I'm assuming because you have 74 posts only, and a dozen of them here, that you were banned for being insulting towards others. Please don't talk down to others, especially in a debate where you have proven very little. It's just rude...

Anyway I've already shown at least a dozen times how Nintendo innovated the market. Damn may I be if I don't know some low volume, debunk company from the 70's or 80's made a similar peripheral.

My arguement was Nintendo was innovative for X reasons, it doesn't matter that the Game & Watch was the first dual screen handheld, it's still Nintendo, and shows us how Nintendo is innovative.

--

Nintendo is innovative, you yourself have agreed with many of my points, no sense arguing over details.

It's not about the label, (e.g. Mario) its about what is done with gameplay. The way Wii Sports and Skyward Sword used motion controls, Mario Galaxy's dynamic gravity, Wii Fit essentially establishing a new genre, were all original.

I do agree that the Wii U needs more original games though.

nintendo is awesome,although I'm not really not that much into nintendo anymore,but I respect them and hope they stay around forever.

Understandable and millions of other gamers feel the same, but its subjective. For me the same goes for Sony and we all know people who think that MS releases the best software.

At the end of the day one thing is certain. There is no irreplaceable entity in the gaming industry. SOme segments can fall, some will change entirely, but gaming will go on.

2 days and this thread ahs already 34 pages! Is this going to be the new UNITY thread of Vg Chartz?

Yes, it is. I never said otherwise. Game quality is inherently subjective.

Who is talking down?, I am simply pointing out that your inability to do any form of research for your "facts" is shocking.

This is where you trip up entirely, were I attacking nintendo for the hell of it like a fanboy would I openly and accurately state areas and specifics where they DID innovate? I seriously doubt I would, I just don't enjoy seeing people crediting them for innovations that are not their own, or peddling certain things as facts, without actually knowing if they really are or not.

Your all out denial of the undeniable advancements made by Microsoft and Sony on their consoles only further underlines your agenda on the matter.

Take for example the following points:

Xbox (classic) ethernet port:
Your rubuttal was to claim dreamcast had it first - It did not, it had a modem, when this was pointed out, you backpedaled to "well it was still internet lol!", the ethernet port on the original xbox could be used for internet, or connecting to a local network to share files and on some titles have internet-free multi-console multiplayer, that's a huge difference between a slow dialup system.

PS2 being the first console to allow game updates/patches:
Again your claim was dreamcast was first, I pointed out that this wasn't the case and detailed exactly why, yet you somehow came back at me with the ludicrous notion that actually yes, game data and patches could indeed be downloaded and installed to the whopping space available on the.. 128KB of storage.. take away the 28KB reserved for system use and you have 100KB, even on a 56K dialup modem of the time, 100KB would be filled within 50 seconds.

Game patches were server side and had to be downloaded every time the game was run, direct to the dreamcasts RAM, of all of these games only two actually did any sort of patching and those were phantasy star online and quake 3 arena, both server side, both updating only the core network executable and server configuration files on access with the former, phantasy star online, also allowing up to 1mb of custom patches for regional and festive events while the service was operational.

So, to be blunt, you're wrong, but rather than accept that you defended your stance on it without actually having any real knowledge on the matter, which begs the question, why even defend it at all if you don't actually know?

Yes, they are, but I would appreciate it if you would actually do some research into WHY, rather than just taking a stab in the dark and hoping for the best.

Innovation has nothing, what so ever, to do with popularity, it does not matter if an unknown company that did something first sold just one unit, the fact remains that they were the first company to do it, coming along and doing the same decades later in a product that ends up being successful does not give you the right to claim the innovation was your own.

The only incredibly originial mario game to me is paper mario. It's the only thing that really changed up mario that much. Every 3d mario game is essentially the same to me. Super mario galaxy was a good idea, but I seriously think the nintendo brand is starved from new characters. What was the last orignial character that they created that was actually a success? 

Sunshine, Galaxy and Super Mario 3D World are all different enough from each other. Much more innovative than GT, COD, Killzone, sports games, GoW, Uncharted, etc if you ask me. 

As for your question, the Mii characters were a success. Wii Fit trainer was a success. I'm not a fan of those games, but it did sell well. 

The difference there is in the mechanic, the mechanics have to be changed otherwise theres little reason to actually buy another mario game, they cycle the mechanics and return to old ones with a few extra skills or special moves once they wear the other mechanics thin.

Most of the games you mentioned are formula based, but saw advancements in their own right, track editors and kart racing, gps tracking and physics improvements, are advancements to games like GT that are just as valid an innovation as switching up the format on mario games.

For first person shooters theres no need to deliver a monumental shift because that isnt what its fanbase wants, they want incrimental shifts but above all "more online, more maps", and they get that, and theyre happy - and as a games purpose is to provide enjoyment then it has fullfilled its purpose regardless, innovative? not often, but they have their moments.

Sports games innovate in the features they provide inside and outside of the game, features which expand and enhance the experience for the type of people who like sports games, innovations in fluidity of movement, AI and so on, while you may look at the game and see no difference, people that PLAY it will see major differences.

For uncharted the goal is to provide more of the same in a more compelling way, but because it is bound in many ways to reality, they have to draw the line in certain areas, while its perfectly okay for Mario to headbash a block, pick up a power up then have a tail sprout out of his backside to fly, or for gravity to take a day off, or to spend eternity trying to rescue a borderline stockholm syndrome princess from the bad guys, if you tried this in a game that tries to be based at least losely on reality and all youre going to do is detach what little relation you have built with the player.

Mario games can change and in many cases HAVE to have, because he was designed as a blank canvas, he has no meaningful back story, he does not age, he does not do anything close to reality, so mario games are bound to very little other than being child friendly.

Look at these scenarios and tell me which one you think sounds out of place.

Mario picks up a powerup, grows bat wings and can fly, and see in the dark to access areas previously hidden.
Nathan drake picks up a artifact, grows bat wings and can fly, and see in the dark to access areas previously hidden.

Mario gets pushed into a corner and, breaking the attackers nose, disarms him and uses his gun to shoot his way out of the prison.
Nathan drake gets pushed into a corner and, breaking the attackers nose, disarms him and uses his gun to shoot his way out of the prison.

These games are largely based on reality, as such they are largely bound by expectations of a reality we know.
Mario games are based solely on a fictional world where anything the designer wants to do, can be done, so long as its child-friendly.

I don't think i need to point out which of the two is more open to dramatic changes.