By the way, this doesn't make any sense. You can pretty much compare any game with another that has been previously.

I'm going to use your example of The Last of Us. Gameplay maybe similar but the story it tells is completly different and has that setting behind it. Why don't I just slap in solid snake (one of your examples) with meryl to cover the main character rolls. Alright now lets swap our characters out and call it a new game in the series. Metal Gear Solid 7: Fungus Eater.

Alright now lets just slap solid snake in Gears of War (another of your example) annnd....Otacon: "Snake did you get your muscle suit?! Also i've taken the liberty of adding a chainsaw bayonet weapon."

It's just not the same.....Most of nintendo's series are in a cartoonish world with no real set timeline that you can play around with easily. The only one that has for the most part tried to break from that playful mold is metroid and zelda. Even than Zelda seems to follow it's own tropes that it's set for itself. Collect the triforce, get the master sword, rescue princess Zelda (in one way or another)

When a game has a set a story and universe....you can't really pull those characters out and put them in a completely irrelevant game.

While we re-use actors in movies can you imagine if we took Tom Cruise and said that he must play in EVERY single action film and must be referred to by his actual name?

spot on. today new character equals new IP instead of new gameplay mechanics.

I believe a new IP is, by definition, something that has a new name and doesn't have the recognition of an old brand. Whether that's new or innovative is another thing but the tenth Mario spin-off isn't a new IP. It may have a new name but it still carries on with Mario's brand recognition. That said, I believe you can have an old universe if you add enough new to make it different and then call it a new IP. For example, you can take the Mario universe and have Mario and guys in the game but you have to push them to the background and not the front. You must have something new taking the lead. Then you can call it a new IP.

Please lets not get stuck in the discussion of what is the definition of "new ip".
I agree, that the immersion of a game changes drastically when it is set in a new universe, but should we limit it to that point when calling a game innovative? Nintendo innovates drastically in gameplay mechanics while sticking to existing franchises. In that piont I completely agree with OP. It is stunning if you think of the range of gameplay Nintendo offers and invented.

Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Kid Icarus, Wii Fit, Zelda, Pokemon just to add some to the games OP already mentioned.

As a would-be author, I can say without any doubt that characters and stories are the foundation of IP.

That said, I completely understand Miyamoto's attitude and why he would take this attitude. Gameplay may be secondary to IP, but it is the foundations for what makes a game enjoyable, and it's what separates Nintendo games from every other company in the video game industry. It's not IP in a legal sense, but it is certainly Nintendo's selling-point.

Nintendo is also quite conservative with their internal IP, though. Games like Mario burn me out after two or three games, and I can't touch the series for a while. Zelda's not as bad because releases are further apart, but basically Nintendo's business model requires constantly creating or purchasing new IP for their ecosystem. I can think of several things I think Nintendo should acquire to broaden their portfolio.

I really don't agree with him. As you said the last of us takes elements of various games and crafts it all into one game rather well. It isn't the gameplay that makes the last of us a new ip, its the chars and stories that they tell. They told a brilliant story with familiar gameplay mechanics to form a new experience. I want to learn more about the story/char and play through their story. A game with the same exact char doing diff things is not realy a new ip, merely a spin off.

I agree with the quoted opinion, not the interpretation.

Either way, Nintendo....lets see some new IP's!

I've always noticed a difference between how Nintendo does things vs the others.

Nintendo will use the same character with ideas that could have been their own new IP. Kirby does this a lot.
Others use the same game but with different characters. The Division from Ubisoft comes to mind.

Miyamoto is wrong as much as I admire him, but that kind of ignorance is what is holding back Nintendo from embracing newer generations. They are holding onto the flagships of the 80's and 90's and incrementally embracing newer generations.