oh please, so two wrongs make a right? Just because people make silly arguments doesnt mean your silly argument is justified. AND i gave you a few examples where the games werent late ports and still sold way less. explain.

Nonsense LOTS of games were released day and date you just dont want to use them becasue your argument falls apart. Im not blaming WIi U owners of anything. Clearly the demograph isnt there, as most people interested in those games rather play it on another system. Now with that being said, why blame 3rd parties clearly the games wont sell as well as on the other systems so why even bother. THey should just not try live and let live.

Bolded - I already did - I've left the relevant part in the quote right there. Quality explains Splinter Cell, CoD proved it could sell as well on Wii with CoD3 and then Activision and Infinity Ward decided to repeatedly screw Wii owners over by first leaving the Wii out regarding the most important game, and then (seemingly intentionally) failing to advertise future CoD games and underfunding them, resulting in a series of games lacking the features of the other versions, features that could easily have been achieved. And I'm not even talking about the online. Force Unleashed 1 sold well, Force Unleashed 2 sold poorly because Force Unleashed 1 was actually crappy on the Wii and they failed to sell the sequel.

That just leaves Assassin's Creed as unmentioned in my response... it's a special case, given that they didn't release 1 or 2 on the Wii, the third one was a launch title for Wii U (meaning that it wasn't exactly optimised, and it arrived late due to the late launch), and it was graphically slightly inferior to PS3/360 with no redeeming features. ACIV fixed the graphical issue, but still, it was a direct port of the 360/PS3 version. Big surprise that those versions would sell better, considering that the Wii U version didn't use the increased graphical and computational capabilities, barely made use of the gamepad (I understand it was just a map view) except for off-TV play, didn't use motion controls in any way, and in the case of ACIV, didn't even get the DLC.

The fact is, third parties consistently have failed to put reasonable levels of effort into their Nintendo system versions of their titles, when they bothered to make them in the first place. And then they typically left the Nintendo system out of the advertising, or just had a small logo in a corner at the last moment, or things like that. They entered into contracts with the other two to have dedicated advertising, and thus gave the shaft to the Nintendo version. And we have pretty solid evidence at this point that third parties intentionally sabotaged some of their titles in an effort to justify (to investors) the decision to cease support... decisions that had to have been made prior to those excuses.

I speak of instances such as EA announcing Mass Effect Trilogy about a month before the release of the Wii U, Activision (or possibly Infinity Ward) actively blocking the release of information about the Wii version of various CoDs (to the point that a Treyarch developer had to leak the information via the GameFAQs forums), Namco Bandai making an action-adventure Soulcalibur (Legends), Konami making a fighter Castlevania (Judgment), Capcom following up Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition with Umbrella Chronicles as a "test game", and then when that sold fairly well, releasing Darkside Chronicles for Wii while making Resident Evil 5 for the other systems... I could go on and on with more examples.

Even a dullard understands that, to make a franchise big on a system, you have to build the market for it on that system. That means making a quality game, advertising it properly, and then encouraging growth by following it up with more games in the franchise. It's curious how gamers don't seem to acknowledge this when they're arguing these things, though. Third parties have been neglecting games on Nintendo systems for about five generations, now... and they're surprised that their games aren't selling hugely well? Of course they're not - you have to build the market before you sell to it in large quantities. Nintendo has spent the last 30 years building up a large catalogue of quality titles, and third parties have been pumping out crap on Nintendo systems. Quite simply, they've dug their own hole, and continue to keep digging even as Nintendo offers them various forms of assistance. And then they use "we can't compete with Nintendo on Nintendo hardware" as an excuse to stop trying, despite the fact that the few times when they actually DO try, they get results.

This was well-demonstrated, for instance, by Red Steel. They put in the effort, and even though there were still some issues, it was a popular game (note: VGChartz info for the game is incomplete, lacking European data from before 2011; it sold well over 1 million copies). It's why Goldeneye 007 outsold Metroid Prime 3. It was why Resident Evil 4 broke 2 million copies sold, why Disney's Epic Mickey nearly made 3 million units, why Tomb Raider: Anniversary sold best on the Wii, and why Monster Hunter Tri was the best-selling Monster Hunter EVER for North America. It's why MadWorld sold about 750,000 copies on Wii while Anarchy Reigns (PS3/360 game, basically a successor to MadWorld) barely made it to 300,000 copies between both platforms. It's why games like The Conduit, which were criticised heavily for art style and storyline, glitches and other issues, from a minor developer with a relatively meagre advertising budget, still managed to sell over 500,000 copies, enough to justify a sequel. Same with No More Heroes. It's why Okami sold better on Wii than PS2 (again, VGChartz info is incomplete, missing the first few years of European sales).

For the record, "demograph" isn't a word, and demography is never a reasonable argument for game sales, unless a product is clearly designed for a specific group. This is relevant because the Wii (and the Wii U) was not designed for a specific group. If a game is good, and the ecosystem of games on a system is strong, people will buy the system for the game. Third parties failed to build their ecosystems, and failed to produce good games. The result was lacklustre sales. And before you say it, no, it's not Nintendo's job to build ecosystems for third parties - their job is to get the system into as many households as they can, and third parties have the job of building their ecosystems from there. And smart third parties build their ecosystems before it's in a lot of households, because it strengthens their ongoing sales figures.

But please, keep telling me about how I'm using the same arguments as the people I'm deriding. It's a really convincing claim...

COD has had exclusive advertisment with MS for years now. That excuse holds no water. Funny but PS3 versions didnt get advertised didnt stop them from selling, explain. And they werent underfunded. That makes no sense, the WIi is cheaper to make for hence not as much time or money is needed to devote for that version. Maybe its just time to accept that the series was always going to start selling less for the same reasons you claimed that FU2 didnt sell well. they were simply just not that good on the WIi. 

AC3 ran pretty much the same as the other versions i dont know what you played and even then the difference is very insignificant, enough so that if people really wanted to play the games on WiiU they would play them. AC4 what were the games supposed to be like the pS4 and xone versions? what were you expecting to run like, isnt it enough to just have the game on the system and it not being crappy? was Ubi supposed to devote more time and resources in version that sells the worse by far? That doesnt seem smart. ANd DLC? lol who cares. SOny systems got exclusive DLC didnt stop the xbox and PC versions from selling well. and DLC is nto that important as not that much people purchase it anyway. Again lets just admit that the audience for the game isnt there. And you have to explain why it sold much worse than either PS4 or xone version.

Where is this solid evidence? YOu have none cause thet dont exist. YEs the other companies make exclusive advertisment deals all the times. Here are the facts, it doenst matter PS and xbox versions still do well no matter who grabbed the exclusive advertisment. So why cant Nintendo?

So EA announced ME trilogy a month before the WIi U version of 3. So what? if you were interested in ME3 for WIi U i have to assume that you dont have any other system to play it on so what does an announcement of a collection of games that released on systems you DONT have going to affect you in anyway. Lets not be silly that game was going to flop anyway for reasons that have nothing to do with the trilogy being released, that just an excuse people use to feel slightly by EA. If you wanna say its dumb to release the last game in a series that relies heavily on having played the previous ones thats fine. IW was being jerks possibly ill give you that. But like i said the Wii versions were always going to sell worse by virtue of not being as good as the others. RE5 wasnt going to run on WIi you know it, i know it. Should they have put another gun game on there? maybe not. But lets stop bringing 5 into it. If you wanted to play that should have gotten the systems it was initially announced for anyone expecting a Wii version was foolish.

Assistance? when? how? explain. 

Every game you mentioned is nothing to be proud of. THere you go again leaving out info to make your case better. GE outsold Metroid. And? whats that prove. 007 is a much bigger franchise name than Metroid ever was or ever will be. Re4 launch title released on a budget, nothing there to be really proud of. Ill come back to Epic Mickey. Tomb Raider another budget game released at launch. Why did the follow up Underworld sell so bad then? MHTRi was the ONLY game in the series to get advertised in the west and even then the sales arent nothing to write home about. Madworld they have been sellign that game for a dollar for the past 2 years. MOST of those sales come from being in the bargain bin and it still couldnt hit a million. And lol at your comparison to AR one its not a sequel 2 it was released years later 3 the game like Madworld before it isnt that good. Unlike Wii PS360 have actual options in that genre. Why play that when there is god of war DMC, MGSR, just to name a few. COnduit was a flop that game was expected to sell more than it did. Just cause it got a sequel doesnt mean the first didnt flop. For all we know they had already started it which is the most likely scenario, especially since the sequel bombed so bad. Is that dev even around anymore? What happened to Grinder? werent they going to do COnduit for 3ds? No More Heroes is another game that bombed, and the sequel did worse. Why? matter of fact i see a pattern with Wii sequels they usually do worse than the predeccesor much worse. Why is that? the only conclusion i could come to is the original wasnt that good in the first place and people dont want to be ripped off again, but you left out any mention of follow ups. I love going through your examples and peeling back the layers to give the WHOLE picture you dont like to do. But ill give you Okami which is another budgeted game released near launch.

I'll leave on this one you blame the 3rd parties for not cultivating the markets for the games, but then you say there is no demograph? That doesnt make sense yes there is such a thing, what you think your aunt petunia who bought a Wii just to play Wii Sports and Fit gives a crap about any of the games you mentioned? Do you give acrap about any of the shovelware on wii that ended up selling millions. Speaking of which those same shovelware games ended selling more than just about any game you mentioned up there. So how can you sit there and say there are no demographs? that is jsut a lie people tell themselves to not have to face the fact that the WIi wasnt the system they wanted it to be. And it doesnt matter if its Nintys fault 3rd parties or whatever. Thats not the point the point is that the demograph and that is a thing, experts use it. Isnt there. Numbers prove that. 

Bouncing ResEvil ideas against Metroid Prime and Fatal Frame ideas would make ResEvil worse now? Seems to me like the chance to offer ideas that might not work for one of them to another could result in some magnificent upgrades to three FPS games that live and breath 'dense atmospheric tones', especially when two of them are outstandingly juxtapositioned horror games

Of course it does. I'm currently saving some extra cach to try a buyout on Konami. Wish me luck.