faster? That is not the case, so if that's your comparison you are wrong and your post becomes irrelavent. Or are you comparing the two and saying the Core 2 Duo is faster? If that's the case your still doing a poor comparison, if anything the Core 2 would represent the PS3 and the P4 the Wii, in which case the P4 has many more bottlenecks and the Core 2 is far more efficient. And yes it is up to the developers, because they can take these "bottlenecks" and work around them, put them to their advantage,

You obviously have a poor understanding of CPU's and development, and it shows is your original post how you go from x more powerful to x more powerful.

 I mean if you honestly think that any game would look better on the Wii rather than the 360 or PS3 then you are living in a false reality. You don't seem to realize that a fair comparison would be on identical screens, so if the screens were both low-res the PS3/360 would look better, or if they were both HD the PS3/360 would look better.

PS3/360 games will always look better whether there in HD or not. End of thread.