That sounds like the common-sense definition of a what-if scenario. It's just a hypothetical alternative. The fact that Pokémon played a large role in maintaining Nintendo's profitability doesn't mean you can ignore it and call them a failure without it. It wasn't an act of God, it was a product they marketed and sold. You don't say Sony "might have lost gen 6" if the PS2 didn't double as a DVD player.

You wouldn't say the American Revolution was a failure because the colonists might have lost if they hadn't been supported by France. You wouldn't say Apollo 13 was a failure because the astronauts could have died.

Why not call the NES a failure since its success was so reliant on Super Mario Bros?

IMO, the GC was only great for bringing the Pikmin & Animal Crossing franchises. They had the worst of nearly every other Nintendo franchise. The N64 games were much better!

Mario Kart 64 > Double Dash
Mario 64 > Sunshine
Mario Party 1,2,3 > 4,5,6,7
DK64 > DKJB
Star Fox 64 > Adventure & Assault
Kirby 64 > Air-ride
Pokemon Stadiums > Colosseum & Darkness
Paper Mario 64 > TTYD

The Wii versions of these are better than the GC versions but still not as good as the N64 days...

I've read many things on how the GBA saved them in that Generation.

Just as I read they made a small profit off the GCN^^

The N64 was definitely saved by first party games. That machine failed because of the media format and the "3D or die" design among other things.

With the Gamecube on the other hand it's not completely lunatic to blame first party offerings imo. The console still survived largely because of first party games but they weren't enough to put sales at N64 level or higher despite much improved third party support. GC just didn't get a system seller like Super Mario 64 and that's were you could say that Nintendo failed.

I agree, but also eternal darkness was brought to the world via the gamecube :p Anyway, I think the gbc was nintendo's weakest console to date, and the sales reflect my oppinion. 

As first party software was about all that was present on those platforms I don't see how you could derive a different outcome. Their output simply wasn't enough in quality or quantity for their system to compete. The Wii didn't have much 3rd party support and yet it beat all of their previous home consoles(just about all of them in total) so I don't think "they didn't have 3rd party support" is really an issue. When they were successful on the NES they actively hindered 3rd party support by only allowing 5 games a year.

I enjoyed many games on the N64 and Gamecube myself. My enjoyment of those games doesn't blind me to the truth.

Who believes that? It's the opposite. Nintendo survived the N64 and Gamecube years thanks to their 1st party games because 3rd parties were leaving. I guess one could argue that nobody wanted to compete directly with Nintendo's games so they didn't and in that way I suppose one could argue that Nintendo's 1st party games made 3rd Party's leave and therefor it is Nintendo's game's fault.

Its not ironic at all, there is a difference between loosing 3rd party exclusivity and straight up loosing 3rd party games period(looking at you N64) even with that train of thought. Its not like most of thost games that went multiplat even went to Ninty consoles

One, its not a console, its a portable and two GBC was not on the market long at all.