No, their games are just as enjoyable as they were when they released.

Nope.
As long as they keep making top notch games, I can't see myself losing interest.

Xenoblade is still recent enough, and I've poured 150 hours into Fire Emblem: Awakening. Animal Crossing: New Leaf is hell bent on consuming my very existence...

Don't see myself getting too bored as long as X releases in 2014.

I'm getting bored of all the antinintendo posts on game forums.

Nintendo nostalgia. We all want to hold on to the good old days. I appreciate that the company made me a gamer but they're imagination goes upward not outward. There's only so many ways you can prepare something until people start to realize that they're being fed the same dish with different topping.

no way...

Pokemon, Smash, Mario Kart...

Nope. As much as I question their company policy and decision making, their games always tend to be fun.

I was dissapointed as heck when I saw Mario 3D World on the Nintendo Direct video because it wasn't the "epic Mario" that perhaps everyone was expecting, but when I got to play it on the E3 showfloor, I could not deny that I was having an absolute blast playing it. That's Nintendo for ya.

Nintendo's games also tend to age really well. I can still play their N64-era games and have a good time, whereas playing other games from that era are really a chore nowadays.

I'm bored of FPS games. Nintendo innovates.

One could perhaps argue that Nintendo is BORING, to the extent that they make decisions like the following PROFITIZING-4:

• No Mario64/Galaxy 'AAA' equivalent. 'New Super Mario Brothers U' instead.
• No Mario64/Galaxy 'AAA'  equivalent. 'Super Mario 3D World' instead.
• No Metroid Prime equivalent. No Super Metroid HD. DKC HD Redux (Tropical Freeze) instead.
• No 8th-gen x86-based CPU. Instead, an X360-level, Gamecube/Wii-based tri-core PowerPC CPU. In other words: Cartridges Redux (in terms of the effect on 3rd parties, viability of timely ports of 'AAA' games like FF7/MGS1/Res Evil).

Many people making the above argument would NONETHELESS argue that Nintendo is EXCITING to the extent that they make decisions like the following CREATIVITY-4:

• Purchase Monolith Soft, finance and publish Xenoblade equivalent.
• Finance and publish Platinum Games titles, Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101.
• Develop and publish Pikmin sequel.
• Iwata Says: No Cutting Staff for Short-Term Gain, that Hurts Quality, Creativity, Morale, Ambition. We have the Highest Creative Ambitions. We're not a Typical Corporation: See what happened to Rareware (DKC, Goldeneye, Banjo, DK64) under our influence, compared to what happens under Microsoft's influence. Miyamoto is already a confirmed Creative Immortal, Iwata now Immoralized in Creative Community: Lorne Lanning of Oddworld claims, with justification.

ARGUABLY, all of the PROFITIZING-4 'boring' decisions were sound 'business'/'profit-maximizing' decisions: 

1. 'New SMB Wii' has sold 27 Million Worldwide, while SMGalaxy sold only 10.86 Million, SMGalaxy2 sold only 7.02 Million
2. 'Super Mario 3D Land' has sold 8.56 Million on 3DS, SMGalaxy2 sold only 7.02 Million on Wii
3. 'DKC Returns' sold 5.99 Million on Wii, Metroid Prime 3 sold only 1.65 Million on Wii
4. Nintendo made a profit on every Wii System by targeting lower manufacturing cost, AND sold more Units than MS or Sony.

While BORING, seemingly sound decisions from a profit-centric perspective, right? But since Wii U didn't sell big, in hindsight we can question each of the PROFITIZING-4:

1. Super Mario Galaxy 2 (2010) sold more units than ANY God of War game, more units than ANY Uncharted game, more units than any Zelda game (except Ocarina); and Galaxy1 (2007) sold more units than ANY Zelda game, more units than any Smash Bros (except Brawl), so Nintendo should have developed the 'AAA' Galaxy equivalent for the Wii U launch. COUNTER: 'New SMB Wii' sold more than double Galaxy1, so Nintendo went with 'New SMB U' for Wii U, which only in hindsight (in business/profit terms) can be judged a clear mistake.
2. Mario64 on archaic catridges was a system-seller, and a MarioGalaxyWiiU (or an equivalent 'AAA' Mario title) on an X360-level CPU and 1.5x GPU (the Wii U) would have been a system-seller too (PS4/XB1 not to be released for one full year). COUNTER: Mario64 was a system-seller as one of the very first 3D games (textures not important at this initial stage of 3D, so cartridges were enough to generate tech-based 'wow factor' interest within the general public), and MarioGalaxy1 (the 'AAA' Mario title) was not as much of a system-seller as 'Mario Kart Wii' or 'NewSMB Wii' or even Smash Bros Brawl; thus, going by the Sales Data, it was the wise move to create 'New SMB U' instead, wise to do a new '3DLand' not a Galaxy equivalent; wise to avoid tech-based 'wow factor' and aim for GamePad innovation-based 'wow factor'.
3. Combined sales of Metroid Prime 2 and Metroid Prime 3 (2.98 Million units) outstrip combined sales of Pikmin 1 and Pikmin 2 (2.83 Million); and each of the last four 3D Metroid Games (even Metroid: Other M) outsold Pikmin 2 worldwide; so why a Pikmin 3 and no Metroid Prime equivalent? COUNTER: You have to keep Miyamoto happy (he loves his Super Gardening Brothers games), and if Retro does Metroid, they can't sell systems with a DKC-type game. Super Metroid HD would indeed be relatively cheap to create, but Nintendo is making a Wind Waker HD, and it will probably sell better.
4. Any x86-based CPU (even 25% the cost of PS4's CPU)  would have been better, instead of the overclocked multi-core version of the GameCube/Wii CPU; and a GPU closer to 50% of the PS4 GPU in cost (instead of 25% as in the Wii U) would have been helpful. COUNTER: We didn't need 3rd parties or 'AAA' ports with the Wii, we just needed a Killer Design Hook (motion controls); and so we are spending 33% of the Wii U Manufacturing Cost on our new Killer Design Hook (GamePad), which means we have to take the IBM Discount/Deal (reusing the GameCube/Wii CPU architecture), and it won't even matter since we don't need the 3rd parties or 'AAA' ports... 

So again, only in hindsight can we say:

1. Nintendo may have been misled by the 27 Million Sales of 'New SMB Wii', misled into thinking a Wii U Version would serve as the necessary System-Seller, meaning this decision (no Galaxy equivalent for Wii U launch) was both BORING AND UNPROFITABLE;
2. Nintendo may have been misled by the sales of the Wii System, into thinking that relatively underpowered hardware with relatively low 'AAA' 3rd Party Support would be just fine, as long as they had a Killer Design Hook, but this time the Killer Design Hook was expensive (system sold at a loss) and didn't catch on, so the decision was both BORING AND UNPROFITABLE;
3. Nintendo may have been misled in thinking that the Wii U GamePad was a Killer Design Hook comparable to the Wii motion controls (remember 2006, even Hideo Kojima said he wanted to 'run away' from MGS4 to develop for Wii), since it hasn't caught the imagination of the developer community or the general public in the same way, so this decision was both BORING AND UNPROFITABLE;
4. Nintendo might have been misled in thinking Wii U was a better name than Wii 2, so clearly WEIRD AND UNPROFITABLE... 

And again:

• Nintendo is also doing some EXCITING things that MAY yet turn out to be PROFITABLE. 
• By which we mean SUSTAINABLE, which is made more plausible when Iwata declares that Nintendo is one of the CREATIVE IMMORTALS (the opposite of BORING), 
• To the extent that Lorne Lanning of Oddworld is compelled to (arbitrarily) quantify this DISTINCTION, by identifying it with long-term SUSTAINABILITY, long-term PROFITABILITY...

No, I enjoy Nintendo products very much. They make a great mix of the classic games I enjoy like Mario and Zelda, and innovative new game styles like Wii Sports and Pikmin. They also own Monolith, which is my new developer crush.