"The first topic I want to address is the concern that the Wii did not have as much core content as the Cube or the N64. Is this a valid concern, and what are the arguments for or against this?
What kind of content would a person saying that be asking for, and how does that compare with the cube or N64?"
I would say that I agree and disagree. At the time, the Gamecube/N64 were arguably the most powerful consoles of their day. There were definitely software droughts for both consoles and, despite being quite powerful, they both often got the short end of the stick when it came to multi-plats. Still, for my dollar, there are more timeless classics that I would play today when compared to their competition at the time.
Now, the Wii was a different beast altogether. It wasn't trying to be state of the art as far as horsepower was concerned. It had the ability to play traditional games but, for the most part, it was hardware designed for a different experience. It was designed to take advantage of the developer's creativity. Unfortunately, many developer's idea of "creative" was taking a move designed for a button and assigning it to a "waggle" and calling it a day. That wouldn't work (most of the time).
I'll make this short. The Wii didn't get much third party support because developers just didn't know how or often didn't try to take advantage of the Wii's strengths. There were some big budget attempts but their failure only strengthened animosity towards the Wii. Still, when the Wii was utilized properly, it had what some would consider the best game in every genre save the TPS/FPS (though Metroid Prime held that place in my heart for a loooong time. Wii will have just as many timeless games as the competition.
In my opinion.