How exactly is it prominent? Go look at the highest-rated games of the generation on Metacritic. Uncharted 2, The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, GTA4... do any of them use motion controls? When was the last time that an AAA game was released and motion controls were a big part of it? And of course the Wii is still prominent in many houses, it sold nearly 100 million, but what does that prove?

I really want you to explain how it's still prominent.

Every game doesn't have to be groundbreaking or completely replace traditional controls with motion controls for them to be significant. Galaxy wouldn't be unplayable without motion controls, but they are seamlessly woven into the experience. Collecting star bits, flinging them at enemies, and the waggle-attack are natural parts of the game. Nintendo uses this approach with most of their modern games, incorporating motion controls into nearly all of them to some degree.

Isn't it the same way the analog stick developed? The first controller to feature the analog stick was the N64 trident. On that controller, the stick and the d-pad were on seperate handles; their use was mutually exclusive. You could not use both at the same time, and rarely used both in the same game. The analog stick was intended to replace the d-pad. But that's not what happened. Developers learned to think of the analog stick and d-pad not as alternatives, but as compliments. Now the d-pad is still used as the main form of control in many 2D games, and is given a different (but vital) function in many 3D games. You even see touchscreen games often trying to incorporate a virtual d-pad.

The analog stick did not replace the d-pad, and motion controls need not replace button input to achieve the same revolutionary effect.

You're still deluding yourself.  WiiU gamepad has built in motion sensors and it still uses Wiimotes.  Every Xbox One has Kinect 2.0 and every single PS4 controller has a glowing light for - yes - motion controls.  Every smartphone, tablet and hybrid laptop has motion sensors and everyone of those devices uses motion in it's games (not every single game...).  It may be more tilt now rather than swinging motions (except wiimotes/Kinect/Move) but motion controls are now as much a part of gaming as rumble feedback and analog sticks.  In fact moseso because most people game with smartphones/tablets now which only has motion/touch.

The 'core' console gamer has been resistant to using motion.  And since Sony is targeting that market exactly - is why they ignored it for E3 (but still supporting Move into PS4).  MS is obviously very much interested in the mass market, enough to make Kinect non-optional.  Nintendo?  I honestly don't know what the f--- they were thinking with the gamepad.   It was a regressive move that lost them the very audience they gained with Wii.   They should have taken motion controls FURTHER- integrating a small touch screen on a modified wiimote (with an analog stick this time) and refined the experience.   Going back to dual analog was the stupidest thing they could have possibly done (aside from pricing it at $599).

What does that prove? Are you kidding me?

It obviously proves that something different caught on and did well. It proves that it seriously did create a revolution in the gaming industry.

@Bold; Did you not read the sentence where I said Nintendo still had the WiiMote at E3?

It did not replace it in the sense that d-pads still existe, but in terms of controlling the character's movements, the analog stick did replace the d-pad. Every single game use tem. 3D games would be a pain to control with d-pads. And I don't even see motion controls being used as a compliment in a lot of games.

All you're telling me is "Nintendo is still using the Wiimote" (which I admitted I made a mistake in this regard) and "a lot of people still own a Wii". Okay... so what? The Wiimote is their technology, so it was on E3. Nothing more natural. And a lot of people own the Wii because it appealed to the non-gamers. The casual market.  My point is, I don't see motion controls being used in most games, just on a few ones, to mixed results.

Why is critical reception relevant, but the quantity of games which utilize motion controls is not? Why aren't sales relevant, for that matter? Shall we look at the highest-selling games of the generation? No, of course not.

Furthermore, if critical reception is so relevant, why focus on Metacritic and not GameRankings? I suppose that we be because the two highest-rated games of the generation on GameRankings did, in fact, use motion controls. 9 out of the 11 Wii games that scored 90% or higher on GameRankings used motion controls -- some of them as an intrinsic part of gameplay.

Sure, PS3 and 360 don't have many highly-rated motion-controlled games. That's because Kinect is bad and nobody bought Move, so nobody invested in developing real games for it.

^This IMO, was the real revolution.

The reason why you don't really see many Motion-Controlled games getting good reviews is because they are usually made to be horrible games. They are just cheap games to get some cash. The only studios that get their Motion Controls right (be it Nintendo or MS) are usually the first-party. Which makes perfect sense, really.

And I don't see how that doesn't prove my point, but fine.

Really? Because Nintendo, the biggest software publisher in the world, uses them in almost all of their modern games. Many third parties adopt them in their Wii U ports. And true or not, surely you have heard the phrase "better with Kinect."