EDIT: In before "Big wall of text." You've been warned.
Despite Stefan's comment of arguing with a fanboy, I'm going to try to look at this from another angle, section by section.
The most successful console EVERY generation has a lot of shovelware; the PS1 and PS2 are not exempt. The shovelware trend can be traced back to the Atari 2600, so it wasn't a new phenominon born by Sony's success. Also I note that you can only seem to mention a few good series from the PS1/2 era, why is this? I can easily name a shovelware series for every "good" series you mention. (In my book, GTA is shovelware, but that's for a different discussion.) There were also good games on leaders prior to the PS1, and when this gen is over, people will look back and see some of the quality games on the Wii. By this time next gen, we won't be talking about the Wii's shovelware, it'll be forgotten about. Discussion will instead be about that gen's leader's shovelware, and I'm sure that some will "convienently" forget about the Wii's shovelware. As for those "mediocre" games, that's just another word for shovelware, seen through tinted glasses. They were made on the cheap, knowing that some would sell due to the sheer volume of the userbase. That's part of the definition of shovelware too...
Next, comes the best-selling 3rd party system. In total, this is the Wii. More 3rd party games sell on the Wii than on either HD system. And not mentioning a title to outsell those if anything only reinforces the desire to put games on the Wii- if, from the smaller number of games, most of those sales come from a few blockbusters, it means if my game doesn't explode, I'm hosed. Given how few games explode with sales, this is a stupid bet to take. (And yet some of the companies are still idiotic enough to try...) Whereas on the Wii, it's harder to get a breakout for sales, but with the sales better distributed, it's easier to profit. If I'm running a business, I want profit. And in this economy, I want dependable profit. It's like rolling a d100- on the Wii, rolling over 40 means profit, on a sliding scale. On the HD systems, I need to beat a 90 to profit, but the 100 pays out handsomely.
Okay, then we have the game existance. It's easy to explain why the Wii doesn't have those games- before the gen started, companies had to predict which system to develop for. The previous gens had seen things being a graphics race; they assumed it would continue, and the PS3 would ride on with its popularity and sell the most. But developing an HD game takes a lot of time. By the time it was clear they were wrong in which system would sell the most, they'd sunk too much money into the HD version to just drop it. A few companies have been switching course toward the Wii, but many others are now looking for excuses rather than admitting they were wrong in their initial system choice. (It seems an unwritten rule of businesses is never admit you made a mistake.) These excuses manifest in several different ways, games don't sell (despite direct proof otherwise), it's too weak (despite other games seeing ports made), not enough space (despite a disk holding the same as a 360 game), we can't market to it (because it actually requires something different to market), etc.
Continuing on games, you talk about not having "shit like Wii Fit, Sports." I could say that the Wii doesn't have "shit like MGS4, GTA4." That's opinional, what you (or in the latter, I) think of the games. The thing is, the Wii line ties in to how Nintendo markets. I think that saying the Wii sold solely on games doesn't paint the whole picture. Nintendo was after accessibility. The N64 and GC didn't sell as well because their accessibility was the same as the PS1 and 2. To a new gamer, there are a lot of buttons on an awkward controller. Enter Nintendo's strategy with the Wii- make the controller something familiar to people. Give people other ways of playing (ala Wii Fit). This, coupled with the easy to understand games, is what led Wii to being so popular with the new gamers- they knew what to do to get started playing. Nintendo strove to expand the market, and by using a mass-market price, did so. Sony's goal with the PS3 initially wasn't expansion. Sony kept pandering to their existing fanbase, ala games like MGS4 and GTA4. A preexisting fanbase that sticks around is more rabid for some games, hence why you can have the explosive sellers. But by not expanding, long-term, this leads to stagnation of the market. You can't look at just 1 or 2 generations for this, but several out. Had the Wii not come out, and nobody planned on expanding the market, we'd start to see implosion probably as soon as the PS4. But, without the expansion of the market, the price would be irrelevant. Yes, a $250 PS3 would still have been trounced by a $250 Wii, as all the new gamers would be looking at how much easier it is to get into.
Oh, and as for Stefan's last comment, that's also easy. Sony saw how accessible Wii Sports was, and how it helped to sell Wiis and the motion control. So they're attempting to copy it, a game that you yourself referred to as "shit." And their copy is Move Party. So, by definition, it should also be shit. Or will it suddenly not be shit just because it has the Sony name? Your answer to that question alone, will say a lot.
are you debating Sony copied Wii or thae fact that PS3 would have sold lower if priced same as Wii at launch?
Wii was accesible for the casual but Nintendo's name back in 2006 and popularity and brand power of Playstation
and what do you mean all the new gamers?-the new people that started gaming beside ande hardcore followers and some other gamers just hoped on board cause of its popuplar.
How the hell do you think the casuals get to know about the gaming if they don't follow it,they just follow whatever is popular and buy it.
Nintendo has some harcore fans who buy for Zelda,Mario,Metroid,etc but all the others are casuals.It is the same with Sony which has some hardcore fanbase but all others were casuals.
And in 2006 with Sony's popularity if PS3 was to be $250 is would have sold like PS1 and PS2.