This is one of the oddest OP's I've read in a long time.
What makes Nintendo an innovative company is up for debate, but it's almost always due to two particular aspects: How they evolve their "cash-cows", and how they evolve their consoles/peripherals.
Since the OP is strictly about software, that makes it extremely odd that you point out how other companies continue to use their cash cows, when Nintendo does the same thing. You acknowledge this, but you don't really refute it. The problem here lies in the fact that you seem to think just using a franchise repeatedly means that said franchise can't be innovative. If that were the case, Nintendo would be one of the least exciting companies in the gaming industry. Yet people continue to flock for their games, not just because repetition breeds comfort, but because knowing their IPs so well allows them to do unique things with each entry.
Honestly, a game like Monster Hunter World is not that far off in terms of innovating a franchise from something like Super Mario Odyssey. The only real difference is that the former is mostly known as innovative to people who have played the previous games, which in the west is a very small amount of people, and thus the improvements go mostly unnoticed. Whereas the latter belongs to a franchise which is extremely popular worldwide, that hasn't seen a bold new game since 2007, and the central mechanic (that being transforming into different characters) hasn't been used in a popular 3D platformer game since Banjo Tooie. Both games are not really innovative enough to change the gaming market (in Mario's case that's partially because of the relative lack of platformers, but it's also in large part because the transformation concept is not new), but they are innovative enough to make their franchises feel extremely fresh. Capcom's handling of the Resident Evil franchise has also been miles better than it has in the past. While I wouldn't say something RE7 is "innovative" for the industry, it is a new take on the series. It's similar to other projects that have come out of the horror genre, but looking at how the OP is written, you'd think Capcom was still making safe choices for the franchise ... like continuing down the 3rd person action shlock route. Really they're doing the opposite for the most part. Hell, the fact that Capcom is even sponsoring a Mega Man or Devil May Cry game (especially a DMC game with a huge ass budget) is shocking.
The entire comparison is just odd though, because it's not like Nintendo is just another Japanese company. Why even bring nationality into it in fact? This is just the natural relationship between third parties and console manufacturers. Developers of consoles have to create software that tries to bring something new to the table so that they can fill niches that get people to buy their platforms. Even something like Uncharted which at it's base is a pretty standard third person shooter, has something that separates it from other games like it. The amount of risks Nintendo makes is not even necessarily much higher than other console manufacturers from a software standpoint. Third parties on the other hand focus strictly on making as much profit as possible on software. They don't necessarily make games to sell consoles.
