Almost every one of those games is a natural offshoot from games popularised on Nintendo platforms, such as Dragon Warrior, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy, Legend Of Zelda and more. Some of them I'd argue have taken pointers from later Nintendo games such as Golden Sun and Pokémon. Now, sure there's no direct link, just like there's no direct link that says Breaking Bad was influenced by CSI, but it was. Without the popular show that was CSI and it's offshoots, other similar shows like NCIS, Bones, etc wouldn't have had the audience, and many wouldn't have been made; shows that then subvert the "cop drama" like Dexter where then made, and with a strong audience, Breaking Bad was viable. Now, does this mean Breaking Bad would definitely not exist if not for CSI, who can say for sure, but I'd argue it's very probable.

At the moment, I'm more a Sony gamer. I play my PS3 and PSP more than most, although I've recently become more interested with Nintendo with the 3DS and Wii U, though that's only been the last few months. I still play my original Xbox and Dreamcast, and if I had a PC that was more powerful than a damn casio calculator, (my gaming PC died), I'd probably game on that too. Don't presume people's interests and patronisingly tell them to "broaden your horizons" when you don't know what they play, it just comes across as arrogant. As for your point though, maybe I am reaching, maybe I am giving Nintendo more praise than it deserves for what I consider unseen influence. All I can say though is that I can't imagine Sony and Microsoft caring about keeping the niché alive without Nintendo there proving it's profitable and occationally smacking them in the face with runaway successes like the Wii and near perfect scoring games like Super Mario 3D World, that their market research and focus testing groups simply can't explain...

It's not always a good thing too I'll add. Nintendo is pretty much entirely to blame for the fucking Kinect, which Microsoft are desperate to prove is vital for gaming because "it worked for Nintendo dammit, just buy it already!!!". Without Nintendo I feel the gaming world would be a more boring and bland place and for that I do think it's important, in fact, in a world where all the old companies are going bankrupt and everything is owned by either Activision, EA, Ubisoft or Square Enix; I want a manufacturer, publisher and developer who still has ties to the old way of doing things, if only to keep variety alive.

25 on all stars versus 21 (currently) on brawl 4, okay?

Trivia: One of the PC releases for FF7 was actually just a PSX emulator in a single .exe with the three game disks in gzipped archives.

Wow, so now we're comparing first party quality and third party support by comparing the size (?) of the character rosters of a game and it's clone?

Why don't I ask you another fun question then? Since we're talking about current support here, why don't you tell me how many Smash characters are less than 10 years old?

I am simply discussing a topic, and doing so in a civil manner, a shame the same cannot be said for you.
You really need to put a lid on your potty mouth, too.

When I say "nintendo games", I actually mean games that nintendo had a hand in developing/publishing. There was a time when Nintendo platforms were the primary option i.e NES and SNES eras so anyone who played games in that time period was likely to discover  interests on their platforms. To be fair though, I developed my interests on PS1, the same cosole that truly got me into gaming. While FF may have been introduced on the NES, it doesn't sit well with me to give nintendo credit for the interest in those games instead of Squaresoft. One could even make the argument that those games didn't gain blockbuster status till they hit the ps1 and then thank Sony instead. Most of the credit you give to nintendo simply come as a result of getting there first.

Apologies for misjudging the games you play. It seems like most people who play nintendo systems always need some back up system i.e most "gamers" with Wiis always ended up having a 360 or ps3 as well but for some reason, many these people will always give nintendo all the credit because of past accolades even when doing most of their gaming on other platforms and playing non-nintendo games. I just don't get it. I agree with you that nintendo is important. They sure have a lot of fans. However, I also do believe that gaming will go on just fine without them as well. I disagree that the old way is best but don't mind the variety.

Slightly off topic, slightly on, but.

As far as i'm concerned, there hasn't been a good final fantasy since the Square - Enix merger.

I don't think the series has been as good but I've still gotten a lot of mileage after every single one. Played FF 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2, 12, 13, 13-2

Fair enough. I think there's a lot of high tention on this topic. Far too many people presume so much about people they don't know without considering that the person at the other end is a human being and it puts everyone on edge, so I apologise if I've come across as short-fused.

For me the golden age of gaming is pretty much right now, but then it depends on why you game. There where a few interesting threads recently that discussed this, the most recent one being "Story vs. Gameplay Gamer", which I posted in earlier. Depending on what you get out of gaming, everyone can have a very different view of what is good and bad for the medium. I do maintain that what is good for gaming and what is good for the games industry is a very different thing though. Sure like you say, if Nintendo disappeared, another company would take it's place but it wouldn't be the same. I honestly miss Sega for that reason and they still make games now. The style of games like Shinobi, Streets Of Rage, Strider, Ranger X, these where the kind of games that dragged me into gaming and following the Mega Drive they seemed to slow right down. There was a final harah on the Dreamcast, and a few games like Shinobi got a modern equivalent on PS2, but never was it the forefront of gaming again and where it does rear up again, such as the PS3 reimagining of Splatterhouse, it's always a commercial flop, a critical "meh", and results in shake-downs at companies with most of the Splatterhouse team fired following it's poor reception. Niché means precisely that, niché, but so many publishers can't accept that some styles of game, some franchises, hell, some entire genres; are lucky to get more than 1-2million sales on a game at best, and really 500,000 units is pretty damn good.

Whilst you'd not miss Nintendo quite so much, I know I would, just as I'm sure you'd miss the subtlely different approach Sega brings to RPGs with Valkyria Chronicles, Resonance Of Fate, and Shining Force, if they vanished. In essence, I think we can all agree that the loss of any major facet of gaming would be a bad thing, if not for the people who like those games or that approach, but because without the variety, we end up with the same old crap from everyone and that's never good. The more players in the industry, the more innovation, and the greater range we'll get. That can only be a good thing surely.

No, we're comparing Sony's first party roster versus Nintendo's. I thought it was rather obvious, but apparently some people here need everything spelled out to them. 

What does it matter if the characters are old? Most of them are still relevant today. If anything, it's impressive that these characters have survived for so long in a chaotic industry. 

Compare Mario to Crash Bandicoot and Sonic nowadays. It's all about quality: that's why all of them are older than 10 years. Crappy characters don't last that long! 

Anyway, if you want a new Nintendo IP, I'll be glad to tell you Miyamoto is making one.