Just because the games you fear are on the Wii doesn't mean by not having the Wii exist the problem would disappear. The reason the games exist is because they are profitable, or at least enough are. The only way to prevent profitable ventures is to suppress creativity, which will undermine the industry. One way to suppress creativity is to have higher budgets expected by the consumers, though that's definitely not the worst in history, just one I'm bringing up because it's the one most at play this generation. In other words, if the Wii didn't exist either these titles would find a way into the library of other systems in larger numbers or they wouldn't exist due to suppression of creativity and the industry would stagnate, which would destroy it eventually.

@shan
just on a personal level between you and me, then the OP definition would fit.
But like I said in the disclaimer, it may not fit for everyone. Its a rough generalization which is really the best anyone can do.

I think big budget is more of a way around having to be creative than a stifling method.

I don't think the games would have existed and I think it's great that they do. The problem might be on the other side of the spectrum though, where big budget is gone and all you have left is a bunch of odd niche kind of games.

i dont hate the Wii, and i actually beleive that it's playing an important role on the industry, specially now that all the 360 and PS3 get are mainstream war games with 0 originality

I'm sorry, but having to have a game make back $20-40 million and 2-4 years of development time and workforce that could have done something more profitable, is nothing but stifling creativity. You could have creative successes, sure, but there's always the risk of a massive disappointment like Lair or Too Human that doesn't make up the time and effort wasted. The shovelware is a sacrifice made to allow for more people to take greater creative risks, so that we can increase the chance of exposure to a creative success. It's possible simply because even after a commercial flop a company can get back up and try again, and fairly quickly too thanks to the shorter development cycle.

You know I think you should use terms such as the upstream and downstream market instead of 'hardcore' and 'casual'...

Because I'm fairly sure that everybody on this site is 'hardcore' going by your definition

ah ok xeta, i see what you mean. But my point is that we aren't necessarily guaranteed originality either. Nobody can be original 100% of the time. What does a company do at that point. When they have no new IPs? There has to be some kind of draw to a sequel, and big budget seems to work out for the most part.

@OP
This is just a phase of transition. All forms of industry go through it. It's always rough, ugly and unrefined, but as time goes on it improves.

Telegraph, telephone, radio, black and white tv, colour tv, cable transmision, hd tv. At each iteration there is a natural irrational dislike because it causes disruption with those who are invested with things the way they are. But if that investment is used instead of shunning the new and instead embrace it then they reap and control more of the outcome.

The Wii is the next step to take gaming forward. It is not the absolute direction it will be. If Sony and MS adopt the new direction sooner this separation will be over quicker. There is however an end to all things.

Old time radio programs gave way to the TV sitcom. Well it's time for current game design to give way to what the Wii represents in direction of gaming. This does not mean an end to shows DMC, MGS, but instead encompass a greater broader capability. But like Sony and it's first portable radios it going to take a step back in one value so that it can make the shift in the new value.

@jay
thank you for your intelligent reply :P
i whole heartedly agree.
It's a good thing that retro is almost always fashionable as well.

The success of high budget titles on the PS360 is driven entirely by the decisions of developers and defies the natural course of the market, in that while if they all chose to make games on the Wii they could have and the userbase would have ended up on the Wii, that doesn't mean all the successful games on the Wii could have succeeded on the PS360. In other words, the success of the HD consoles is a temporary triumph, while the Wii's massive success is a permanent advance for the industry. The only reason certain games do not succeed as much as they could on Wii is therefore because there isn't enough backing by developers, which of course developers are ironically using as the reason they don't want to support the Wii. This is why the paranoia against the Wii is seen as foolish by some - it's just prolonging something that's bound to happen. The HD consoles simply don't have a reason to exist without the backing of developers - the PC can handle games that need higher end technology to succeed (and usually at lower cost too), and the Wii offers an opportunity to experiment with lower budget, lower risk projects (and create a franchise if they succeed).

This is not to say that every Wii owner/fan understands this, though (in fact, I've never owned a console) - there are people who are interested in market dynamics like me, and then there are people simply acting like fanboys, the same as with other consoles. I think this has been confusing quite a few people, since the same people may appear in a discussion about niche demographics as in discussions about "pushing the graphics of the Wii". Just keep in mind that the former is usually a genuine attempt to get rid of wishful thinking and observe how things work, and a latter is just plain wishful thinking.