All of that is nice but your logic makes no sense because motion controls are now part of the standard (dual analog) according to you. Motion/gyro is part of PS4/PS5 and Switch/Switch 2. In other words, they are just another tool part of the package like the 4 face buttons, 4 shoulder buttons, and dual sticks. Thats why they are not the enemy and can't be viewed the same as touch. Touch controls actually do work against buttons because you can't use both simultaneously (for now), motion however can be used with buttons. When playing CoD for example, while aiming with the sticks I would love to be able to jump or crouch or reload (like on Wii) with a simple gesture. It frees up a button for something else. Again it's just another tool, it's OK to have your preference but you aren't really understanding they can work together. Your bias is getting the best of you.

Also my point about these games being designed around dual analog was that you were flatout wrong and absolutely incorrect. You tried to use that to prove motion failed, when in reality you made that up.

PS: Joycon 2 absolutely poop on any dual controller now with mouse support. My point is, you can't compare wiimote to dual analog because it wasn't given a chance to evolve into its prime like dual analog. Wiimote has evolved into what the joycon2 are now. If you compare PS1 first iteration of dual analog to joy con2 then that would be unfair. I'm saying Joycon 2 smoke any iteration of dual analog thanks to its versatility. It offers all of the buttons, dual sticks, motion controls, mouse support, and multiplayer with "one controller". Dual analog looks horrible now. 

I own more than 50 "normal" games on Wii and I never found playing with the Wiimote to be awful. If anything, I enjoyed it more than a standard controller thanks to additions like pointer aiming and gesture-based motion.

This is simply untrue.

A huge proportion of Nintendo's first party titles on Switch use motion, including many later in the system's life, from BOTW/TOTK to Splatoon 2/3 to Luigi's Mansion 3 to Metroid Prime to Mario Party to Pikmin.

Then there's third party additions; Monster Hunter Rise, Doom 2016/Eternal, Skyrim, Fortnite, Overwatch, Paladins, No More Heroes, Wolfenstein, Crysis 1-3, Resident Evil series, Sniper Elite series, the list goes on and on.

None of those games have a design centered around motion controls—that's what I'm saying. Mario Odyssey kind of tried to make use of several skills that rely on motion controls, but I feel the developers couldn't create challenges or levels that actually required dedicated use of them (maybe they tried but eventually gave up). I had no issue beating the game without using motion controls, and I actually found the game easier when sticking to the standard control scheme

You can turn off motion controls in almost every other game on the list and keep playing just fine. Though I'd argue that the best setup for Fortnite, Overwatch, and Paladins is keyboard and mouse, since their analog stick controls are just too bad for competitive shooters

I believe Splatoon 2 and 3 are the only games on the list that are really designed with the expectation that you'll use gyro aiming. The others function basically the same with the feature turned off, and often function better with this feature off

Motion controls are the default way to play in most first party Switch games that have them.

And something being optional doesn't mean anything, 60fps is optional in most PS5 games yet its still one of the system's key features.

As to whether the games function better with or without them, that's purely a matter of opinion. Many people prefer gyro aiming.

Being the default and being designed around something are not the same thing. You listed games that function on other platforms without any kind of gyro aiming and were later ported to make use of a specific set of Switch controllers. It's like haptics on the PS5 most games feature them, but except for a very few (read: Astro Bot), their existence is inconsequential even more so when they are ports of older systems. You can turn them off to save battery life and keep playing without any impact

I don't even get what you mean bringing 60 FPS? 

I'm by no means against the existence of motion controls or setups that allow them, if that's what you think. What I don't like (and actually find pretty bad) are game controllers developed around motion controls. So far, only the Wii Remote is centered around aiming, so it's the only controller I categorically dislike, even Wii U and its clunky Gamepad get a pass

Another thing I'm not against is games designed around motion controls. I just found them to be bad games, that's all. They can keep existing, they don't bother me. That's what I don't get about the Wii: the controls were bad, and the games that made use of those controls were bad too (in my opinion)

Of course, people can disagree and enjoy playing something questionable, let's say Switch Sports. But there are also people who spend thousands of dollars on mobile gacha games, so I just shrug and move on, I guess...

For anything that requires precision with pointers like third person shooters, I've already said I'd rather play with a mouse, it's just better than Wii aiming. But that depends, console shooters can be trivialized if you're using mouse. RE2 remake became brain-dead easy with mouse aiming, so there's a limit I think

As for your point about non-party games not being designed around dual analog... I guess you think something like a 3D platformer can be easily played with a tiny Joy-Con that barely fits in one hand? 

I disagree with your assertion that Joy-Cons (either one or both) are better than dual analog sticks. Joy-Cons are creatively designed to work in both handheld and stationary modes, and I'm impressed by how well they function (drift and disconnection issues aside). But if we're comparing just for stationary gaming, they're inferior to any modern controller from Microsoft, Sony, or even Nintendo's own Pro Controller.

Not even Nintendo thinks Joy-Cons are superior they obviously recognize how good their own Pro (look at its name) controller is. They didn't even try to add anything new to the Pro Controller 2, because it already fundamentally supports virtually every modern console game, except maybe for the Wii-like games which only Nintendo is doing anyways and can be played using the standard joycons that comes with the Switch

A game doesn't need to be centred on something for that thing to be valid, that assertion is just silly. Many things are optional in games today, options are good for the customer.

You seem to be coming at this from the angle of "I hate motion controls, therefore they are objectively bad and nobody should like them". The fact is though, many people do enjoy motion controls, hence why the Wii is the 4th highest selling home console.

All of that is fine because you are entitled to your opinion about Wii. There was clearly some kind of appeal because the controls are pretty good depending on the genre. There are genres that are reasonably playable via Wii mote or single joy con. Both controls (Wii mote & single joycon) may not be suited for 3D platforms (Odyssey) or 3D adventure  (Zelda) but there are franchises both control schemes fit well like racing (Mario Kart, the highest selling game on Switch), fighting (Smash), simulation (Animal Crossing, second highest), rpg (Pokemon), and many other. 

As for your last point, no one denys the Pro controllers or more "traditional" controls still have their place. I have a pro and will get a pro 2. That doesnt change the fact that the joy cons are in all Switch consoles besides the lite. They are the default. Street Fighter 6 on Switch 2 even supports a way to play via a single joycon. People clearly use them. I think Joy Con 2 could really close the gap and surpass "traditional" controls due to the mouse & full button layout. The 3D games are supporting it (Cyberpunk). 

I'm not implying any kind of validity, I just stated games centered around this specific set of controls are rare, because they are. The majority of games use the standard control scheme from joysticks. They can make use of motion controls, but they designed is not developed thinking on how the levels will be played using motion controls

I'm by no means against the existence of motion controls or setups that allow them, if that's what you think. What I don't like (and actually find pretty bad) are game controllers developed around motion controls. So far, only the Wii Remote is centered around aiming, so it's the only controller I categorically dislike, even Wii U and its clunky Gamepad get a pass

Another thing I'm not against is games designed around motion controls. I just found them to be bad games, that's all. They can keep existing, they don't bother me. That's what I don't get about the Wii: the controls were bad, and the games that made use of those controls were bad too (in my opinion)

Of course, people can disagree and enjoy playing something questionable, let's say Switch Sports. But there are also people who spend thousands of dollars on mobile gacha games, so I just shrug and move on, I guess...