Exactly. Nintendo takes the low risk high reward route with their games to keep profits high. Keep the development low in cost and keep things profitable and not risk new IP's. Focus less on pushing power and obviously all you would have to work on is pretty much gameplay. Nintendo has a commercially formulaic way of doing things.

If western companies would stop focusing on creating lush graphics intensive worlds games like crash would be created ten fold. Personally I think crash had the more interesting power of spinning than Sonic who ran and mario who jumped. Blowing people up with TNT was always fun. Naughty Dog did a lot of trend setting things, Nintendo fans will always discount anything just because it seems simple when it really wasn't, it was painstakingly made. If Naughty Dog games were all on a three year to four year cycle, Nintendo gamers would not be able to question to depth of ND games. 

Imagine they took the Last of Us a game created practically in Uncharteds image and created a sci-fi survival/triller title with it. Changing up the gameplay to survival and thinking about how much ammo, and things you have in your inventory opposed to going in guns blazing in a post apocalyptic world. They still complain.

LOL totally not biased. Kinda expected something like this from you. You seriously think a 3rd Mario is a low budget game? Laughable. You act like  Nintendo Games are just made out of gameplay. And nothing else.  Mario galaxy looked superb for a Wii Game rivaling 360 games back then.

BTW. Creating the best selling Metroid (Metroid Primme) with elements not usual for the franchise and also on the lowest sold console from Nintendo besides Virtual Boy isn't really easy. And saying crash bandicoot spinning is superior then Super Mario 64 3D free jumping and running and combining the different moves in actual 3D levels is.....not gonna say anthing here. Or I will get banned. Which trends did Naughty Dog create?

1. Metroid Prime was a big risk. Not only handing over one of their most beloved franchises to a fledgeling, non-Nintendo, Western studio, but putting it in first person, which provoked vicious fan backlash until the final release's quality calmed the naysayers down.

2. Retro's games are not "low in cost".

3. All Retro's games to date push graphics as well as gameplay.

Yes, but the brand "Metroid" alone being slapped on the title made it less risky, than a brand new IP, did it not? With the Metroid IP alone the game was going to sale a decent amount of units, no question.

What's riskier, abandoning a franchise that sold 25M in one generation, or innovating a pre-existing popular IP? 

I never talked about which one is riskier. I talked about that Retro wasn't just pulling the sequel = instant success route. Metroid isn't known for the best selling Nintendo Franchise. It's actually risky to do something entirely new with excisting franchises. Other M showed this.

No, I'm not saying that innovating a pre-existing franchise isn't risky, it's just isn't as nearly as risky than what ND has done each gen, which was my entire reason for posting in this thread because I find it hard to believe people actually think that. Also, with that being said Other M's sales were comparable to the trilogy even though it was different. 

Ultimately, risks taken =/= quality. What matters is their ability to create great games, and in that respect Retro and ND are pretty much tied at the highest level of the industry. It's them and Tokyo EAD, everyone else is in a different ballpark.

Wait...you're telling me Mario games match AAA budgets of today? Please dude those games are pure profit and you can see it in the way they were made. Those games are made with lower budgets compared to todays major AAA titles which tend to have two year cycles.  Miyamoto's major method of going things is much like graphic design in order to make something popular use the k.i.s.s. rule or "keep it simple stupid". I learned about this rule when working on graphics and everytime I try to go all out I have to come back down to earth and remember what I am creating is for everyone. He recycles old ideas and puts characters faces on them. Game development today is far more complex, but the problem is that most things are created in a much more cosmetic manner than they should. Mario games are simple, so they take less time for cosmetic design and more on the structure of the world, thus leaving you believing you're in a structured game rather than an actual world. Games today have become so labor intensive that they try to deliver the world and then introduce you to the game. A Super Mario game doesnt have as complex of controls as Uncharted, but yet Uncharted is downplayed because its a shooter, but then again, its also a stealth, brawler, platformer, semi-exploration game. The last of us is about to take that to the next level.  Games are about being played, but today its about how they feel and giving a reason to fight. It adds to the diversity.

A rockstar game demands more design time and has far more complexity than any Nintendo game. Then again, Rockstar doesn't care about the two year cycle. They take as much time as they need to develop and focus on quality. GTA IV was rushed for a 2008 launch but every other title in their arsenal speaks for themselves. They are pretty much E3 exempt because of how tight lipped they are on their projects.

Super Mario Galaxy and Zelda Skyward Sword were each made by development teams with well over 100 Individuals, Galaxy 2 has a soundtrack made by a symphonic orchestra with 60 musicians !

People see what they want to see

Thats impressive, but many Japanese games have hundreds of orchestras as well. Its kind of common in Japan as well as the west.