Primarily, complex controls scare off people, especially todays games which have a thirteen to sixteen button learning curve. Nintendo provided me with the building blocks as a child and I played games with my mother and father and cousins. It's always been Nintendo...my family shies away from my Playstation and they've already asked me if Kinect is in the cards for my Xbox. I played Nintendo until I moved on to new experiences, new characters with in depth stories and reason to immerse myself in them. Nintendo failed to give me this unless we're talking Samus. 

No. I don't think that is the real reason people like motion controls. They liked it because it wa new and fresh. They also actually did a great job making people see that games can be fun because a lot of people like to wiggle their body whether it be through dancing or goofing around bowling in wii sports
 which is great. Most "casuals" do not fear the complex controllers. If they did, the ps2 would not have sold nearly as well as it did. I'm not saying the ps2 was casual, but with 150 million users, it clearly was the home to every fanbase and boy did the casuals flock to it too alongside the hardcore. Now look at the controller? The ps3's controller is literally the exact same thing.(with tacked on sixaxis). No I don't believe buttons scared them, I believe motion controllers captured their imagination.

^I have to agree with homer. Multiple buttons don't scare young gamers, kids are so intelligent they can pick anything up, honestly. Women and the elderly, that's a different story. But as Homer said with 150M PS2's sold you're bound to have a massive number of kids playing that. So, was it too complicated for them. I'd bet you millions that it was not.

So why did motion controls work in all their simplicity? Because they're just awesome, always have been. Arcades are funner with motion controls, tablets are more awesome for most applications because they're organic, they match our human natural way to do things. So, motion controls worked because they're awesome, and if not yet awesome, the potential surely is. Maybe people bought the Wii believing it would do everything they dreamed of. Maybe some regret their purchases. But motion controls as a technology, with the future in sight, is definitely here to stay.

I played most that Nintendo offered as a child. Third party titles gave me the real challenges outside of Zelda and Metroid, but Nintendo was pure fun and I'll never forget those moments of joy as a child playing Nintendo. Obviously I don't hold the same position today. Im sure thats understandable. Sorry if I misinterpreted, As per the core miscommunication, the core mostly don't like motion controls because it has not been mastered (outside of first party) and is the reason for cheap games being made across the board. The sea of these games made for Nintendo were flops. Core gamers have graduated knowledge of gaming and require intuitive, deep complex control. That motion controls just aren't ready for yet. Some are just ignorant to the phenomenon that is motion gaming. In terms of cost vs reward the core didn't miss out on much with the Kinect vs Move vs Wii-mote.  I played Dance Central and thats the extent of my joy with Kinect. I played the Wii and I would rather play its top games with the retro controller. Great games but a handful compared to the HD consoles.

I can't disagree with this. I was hoping more people would be like you and acknowledge the handful you mention, especially Metroid Prime, which really was very well suited with the wiimote. I was just kind of taken aback by the backlash of most traditional gamers when it came to the Wiimote especially when it came to the potential it showed for FPS. I was hoping gamers and businesses would consider a better suited input scheme more important than high def graphics, but for some reason it seems that whatever the direction Nintendo decides to take, gamers are not there.

For example, with the Playstation, Nintendo had the better graphics. Gamers chose the playstation. Sure, it had different added values than graphics, and that's understandable. It just baffles me when the same situation occurs for Nintendo, and Playstation gets the more powerful graphics, that people suddenly become graphics buffs. I really have trouble understanding it, but ultimately it must go back to Nintendo's image, its failure at trying to shake its stigma, and catering to a demographic that is at the pole opposite of where traditional gamers stand.

When the Wii first released, they announced the virtual console. I was thinking "Yes, now that gamers have all their classic games in one place, now they'll finally appreciate what Nintendo has to offer." But that didn't convince. Games like Red Steel were released, but for some reason those weren't good enough. I don't know what about Red Steel wasn't to trad gamers' liking, but for some reason they rejected it. The cycle continued throughout the Wii's lifetime, it ultimately makes you think, "Maybe these people never will embrace Nintendo's console." And you begin to wonder "What would really get these people interested", and then you think back and say "Oh, it was already tried but nobody wanted it". And then you wonder "Maybe Reggie's kinda right." Then you think back at how miserable his E3 presentation was and you think "But maybe the gamers are right". So in the end, who's right?

I'd like to think Reggie is mostly right. Because though gamers are right to think his presentation sucked, they being more mature and knowledgeable, should know better than to judge on appearances. It ultimately makes you think there's an a-priori, and there's no way to fix it.

Sure, if Reggie does a better job, maybe that'll help. But why didn't Red Steel work? Will ZombiU work? The game looks fantastic. But it's branded WiiU, and people are already dismissing it.

To be completely honest, it's all really sad in the end. People just rejecting the efforts for nothing other than image and branding. But in the end, what does even matter. The last question I would ask. If Nintendo does offer everything trad gamers wanted, will they ever bite? I would be ready to argue no, until Nintendo fixes its image. Then, and only then, will people begin to bite imho. But then, would that reverse impact the casual and family market? If PS2 is any indicator, it should not.

In my view, Nintendo really needs to engineer its image, and find a way to cater to both core and casual and having a two-image strategy with product lines and different SKUs suited for each market. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but for some reason I don't see Nintendo doing it. It mostly is their fault, but trad gamers are also to blame because they aren't able to go past appearances (in my experience), and that's a shame.

hey hey Dolphin, speak for yourself! im the most traditional gamer in the world but i can accept something new if its fun enough (Wii Resort for example)
and the wiimote just rapes every other control input for games like Tennis, bowling, golf, FPS, TPS, On-rails shooters, in the end the Wiimote, CCpro combo is the best option, but i guess people just didnt like the Wii becaues it didnt offer a significant leap on grafix ;)
if people buy games based on the image of the hw maker.... its just very sad...

S.T.A.G.E., on the topic of image, here is what I believe Nintendo should be doing more of:

They do it in Japan^. Well, why not in the west?:

They have a serious image problem, but it seems they are doing very little to fix that. Where are the Wii SKUs with more adult titles? They were there for the cube!

Nintendo had a winner on their hands with Metroid Prime. Imho, they totally dropped the ball. At first it was just as popular as Halo. Long run, Halo destroyed Metroid Prime. What happened? Where did Nintendo go wrong?

0 Marketing for echoes, and I don't really think it was that much of a block-buster. I never played echoes, but I don't get the feeling it was fully polished at the level of a Halo blockbust.

They are a natural progression if they push gaming forward in an intuitive manner and can control the complex as well as simple tasks. The role of the wii-mote was to give non-gamers a chance to join in on the fun they never seemed to get a chance to be apart of. They had their fun, lets see if they take the next step.

3D eventually will become a standard, just not now. At the rate it's going today it might hurt peoples eyes and cause massive seizures. I believe the next technology needs to move in order for 3D to be achieved for use without being a gimmick would be hologram technology, not glasses.

Nintendo has no image issues they need to fix, their image is fine. The only ones complaining are PS3 and 360 gamers, who contrary to popular belief aren't who they are targeting with the WiiU. They are clearly targeting Nintendo core gamers alongside the expanded audience. Nintendo believes they lost their core to Microsoft and Sony because of the lack third party support. Obviously Nintendo knows they can win them back with another wave of first party games and keep them with the third party support while they pursue the expanded audience. With the help of the major third party companies, Nintendo doesn't have to worry about losing their core to Microsoft and Sony. This is all evident by Nintendo saying all that they have said about pleasing the core first with the 3ds. Pleasing the core to Nintendo is not pleasing hardcore gamers its pleasing Nintendo fans.

Halo sells more cause its based on mp and live, it has a social appeal Prime lacks
Prime is truly a core game , while Halo is the perfect example of a core/casual game