Did I say at any point that New Super Mario Bros is innovative?  If you want to have an intelligent conversation about this I'm game.  If you want to shove words in my mouth and try to trap me with strawmen arguments, than, with all due respect,  I have no interest in talking to you.

As for Luigi's Mansion and Kid Icarus, name some games that are similar to those titles.  Every company does have some unique titles.  But, some have a whole lot more than others.  Sony is one with relatively few, especially when you consider that they're one of the 3 biggest companies in the industry.

As for Infamous, while I like the series, there is not much difference between Infamous and other open world super hero epics.  Spiderman 2/3/Web of Shadows, and Incredible Hulk Ultimate Destruction immediately come to mind.

Nintendoland is not really like Playstation Home at all.  It's a minigame hub, and I think that the idea of assymetrical gaming is very unique and appealing.  I love the concept of the Wii U allowing multiple players of varying skills play the same game yet have a different experience.  I think the idea of using the Wii U integrating social features into even singleplayer games is a great idea.  Of course, it waits to be seen how these features will be implemented.

I assume in terms of Eyetoy stuff, you're referring to Kinetic, which was kind of a half baked excercise program that revolved around punching orbs.  It was kind of a neat idea, but it wasn't fleshed out as well as it should have been, and the technology wasn't really there.

That's the difference between Wii Fit and Smash Brothers All Stars.  Wii Fit wasn't the first exercise game, but it did new things.  Implementing the balance board, keeping records of weight and balance, it's incredibly friendly UI interface, etc. 

In conclusion, did Nintendo create motion controlled games?  No.  Did they revolutionize the concept, put their own spin on it, and popularize it?  Yes.  Has Sony done the same with the Party Brawling genre?  Absolutely not.

i fail to understand how you can try to lable luigi's mansion and kid icarus uprising as being ever so unique and write off infamous 2 as having little novelty or innovation... what is so differentiating about those games?

"You mentioned Pikmin as a sign of Nintendo's lack of creativity, but how many franchises out there are really like it?"

thats like me asking how many franchises out there are like flower or steel batalion

the fact of the matter is that every company has its own unique titles not just nintendo and that you're trying to imply that that isn't so is amsuing imo

"With few exceptions (Little Big Planet and Heavy Rain stand out) Sony doesn't strive to innovate"

yeah... but somehow the 50th 2d mario is innovation

nintendo has shown their new console off for 2 years now and i struggle to see anything new or innovative being released by them for it

sure you could look at nintendoland but imo if this game can be called a copy of smash then nintendo land is a watered down copy of playstation home

edit : btw if you knew more about gaming history then you would know that wii fit, wii sports etc type games were done on the eyetoy long before the wii was released and even before that on other platforms

that you try to claim that the wii was the originator for these types of games is again imo laughable

yes to the bolded ( 4 different throws actually ) and yes some stages do change but the stages in playstation all stars seem way more dynamic

The throws are directional right? So like if I throw a character down to the ground, can I follow with a mixup of some kind?  Are there high and low attacks? Can you block? 

I'm looking at this from a competitive view. I'm not trying to discredit the game or anything.

Then go back to melee since neither brawl or all star are bringing a good competitive game.

And yes, you have all those in smash sometimes depending on the character.

Actually, I don't think you can say that about every game coming out today.  That's a cop out that gives developers an excuse to get lazy and quit innovating.  Check out games like Kid Icarus Uprising, or Ghost Trick and Catherine from last year.  These games were chock full of originality.  They took very sparingly from other games, while adding an incredible amount of novelty.

Look at a game like Rayman Origins.  Nobody looks at Rayman and says "OMG IT'S A MARIO CLONE".  That's because it isn't.  Rayman Origins uses its own unique art style, different game mechanics, unique level design, and tons of unique quirks and personality.

Take a look at Smash Brothers itself.  One of the reasons Smash Brothers took off, besides its powerful license, was because it was so unique.  Sure, it featured characters punching and kicking each other like any other fighter, but it featured a simplified control scheme that allowed players to easily get into the action, unique mechanics that eschewed the typical life bars, a unique aesthetic, etc.

Then we have Playstation All-Stars.  Its visual style is a clear imitation of Smash Brothers, and by all accounts its controls are very similar.  Despite the nice idea of combining two different worlds for each stage, the overall level design is very similar.  The main difference between the games thus far seems to be the method of knocking out your opponent.  The jury is out on whether this will be a positive or a negative change.

Maybe Sony Smash will be a great game, and if Sony fans enjoy it, than good for them.  However, it's a bit discouraging to see one of the biggest companies in gaming settling for a derivative title instead of working to create something innovative and unique.