The problem is you're limiting your scope to the highest rated games, all of which are rated by traditional gaming critics.  That, and you leave out games like Zak & Wiki, which are only possible on Wii.

We all know which system has the most original content.  No use trying to mask it by bringing up a few sequels.

Viper:  Some people can't think outside the box of "TECHNOLOGY = GRAPHICS"

3D interfacing with an object is not new

I just reviewed my post 4 times over and can't seem to find where I claimed 3D interfacing was new...or even mentioned it at all for that matter.

I'm getting old, going blind perhaps.  Could you be a kind youngster and point out exactly where I said that? 

There's a good lad.

I've seen one group of specs for the Wii that said its cpu had a speed of less than 800 mhz. The 360 and PS3 are both 3 to 4 times faster than that.

I guess that must be why they are both outselling the Wii 4:1

Or perhaps clock speed doesn't mean too much, eg XB clock speed was much more than the GC, and over double that of the PS2, but it generally had comparable graphics to the GC and nothing substantial over PS2.

It also only sold 1/6th of the nmbers PS2 managed.

Paul, I just told you the specs are not official.  Nintendo nor IBM have officially released those specs which is I why I won't provide any for you because they technically don't exist to the public.

Aside from the emprical numbers themselves, they mean very little without context.  For example.  The GC and Wii utilize IBM's copper chip technology which is more efficient than aluminum used in the Xbox and almost all other CPU's.  This efficiency means at the same clock speed, it can do much more work than an average aluminum based chip.

It's been accepted that the GC CPU is as effective as the Xbox CPU depsite the slower clock frequency (485 Mhz vs 733 Mhz).   Now just for the sake of argument we'll accept the Wii has a 729 Mhz processor.  Because it too is copper based, not aluminum, that would make the effectiveness of the Wii's CPU far greater than that of the 733 Mhz aluminum Xbox CPU.

But even still there are many other factors that must be considered of which would take up far too much time nor do we even have all the relevant data to compare with.

And once again as has been informed upon you multiple times previously, it matter not that the PS3 and X360 have faster processors because that is not the technological or end user goal of the Wii.

Paul, you need to realize that you are fixated on a very irrelevant issue.

Some people didn't understand the GUI, or the mouse for that matter. Mark my words all next gen system will have new input schemes. MS and Sony know they got blindsided on this one and I'm sure are pouring tons of money into research as we speak.

Agreed.  There's no way a system that uses a gamepad for its primary input will last 10 years, it's already out of date.

I'm not calling Sony liars, I'm sure PS3 will be *supported* for 10 years, but they will definitely release a new system - or more likely re-release PS3 as PS4, with a new Wii-inspired input device.

That's why Chaos Theory looked and were exactly identical on the PS2 and Xbox...  Nothing substantial over the PS2... I didn't know anyone was still in denal over that... the Xbox could do things that the PS2 simply could not do.

Here is something relevent... the GCN and Wii don't have shaders... that's pretty f'n relevent... I loved my GCN but it's simplified gpu ment no matter how much better the CPU could run the GPU on the Xbox can still do things that the GPU on a much newer machine can not.  It's not that it's faster or processes more it's just that it can do things that the GPU on the Wii can't.  There are ways around this, but it's probably not as easy as using a GPU with shader tech on it...