This ^^

The guy righting the article has also forgotten that Nintendo have released several new IPs this gen, and are a nice healthy mixture of titles appealing to the casual demographic, hardcore demographic and mainstream demographic. Wii Sports/Resort, Wii Play, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story and Pandora's Tower are all new IPs.

Um... what?

Oh, just clicked the link. Never mind. Have a good day everyone!

If Starfox or FZero had been new IPs this gen, people would have called them "casual", too. This is why I so hate people describing games as "casual" or "hardcore" - it just doesn't make any sense. People use the terms, practically, as a way to define "popular amongst the internet gaming community" and "unpopular amongst the internet gaming community, but not amongst the mainstream".

Xenoblade Chronicles is VERY MUCH developed by Nintendo. It was made by Monolith Soft, which is owned by Nintendo, and therefore it was made by Nintendo, just as much as Metroid Prime was made by Nintendo. You can argue much more reasonably when it comes to The Last Story and Pandora's Tower, as they were developed by non-first-party studios. As far as I can tell, Pandora's Tower was overseen by Nintendo, and thus is still a Nintendo IP (not certain, though). With The Last Story, it's much harder to tell - it's possible that Nintendo own the IP, but it's just as possible that it remains with Sakaguchi.

Just to demonstrate that Nintendo IPs don't have to be developed internally... Pokemon is made by Gamefreak, which is not owned by Nintendo. Pokemon itself is owned by Nintendo, however, and Nintendo oversees development.

If you want a full list of Nintendo IPs, I already posted a link to a rather extensive list, reaching all the way back to 2000, that I posted in a different thread a little over a week ago. Check it out, it's fairly extensive (although there are likely to be a few errors along the way).

No they would not have called them casual,what exactly is there casual about FZero and Metroid? And I know you made a huge long thread about what is casual and hardcore in your eyes. I dont care whats casual or hardcore in your eyes, its all very simple. Its not a matter of it being popular or not. To me casual games are dance games, educational games, motion games like Kinectimals, Wii Sports etc. By your logic hardcore games like Folklore for PS3 that nobody played is a casual game too.

Call of Duty is a casual game, in my opinion. It doesn't really require much skill to play and it is easy to play. Doesn't really require much commitment.

I said that people would CALL them casual, not that they were. As I pointed out, those terms don't make sense... but my assertion was about what people would call them.

Tell me, what distinguishes F-Zero, in terms of "casual" vs "hardcore", from Need for Speed: Nitro? Nitro was mocked as a "casual" Need for Speed title, when it was released. Most people consider Excite Truck to be borderline casual, with the only thing stopping it from really just being called casual is its steep learning curve.

I said nothing about Metroid. If you have a look, I said F-Zero and Star Fox. Although I wouldn't be surprised if, if Metroid had released as a 2D platformer in this generation, people would have called it "casual", just because it's a platformer and not gory.

Star Fox was a simplistic game where you fly around in a 2D manner in a moving space, and shoot at rocks and ships, and collect powerups. Similar modern IPs are often dismissed as "Casual".

And I said nothing about "hardcore" and "casual" having anything to do with popularity - indeed, I quite specifically said that there's no such thing as hardcore and casual games AT ALL. And what you have just done, by saying "to me", is demonstrate just WHY those terms don't make any sense. You define "casual" games as "dance games, motion games, and educational games". Person X defines them as "colourful games intended for kids". Person Y defines them as "games that you play in short bursts". Person Z defines them as "games in any genre I don't care for" (although they wouldn't put it that way). Person Omega defines them as "games that appeal to the mainstream", while Person Alpha defines them as "games that don't appeal to the enthusiast".

You ask about 4000 people whether Mario Kart 7 is casual, and about two thirds will say yes, and one third will say no. I'm not making this up, by the way - this is based specifically on reviews on the 3DS's eShop. Ask 700 people about Super Pokemon Rumble (Pokemon Rumble Blast in North America), and it's almost a 50/50 split. How can such terms make sense when such extreme disagreement happens?

The problem is that the terms don't make sense at all. There's no agreed meaning, there's no rationality behind the terms, there are more appropriate terms to describe each possible meaning of the terms, and the terms are primarily used as either derogatory or as a way to talk of a game as though it is "better" than another game, purely because of the style of gameplay appealing to that person more.

Its disappointing Nintendo neglects some of their franchises and just makes more Mario.

FZero, Starfox, Pikmin not on Wii, only 1 Metroid FPS.

And at least with Activision, they have the balls to do something that Nintendo has never done....they make M rated games :P

How is that a point against Nintendo?  Making M rated games doesn't make you superior in any way, it just means your game has content not appropriate for younger audiences. 

This guy's argument has some merit:
Nintendo went into damage control mode and released MK7 and SM3D Land to put lagging 3DS sales back on track. I don't think they set out to release them so close together originally, but desperate times for desperate measures.

I do not think Mario Party 9 was necessary. For NSMB on a handheld, it has been like 6 years since the last DS one. For the Wii U, having an NSMB will push units out from day one. Business wise, Nintendo would be a fool not to do it. Mario Sports Mix was not necessary either.

The rest of the article is just sensationalist. Nintendo has released around 4 new IPs every year for the past 10 years, but it has mostly been focused on the handheld sector, but can you blame them?

Handheld games are less expensive and time-consuming to create. As a result of this they are less risky. Nintendo has managed to release the occasional new 1st party IP though, or they publish/assist in games that would have not crossed over to the West otherwise. The GBA kept Nintendo strong while the Gamecube was belly-flopping; their competition in the handheld sector is nowhere near as competitive as the console side.

I do believe Nintendo needs to expand though. They do not have enough studios! If videogames are all Nintendo is involved in, they should have constant output from all sorts of directions. They have to put themselves in a position where they are the first name in videogames in terms of support, like Apple with the App Store (bad analogy I know). Their IP catalog is monstrous and representative of quality, do they should have the manpower ready to always tap into that. Sony and MS do not have that IP luxury.

Indeed. Its sad to see how biased, unnacurate and personal journalism has become.