What core games have sold well on the Wii when you also take into account the amount of Wii's sold? 
If core gamers cared about the wii, more core games would have sold. Just please, stop replying, you're just rambling now. 

And I have never mess with your opinion (I don't care what you think of the Wii). It seems that we have come to an agreement. Move on.

I'm just going to jump to the biggest two points:
If you are serious about gaming, as in want to win, you will use the most precise controls available. That means ignoring motion controls.
There are up to 4.5 million concurrent Steam users (not steam users in general) and over 10 million WoW players. If motion controls were beneficial to gaming, they would have started to appear on PCs. The ones that have been released have not been a success, ergo motion controls are a fad, otherwise how else can you justify their failure on pcs?
And how do you expect to use a mouse when you are sat on a sofa? It's disturbing so many people have made that mistake. 

Welp, seems we have VERY different views of quality games..

First off, I said "many games" follow this formula, not all. Online multi is where the modern HD games get it right, along with open world games like GTA4 and Skyrim. Which is why I play games like Gears and MW, and the reason most others do as well. I guarantee you they don't buy them for the underwhelming and overly easy single player campaigns.

To each his own I guess. If 2D platforming isn't your thing, that's fine, but don't go claiming these games are "broken" or "outdated," or whatever excuse you have to degrade them just because YOU don't like them. There is a reason NSMB Wii has sold 25 million copies, and no, it's not because it's "casual," Whatever that means, and it's not because people are stuck in the past. I'm still baffled anyone could call classic Mario a casual game. 2D Mario is probably about as pure and "core" a game as they come.. Haha, "poor game design." That's rich. The game is arguably the best of this generation..

I'm not stuck in the past, and neither are the 25 million others who have bought the game. We simply have standards, standards that NSMB Wii reaches that most other games that seem to favor horsepower over gameplay simply don't touch. Quality gameplay and fun does not age. Gaming hasn't advanced from my view. If anything, it has regressed. Simply better graphics and more enemies on screen doesn't automatically make it better.

If Mario Kart is broken, that's pretty sad state of affairs for the industry that a "broken" game has outsold most games by about 30 to 1. Mario Kart Wii is quite possibly the most fun I've had this gen, so it's doing something right.

Yet another person caught up in the industry and gaming media created buzzwords of "hardcore" and "casual" that mean absolutely nothing except a poor attempt from the industry to put gamers into demographics.

If core games don't sell well on the wii, how can you argue it's a console made for core gamers? Obviously core gamers don't agree with you, otherwise core games would have sold well on the wii...and they haven't...

I can't even believe the question of Wii being a "fad" is still being raised. It's an insanely stupid argument if you really think about it..

You either have to believe one of two things;
- either ALL consoles are fads, since they sell and peak for a relatively short time then fade out, or..
- NO consoles are fads, because they all adhere to a predictable cycle of sales.

What makes the Wii any different from other consoles? Because it vastly outsold its competitors and may have peaked earlier then them? Give me a break..

Sometimes you walk into a room with a one eyed 500 pound fat guy and he's sticking out his chest and talking about how in shape he is and how sexy he is and how muscular he is and he'll actually believe it but everyone else in the room scratches their head and simply sees a one eyed fat guy.

You can choose to jump to any points you like; your responses are easily refutable.

1.  You are just as wrong now as you were before.  People preferring a far more intuitve control method for, say, swinging a golf club, hardly means that they're not "serious" about the game.  Again you confuse inaccurate with intuitive.

2. Your response here remains incorrect as well.  Again, the fact that motion controls have made nary an impact on PC gaming is irrelevant, as PCs are not a metric for gaming trends.  On the contrary, home game systems, which are the metric for gaming trends, have adapted to motion controls... all three of them, in fact.  Indeed, I don't expect people to use a mouse on their sofa, as it's not a standard for home console gamers, which is my point entirely.

If those were enticing core games then they would have sold well and they haven't. You couldn't come up with a more asinine argument if you tried. 

1. You ignored my point. If you want to win, you will use the most precise controls available. Intuitive doesn't mean the best. Core gamers will want the best controls available, not the most intuitive. Casual gamers want intuitive because it's easy to use. 

2. With what logic are you writing off the entire PC gaming community? You are simply saying "they don't count because I say so". Give a good reason as to why PC gamers should be seen as a seperate crowd from other gamers. The reason people don't use mice with a console is because it's impractical. What was your point by bringing that up??

In some ways it was a fad, in others it wasn't.

Nintendo decided to primarily go for casual gamers with the Wii, and hey, at the time it came out, that worked very well! The Wii had by far the cheapest initial price tag, it is very small, silent and has the best design, something that fits nicely into modern feng-shui-inspired, TV-commercial-like empty living rooms.

But the real selling point were of course motion controls. That seemed like some excellent and innovative new idea that got people fantasizing about all the great new possibilities. Motion control heaven seemed unlimited, and many people probably even believed that traditional controls would soon vanish completely.

But sooner or later, the novelty wore off. It became more and more clear that the Wii is not the eternal holy grail of gaming. We realized that the original Wiimote is not perfect. It wasn't precise enough for some uses of motion controls. It has much fewer usable buttons/sticks than a traditional controller, which is problematic for traditional controlled games on the Wii.
The competitors weren't sleeping as well. Their consoles got way cheaper and they came out with their own motion control systems, which were even better than that of the Wii in at least some respect.

But what's even worse, we realized that the really great uses of motion controls are rather limited. Motion controls allowed for a few exciting and innovative new game concepts (like dancing and fitness), it can improve the experience of certain existing game concepts (like sports games), but for most other games it often only seemed as an annoying forced upon feature.

And of course with about 100 million units sold, at some point even the casual market got saturated. Then there's the problem of piracy: The Wii was hacked very quickly, it's very easy, doesn't cost anything, and even offers some great new features that the original unmodified Wii is missing. Unlike the PS3 and the 360, Wii piracy comes with hardly any problems. That really affects software sales.

So while the Wii's advantages constantly became less, it's disadvantages became more apparent: With more and more people having flat screen HD TVs, the Wii's blurry graphics look more and more scary, even when using a component cable. Online gaming is virtually non-existant and in general, unlike PS3/360 the Wii doesn't use the possibilites of being connected to the internet at all. Because of hardware limitations like extremely limited RAM, many big titles were never ported to the Wii.

The Wii lost much of it's original charme, the other consoles gained. It's simply time for a successor that fixes some of the Wii's problems.