PC specs are overrated .Usually a console with the same specs is way faster and more efficient .

But here you are comparing consoles against consoles .
Even Resistance ,one of the first PS3 games ,would be virtually impossible to do on the Wii .Too big levels ,too many charachters on screen at once ,32 player multiplayer ,very big game .....the same for Gears of War .If these first (maybe second Gears ) generation games are already impossible to do for the Wii we cant pretend it could do something like Final Fantasy XIII Versus ,Heavey Rain ,Alan Wake ,Splinter Cell Conviction ,Heavenly Sword ,Infamous ,Lair ,Mass Effect ,Uncharted ,Unreal 3 ,Battlefield Bad Company ,Army of Two .....and even those will only be second generation games for those plattforms .

@ HappySqurriel

One can say the PS2 is more powerful at certain things and the Nintendo Wii is more powerful at others. For example the PS2 allows for a higher Pixel Fillrate than the Wii (2,350 Megapixels/Second for the PS2 and 942 Megapixels/Second for the Wii) and the PS2 allows for a higher Textured Fillrate (1,176 Megatexels/Second for the PS2 and 942 Megatexels/Second for the Wii).

An interesting question would be "If this is so why do some multiplatform GameCube games run better than the PS2 version?". IMO the answer to this question is simply due to the game engine.

For example the best multiplatform AtariST/Amiga games were mostly technically far less impressive than the best Amiga-only games. This was often due to developers needing to take notice of the Atari ST weakpoints while
creating their game engine, with Amiga -only games this wasn't needed and developers could fully tap into the Amiga's potential. To make matters
more complex the AtariST did have a slightly higher clocked CPU by default and therefore some early games not
using custom chip advantages at all even ran slightly better on the Atari ST.

It's hard to objectively determine which platform of the last generation was the most powerful. For this
generation it's much easier, the gap between the Nintendo Wii and PS3/XBox 360 is huge. IMO there's clearly a significant gap between the PS3 and XBox 360 as well, in favour
of the PS3. I could go into great depths why the PS3 is significantly higher specced, but I will leave this for another thread. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 360 and PS3 games on the Wii... OH SORRY YOU ARE SERIOUS!!!!!!

Thanks for clearing up the UE3 engine thing.  I myself too don't mind the UE2.5. Its a shame that developers are making PS2 looking games and ports and not putting in effort... You would expect the games to look better.  Hopefully when all this porting phase is over we shall see something reasonable.

 Don't take this personal but i think lair atm is over rated. Visually it looks amazing I agree but what they shown so far of game play isn't much. I hope i'm prooven wrong cause it does look like the visuals it already has and if it has a awesome gameplay system would really make it a immersive experience, especially on my HD tv.

Basically what i'm saying is I don't flow with the crowd anymore with hyped up games. When Quake 4 was announced I was so excited. It did deliver visually. However gameplay wasn't really anything new or that creative. I still enjoy the original unreal tournament and tribes more then I did quake.

For me i think MGS4 is were it will wow me graphically and in gameplay. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Rockstar's Table Tennis on the Wii. Oh Sorry, did you forget about that?

 The 360 actually has 512 MB RAM.

It could be done, but with the amount of work that they'd need to do to make it work they almost might as well make an entirely new game and then tout it as a Wii exclusive.

None of which matters if the devs never take the Wii (and its userbase) seriously and put some substantial games on it.

 I can agree with that. I'm not saying making a watered down game is impossible, but something along the lines of a low end PC and a high end PC with Oblivion is kind of what I view it (even all settings on low vs settings on high HL2 is an interesting comparison). Personally, I'd rather see a game made for the Wii instead of trying to get watered down left overs of PS3/360 games. 

well yer i agree the comaprison is console versus console. Sorry I wasn't more clear. What I was trying to say is Games that were on PC could easily run on xbox cause of the way the consoles are designed. I never ment for it to sound then in theory PS3 and xbox360 games will work on wii.

But i still stand that some older games that were below xbox360/ps3 standard could run on wii.  To add to your 32multiplayer comment. EA is doing the new medal of honor on wii with 32multiplayer. So this will show what it's capable off.  By that I mean will they sacrifice alot fo quailty visually that was in the medal of honour game currently out (not that it was spectacular). However if it looks worst cause they needed to be able to render with a possible 32 characters on a screen then it will be a let down.

You can't compare PC specs with console specs. PC games, in comparison, are poorly optimized (due to the diversity of hardware) and they have this rather large thing called an "operating system" running in the background that has a tendency to eat up resources left and right.

Consoles, on the other hand, are a frozen format where everyone has identical hardware and it has a bare-bones OS running in the background. Developers, as they learn the systems, are able to eek out every ounce of power the system offers instead of having to program for a broad variety of hardware that people may or may not be running in their PCs.

We're really talking apples and oranges here. Other than the fact that they both can play video games, there isn't a lot in common. One is a purpose-built machine while the other is designed to run a wide variety of tasks. It's kinda like wondering why the iPhone can't display games as well as the DS even though the iPhone processor clocks faster.

I'm not even going to touch on the differences between RISC and CISC, RAM speed, and other things. I think I made my point.