The only way in which you can jsutify this perspective is in putting forth that being a platformer with mine cart levels qualifies it as a remake.

It's not.

The game doesn't have Kremlins, for God's sake. It would be pretty difficult for it to be a remake.

With or without Kremlins, it's still just clearly re-doing a lot of what was done ages ago on the SNES.  And it still backs up the idea that Nintendo is busy living in the past.  I remember Retro making something that looked amazing called Raven Blade.  Why the hell wouldn't Nintendo just let a talented studio be a talented studio? 

(And until they say otherwise, DKCR reeks of remakery.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Almost depressing how much I end up linking that.

Raven Blade was decided to be stupid and un-fun. It got scrapped. Go figure.

You need to understand that Retro Studios had its choice of projects that tey could have done - Miyamoto brought this up in one of his E3 interviews. They jumped on the chance to make a new Donkey Kong Country (yes, it is new) and fought for the chance to give their iteration on that franchise. That wasn't something that was imposed on them. They wanted to make them some Donkey Kong.

Here are your primary problems with this assertion:

1. You are confusing "living in the past" for intellectual property iterations. They are not the same thing. Living in the past would be relentlessly releasing remakes and capitalizing off of old works without actually creating any new ones, and tryingn to claim that they have done that this gen or are doing this now is factually incorrect. The closest they have comee is the Virtual Console, and that has never been a primary selling point of the system (and has taken a considerable backseat to WiiWare in recent months).

2. You are factually wrong about Donkey Kong Country Returns. It is an all-new games created by an extremely talented studio that happens to be made up of people who loved Donkey Kong Country.

3. You are blatantly ignonring the literally dozens of new Intellectual Properties which Nintendo has developed in this generation. You are being needlessly reductive, narrow in your analysis, and stubbornly incorrect.

Honestly the rehash arguement can be made with sony and microsoft as well. Just because a IP is old doesn't mean its worthless.  If your going to throw out dates 1987 1st Final Fantasy date.  1993 Sega Activator which one could argue was a primative version of Kinnect. 1996 Twisted Metal Released. 2001 Halo. This industry lives off of established IP's, unfourtant in some cases, but wonderful in other instances. In the case of Goldeneye gamers have been beging for that IP to return for over a decade. 3D yes its been around for a long time, but what hasn't it doesn't mean that when it first came out it was decent. People can argue that 3D technology is still in its infancy and no where near perfected. In my opinion with the 3DS and the concept of glasses -free tech is a major step forward in polishing 3D. Just because something has been around for a while does imply its living in the past.

I'm fully aware that Retro Studios was interested in making this unnecessary new Donkey Kong Country. 

What are the "dozens" of new IP's Nintendo "created" this generation?  I'm looking at Wikipedia and here are the "new" ones I see:  Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Fit, Wii Music, Wii Party (really all this Wii-whatever crap is like one IP), Brain Age, Endless Ocean, and Captain Rainbow.  Pretty much everything else is just them sticking to past IP's when they're not outright remaking stuff (Ocarina of Time*, StarFox64**, Punch-Out, Mario64 DS, Metroid Zero Mission, every single Super Mario side-scroller being re-released at least twice, not to forget all the "new play control" Wii releases, etc), and again, the few original IP's they've had (like Disaster and Fatal Frame) have been largely squashed by Nintendo and forgotten, released in maybe one region and that's it.

Factually, Donkey Kong Country Returns clearly re-uses a lot from the SNES games, not the least of which was the mine car stage and the clearly still shallow "run-n-jump" gameplay. 

I'm not arguing from ignorance.  Anyone who plays video games knows that Nintendo is over-reliant on a few key franchises.  Nintendo did not make "literally dozens" of New IP's this generation.  That's absurd.  No one made "literally dozens" of new IP's for anything. 

Bottom line:  Nintendo is living in the past, they do make more remakes and re-releases than any company in the industry (especially considering that most Zelda and Mario games are little more than remakes), and they are overly-reliant on a few key franchises.  You don't see Sony putting Rachet & Clank in every single genre of game they can come up with just to make a buck.  On top of all this, while they're pushing the limits of 3-D on their portable system, they're making side-scrollers like it's the 80's again with the Wii.  That's hardly progression.  Metroid, Mario, Kirby, Donkey Kong--all have side-scrollers for the Wii.  You didn't see Microsoft and Sony trying to show off side-scrollers as "new" at E3 this year.

*The 3DS marks the fifth time Ocarina of Time has been released:  N64, GameCube twice, Wii, and 3DS.
**StarFox64 was essentially a remake of StarFox on the SNES, so the game on the 3DS is actually a remake of a remake.

1.  Yeah, it's true Nintendo created a bunch of new ips that were mainly targeted at general sales and had some universal sales appeal.  But among all of those games can you name one entirely new ip with entirely new characters that tried to tell one epic new story?   And I'm talking about games developed by and published by Nintendo.

2.  They probably loved Donkey Kong Country after Nintendo told them they weren't going to finance a risky new property or a more mature property like Raven Blade, so they had better do something else.  Very much unlike Sony's penchant for trusting their studios to go out on their own with the freedom to make new ips.

3.  Again what internally developed core game has Nintendo made this gen with totally new characters etc that has the scope of a game like Uncharted, Gears of War, or Heavy Rain? 

1. It is not up to you to decide what is or is not necessary, it is up to consumers at large. They will be the ones to decide whether or not we needed a new Donkey Kong Country (here is a sneak preview: they will disagree with you).

2. Concerning new IPs: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3490671 You're welcome.

3. Fatal Frame is not Nintendo's Intellectual Property. It never was.

4. Whether or no they've attempted to make these IPs into huge juggernauts has nothing to do with the fact that they do make new IPs, ergo you are factually wrong concerning whether or not they make new IPs. You have crossed the line from stubbornly wrong to aggressively wrong. Do continue. I'm going to stop responding to this point, because you are factually wrong and there's no more need for me to address it, but you're free to continue pretending you are not wrong.

5. I'm actually not sure you know what "argument from ignorance" means.

6. You are still confusing IP iterations with "living in the past". If they release more re-releases and remakes than any other company (and your dfinition of a "remake" is absolutely absurb, since games are defined by content and mechanics and several of the gams you list, such as Starfox 64, is clearly not a remake) it is because they firstly want to provide that option to play these games to new and legacy players, and secondly because they prducce more games than any other development house anyway.

7. You are confusing "series" with "intellectual property" again. Mario Kart and Super Mario are not the same series.

8. Genres in themselves cannot be considered living in the past, sinc tey ae mechanical and they are genre. By that notion, all art, everywhere, is living in tthe past, and anything that can bep laced into a genre fails to be either fresh or neew in any meaningful way. You are so wrong you are making my eyes ache.

9. Microsoft and Sony don't show off side-scrollers either because they don't have the talent to make competitive sidescrollers (for gameplay mechanics; props to LBP otherwise) or they're too stupid to try to cater to people who love 2-D sidescrollers.

10. You are wrong on almost every point. I don't know what the internet message board equivalent of a hat trick is, but you got it.

This thread hurts to read. People's stubborn, bullheaded devotion to being wrong--even when presented, reasonably, with objective facts and an unbiased counterperspective--hell, to even not conceding that they might not be 100% right...

It hurts. It really does.

I think I've got one more post left in me.

Ugh, I'm just going to wrap this up because I guess I'm tired of this rigamarole (whathaveyou).  This gets annoying after a while that, because I don't painstakingly explain every single point, it's assumed I don't know what I'm talking about, for example, I know what an IP is.  Jeez. 

The story and set-up of StarFox64 is identical to StarFox on the SNES with new bells and whistles, by the way.  I have spent ample time with both.  Microsoft and Sony aren't "too stupid," they just don't feel like wasting their efforts on a genre that, these days, should be downloadable or on portable systems, and is a hard-sell as a full-fledged disc release.  But of course, you put Mario or something Nintendo-fanboyish in the thing, and you'll have those fanboys clamouring for it.

Yeah, I know, the fanboys will line up around the block to buy the latest shallow platformer with Donkey Kong in it, while I'm going to spend my money on games with depth like Fallout New Vegas, XCOM, and the like.  Well, okay, I'm probably going to snag that sweet Kirby game, side-scroller and all, it looks just too fun.  (Unless reviews reveal a short and pathetic performance.) 

The only thing I'm really wrong about is thinking I could have a conversation online with hardcore Nintendo fans, who will defend anything from the company, no matter how shallow, uninventive, or lame.

Also, I was going by IP's actually released by Nintendo, not that list of largely no-shows you had (some of that stuff was obscure owing to what I said... elsewhere or before how Nintendo doesn't support it's rare new IP's).  However, I will admit that going by "specific IP's," Nintendo has quite a few more than I said.  However, it doesn't help things that the vast majority of Nintendo's "new IP's" are either lame Wii-somethings, or built from an existing IP, i.e., Mario, Paper Mario, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Mario sports whatnots.  Lots of IP's, lots of lame.

Anyway, try to have fun with Donkey Kong Country Returns, right up until you realize how shallow that series is.