1.  That completely failed to address my argument.  I mean, completely.  Absolutely no part of it was relevant to what I said. 

2.  That is totally off point.  You talked about hardware; I had talked about software. 

3.  OK, in that case, why would you say that?  It makes no sense.  The OP talked about a game Ubisoft made for the Wii.  How could you possibly think pointing out that Ubisoft makes games for the Wii is anything but asinine?  That is why I misinterpreted you.  Therefore I thought you were claiming they put forth similar efforts in developing for the Wii vs. PS3 or 360. 

4.  I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes "bastardization" of a franchise.  I also think I am not the one whose idea is wrong.  In fact, I challenge you to find one single person other than yourself who is willing to come in this thread and say:  "I think Mario Galaxy is a bastardization of 3D Mario, just like Soul Calibur Legends is a bastardization of Soul Calibur."  You are also wrong about Galaxy being just as much of a departure from 3D Mario as SCL was from SC.  Hint:  motion controls aren't the biggest thing that changed in SCL. 

5.  You seem to think that the fact that the Wii Remote has a lot of motion controls means that every single game on the Wii must be and is a radical departure from the way games control and play up through last generation and continuing on the 360 and PS3.  This explains your general attitude, as well as the way you lump SMG in with SCL; however, it is incredibly ignorant.  Not every Wii game relies on the pointer and "waggle".  The Classic Controller does, in fact, exist, and Brawl isn't the only one that it's a better option than the Wii Remote to play the game on. 

Even if I assume the CC doesn't exist, the PSP, with its traditional controls, actually has one analog stick, JUST LIKE THE WII, only not as good; two shoulder buttons, 4 face buttons, and a D-pad.  The Wii has 2 nunchuk buttons, 2 easily accessible buttons (A/B), 2 less-easily-accessible ones (+/-), and a D-pad.  (Not counting the 1/2 buttons, as I'm imagining a grip that pretty much makes them inaccessible.)  ONOZE there might be one or two whole moves that use a motion control instead of a face button.  What tragedy, obviously this explains why the PSP is better suited for a "real" SC game.  Is this honestly your position? 

6.  In that you said, basically, "because the Wii is the weird experimental console", I suppose you did. 

7.  "Couldn't it have gotten what the PSP did instead, or as well?"
You didn't quite answer this one; I suppose it's because the answer is "yes" and that doesn't fit your narrative. 

You wanted a reply from me, so you'll get it.

1) Game prices for the HD consoles were raised to $60 to make up for the increasing development costs of games. AAA games on the 360 and PS3 on average cost two to four times more to make than AAA games last generation. Since the Wii is closer to last gen hardware than those of the 360 and PS3 it's obviously cheaper to develop for. Let's say a AAA game sells one million copies, on the Wii it goes for $50 a piece, on an HD console for $60. One million times $10 equals $10 million, that's the difference in revenue between the Wii and the HD game. But we know that AAA quality can be built on the Wii for $10 million while on the HD consoles the same kind of quality takes $20 million on an HD console. Take Naughty Dog for example, they made AAA games last gen and this gen, but the games they developed on the PS2 did cost more in the ball park of $10 million each, rather than the $20 million it takes nowadays to make an Uncharted game.

To bring this to an end, the HD game in this example brings in $10 million more in revenue, but the Wii game had savings of $10 million in its development process. Of course, if a game sells multiple millions of copies, then the increased retail price of $60 really starts to pay off. However, if the game fails to cross the million mark, then the game won't be able to break even, much less profit. Since it's more common for AAA games to sell around one million copies (there's really not many games that cross two or even three million), the Wii would be the better option for everything that is not a guaranteed blockbuster.

2) Here you are kinda setting up a strawman argument, because not all HD games are like Assassin's Creed 2. Yes, there are certainly some HD games that could only come to the Wii in butchered form where the result doesn't resemble the source material anymore (Dead Rising is another example of this). But there are many multiplatform games on the HD consoles that could be made for the Wii without significant sacrifices, like the already much talked about Soul Calibur IV or racing games in general (remember what kind of racing games the PS2 was able to run).

Bringing up the history of what does and what does not sell on the Wii is a quite dishonest argument. In the cases of some genres the Wii never even got a single fair chance to prove itself. For example, you could say that racing simulations won't sell on the Wii, because there's no history of one selling on that console. But how could there be, if no such game was ever made? In the case of Ubisoft, Red Steel was a Wii launch game. By March 2007 it had crossed the one million mark which basically proves that there was definitely a market for FPS on the Wii and Red Steel wasn't even a particularly good game. You also have Capcom's Resident Evil 4 port that also crossed the million mark within a few months. Now this begs the question why were these games never really followed up with anything by third parties on the whole? Aside from Activision putting out some FPS, there wasn't much to speak of. When it comes to TPS to capitalize on RE4, Capcom themselves declined to make RE5 (keep in mind that the 3DS can handle RE5-like scenarios, so it's not like it was impossible to build a competent RE5 for the Wii). EA could have reaped the benefits from Capcom foregoing to make RE5, but instead they decided to make their Dead Space into something else.

The bottom line of this point is that Wii owners did everything they could to show third parties that there is a viable market for any popular genre, but third parties decided to not make such games even if there were examples of such games succeeding.

3) This is tied to the first point you were making and is just another result of the higher development costs that come with the HD consoles. Since it's cheaper to develop AAA games on the Wii, do third parties absolutely need the ability to sell DLC like on the HD consoles in order to generate a healthy profit? Probably not, because we know that third party publishers didn't really need DLC during the sixth generation either.

4) Now this point is certainly true, but it's worth pointing out that Microsoft and Sony don't just give benefits to any third parties. In the majority of cases the decision to support third parties comes after the fact. What I mean by this is that third parties first need to have a compelling product before Microsoft and Sony start to shell out money for exclusive DLC or promotions. Considering what third parties build on Nintendo platforms, it shouldn't be shocking that Nintendo isn't throwing money after their games and promoting them. Or can you think of many Wii third party games that would have made Microsoft and Sony spend money on exclusivity?

The basic thought process behind supporting third party products is this: Does this game help us to sell more consoles in any way, shape or form? If the answer is no, then Sony and Microsoft can't be bothered to spend money either. Nintendo gets behind a select few third party games, like Dragon Quest, Professor Layton (DS) and Monster Hunter. Obviously because they believe that it helps them to sell more hardware.

5) Nintendo also decided what the DS would be, how they would market it and they didn't change their stance at any time. Yet the resulting third party support was very different when compared to what the Wii got. This is a really important piece of the puzzle. We have two Nintendo systems running in parallel in terms of philosophy, marketing and processing power compared to their respective competition, but their libraries are like night and day. The DS offers huge variety and a lot of quality software. The Wii is filled with shovelware and even the playable third party games aren't particularly good for the most part. There's barely anything you can put up against a Nintendo made game and say that they are of equal quality.

didn't say that but nintendo didn't provide them with the adequate tools to make their games as they wanted so what were they supposed to do? make simpler games to run on wii and make the more complex games for the consoles that can run them that way you get games on all the platforms.... regardless of whether people want to accept it or not games like skyrim or arhkam city or battlefield 3 etc would not run on the wii from the standpoint of power and also because the control itself is lacking for certain types of games therefore different games are made to run on the wii 

Why would that be funny?? A lot of people expect it to flop on those consoles especially on PS3. Look at it this way, Just Dance is like COD but in reverse, it just shows that what is valued on Wii is different on HDs 

There some games on HDs that simply cant be done on Wii due to limitations, at least not properly. Hell look at Dead Rising for a perfect example. Not saying it was total garbage, but was not close to the original one on 360. Im not saying all of them, but if your making games from the ground up on HDs, most of the time the Wii version will suffer. GTA4 & Just Cause 2 would not be able to be on Wii