Go play Xenoblade Chronicles... not a Mario in sight. There are other such games as well. You just have to look beyond your Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon hate.

My advice

Turn that hate into indifference, so you can see and enjoy the non Mario/Zelda/Pokemon games from Nintendo and continue to ignore the franchises which you feel have overstayed their welcome with you.

I think the exclusives just don't visually appeal to certain people and since games are partially driven by said visuals, it's a deal breaker. Obviously I'm talking about visuals traditionally associated with Nintendo, as they have stuff in the pipeline that looks to break the mold. Plus, it doesn't help that having a Wii U means you gotta have a second console for the third party releases or accept that you'll lose out on plenty of content out there.

If Sony owned Spyro and Crash I garuntee you they wouldve been making those during the PS2 era. Instead they bought the companys who made them and got them to make new platformer ips in their stead. Then during the PS3 they decided to change their market and had to make these new IPS to appeal to a different market. Sony can also afford to make IPS that aren't likely to explode into the sales charts as third party sales are really where the bulk of their money comes in. Im also positive the order will get multiple sequels unless it absolutely bombs.

Nintendo on the other hand have to make Mario, Zelda, Pokemon as they don't get this buffer from third partys, something they desperately need to fix. Not only that you often see comments were people are waiting for these franchises to come before they buy the console. I mean what is Nintendo supposed to do? They need to push their new IPs more, its a travesty how little effort theyve put into promoting them, but this cannot come at the expense of the bulk of their cashflow which is currently keeping them afloat.

So basically the OPs argument can be summed up as such:  "The games are mediocre because they come out too often and repeat too many elements. I might be interested if they retire them and replace them with new franchises." And that's compeletely fine, but your reasoning is very subjective, which is why few people are taking you seriously.

The introduction of new characters and story can add tremendously to the feeling of freshness of a new game. However, at the end of the day, these are games. New characters and story actually do nothing to change the gameplay unless such gameplay is directly related to the story - and it isn't always. Many studios create new IPs that have interesting stories and charcters but do very little in the way of gameplay innovation. Some new IPs are very innovative. Yet regardless of gameplay, they are deemed original by default. The ones that have innovative gameplay, are, of course, looked at more favorably, but studios get seem to brownie points for simply making a game with a different name.

Take, for example, the bunch of action games that come out of the industry. Companies make action games with the same stealth mechanics, the same third-person shooter mechanics, the same parkour mechanics, etc. and yet it's supposedly something completely new. And Final Fantasy. I love that franchise too - it's among my favorites. But how does varying casts and stories make the gameplay any more original? Standard turn-based for 1-3 and 10; ATB for all the other main ones. Variations on how you level up and gain abilities. Treasure-hunting, occasional boss fights, missions, weapon customization... Sounds like a pretty run-of the-mill JRPG to me. Yet while NIntendo games do introduce new mechanics , art styles, etc. that alter gameplay, sometimes more effectively than other companies in the industry, you automatically dismiss them because they they have Mario and LInk in them.

Why do you care so much about characters and story? It's a game, not a movie. You can get as much from Let's Play for the same amount you charge for Internet.

And while you may want them to foergo these franchises and replace them with new ones, the statistics make such a suggestion nonsencial. As has already been pointed out to you, Nintendo found success with these franchises in numerous different generations. They continue to be well-received by both critics and fans, and continue to sell millions. They certainly have their titles that didn't do so well, but if you look at the circumstances, they're on consoles that didn't do so well. If anything, there's more an issue of making consoles that people want and proving a variety of different games (whether through first- or third-party), not a fundamental decline in core franchise interest. I think most everyone - NIntendo fans and otherwise - would agree that NIntendo needs to focus less on core franchises and make more new IPs. But even then, it isn't all that simple. New franchises, with a few exceptions, don't just underperform, they do bad (all the ones that do well are casual). Do the research and you'll find a ton of new IPs in the GameCube and Wii eras that did terribly. That isn't to say, of course, that they should make new IPs, they just have to make sure their concepts for new IPs are really good and they appriopriately balance investments with old IPs. And this, again, is the general consensus.

I can understand your fatigue with Mario and Zelda. But get rid of them entirely because you can't stand them anymore, when so may others love them? What makes you that special?

And you have a lot of misconceptions about NIntendo games. You seem to be one of those whose attitude towards NIntendo games is "you've played one, you've played them all" yet you can't even fairly make that judgement if you haven't played them all. Sure, people make mistakes, but it's hard to think you know what you're talking about when you say "Zilda". The Wonderful 101 is an RTS, not a platformer. The mechanics of Pokemon have evolved so drastically that it's hardly the same game anymore. If you think all of the following changes/ additions since the original games: of breeding, EVS, IVs, happines, ribbons, double battles, triple battles, sky battles, rotation battles, new abilities every gen, mega evolutions, weather, the physical/special split, new moves and teaks to those moves' effects, contests, battle facilities, strolling with pokemon, variations on safaris, three new types, and over 550 new pokmon (whether you like them or not) didn't change the game at all, then I have no idea what to say to you. Zelda nd Mario may have similar structures, but they've changed a lot over different installments. Different levels, different worlds, control variations, art style, different items/power-ups have made pretty big differences in how you play. While I agree that they re-use way too may assets (New playable characters in Mario? Why are almost all the locations in Zelda the same? Why 8 gyms with linear connecting paths?), to say that the games are all the same is not just opinion - it's simply false. 

I'm not denying that Nintendo has a lot of problems, but the notion that their core franchises have declined in quality mainly because they've existed this long has very little basis in reality. And even if they have declined in quality, that amount is far from substantial. What's far more likely is that is that your interest has declined - to which I acknowledge that you're definitely not alone, but you're not going to taken seriously if you use that as a basis for arguing that the games are bad.

If you think Nintendo should create a new character as the star of a platformer because that stops it from being a rehash then you're deluded. The point of the platformer is the simple fun of the genre. I've yet to play a platformer where the story doesn't just get in the way. You would see Nintendo release a game that would get a tenth of the sales of a Mario game and be no better. I'm glad you're mot making the decisions.

No no no, I'm not leaving that to chance at all.  Op, if there is a gun to your head making your write all this stuff, i want you to spell wink sad face us ;( .  That'll be my queue to have the popo drop in on the guy holding the gun to your head for making you write such stupid remarks with no credible points overall.  Don't worry, we will get you the help you need. 

Completely agree. Nintendo needs to create more new IPs and put substantial effort into marketing them. They also need to strengthen their relations with third-parties (though mostly for exclusives and multiplats with exclusive content). 

People really don't seem to understand the difference between Nintendo and Sony/MS. NIntendo built themselves on big first-party blockbusters. Their philosophy has always been to grow massive brands to attract consumers and if they do that, the third parties will come. That doesn't, of course, mean that you don't push new IPs , have bad relations with third-parties, and tailor your hardware solely to your own needs. Those are miscalculations/mistakes. But I think the core strategy is a viable one if properly executed. Some people may not like it, and I think they have a lot of credence in what they say.

But it doesn't change the fact that changing such a strategy would cost a lot of time, money and effort. They could radicallly change their strategy, invest millions into third-parties and new IPs, marketing, and R&D, and kill some of their existing franchises. Many gamers would love them for it, but would enough be willing to buy their products for it to have been worth it? How long would it take for those gamers to take Nintendo seriously, and how much will have changed by then. Can they, as a medium-sized, publicly-traded corporation, even afford to make such changes while not becoming even more unprofitable than they are right now? (This is why you see shareholders saying to go mobile rather than third-party). Would it even work (what do they do if they lose traditional NIntendo fans due to focusing less on beloved franchises)? And at the end of it all, can they say it would have been worth it? What if they don't want to take the company in that direction? And before people say that it doesn't matter, imagine how a AAA dev might feel when he's taunted for not joining the more profitable mobile game industry, or when a man who makes men's clothing is told to make women's clothing because they'll buy more. For the record, Nintendo would rather see their company go up in flames than develop for their competition (you'd MUCH sooner see them go handheld-only). As stupid as it sounds, that's the ideology that Yamauchi built the company on and I think it's quite amaiable.

Sony and MS, on the other hand, are very different in nature. They're divisions in large multinationals that have far more resources. Since they're just divisions, they can afford not to be profitable it means the company makes more money as a whole due to the commmercial purpose that the brand serves. They were built on third-parties and a variety of different games. As long as they have strong third-party support, they can afford to invest money in games they think will make their brand more popular even if they're expensive. Sony/MS and NIntendo may compete, but to hold them to the exact same standards given their differences is a bit disingenuous.

A lot of people own a Playstation and/or an Xbox without really caring much for first-party games, despite the success of games like TLoU or Halo 3. People who don't particularly like NIntendo games aren't going to suddenly start using their consoles as third-party boxes and to think that they realistically could in even the next ten years is flat-out delusional. And that's especially considering that their games target a very different crowd. Do people really think anyone but a small, tight-knit circle of hardcore gamers would play Mario, Zelda, Mass Effect and GTA on the same console anytime soon? 

I think the right path for Nintendo is to play to their biggest strengths while patching their biggest weaknesses. Improve online, take adavantage of their wealth of IP( make new and innovative IP; revive old ones), make a unique achievement system, reward loyal customers with game discounts, leverage mobile platforms, invest in third-party exclusive and exclusive "Nintendo-like" content for the biggest multiplats, and make consols components fall closer in line with industry desires. 

Yeah. People tend to say Mario is shallow and then compare it more mature games in completely different genres. They forget that nearly all good platformers do that because Mario is one of the few relevant platformers that isn't on iOS. Want to know a universally-acclaimed platforming franchise that isn't made by NIntendo? Rayman. Very little story at all. Rayman & pals have to save the teensies. That's it. Why do you need a lot of story, when, for the style of the game, that would just make it worse? Call it lazy game design if you want, but it's industry standard.

You complain about Nintendo making "mediocre" games, but that list is full of mediocre and downright awful games!

Aaannnnnnnnnnd the same applies to Nintendo games. K. Thx. Bye.