I don't want to give off the impression that I'm an Assassin's Creed hater as I actually love the franchise, specifically as I like visiting famous cities from history. I suppose I should have clarified that it FEELS like the same game almost every time, plays nearly the same, and often looks the same... I feel they've fallen into a rut lately where all the main title games are stuck within the same 150 year span and, while Assassin's Creed 4 was a high point with naval combat and the like, it's gotten a bit dull lately. 

This is a bit off topic but each main title felt so unique initially, from the crusader era in the middle east to renassaince Italy and eventually colonial America. Suddenly, though, it's as if we can't quite escape this era, headed to the Caribbean about a half century earlier, then to Rogue to fill the span between III and IV and also France in the same era as ACIII (basically picking up right after it), and now to the UK a little over a half century later. That a 60+ year jump feels like a lot is rather telling... I wish they'd either go to another part of the world or, if they're to stay in Europe, head back to the Roman Empire, as that would open up all the famous ancient cities (Alexandria, Memphis, Ephesus, Smyrna, Athens, Rome, Carthage (rebuilt), Cadiz, Antioch, Jerusalem etc) and the proto versions of future capitols (Parisius and Londinium come to mind), with a wealth of famous historical figures to incorporate into the narrative. The current direction they've taken this series has rendered it somewhat stale in my opinion.

Anyway, I come across the complaint all the time despite Nintendo "pushing the boundaries" of what's possible in platformers which, I think it cannot be denied, they've fairly well mastered by now. I completely agree with you that Pokemon gets a pass and it drives me crazy as I want to see some dang innovation in that franchise, but it's the only one that seems to receive such treatment. 

The level of hate aimed at EA when their peers do exactly the same.

Also, this misconception that FIFA has not changed at all in the past 10 years. I can't think of many franchises that have evolved as much as FIFA has post FIFA 08 (when it did actually have this problem).

There is a reason Pro Evo has lost so much of the ground it initially made on FIFA.

It all depends on the DLC. At it's core, DLC is a very fine idea, but most publishers use them soely on quick cashgrabs instead of bringing something meaningful. This is also why some DLC are praised (like the MK8 and Hyrule Warriors DLC which expended greatly upon the games) while others can start flame wars (remember the Horse Armor, anyone?)

Dragon Age: Origins is a good example as it does both the good and the bad ones: The Prequel Missions for Leliana and Morrigan and the one where you fight for the Blight are very well made and worth their money. On the other hand, having a Questgiver at your camp which gives you a mission you could only do by buying some extra DLC is just a no-go, and the DLC character Shale is not enough expanded upon and stays as an empty character (a shell, if you excuse the pun) troughout the entire game.

Also, used games are lost revenue? They already got their money for the game. Just imagine if you would sell your car or some of your furniture the manufacturers would come and say "we want 10% of the original price or else you can't sell it". You literally couldn't sell them as the price would go above anything worthwile. Even moreso on an used game, as this could easely expand the price above the price of a new copy, espacially during sales.

Plus, almost all of the money from selling used games is reinvested into new ones. In other words, they are losing nothing through it. Worse, if there would be no more used games market (or regulated to the point that it becomes moot, like I explained above), I bet the sales of newer games would be less high since not everyone can afford buying new games all the time without trading in older ones.

How other hate dlc and stuff but when naughty dogs and nintendo does it its all good.

If they are talking about franchise milking, they are partitially right. For a series that started in 2007, there are more Assassin's Creed (22) game than Legend of Zelda (1986, 19) or Super Mario (1985, 20)

Amiibo DLC charging out the ass for DLC that isn't worth $13 and forcing you to buy a useless doll.  Somehow its okay to overcharge for DLC as long as its locked behind a doll.

Edit: Also forgot to mention some if it is content straight ripped from the final game. 

Definitely this.

To be fair, there are 9 main Assassin's Creed titles. Most of the others are iOS/mobile spinoffs.

There have been over 40 Mario titles since 2007 if you use that barometer.

I never got this complaint. It's not a massive, game-altering dlc that's an absolute must buy like many games where $40+ map packs are a necessity for the multiplayer seen. It's for people who like the little figurines and can get a little extra out of many games by having them.

If you've no interest then don't get them, the games are fine without them. It's little different than the usual little dlc's that add something trivial to the game, excepting that you also get a fun little figurine to go with it that can be used in many games.

I'm trying real hard to think of a time where the game felt incomplete without amiibo and I can't come up with much... I'd say the closest it's come is Mario Party 10, though the amiibo mode wasn't all that great.

I still think they ought to make a game or two meant exclusively for amiibo, so as to give the amiibo even more use and those without them know not to bother getting the game.

Okay so developers can lock everything behind DLC as long as its not "absolute must buy."  This is the double standard I'm talking about, whenever other publishers like EA or Ubisoft did any kind of day 1 DLC that was ripped from the game ppl lost their shit, now Nintendos allowed to do it.  Locking things like an AI partner behind day 1 $13 DLC is as shitty as it comes.