http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/wii/date?page=10

You really need to refresh your memory if you think this is true. 

From November 2006 till December 2007 the Wii only received 13 games that scored over 80% on Metacritic.

Well, several of the top-tier games are already on Wii U.

And as far as better, Switch has games like Just Dance, 1-2-Switch, and Sonic Forces.

So I dunno. Seems like characteristically spotty reporting by Kotaku. Let's all try to remember that their JRPG "expert" also hates XC2.

That relly doesnt have anuthing with fact that Switch lineup for same time period destroys Wii U lineup in any case, when we talk about quantity and quality of games.

So those 3 games, proves what exatly!? Wii U also had some bad games in 1st year, but buy Metacritics scores Switch had much more quality games in any case.

They report is based on facts.

Why do they need to get a score of over 80%?

You do realise half those games got lower scores because the gfx were worst that PS3 and the other reason was because controls took too long to learn because it was cutting into some of the reviewers masturbation time.

At the end of the day I played the games I listed and indicated I did not care about scores. I enjoyed them. Were they perfect? no, but that's the nature of the beast it is about enjoyment not how perfect something is.

But I guess when you are a full time troll you have no time to work and earn money to buy more games so you have to rely on outdated bias methods to tell you what is and isn't a good game. Stop being brainwashed and make up your ow mind. I am my own man and make my own decision on what I like and don't like.

Not going to discuss anything Nintendo with you until you stop taking it so personally.

And previously being part of Gawker invalidates most of what Kotaku has to say. 

And the graphics on the Switch look worse than the PS4. That is not the reason those games scored lower.

This thread is about Metacritic, so strange that you're questioning it here. It's not a perfect method, but it's the most objective way of comparing the libraries of different consoles.

I owned a Wii and I already own more games on my Switch, that says more than enough.

The jump between Switch and PS4 is not as big as the one between Wii and PS3. Like, the jump was astronomical. It is not an objective way to compare two consoles. Let me give you an example:

I hate Warriors titles. So, what do you think Fire Emblem Warriors and Hyrule Warriors mean to me? About as much as Wii Sports means to you. Maybe less. However, a traditional Fire Emblem title, while not as good as its predecessor, is far more coveted by myself than any Warriors title. So, even if the game is rated at a 68, that is still better to me than a Warriors title rated 90. And the rating is based on games in its genre more than it is about overall experience. Otherwise, some sports games would be rated much lower if the standard they had to compete against was Zelda. This is not an objective measure in the least. You have placed how you feel about Wii Sports into this, "objective" conversation just to try dismissing my absolutely valid point.

I have seen your posts in the past. I know you are too smart to actually believe what you are saying. Which is why I keep warning people that you are trolling. I have way too much respect for you as a poster to believe you actually feel the way you do and are not trying your best to get into an argument with someone.

Or I genuinly think Wii Sports is a bad game? 

Wii Sports Resorts, however, is a good game and what Wii Sports should have been.

How you feel about Wii Sports is fine by me. I have not once argued or rebutted your feelings on Wii Sports. But to then say, "objective" when you have used your subjective feelings to dismiss arguments is... to say the least, hypocritical. And I do know you to be better than that.

Not only does the Switch get a ton of games, it is also very well curated, from what these graphs show.