I agree with your point generally, but Dead Space is a bad example given it was designed around Xbox 1 spec, then ported up halfway through R&D.  It really is a game that could be done 100% on Wii with lower visual fidelity, which is partially why Extraction was such a slap in the face.

The fact that many claims they don't want to play those games yet they made the million seller means one of two things

- there's lot of hypocrits on this sites and people buy the game they criticize on the forums

- the majority of the wii users here are not representative of typical Wii users...

Wii shovelware/ PS360 HD hardcore bilge : They go hand in hand.

Don't throw stones at the throne (Wii) because our sacrifices pay for your HD blockbusters/bilge.

I think it's more interesting to look at what that number actually means: The top 15 of those million sellers account for almost HALF of Wii's total software sales and only 1!! of those games is third party. Great for Nintendo but really so great for the Wii?

p.s. makes me miss the times of the N64 and Rare, man talk about great 3dr party games...

And they spent a bucketload of money buying EIDOS...

^Rare was second party

And I thought the rails choice was to get the most sales ("Hey, this genre is a hit on the Wii"), but now that I think about them calling it a "guided first-person experience", I realize they did that to hold the player's hand to show how "awesome" the game was.

Heck, perhaps it wasn't even the Wii specs that made that possible, but the IR pointer, and some developers would do the same on the HD systems with Natal and the Sony controller, because they think those are the kind of games the core really wants.

Extraction was a bad ass game that sold poorly. I loved it, it was filled with a ton of fan service and was leaps and bounds above the RE shooters or the House of the Dead games. But honestly, the project was doomed from the get go. Regardless of if they went 1st or 3rd person it was going to look like a step down from it's big brother. They had the choice of trying to keep the fidelity of the universe by making a "guided" experience, or go the "Dead Rising Chop Til you Drop" route of making a similar game with alot less power behind it. It worked for Call Of Duty, but it hasn't worked in every case. Had they made that decision and it was sitting where it is now, you'd be making a different complaint about how wii owners don't want gimped HD games, they want original content catered to the wii's strengths. It's easy to criticize failures, even if they take the exact same route as the success stories (such as the aforemention Resident Evil "Guided experiences").

Er, well can you name another case where a notable Wii (non-lightgun) shooter tanked?  Like 8k tanked?  All the genre entrants I can even think of (COD3/WOW/MWR, Red Steel, RE4, The Conduit, Metroid Prime 3, MOH Heroes 2) all did fairly well.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should've just done a DS1 port, but a fully fledged third person shooter undoubtedly would've done better than what we got.  We could've had "original content catered to the Wii's strengths" without it being another genre saturated lightgunner.  None of your absolutes really hold true, and the Dead Rising comparison (a no budget port which was outsourced to TOSE) really drives that false dichotomy home.

BTW, here's what Dead Space looked like on the original Xbox.

Dead Rising wasn't no budget (Capcom outright said it cost money), but the loads of AI does make it practically impossible to properly do on the Wii, as we saw. Dead Space is not like that, so CTYD is not a fair comparison to... just about any HD game other than Dead Rising and games like it.