With the Wii U GamePad, you could use dual analog for most movement and broad aiming, and use the pointer for fine adjustments. Just sayin'.
I honestly couldn't tell if you were being serious or not when you said this. Using the remote to point at the screen while your left or right hand is free to hold the nunchuck is very different from using the big gamepad to point at the screen either by holding it so it's flat or perhaps using the screen as a crosshair. Both of those ways with the gamepad is simply not comfortable or even practical for a fast paced game. I see it used in Zombi U but I even question how effective that will be unless you are in a position to really take your time.
I don't think people have an issue with getting used to dual analog nor do I think the question was even talking about having a concern when it came to playing Assassin's Creed 3 or any other non-FPS with analog controls but specifically talking about first person shooters and a concern that pointer controls wouldn't be there because all these other games would now be on the Wii U. Perhaps I'm wrong and need to go back and listen even more closely but that's how I took the question and recall being annoyed about the turn the conversation took. At least that's the direction the answer took.
For a lot of people when it comes to the FPS genre it is a big deal. For some dual analog is just not a good control scheme. The best is naturally keyboard and mouse and the Wii pointer with nunchuck is as close as you are going to get at the moment on a console. No need to aim assist. Where you aim is where you shoot. Turning and the general speed is also not a problem at all once you get settings to your liking by shrinking the bounding box (or get rid of it. It's the area your pointer on screen moves around in before you hit the edge and you start to turn), up the turn speed, change where the edge of the screen is, etc. The Wii versions of Call of Duty, Conduit series and Goldeneye provide plenty of options to allow you to react on a dime with far more accuracy then dual analog controllers without the aim assist.
I would suggest doing a quick for videos of the Wii versions of Call of Duty. In fact here are a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX--PcrY1vM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shAscz2PULo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IneLgjDfShs All done with the Wii remote and nunchuck.
I understand everyone has their personal preference but there are no limitations with pointer controls when it comes to FPS. Those that prefer analog controls always seem to be quick to dismiss pointer controls as if there is something wrong with it. That there aren't enough buttons for example, or that you can't turn quickly, etc but that has not been a problem at all for the Call of Duty games. Of all the problems the Wii versions had how it controlled was never one of them. Yet they always want to ignore the limits of dual analog.
If the Wii has shown anything it's that dual analog controls should not simply be accepted for all genres. Pointer controls for shooting is simply more efficient and accurate. There is a reason why people call the Wii version of Resident Evil 4 as the definitive version. Why even with classic controller support the majority of players continue to use the Wii remote and nunchuck when it comes to FPS on the Wii. Why strategy games like Dawn of Discovery and RUSE (on the PS3) can be so enjoyable and be controlled as if you were using a mouse. Sure it doesn't work for all genres. I don't like playing Super Mario Galaxy with the pointer. I rather have a controller in both hands. However if there is a new Metroid Prime and when it comes to Black Ops 2 the deal breaker for me would come down to pointer controls or the lack of them do to he fast paced nature of the games.
Sorry. This went on longer then I expected and became a bit more ranty then I'd like but dismissing of pointer controls always bothers me.