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? 

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.

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. 

That's why I love Mario games. 

But I disagree partly with your post: fps can be futuristic and thus aren't bound to realism. Racing games can also be unrealistic as proven by Mario Kart. 

And honestly, the singleplayer in games like COD is just boring. I know people play these games for multiplayer, but what's stopping the developers to actually make an interesting story for once? A creative one. 

Well, if you immediately write-off games that define a genre, then yeah, you're going to think mario is the most original. 

the FPS and racing games you mentioned cannot, neither can any other based on reality - it would need to be a whole new game unbound by reality to go forward and mess with it.

While killzone has its moments, for example, it's still largely based on a version of humanity, so other than the occasional strange plant and fanciful gun, there isnt much room for the imagination.

Marios blank slate is both a massive benefit (remake as any sort of game) and a point of contention for those who arent loyal fans.

To illustrate the issue with mario one need only look at Shadow the hedgehog, taking a child friendly character, painting him black and giving him guns was probably the lowest point of the frachise, ever.

Zelda, is akin to prince of persia in a way, though prince of persia is more tightly bound to a pretense and story, the 2008 prince of persia acting as more or less wind walker for zelda, the difference here being zelda creators have their own world in which they can tack on things fairly easilly without messing too much with the existing lore, there prince of pesia has the unfortunate situation of being an underrated game thus while its gameplay is often great, the sequals and prequals dont do much to change up the formula, that alone is why the 2008 release is probably one of my more liked ps3 games.

this freedom however comes at a cost, in order to keep the possibilities as open as possible they have to limit how many IPs they actually release, the more IPs they release the less room for manouvering they have with their other IPs, for example if Nintendo released another game featuring a male human character, they would have to intrinsically ensure every fascet of that character was notably different to insure no comparisons could be drawn, and that expanding on games of that character would not have overlap.

To put it bluntly, Nintendo are both free in what they do with Mario and limited in what they offer as a whole, it's for this very reason that while releasing many great games, Nintendo is the thinnest on the ground when it comes to establishing new IPs

Just compare Killzone to the Metroid Prime trilogy. Metroid has so many original and creative worlds and enemies. I find Killzone to be very bland in comparison. And Metroid is also a game with a human in the spotlight(though she also has Chozo DNA).

Sure, Nintendo might not have a lot of new IPs, but let's take Kirby's Epic Yarn as an example. That game looks amazing and creative. The only reason I didn't buy it was because it looked too easy and I like some challenge in my games. Yeah, it has Kirby as the main character, but in reality it's a brand new IP. Nintendo just slapped Kirby on it because it would probably sell better. That's why Nintendo is often reluctant to create brand new IPs with brand new characters. At least that's my take on it. 

I honestly don't care if the Yarn series use existing characters, as long as the game is good. If Yarn Yoshi is harder than its predecessor I will probably pick it up eventually. The same goes for Luigi's Mansion. It was a brand new game, but Nintendo just took an existing character to play as. Would the game have been any better if they created a brand new character instead of using Luigi? No, it might even be worse because Luigi is quite a hilarious character in that franchise. It fits him like a glove. 

And anyway, there's a new IP coming out from Miyamoto, so you'll at least have one thing to look forward to. As long as it isn't like Wii Music that is. :) 

And therein lies the rub, even if they develop a new IP the temptation to slap an existing character in to improve sales is too high for them in almost all cases.