So much misinformation in this thread.

Miyamoto is not in charge of EAD.

Miyamoto does not dictate everything Nintendo does. If he did, we'd be getting a Link to the Past remake and not A Link Between Worlds (I thought I had a link for this but haven't found it, shall look again later).

EDIT: To be clear, Takashi Tezuka manages Nintendo EAD Kyoto alongside Miyamoto. The different groups within EAD Kyoto are then managed by Hideki Konno, Hisashi Nogomo, Eiji Aonuma, Hiroyuki Kimura, and Tadashi Sugiyama. 

For EAD Tokyo, Katsuya Eguchi is General Manager, and Takao Shimizu and Yoshiaki Koizumi manage each group within EAD Tokyo. Koji Kondo manages EAD Sound in Kyoto, and Mahito Yokota EAD Sound Tokyo. This information is all available on Wikipedia, which while not gospel truth, is more accurate than assumptions. 

Nintendo's development structure is not as simple as Miyamoto says yes or no to a game and it happens or doesn't. There are a bunch of managers at development level, engineering level, and on the board that take responsibility for these decisions. Axing someone who still directly works on quality, successful titles like Luigi's Mansion 2, isn't going to change the corporate and creative culture at Nintendo. 

I disagree with you, 3D Worlds looks like an HD version of Super Mario 64/Super Mario 3D Land, it does not have the diversity of Yoshi's Island, Super Mario World, Super Mario 64 (when it first debuted it was big), and Galaxy. I agree with you Galaxy has diversity, but Galaxy 2 is more of the same. Never in Mario's history have 2 Mario games on the same console been so similar.

I'm not contradicting myself, you're just over-using Galaxy as an example. Super Mario Galaxy released 7 years ago, my arguement is that Nintendo nowadays has lost creativity, and it's apparent in Super Mario 3D Worlds with the cat suit. Galaxy was just a sign of things to come with the Bee suit really lacking inspiration.

Now see, you're confused because you're ignoring my arguement. Earlier you listed a bunch of Nintendo exclusives to point out how Nintendo still has creativity, but I showed you that of that list the only Nintendo developed games were Pikmin 3 and XenoBlade. Now you're doing it again listing Wonderful 101, a game not developed by Nintendo (also a flop both sales-wise and by score)

@Bold I 100% disagree. A lot of the IP's Nintendo released on the SNES and N64, never became staple franchises. Nintendo was putting more effort into making new IP's, new franchises, new characters, etc. Nowadays Nintendo isn't trying to make new games, they know Mario Kart and Smash Bros will sell, so they stick with pushing those. I mean Yoshi and Wario were created in the 90's, what other Mario franchise Mascot has spawned into their own series as of late? Yes Starfox Adventures was a nice and refreashing game, but why haven't we seen any more of that?

Also I disagree with you about level design, they are far less creative now then they were in the past. Take DKCR for instance, there isn't even a snow world with ice. NSMB for Wii was nice with tilting platforms based on how you tilted the Wii-mote, but what's come since then?

I think you're the misguided one. Nintendo keeps shoving you sequel after sequel, and it hasn't sunken into you yet, that most of the games coming out now are more of the same. How is Mario Kart Wii that different then Mario Kart DS? How is Super Mario 3D Land that different from Super Mario 64/Super Mario 3D Land. How is SSB Brawl that different from Melee? Even Skyward Sword, it's a fun game which takes advantage of Wii-mote functionality, but other then the controls, how is it that different from Wind Waker? Even games like Pikmin 3, and Luigi's Mansions, IP's which haven't seen a sequel in a decade, still feel largely the same.

You are contradicting yourself, in the very same post you contradicted your whole post and it was you yourself who initially brought up Galaxy, from what I've played 3DW uses all concepts of the franchises, your calling card in your argument "the catsuit" serves a more practical role in the game then Metal Mario and a large number of power ups could shake a stick at. Not having an ice level is a poor example of dismissing design creativity, we can go compare each level of the games now to the old ones and I'll highlight the design and concepts in the modern levels, we've moved on from just having worlds based on themes to focusing on just the levels themselves. Galaxy 2 is meant to be like Galaxy the clue is in the name, the concept Galaxy used has such a high potential that they were still creating levels in their spare time after Galaxy's release, as for never having two similar Marios on the same console SMB and the real actual SMB2 aka Lost Levels. An example of your contradictions is you keep saying game x was developed by PG then you knock Luigi's Mansion 2 which was developed by a third party, you knock W101 for its sales then complain about Nintendo using their commercially strongest franchises, for the record as someone who plays many action games W101 is the most technical action game around and one of the best in the genre it's ratings are not that far from action games like MGR.

No you didn't show me anything all you did was be selective, opinionated and unclear in your argument then turn around and contradict yourself, the games I listed show not only that their first party are fine you've decided to try and side step them with vague arguments with out ever explaining why those games are not new experiences, at this point I don't even need to address the point as it's all over the shop and oopinionated. I'll give you an example of how selective and opinionated you're being by highlighting how you compared Wind Waker and SWS two games that are vastly different from each other with a few similarities as the games structures and approaches have major differences on top of their mechanics, you compare Brawl and Melee a comparison that would have hardcore Smash fans and pro players like M2K who frequent tournaments rip you to shreds as it's well known among them that Melee is more technical in it's mechanics while Brawl has a lower learning curve but better balance it's like saying Third Strike and SFIV are the same. The comparisons you've drawn up for you argument come out and say this is someone who just looks at the game on the surface and passes judgements on them in the vague manner you're putting them with little detail as to why.

A lot new IPs hit the Wii as well that aren't going to become franchises, like Takt, Dynamic Zan, Captain Rainbow and so on, I think you're not living in this world some what as now days it's a lot harder to introduce new mainstream characters as the market is very different.

I will concentrate on this aspect.

Like the older games.

What  innovation happened between Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario World ? Map screen ? more power ups ?

Those were refinements of the formula.

The leap to 3D can only be done a single time. What happened afterwards ? Refinements. Again. and. Again , super Mario Galaxy 1&2 are the best plarformers of all time, but they didn´t innovate, the gravity stuff was neat, the level design curb stomped every single 3D platformer out there

....but it didn´t redefine and change the industry forever (what innovation actually means)

Super Mario 3D World on the other hand is the first 3D Platformer that can be played with 4 people in multiplayer.

How is this not innovation in contrast to Sunshine´s horrible Fludd ?

Maybe if he produced 4-5 flop games in a row but considering that he's produce best sellers and masterpiece for the last 15 years. This comment is ridiculous Miyamoto should stay till he personally had enough and beside Nintendo should simply build more studios to increase the amount of game they can produce.

Only game that Miyamoto produce that I would consider a failure was Wii Music.But the game sold 3.2 million copies, 34th best selling Wii Game, so ya Miyamoto can do whatever he wants.

How am I contradicting myself? You claim I contradict myself, but provide no reasoning for it. You contradict yourself when you list games published by Nintendo as creative games by Nintendo, when they aren't developed by Nintendo....you did it again here!

You're looking into the catsuit way too much, look at the level design, the art-style, the gameplay mechanics. Super Mario 3D World is nothing more then Super Mario 64, take away the Castle overworld, and ad in co-op.

As for 2 Mario's releasing on the same console never appearing so similar, The Lost Levels was not released outside of Japan, and Super Mario Bros 2 was marketed as the sequel, which is a much much different game. You're grasping at straws here

Vague arguements? When talking about new games, all I did was eliminate games not developed by Nintendo from your list. Still a dozen points later, the only games you mentioned which were new experiences, either New IP's are very different games are Galaxy, Pikmin, and XenoBlade. If that's all Nintendo can come up with in a decade, that's nothing compared to the SNES era. Your only arguement is that SNES had more new IP's, more creativity in games because it was Nintendo's second console, so many idea's weren't touched yet.

However weather you see it or not, you agree with me. Nintendo used up most of their ideas during the SNES/N64 era and now produce far less new IP's, far less spin-off franchises, and introduce less new characters then previous games. Nintendo is out of ideas, that's why we see more of the same now. You said SM3DW utilizes game mechanics (and I assume level designs) similar to all previous Mario games, but what does it add? I mock the Cat-suit because that's the only notable feature that's different in SM3DW.

Skyward Sword and Wind Waker are not as vastly different as you credit them to be. Skyward Swords gameplay is much like a mix between Adult OoT/TP gameplay, and over the top looney gameplay from Wind Waker.

Brawl and Melee are similar, and yes I agree Melee is more technical, but the control layout, attacks, and mechanics are relatively unchainged. All they did was add those Super Skill things, and make things like dodging less a part of the game. Comparing Melee to Brawl is less extreme then comparing Street Fighter II to Super Street Fighter II. This isn't bias.

----

The way I see it, is you look at little differences and think of them as huge changes, where I don't. I don't research games and look up all the features, I just play them. I've noticed that in recent year, Nintendo has been less creative then they have in the past, and pursued more "traditional" games to cut risks. Wind Waker was different and new, Skyward Sword was not. Galaxy I'll admit was different and new, but Galaxy 2 and Super Mario 3D World are not. Donkey Kong Country Returns is just DKC without Kremlings. Heck Yoshi Yarn is just Yoshi Story with yarn graphics, so also not different, and I haven't seen a new Mario Spinoff in over a decade, I wouldn't count hoops 3on3 or that Sport Mix developed by Square Enix.

This is nothing compared the the SNES and N64 era where Conker was created and given a bad ass game (Conkers Bad Fur Day), or when games like Mario Party, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, and Paper Mario were created. Heck even new iterations of Mario Party & Mario RPG's fail to match the quality of the original 2 or 3 games.

---

Nintendo needs to let some of the younger staff make their own games, their own IP's. I liked Ninja Theory's Metroid: Other M, but I want to see changed to Nintendo franchises this drastic to happen internally. If Pikmin is the only new IP Miyamoto can make in over 10 years, maybe he should let someone else make a new franchise?

How is Nintendo doing? Badly. Should he fall on his own sword? Yep, along with which other bludering fools gave the a-ok to the Wii U.

SMB to Super Mario World -> Yoshi gameplay, damn awesome. More power ups, spin jumps, flying, obstacles in levels like Bullet Bill, and the levels themselves got a lot more complex. The World map had hidden stages too, many of which permanently altered levels in the game.

Okay, I get your point about refining Mario, but I also think refining is an improper term because older Mario games weren't as one directional as they are now. For instance Yoshi's Island is Super Mario World 2, but you never play as Mario. This is technically Mario, but it became its own franchise later. Luigi got his first game on the SNES as well, however I'll admit that Luigi's Mansion was a genuinly newer style of game. Since then, what has Nintendo done to Mario, except make it more of the same?

3D World is the first 2D Mario with co-op, okay, but this isn't new. New Super Mario Bros U has 4 player co-op, and Super Mario 64 DS was a 3D Mario which allowed you to play as other characters.

Fludd was bad, and it actually adds to my point. Of the 2 different style Mario games in the last 20 years, how is it only 1/2 are good? 1 good new Mario idea in 20 years, I think Miyamoto needs to let other people come up with ideas.

LOL...sadly I kinda agree with you here. Wii was pretty interesting, but WiiU is kind of a step back. Wii gave you fluid motion controls, and now you have to hold a huge screen? Party games won't take advantage of this, and it's kind of a step back for Zelda (Wii-Mote slashing was fun).

Damn that 3rd president of Nintendo dying. He came up with the DS and the WiiU feels like a failed immitation. Had he been around, I'm sure he would have veto'd the system.

Still, Nintendo does make a few great gems. XenoBlade alone is worth owning a Wii

Michael, I both agree and disagree with what you're saying here.

First, I disagree with the idea that Miyamoto is holding back the game design or that Nintendo has failed in the new IP department since SNES. I think Miyamoto is still a wizard when it comes to game principles, and I think he's a great help to the dedicated team leaders that are making the games. I don't think he is the problem. Also, if you compare SNES (perhaps my favorite all-time system) and Wii, there are good new IP's on both. SNES had titles like F-Zero (an all-time favorite) and Pilotwings, but they weren't really a big deal. The game that really pushed boundaries and sold the system was Donkey Kong Country, which was a big new IP that captured the public's imagination. Wii of course had Wii Sports, Wii Fit and other Wii games which were new in theme, style and gameplay, and they of course were some of the biggest new IP's of all time. Wii also had Mario Galaxy - which although an existing character was an all-new style of game - and Xenoblade, an amazing new RPG IP. In terms of quality, quantity and impact, I think they are pretty close in terms of IPs, with SNES's greatest advantage being third party support.

But while I disagree with the idea that Nintendo has lacked new IP's since the SNES days or that its veterans are a bad influence, I do think in the very recent history there is an issue with Nintendo's software. Wii U (and to some extent 3DS) has relied far too much on existing and established brands to begin their life. I think Wii U desperately needs a new IP to grab public interest. I actually made a thread about it last week or the week before. Nintendo has done a great job in the past with NES(SMB, Zelda), SNES(DKC, MarioKart), N64(Goldeneye) and Wii (WiiSports, WiiFit) of making a new game that exploited the strengths of the system and pushed hardware. Wii U to date has lacked a title like that. If they want Wii U to be a market leader they need a new concept or a fresh take on an existing genre/franchise that will make people say "wow". I like my Wii U, but I haven't seen that title yet.