Yes, you're right. Wii Sports sold the Wiimote and sold the Wii. Absolutely correct.

But as someone else said, "then what"? The GamePad is hardly a "bad idea". Because it's not a gimmick. It's a regular controller with extra functionalities. The Wiimote/Nunchuck setup, as much as I enjoyed it for some games, and as much as I resisted/argued the notion that it was a gimmick......let's be honest. Motion controls are not "the future", and I wouldn't want them to be. No Wii game really made a stronger case for motion controls than Wii Sports did. Ever. As I've said in the past, the Wiimote/Nunchuck setup for FPS games (or any kind of aim and shoot game) is fantastic, better to me than mouse and keyboard. And if Wii U ever has a shooter of any kind that I'd actually be interested in playing, I'm very glad that it also used the Wiimote for that.

But as I said, at the end of the day, I'd rather NOT waggle around to control my games, for the most part. I'd rather just use traditional controls. And I happen to like the design of the GamePad a hell of a lot more than the design for the so-called "pro controller" they came up with. That design is worse than the Classic Controller Pro design, which was at least solid. If they had just had a Classic Controller Pro type controller, and that's it, for Wii U, it would be fine, but it would also be kind of average. The GamePad gives the Wii U a regular controller that does everything the Pro does, and then a hell of a lot more. That is added value, and to me worth every extra penny that it makes the system cost. If the Wii U had just a regular, small controller, it would have nothing that really set it apart from the PS4 or Xbone, except for Nintendo franchise games that are finally in HD. If it still used the Wiimote as it's prime controller, it would just be an "HD Wii". I absolutely think with the GamePad they reached a happy medium, and absolutely feel they went in the correct direction.

It's a regular controller, so we're not forced to have tacked on waggle in everything we play, yet it's also got all these added abilities which give it so much more depth and potential. As I said, just having those things available, that by itself is nice, and feels worthwhile. Not every developer HAS to use them, and that, to me, is also great. I don't WANT every game to use the touch pad, I certainly don't WANT every game to make me move the GamePad around like a sensor or camera. But if certain games make some use of that kind of thing, then great. And I think THAT is the point I'm trying to get across about why it's such a great design. With the Wiimote, it was nice in some respects, but it was also lacking in buttons, even WITH the nunchuck attached, and a lot of times the forced motion controls detracted from the game experience, not added to it. Soul Caliber Legends was a great example, of a game that could have possibly been a lot more fun if the fucking controls had just WORKED. And even if the motion controls had been better designed, more responsive, quite frankly swinging your "sword arm" around to attack, or even just constantly flicking your wrist, isn't really good for you, and can get rather tiring and bothersome. Just ask Skyward Sword. That game was great in many respects. But the thing that REALLY held it back, was that they used the motion+ tilting shit for EVERYTHING, things that didn't even need it. That game would have been 100% more fun to play, just using traditional controls. There were several Wii games I bought and later got rid of, specifically because the controls just weren't fun to use, or even got bothersome to use. Even Mario Galaxy would have been 5% better if I didn't have to flick my wrist to make Mario spin all the time. That could easily be done with a button press, and you could easily draw star bits to you some other way than pointing. And the other uses that game made of motion controls could get a bit tedious, just the same as Skyward Sword did for swimming (REALLY?), flying, rail cart tilting, etc.

The GamePad, on the other hand, is unforced potential. A lot of developers felt forced to tack on shitty motion controls because not everyone might own a classic or GC controller, etc., so to "justify" putting a game on Wii, they had to "justify" utilizing the Wiimote. I can't tell you how many times I read some developer say they didn't put a game on Wii because they COULDN'T "justify" the controls. Couldn't figure out how to make it work. With the GamePad, they have a perfectly normal, perfectly functional controller, so there is no immediate control firewall, they have the exact same input device that the other systems have to work with, but then they ALSO have those added bells and whistles at their disposal, if they WANT to use them. Off-TV play alone is almost worth the price of admition. But then when you add it (hopefully limited use of) the motion sensing, the touch screen, the "second screen" capabiliies, the camera, the NFC, etc., all those are things that developers don't have to feel OBLIGATED to tack onto their games. But those things ARE there to ENHANCE the games, if they see fit to do so. And that, to my mind, is a hell of a lot more attractive, both to gamers and to developers, than the limited Wiimote concept was.

Don't get me wrong. I don't HATE motion controls, anymore than I hate touchscreen controls. And I salute Nintendo for exploring new terrain and trying new things. It's nice to have both of those options available on Wii U. But that doesn't mean I want to have to play games only using motion controls, or only using a touch screen. Just not totally my thing. I dealt with it, and as I said, sometimes really enjoyed it, on Wii, because people just tacked it on. But in most games, llke Mario Kart for example, that game me an option to use the GC controller or classic controller, I often used them, because like I said, I'd rather just control a game normally. Motion controls have a finite amount of appeal. I would never want to use a Kinect game, even one that worked brilliantly, because I don't WANT to "be the controller". I don't want to flail around like a moron, or blow into a microphone, or flicky my wrist till it practically breaks. Motion controls are a nice idea, in doses, for CERTAIN games. But I'm personally very glad that Nintendo went the route they did. And as I said, I firmly believe it will prove itself to those like you who aren't "sold" yet, in due time.

There's nothing confusing about it, you're just misunderstanding my point. 

The brilliance of the Wiimote, and well-executed motion controls in general, is that they allow the player to execute complex actions without having to worry about complex controllers. They are, as you say, "pick up and play." When I go through the motions of bowling, the controller is doing several complex calculations to translate my input into onscreen action. I myself don't notice it - I just swung my arm as if I was bowling - but it's happening behind the scenes nonetheless. In other words, the controller is doing all the work, not me. By contrast, the traditional dual analogue controller is extremely basic: Each button is a specific input, and certain combinations of input lead to preprogrammed result. There's nothing else going on behind the scenes. In contrast to the Wiimote, the burden of executing what you want is on the player, not the controller.

Let me give you a real life example. Compare Rockstar's Table Tennis on the XBox to the table tennis game in Wii Sports Resort. In the latter, if I want to knock the ball back with some top spin with moderate power, I use the Wiimote as if it was a paddle and angle it in such a way and with such force as to knock the ball back with some top spin with moderate power. Nothing can be easier. To do the same in Rockstar's game, I have to use the left thumbstick, keep it at the angle I want, then remember which of the face buttons is top spin, and decide whether I want to use the focus feature and, if so, which bumper I should use as a result. Sure, with an hour or two of practice it'll become second nature (until you don't play the game for a few weeks and forget, that is), but that's an issue that will simply never come up in Wii Sports Resort, because the controller takes care of all that boring stuff for you.

Of course, it's not always that easy: because the Wiimote is much more advanced than the old dual analogue controller, programming for it takes more work than most developers are apparently willing to put in. Let's stick with Rockstar's Table Tennis. The Wii version of the game...sucked. The developers were lazy, and simply slapped the digital button controls of the Xbox version onto their closest motion equivalent. So instead of Resort's complexity, you get a simplistic motion game where waving in X direction was basically like pressing X on a controller. Lame.

So no, I am not implying that going back to the dual-analogue model embraced by the Gamepad is a bad idea. I am emphatically stating it. Dual analogue controllers are nothing more than needlessly simplistic controls that rely upon complicated layouts and combinations to execute anything more than running and jumping. They place the additional burden of memorizing convoluted control schemes on the player, something which is now unnecessary. They're a turn off for much of the masses. Saying gaming should stick to that scheme is akin to saying modern Operating Systems should be abolished and replaced with DOS.

Only if they manage to do so lag-free.

And anyone voting for anything other than 'Yes' either hasn't played Arkham City, ZombiU, Trine 2 and Lego City Undercover or has done and has a screw loose lol