I do not think any well made game franchise should decline. If the developers worked hard and the publisher put genuine effort into making the game a master piece it deserves to sell.

That being said I think MW3 should have tanked or only sold 4-5 million copies. Activision cut so many corners reusing NPC's and buildings from past games, recycling a large amount of the old code and giving the game a short campaign. The online was decent but nothing worth up to 10 million in sales. The game was truly an embarrassment to Infinity Ward and the CoD franchise. The Treyark games should also take a hit, all the glitches and horrible camera angles in World At War caused me to finally abandon Treyarks CoD games, BlackOps 2 looks impressive though it seems Activision will swoop in and copying other innovative shooters release a lower quality title and kill off the games that actually pioneered this stuff. If BO2 ends up being a high quality game I will buy it, I want a 6-7 hour offline campaign with all original content, a solid online experience that feels new and interesting throw in good game play mechanics like uses of the camera and lighting. Make sure that the game is not glitch at all. Then I will support the game!

But when a far superior shooter like BF3 loses to MW3 despite a massive difference in quality and developer effort. When a brand will sell a shitty game and destroy products that deserve to do well. Then I think they should be taken down a notch!

The difference between Nintendo's games, Sony's games, Microsoft's games and the majority of the other amazing games publishers. They try not to cut corners every Mario game is unique and every one gets the full AAA treatment. Halo each title is new, Microsoft doesn't take Reach and reuse 40-50% of its assets repackage it with a short campaign and expect consumers to pay top dollar.

A high selling game should earn those sales and not receive them simply because they have a following. Though of course Activision proves something, quality is not as important as marketing. If you have established a trusted brand you can cut corners and quality and consumers will just keep sending you money!

I do not think any well made game franchise should decline. If the developers worked hard and the publisher put genuine effort into making the game a master piece it deserves to sell.

That being said I think MW3 should have tanked or only sold 4-5 million copies. Activision cut so many corners reusing NPC's and buildings from past games, recycling a large amount of the old code and giving the game a short campaign. The online was decent but nothing worth up to 10 million in sales. The game was truly an embarrassment to Infinity Ward and the CoD franchise. The Treyark games should also take a hit, all the glitches and horrible camera angles in World At War caused me to finally abandon Treyarks CoD games, BlackOps 2 looks impressive though it seems Activision will swoop in and copying other innovative shooters release a lower quality title and kill off the games that actually pioneered this stuff. If BO2 ends up being a high quality game I will buy it, I want a 6-7 hour offline campaign with all original content, a solid online experience that feels new and interesting throw in good game play mechanics like uses of the camera and lighting. Make sure that the game is not glitch at all. Then I will support the game!

But when a far superior shooter like BF3 loses to MW3 despite a massive difference in quality and developer effort. When a brand will sell a shitty game and destroy products that deserve to do well. Then I think they should be taken down a notch!

The difference between Nintendo's games, Sony's games, Microsoft's games and the majority of the other amazing games publishers. They try not to cut corners every Mario game is unique and every one gets the full AAA treatment. Halo each title is new, Microsoft doesn't take Reach and reuse 40-50% of its assets repackage it with a short campaign and expect consumers to pay top dollar.

A high selling game should earn those sales and not receive them simply because they have a following. Though of course Activision proves something, quality is not as important as marketing. If you have established a trusted brand you can cut corners and quality and consumers will just keep sending you money!

call of duty

shity shooters who get sales for being shooters.

wolrd of warcraft

Zombie trend? The Zombie trend is dead for about 4 years.

The 2D Mario games: essentially the same game each but with a different coating of paint. The 3D Mario games are however unique each instalment due to the amount of different ways the mechanics of the game can pan out.

Dude I've heard of two series from that list, and one is a little kids game that sold well on DS...but I do grant you Xenoblade Chronicles. 

*Definitely

I definitely need to practice my English :P

None, some need to decrease in popularity so that the developer/publisher realizes they need to actually improve that game to regain those sales.

Also, lolling at the few in here jumping on a particular series saying it's overdone, and then defending another series that's about as overdone with bullshit reasons, classic.

It's a pretty odd list. I've only heard of 3 of the games on the list myself (the same ones as you have, plus Disaster Day of Crisis, which was released in Europe, but not America).

There are a few more new IPs from Nintendo than he listed, though. Starting from the 6th generation, you have Advance Wars (strategy game), Golden Sun, WarioWare (although it's debateable if this is a new IP),  Battallion Wars (strategy game), Geist (shooter), Rhytm Heaven (music game),

In addition, you have the previously mentioned Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Brain Training, Big Brain Academy, Wii Series, Nintendogs, Xenoblade and Disaster Day of Crisis.

Then there's also a bunch of training games, and other games that don't fit the usual definition of games.

It's not a gigantic list, by any means, but there are some. If you say that Nintendo develop 8 games a year, I'd estimate that 1 would be a new IP, 2 would be in series less than 10 years old, and 5 would be in series more than 10 years old.