I don't understand. (Especially because the abridged version doesn't match with OP's title, forcing to redirect ourselves to the whole text) The only thing I'm getting here is that you believe the JRPG market will experience some kind of trascendence because Nintendo is publishing one JRPG this month...and that trascendence can be evidenced by the fact that they made a great shooter that sold well. Am I getting this right?
I don't think Splatoon changed the status quo of anything; it proves that originality can pay off, but to alter the very foundations of the shooter panorama we're living today would mean a lot of things, includingeveryone copying Splatoon's success, which I don't picture unless the brand gets to grow as much as Mario has throughout these years. Bearing this in mind, and using the same connection you did, I can't picture Xenoblade being the "savior" of anything, as, again, it didn't shake the status quo of the JRPGs (though this is a much more volatile thing; you never know what to expect. Successful JRPGs might include games about a knight who dies a lot, then we switch over to some bunch of emo teenagers driving to meet some waifu); being successful in Japan with just one game doesn't really guarantee much (As history has proven, there are successful IPs in Japan that don't translate well overseas and viceversa, and thus japanese developers don't get interested enough in supporting this path).
I mean, nothing should be disregarded unless fully analized, but I think the very premise of your post is in shaky ground already.
