Eh... NSMBWii is actually a harder game to 100% than most 2D Marios.  The only 2D Marios that I'd say are harder are SMB1, SMB2/Lost Levels and Yoshi's Island, meanwhile SMB2/USA, SMB3, Mario World and (especially) NSMB DS are all easier overall.

I'd also say Twilight Princess was whole lot more complex and even difficult than the pushover we got with Wind Waker (and it's "win button" combat).  TP is probably more difficult (and certainly longer) than OOT too... I agree with games like Mario Kart or Smash Bros being tuned for greater accessibility on Wii (though Mario Kart also added a whole lot more complexity and rebalancing for enthusiasts with the bikes, it really is the best overall game in the series imo, blue shell hell notwithstanding), but Zelda?  If anything it's gotten more "hardcore" this gen.  Ditto for Metroid.  Ditto for Fire Emblem (which was literally "dumbed down" on GBA).

You're seriously comparing the graphics differential between the PS2 and original Xbox to that between the Wii and the HD twins? Seriously? Come on. Online wasn't a prerequisite for the core gamer last generation like it is now.

And it doesn't matter if Wiimote nunchuk is "honestly capable of handling most genres fine". Core gamers don't like it. That is what we're talking about, isn't it? The reason why the Wii has failed to win over the core?

No, I'm comparing Wii to PS2.  Graphics certainly help, but "core gamers" are bit more diversified than the "graphics whores" subset.  Otherwise DS wouldn't have destroyed PSP.

And online is still a comparative niche for gaming, even though it's grown tremendously in the past 3 generations.  It's going to become even more central next gen, but as of now the installed online base is likely still a small fraction of the overall base for dedicated game machines.

You'll have to qualify "core gamers don't like it".  I mean Nintendo's top "core games" still outsell almost everyone else's regardless of platform.  The reason Wii never held on to the core market (and there was plenty of adoption early on), is because development for core content never shifted over to it, for various reasons.  The controller really has little to do with that too, the problems reach more into industry expectations and resource priorities/allocations from before the Wii was even on shelves.  The market shifted faster than the industry at large adapted, and now the industry's playing catch up.

Here's a quote that was just put up on GoNintendo. It pretty much goes with what's been said in this thread, and the attitudes of 3rd party developers towards Wii.

“We’ve always hoped Nintendo would get new audiences into gaming with the Wii, and they’ve successfully done that. We also always hoped those people would later buy a next gen gaming machine that does stuff the Wii doesn’t do as well as the others and we can certainly expect that the combination of reducing the entry barrier of the price and making the PS3 and 360 more accessible via Move or Kinect, we will certainly get people who now enjoy playing video games and want to play online or enjoy games in a much high resolution. We do expect quite a few people to do this.” - EA’s European senior VP Jens Uwe Intat

Activision gets a lot scorn, but Wii fans have another 3rd party megapublisher to focus their dissatisfaction with.

EA has unquestionably been worse to the Wii base than Activision has.  Just compare/contrast the handling of each with Guitar Hero to Rock Band, COD to Dead Space, Goldeneye to NBA Jam, etc.  For all the shit they get in general (and deservedly so in most cases imo), Activision has at least been pretty decent on DS/Wii, which is more than can be said for EA.  I expect it'll be the same story on 3DS/Wii 2.

Graphics help to sway core gamers, and they help more the bigger the graphics differential is. The difference between PS2 and Xbox wasn't that great, certainly not big enough to matter to most people. The difference between Wii and the HD twins is huge in comparison.

And I'm pretty sure the working definition of "core gamer" to be used in this thread was defined in the very first post.

Again, DS versus PSP pretty much blows a hole in your theory that online, graphics and traditional interface are what matter most to core gamers.  The simple truth is what actually matters to core gamers is content.  Content is why DS succeeded with the core market over PSP, and content is also why Wii has faltered with the core market versus the combined HD platforms, despite both having basically the same exact hardware differentiations to the competition (inferior graphics, inferior online/storage, new interfaces).

We can argue exactly, why that content never came to Wii, but hardware is just a means to an end, and what really sells game systems always has been (and always will be) the games themselves.  If Wii had gotten the sort of core game support PS2 had, it'd have grown the same sort of core game marketplace PS2 did.  It really is that simple.  Really.

OMG THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the wii in comparison to the HD twins is very very inferior a product, the ps2 was only slightly inferior to the xbox. and you can't compare the 2 because the ps2 was last gen and that there is why it gets no support, it's NOT 3rd party developers fault the wii is nothing more than a re-skinned gamecube with motion controls. and no one in the "up market" will EVER choose a wii version of any mutiplat game, because the wii version will be inferior by default and that's just a fact. The only other option by 3rd parties is to make games exclusively for the wii and completely ignore the HD twins to which I respond THIS IS NEXT GEN, which is now current gen, and no developer is going to waste time making games on the last gen hardware by comparison, no matter how much it sells.

the sooner wii fans can accept this, the better off you will all be. Because if the wii could provide an experience to HD consoles, akin to what the ps2 could do compared to it's competitors the 3rd party support you guys want, would be there.

Oh absolutely. Activision has (primarily) been one of Wii's most supportive 3rd parties, along with Sega, and (maybe) Ubisoft. Actually, let's take a look on how these 3rd party is doing on the little white box that could.

Activision:
1. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock (4.42 Million)
2. Guitar Hero: World Tour (3.45 Million)
3. Call of Duty: World at War (1.55 Million)
4. Call of Duty 3 (1.46 Million)
5. Cabela's Big Game Hunter 2010 (1.19 Million)

8 Total Million Sellers on Wii

Sega:
1. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games (7.64 Million)
2. Mario and Sonic at the WInter Olympic Games (3.47 Million)
3. Sonic and the Secret Rings (2.28 Million)
4. Sonic Unleashed (1.51 Million)
5. Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz (1.47 Million)

7 total million sellers on Wii

Ubisoft:
1. Just Dance (4.04 Million)
2. My Fitness Coach (2.09 Million)
3. Rayman Raving Rabbids: T.V. Party (1.79 Million)
4. Rayman Raving Rabbids (1.70 Million)
5. Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 (1.70 Million)

10 total million sellers on Wii

Now let's look at EA:
1. MySims (1.53 Million)
2. Monopoly (1.40 Million)
3. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 (1.38 Million)
4. Smarty Pants (1.31 Million)
5. MySims Kingdom (1.21 Million)

7 total million sellers on Wii

Lol. If Wii had gotten the sort of core game support PS2 had it'd have grown the same sort of core game marketplace. If I were a woman with big tits my tits would be huge. WTF kind of circuitous logic is this. We're talking about the REASON the Wii didn't get the sort of core game support the PS2 did. The reason is that the Wii is, on a basic hardware level, alienating to core gamers. It's like what would happen if Hyundai tried to sell itself to people who are used to driving BMWs and Benzes.

And I'm not sure the situation with handhelds is in any way applicable or relevant to the situation with home consoles. And I'm also not really sure the DS is actually doing all that much better than the PSP when it comes to "core gamers".