While I see your point and agree with you, the truth is, the Wii and Wii U were both prime examples of motion controls being a very limiting medium, and most people, even Nintendo themselves, usually coulnd't implement them in ways that actually mattered, or actually enhanced gameplay. Outside of Wii Sports, and games that made use of the IR pointer, most motion-controlled games on Wii were peripheral at best. Mario Galaxy 100% didn't need you to shake the Wiimote to do the spin-attack. DKCR was actually made worse/harder to play, but forcing you to shake the Wiimote to roll, and it was especially hard for doing roll-jumping, because, the fact is, iffy shake controls are not precise, while simply pressing a button, ala the SNES originals, is. This was proven by the 3DS port, where they didn't force you use motion controls, because 3DS doesn't have them.
There were Wii games I played that were outright ruined by forced motion controls. There were many games I played that were playable, and even enjoyable, but would have been infinitely better without motion controls tacked on. For example? FFCC: The Crystal Bearers. That game had more issues than just controls, but the controls surely didn't help. They made it a chore to play sometimes, which is generally true for a LOT of motion controlled Wii games. Ghostbusters and The Force Unleashed on Wii were both generally great ports, except that the tacked on motion controls, as stated, made them a chore to play sometimes. And as always, the "waggle" controls were not always precise or reliable. Okami on Wii was also a great port, but again, it was actually hampered by its controls, even though the promise of "painting with the IR pointer" was on paper, great. In practice, is was often frustratingly imprecise. Being able to draw on the touch screen in a Wii U port that should have happened, would have worked FAR better.
Even a major flag-ship Nintendo-made game like Skyward Sword. It's a good game, though it does suffer from too much repetition/going to the same areas and fighting the same two bosses over and over and over. But without a shadow of a doubt, the OVER-use of motion controls, specially "Motion Plus" tilt controls, often made the game a frustrating chore to play. The nonsensical decision to NOT use the IR pointer, easily the Wiimote's best feature, for navigating menus, and to aim and shot slingshots/arrows, was painful. Having to tilt your arm around to TRY to aim correctly, let alone precisely, could be maddening. Yeah, it was doable, but it wasn't fun to do. Likewise, tilting for the mine carts was bad, as it was for swimming. And while not HORRIBLE, having to tilt (and "flap your wings") to fly, was also still silly and cumbersome. If they were going to use motion controls for JUST the sword and shield? That would have been great. IR aiming and button pressed/analog stick for everything else, and the game would have played mostly fine. But the idiotic OVER-use of tilting controls for literally EVERYTHING in the game besides swordplay, made it flat out un-fun to play at times. IMO, the game would have been 100% better, even with the repetition, with a normal, non-motion control scheme.
And as far as the Wii U goes? The "motion controls" of the Gamepad are far worse than that of the Wiimote/Nunchuck. It's basically an "Eightaxis", very comparable to PS3's awful "Sixaxis". Hands down the worst part about the Wii U port of BotW, was being randomly forced to use "Tilt the Giant Gamepad" controls for puzzles in certain shrines. It was not only frustrating, but at times it was barely workable. A horrifically bad decision on their part to even implement that. And as for Star Fox Zero? Yeah, I DID actually play the demo, and the controls just in the demo, turned me off immediately. They don't work well, period, and it makes the game, again, frustrating and un-fun to play. A game's controls should be the best thing about it, that is what directly contributes to fun factor, and enjoyment of actually playing. A game can be ugly, but play like a dream, and still be a great game. But a game that is gorgeous, or has a great story, but plays like crap? Not a great game, usually a chore to play JUST to see the story, and then you never want to touch it again.
Again, I don't disagree that the two screen concept was also a horrible idea. SFZ was mired by horrible ideas all around. I think Platinum could have made a decent game, if they had been left the hell alone to make a decent game. And it like would have sold pretty well if that had happened. But unfortunately, the "genius" within Nintendo, instead mandated "no dude we have these neato Gamepad features that NEED to be used", and thus they were thrust upon Platinum, and thus the game sucked and few cared about it. Which sucks doubly so, because as we all know, Miyamoto and Co. will now use that as "proof" that "no one wants another SF game", even though the truth is, many DO want one, just a not-crap one.
In general, motion controls in and of themselves are not a HORRIBLE idea. But the truth is, MOST gamers just want to hold a controller, press buttons, use a dpad or analog stick, and just sit back, relax, and play a game. No gimmicks, no "cute" ideas. They just want to play a game. The PS Move was, by and large, a disaster, most of its games didn't play well. The general consensus about MOST Xbox Kinect games are the same. The Wii was easily the most successful with the concept. But it still fell far short of actually, consistently proving that they were even warranted. IMO, many of the best Wii games made little or not use of motion controls, or at least gave you the option not to have to use them. The same basically bears true on Wii U. So while I will agree all day that the Wiimote/Nunchuck setup was great for shooter games, and Metroid Prime specifically, otherwise? Just give me a controller with regular controls, and just let me play.