Well, I will keep trying, but the challenge for the Wii is that, as you say, people like you seem to be in the minority for using the controls for certain genres.

I find the Wii acceptable for FPS but not superior, and I get the feeling I'm probably in the majority camp with that.  I'm talking here about people actually using the console, etc. not those simply not willing to try.

The other challenge the Wii faces is its specs.  At the end of the day, a lot of FPS players either are transitioning from PC across consoles (like me) or have got used to FPS on Xbox/360/PS3, and the Wii also looks pretty long in the tooth graphically for FPS games at this point in their lifecycle.

I don't think I'm a graphics whore as such, but when, for example, you've played  Half Life 2 on PC when Source was brand new, the Wii does seem limiting for what I expect for those titles.

In the end I feel that the Wii is very good at some stuff, which is why I have one, but that it will never get any broad acceptance across a bunch of popular genres, FPS (particularly online) among them.  As a result, with the huge jump in former PC centric genres like FPS on console, it simply cannot be the one console for all that the PS2 arguably came closet to (never being too hot for FPS and some genres either I wouldn't say PS2 100% covered all the bases).

Therefore the whole idea of why don't people settle on the Wii, or the 360 or the PS3 is a redundant one now.  The customer demographics for consoles are now fragmented this gen, across different consoles and by region too, and that's not going to chance I think.  The Wii will sell the most HW due to who it appeals to and their numbers, and by consequence will sell the most SW, but only of certain genres, with plenty of other genres being favoured elsewhere.

It's a bit of a bugger though as I've never had so much tech as this gen, what with a PC, Wii, PS3, DS and PSP and I still don't even have a 360.

Previously all I felt I needed was a PC and a PS2.

I was meaning I'm a special case at how good I am, which is true, but I still have friends that play their FPS games on 360 and PS3, I brought over CoD4 Wii and the only thing they had issues with was holding their writsts steady.  It has a lot with relearning how you play, lots of console FPS players like to move their hands around while playing, PC players do that less but they still can, with the Wii extra movement can get you killed.

I was meaning I'm a special case at how good I am, which is true, but I still have friends that play their FPS games on 360 and PS3, I brought over CoD4 Wii and the only thing they had issues with was holding their writsts steady.  It has a lot with relearning how you play, lots of console FPS players like to move their hands around while playing, PC players do that less but they still can, with the Wii extra movement can get you killed.

As for the fragmented bases, it's really just making games that appeal to those groups and where you put them, gamers follow good games as you've just proven, you thought PC and PS2 was all that was needed and now you have a Wii, PC, PSP, PS3, and DS, if a company started to just back Wii you'd buy the games there.  To have a market to sell to on a console you gotta give the players a reason to go there.

My thoughts exactly.  

If I want a hardcore game I have a HD console for that but generally, I prefer fun games on Wii.

Uncharted 2 what? I specifically stated great developers go the extra mile no matter the system. I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

One thing I forgot to mention is the clearly different views some (a majority?) of third party developers have of the three consoles based on their manufacutrers, which also has a big impact on their decisions:

Nintendo

There is clearly a level of fear here that Nintendo 'understands' the Wii in terms of motion controls and titles as well has having the dominant franchises for the system - Mario, Zelda, etc.  This, coupled with what has been percieved as weaker sales of certain titles has got a lot of third party developers suspicous of the platform and seems to be giving rise to a perception that your title will sell less and that you're doomed to fail competing with Nintendo themselves.

Clearly, the strong success of the core franchises plus Nintendo's success with titles like Wii Fit and Wii Sports, etc. does nothing to dispel this fear.

Also, while the Wii does sell a lot of third party SW there is no doubt that enough titles seem to perform weaker than expected, particularly in certain genres, to re-enforce this.  In the end Wii owners need to buy enough copies of certain titles to ensure they are seen as popular on the system, and this hasn't happened in certain cases.  Rightly or wrongly I feel some developers ignore or forget the sales/cost ratio and compare sales on Nintendo to sales of similar titles on 360/PS3 without taking into account the lower development costs - i.e. you could make the same return and profit on Wii selling less as your outlay is less.

I suspect many third party developers do wish Nintendo weren't as dominant with SW on their own platform as is the case.

This of course is affected by region, too.  With I think western developers much more cautious of the platform than local ones, although even there I feel a lot of local support is actually focused more on handhelds (Nintendo's own DS range plus the PSP).

MS

In many ways, it's easy to see the lure of the 360 for many third party developers.  MS has by far the weakest first party capability itself, and Halo aside needs third party titles in a huge way on its system.  MS clearly puts a lot of effort into wooing developers as a result of this, which only re-enforces this position.  The 360 sells a lot of SW particularly in the West and particularly in the English speaking territories - something that makes it very attractive to a lot of Western third party developers.  It also has a good SDK and, for Western developers turning from PC to consoles makes for a very easy transition target.  To put it simply, if you want to make a title, particularly a Western orientated FPS or action title, the 360/PC makes a very appealing combination.

The main downside of the 360 is cost of development and competition in the core genres.  Producing a good HD game takes money and if you're going to produce one in the popular genres on 360, particularly FPS/TPS with online MP, then it better be good and original or it could fail vs the plentiful competition.

The other downside I feel is that some developers are uncertain about the popularity of broader genres on 360 vs the core action/online titles.

360 is also attractive for Live, which can provide a channel for lower cost games to reach a more niche audience.

Finally, the 360 has been (perhaps still is) attractive to Japanese developers wanting a slice of the currently popular West.  Although clearly results for more Japanese centric titles on the platform may give pause to that being exclusive in nature.

Sony

Sony presently lies between Nintendo and MS I think for a lot of third party developers.

Sony has a strong first party development capability, and does own some key franchises in the same manner as Nintendo.  But historically it's a platform that's been host to massive third party success, and there is no doubt that many third parties are comfortable in principle with supporting the PS3 as a platform, particularly since the platform 'found its feet' and started selling most third party titles in comparable ratio to the 360 (WW that is, clearly it varies by region).

Where it differs from the 360 is that it has (still?) historically been tougher to develop for, and it's harder to produce a good 360/PS3 or 360/PS3/PC title than a good 360/PC title.  For developers moving from PC to console support this has been a particular hurdle, and it's no surprise to me that initially the 360 got all the love and even now still has sole console focus from developers like Valve.

However, I think for most developers that particular hump is fading, and like the 360 the PS3 is seen as a fairly safe bet for solid sales if you produce a good title.  It's weakness for developers is that in US/UK core titles sell less than 360 although this has evened out in ratio.  On the other hand there is a perception, I believe, that a broader spectrum of genres can sell well on the PS3, making it seem more appealing I believe to developers looking at titles outside the core 360 genres or to spread the risk of such titles across both platforms.

PS3 also has PSN, which is an attractive channel for the right titles.

Finally, it appeals to Western developers as a safe bet to extend sales on top of 360 while it clearly offers a better chance of penetration in Japan than 360 (although this is a lesser priority I think for a lot of Western developers).  Clearly it is now a fairly safe bet for Japanese developers as titles now sell well enough locally plus the PS3 offers access to the Western market now in a similar manner to 360.

In the end, I believe currently the PS3/360 platform just seems more appealing to a lot of third party developers from a potential sales/competition perspective, with the main downside being cost of development.

The Wii is attractive for potential sales and cost of development, but right or wrong a lot of developers see it as being far riskier from a competition (with Nintendo) and breadth of genre perspective and unless that changes it does seem likely the Wii will never see the dominance in third party support the PS2 did before it.

My point is the Wii launched without the necessary specifications / online to support the level of FPS sales seen on 360/PS3 and PC formerly.

It's not just about the game but the associated technical level of the games.  The Wii, much as I love my Wii, just doesn't have the horespower to support what I and clearly the majority of gamers who like FPS/TPS type titles hold as the standard.  It's just not going to happen.  The Wii is great for Wii Sports, etc. Mario and the like but it's not going to support the likes of Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Uncharted 2, etc. because a key element of those titles is how they look and in some cases the open world they support, and the Wii doesn't have enough power to support them to what is the perceived acceptable level technically.

So the market is fragmented and unchangeably so.  The Wii will support sales of 10M plus for certain titles, and the 360/PS3 are going to support 10M plus sales of other titles, and that isn't going to cross over or change this gen due to the different technical capabilities of the platforms.  That's really my point.  No matter how good an FPS hits the Wii it's never going to affect the set demographic split that now exists.  And to be honest, I'm pretty condifent that the Wii is very unlikely to ever see a superlative FPS that hasn't already been a bigger hit elsewhere.

Heck, for someone like me the Wii is like 10 years out of date for an FPS (although as a PC gamer technically for me the 360 and PS3 are out of date, too).

I'm not really talking about individual titles though, just the major demarcations between the consoles in reference to elements of this post, which is about third party support for the Wii and why in feels like it's not getting the support you'd expect for its install base.  The Wii is going to get haphazard support due to the huge difference in tech specs, the strength of Nintendo's own titles vs third parties, the difference of its controls and the fact that there a certain genres it is by far the weakest install base for which nonetheless are very lucrative genres currently, particularly FPS/TPS such as CoD, Gears, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, etc.

Uh you can scale down most games, though that's a terrible way to do things as making good looking games they need to be built from the ground up, but its not like we didn't have good looking atmospheric games prior to this gen, hell 2D games can have a shit ton of it and look good. 

But as for open world games, they did those last gen too, Treyarch made Spiderman Web of Shadows on PS3, 360, and Wii and the Wii version while a little lower res and fewer polygons, it WAS the same game, many other developers could do the same, but they don't and its obvious that it doesn't take as much to make that Wii game, so why not?  And again this is what has many people questioning.