No. Because of the direction Nintendo have taken it.

Big hit core games don't really have a proven market on Wii, where they have a vast proven market on PS3/360. The Wii early on was filled with party games and such. Those party games sold tremendously well coming off the success of Wii Sports/ Wii Play and such. The same happened with Wii Fit too and the sudden surge of fitness games. There is really no point in risking a bit blockbuster on Wii when you can sell 500k copies of some random party/fitness game with minimal effort and make a quick profit.

As for your 3DS thing... The main difference between Wii/ 3DS support is this. The 3DS is the follow up to the best selling system ever. The Wii was the follow up to the Gamecube. The games were being made for 3DS as soon as it was shown. Wii... Not so much. The 3DS is a brand new system. The Wii is halfway through, or nearing the end of it's life cycle.

3DS is in a totally different situation to Wii.

And this is why a long while ago I stated that some developers are just being dumb about the Wii. They can't see why the "casual" games have such broad appeal, why their "core" games are not selling the same numbers (believing that Madworld and Bayonetta are basically interchangeable), and can't see that talent makes a game, not specs.

That's also a big problem right now.

There isn't THAT much great talent in the industry right now, unfortunately.

This is a very late April fools

Street Fight Fit........I really, really, really want to see what sort of game that would be! >.<

That is true to an extent, as it's a no brainer that third parties will look at big successes from launch like Wii Sports and whatnot and attempt to piggyback on that, but the Wii also had Zelda at launch. From memory that's sold something like 5million copies (forgive me if I'm a little out), which is nothing to look down upon. So if third parties were looking to piggyback on early successful games, why didn't they piggyback on Zelda as well as the rest?

This isn't exactly Nintendo's direction though, they've been consistently supplying Wii with successful core games as well (Twilight Princess, Mario Galaxy, Smash Brawl, NSMB, etc).  And for some reason, 3rd parties never followed that; I mean, if 3rd parties actually wanted to follow recent trends, Sonic 4, Rayman Origins and MegaMan Universe should really all be Wii exclusive retail games.  

Also, there were many indications for a strong "core" market early on with Wii (COD3 Wii outselling the PS3 rev, RE4's huge success, DQSwords outselling every previous console DQ spinoff, Red Steel's launch period success, etc)... the problem there is that we've had four years of inconsistent support from the industry at large, and rather than build and nurture this market segment on Wii, they've largely done everything in their power to consolidate it on about every other platform in turn (DS, PSP, 360/PS3/PC).  3DS gives them a nice stepping stone away from Wii now too, but really at this point, it's too late for Wii anyway imo.  Better luck with Wii 2 3rd parties, don't fuck it up this time.

True. Zelda did extremely well, it sold 5.6 Million units on Wii. I honestly can't think of a reason for why they didn't capitalize on it.

Although... It could fall back on the reason of "easy profit" from the party games and whatever. I think it was Red Steel that was another early success on Wii selling 1.5 Million. Not too sure though. THAT game spawned a fair few FP games didn't it?

There were the On-Rails shooters stuff aswell. This could probably be put alongside Zelda too, with Links Crossbow Training havin sold 4.6 Million. It adds more probability to the simple easy profit thing... As an On-Rails Shooter is far, far easier to make than a fully fledged hit adventure game akin to LoZ.

Honestly. I wouldn't call Mario a core game anymore. Sure, it can appeal to core gamers... But it's also a franchise that attracts huge amounts of casual gamers after this generation. He's one of the few characters who appeals to both casual and core. Mainly to the casual now though I feel, as we'e seen from MKDS/MK Wii's success when compared to past installments.

TP and Brawl though. I feel like I've just explained Zelda. Brawl... There really is no reason for not capitalizing on the fighter audience on Wii. Pure dumb decisions from 3rd parties there.

The only one of Sonic, Rayman or MegaMan I could see being exclusive would be Rayman, because of the Rabids spinoff doing so well on Wii. Sure, the best selling Sonic is also on Wii, but the 2D games have also done pretty well on PS3/360. The Sonic franchise has sold over 4.5 Million units at retail on PS3/360. So I would say Sonic shouldn't be Wii exclusive for that reason alone, we don't have numbers for the LIVE/PSN games... But they clearly did well as they continued to be released. Megaman I'm not too sure on. But Rayman would be a certainty IMO.

The problem with the early games, as I said before... Was the effort/profit margins. Why would you put a lot of effort into making a Resident Evil/ Red Steel or whatever when you can simply make a Carnival Games that was guaranteed to make a quick and easy profit? Sure... There was a slight base there to use. But there was a far bigger base to use on the expanded market. Where as if you look at PS3/360, it was totally opposite. There was a small base to work off the casual market, and a large base to work off the core market.

CoD3's success also wasn't capitalised on due to the game engine not being ready for 4 to be made... Wasn't it? I can't remember.

Well, I think it depends on which Mario we're talking about.  I agree something like NSMB or Kart is more inclusive, with much more crossover.  But something like Galaxy, or Paper, I think still strikes chiefly into the core market.  And that's the thing, Nintendo's "core" Wii games still do pretty damn well, and that's mainly because they've built themselves an audience and trust in their brand over the past four years.

The only direct follow ups I can think of to TP and Brawl would be Okami and TMNT.  Okami was a port of a game that underperformed on PS2, was plagued with porting issues, was outsourced to a whopping team of four who had about 7 months to do it, was given zero promotional budget, and it still beat it's modest expectations.  TMNT kinda bombed, but it's quality was questionable, as was the relevance of it's license.

I actually think a (timed) exclusive retail Wii Sonic 4 would be a gigantic hit, probably a 5m seller.  And at $49 too, Sega's really missing a HUGE opportunity with Sonic 4 imo, by relegating it to a piecemeal download.  They're basically devaluing their own game, and handicapping it's potential userbase off the bat.  MegaMan and Rayman I think it's less an issue (as both series lurch more core), but I still think those games would do better via retail than downloads (either as Wii exclusives or multiplatform).  I'm a little amazed that Nintendo alone seems to be the one recognizing the value of classic 2D platformers being sold at retail (and they're now filly exploiting it too).  Even LBP gives a good indication for the genre potential at retail, it boggles my mind that companies like Sega, Capcom and Ubisoft are so slow on the uptake.

I agree with you on ROI being a major driving force for the 3rd party crapware deluge on Wii, and the rareness of actual AAA development, but again that's core to the 3rd party problem on Wii; they never gave it the sort of diversified efforts that would be expected of the fastest selling console in history, instead half that focus went to handhelds in Japan and HD in the west.  If the industry had treated Wii like they treated the Famicom, PlayStation, or even DS, the Wii would probably have grown the most viable marketplace for 3rd party games yet seen.  The userbase was there, but the content wasn't, and now it's basically too late... really, just a gigantically missed opportunity all around.  Which I think is also why you see about everyone converging on 3DS, they see the potential there, and no one wants to get left behind this time (like they were on Wii and to a lesser extent on DS).