That's why you have to own multiple Nintendo consoles. Then, you get Mario Kart on the Wii, DS, and 3DS, you get multiple Mario adventures in 2D and 3D (SM64, SMG, SMG2, NSMB, NSMBW, SM3DL), multiple Zeldas (OoT3D, Skyward Sword, Spirit Tracks, Four Swords, etc). Even Metroid had a Prime 3, a collection, Pinball, Prime Hunters, and Other M. And don't get me started on Pokemon.

If you own them all, you'll be begging Nintendo to stop.

Rol sometimes I don't understand your logic just a day or so ago in a thread their was a question why Nintendo didn't make a second Mario Kart for Wii. You explained it perfectly

That's exactly why we do not see 3 or so installments in series over a single generation. It doesn't benefit Nintendo as much as bringing titles from other franchises or in some cases new franchises altogether. Mario Kart Wii 2 and 3 would not push hardware as much as say Star Fox or Pikmin.

Now I do agree with you that all of Nintendo's core franchises should make an appearance on each platform. The absense of Star Fox on Wii is extremely troubling. Pikmin a newer franchise should also be present as it pushed more then a million copies on the GameCube, a new IP on a struggling platform accomplishing that much is amazing. F-Zero should also be present, while we are at it Wave Race and 1080 might be useful as well. Nintendo has so many promising properties that Nintendo should invest in trying to bring each of them to their home consoles each generation.

As for cutting new IP development back, what are you smoking. New IP are some the highest performing titles on Wii and DS. The Wii series alone topped the charts and combined as a franchise generated more then Mario did at 108,530,000. If you include every single Mario game released on Wii you'll see combined they only sold 98,260,000 copies. Brain Age broke the 40-million mark in the first generation it was around and it is an example of what you suggest Nintendo should do with its IP release 3 or so installations a generation. Nintendogs also proves new IP can be as successful as established IP if the single title is compared with another single title of a leading first party game. Then look at Animal Crossing a franchise which got its birth (Outside Japan) during the GameCube era, this generation it's installments were among the most successful games on Nintendo DS and Wii. Less successful on Wii but very very successful on DS.

The only point I really agree with is that Nintendo needs to release more software then it currently is. This should be done by internal expansion as well as third party licensing agreements. Franchises Nintendo doesn't have the time or resources to develop like 1080, Kid Icarus (I know its on 3DS but I am talking on all Nintendo platforms regularly), Ice Climbers or WaveRace should be out sourced to third parties.

Then Nintendo needs to push their third and second party relations further. Relationships with Camelot for example should be built stronger maybe even buy the company or invest heavily in it to increase production of products for Nintendo's WiiU and 3DS.

However I don't think Nintendo should make more then one primary game for each franchise they have. Meaning no Mario Galaxy 3 on Wii.

Based on your recent statements I am clueless as to your point of view. If Nintendo shouldn't make a second Mario Kart or a second 3D Mario and should concentrate on other IP's then how can you also want them to release 3 or so installments of their major franchises like Microsoft or Sony do? It contradicts your own ideologies and Nintendo's business practices.

(I may make mistakes from time to time, but I don't change my stances radically within days as you seem to have a habit of doing)

Are you not familiar with Rol or something?

Problem with Rol is he is all over the place, you don't know when he's serious , when he's joking, when he's trolling etc...etc... Sometimes I'll try discussing something with him and he'll say it was a joke, then other times when his view is so clearly a joke he defends it and it turns out to be serious.

The guy likes to seriously screw with your mind. Especially considering he gets after me every time I make any kind of mistake. Only difference is if he makes a mistake he can call it a joke or sarcasm and nobody will be the wiser. There aren't any other users I know that are so all over the place that you can't tell when they are being serious and when they aren't.

If this topic is a joke then it sure isn't obvious, if its a serious topic then the wording implies that this is Rol's view which is contradictory to his earlier statements. Maybe its sarcasm but seriously creating a thread based on a view many hold as sarcasm is sort of whack.

In the end I try understanding the users of VGChartz and I think I understand most of the ones I get to know. But I've discussed stuff with Rol for years and I still can't understand his actual view points on subjects. Other then the one fact that he absolutely hates Nintendo bringing Super Mario 3D Land to 3DS instead of NSMB:3D that he hasn't contradicted.

Also I am very bad at picking up sarcasm unless it is blatantly obvious and when I say blatantly I mean its impossible to miss.

That's the very essence of what he does.

I don't think he even knows when he's being serious anymore. The line has completely disappeared.

What did I miss-understand about that? "isn't even a given that they release one game every five years" coupled with the thread's title suggests that you would want to see multiple titles for each franchise per generation. Then if you put that sentence into the context of the previous sentence which you said was all I heard you get my interpretation of what was said.

How am I miss-interpreting what you said? In the context you said it its really hard to take it any other way.

Now the point of this thread was about sequels to Nintendo's properties and if you take your first paragraph at face value its almost impossible not to think your referring to sequels as at least one a generation or more. If your objective was to emphasize Nintendo not creating a title each generation you did a very bad job of conveying that message!

Your second paragraph the one I also apparently miss-understood suggests your ideas for fixing the problem. Cutting any development shouldn't have been mentioned at all. That option is irrational at best unless Nintendo were struggling to survive and they had no choice but to cut development.

If you read my response completely you'll note I addressed all three of the options you gave. The fact that you saw them as options that you would actually suggest gives credence to my point in my response. You then said which of the three options was your favorite and addressed the option of third parties but gave a negative to the idea. You probably would have been better off had you just left the cutting new IP development out entirely. Suggesting it as an option is what I was getting at as I did address all three options.

Was my interpretation really that outlandish? It was based entirely on what you said. Maybe you should take a lesson from me and go into greater detail with your threads. Or rephrase the title and OP to suggest only a single interpretation. However hopefully readers will see this reply and yours and will understand better the actual objective with this thread!

Though after hearing the way you intended it to be interpreted I can see it. But it can be interpreted both ways!

Do you need a hug?

missing the IP band wagon. guys he's not talking about sequels. he's talking about rebuilding old franchise and bringing them to home consoles v sequels. see i think Rol is refurring to the franchises form the past that ninty needs to resurrect instead of relyng on the usual suspects. its an oxymoron.

Let's say Nintendo doesn't need to make more sequels, but needs to make sequels of more games