I always count it as nintendo's spin on RTS

Oh there's more exceptions than just Xenoblade, there's also Metroid, Zelda, Pikmin, etc. These games are intimidating to casuals because they are not as easy or "pick-up-and-play" as Mario Kart and co.

Yes, Nintendo places a lot of emphasis on making accessible games for all ages, I don't think anyone would dispute that, but to rule that that's what defines a Nintendo game is a gross generalization.

Yup those 80 plus new IP's since 2001 don't count

I have seen many games called both casual and not casual by different users without ever being given a standard, generally accepted definition for the term. If you cannot explain what you mean by "casual" then I have no reason to take its use seriously.

Regardless, I provided several examples of games I do not consider casual. (I don't consider any games casual because it's an undefined word, but for the sake of argument I can blindly grasp at its meaning during discussions such as these). Fire Emblem, Metroid, Zelda, Mother, and Pikmin are not casual (in my opinion, and since 'casualness' seems to be subjective that's all I can offer), and they all have stories of varying depth, all of them more than deep enough to support my point.

Oh I got it, you mean the games Nintendo chooses to fund. But that is no different. Then you are saying that "Nintendo" games are literally all games published (and therefore funded) by Nintendo, which, again, is like saying all books published by Random House or all films produced by 20th Century Fox. It simply doesn't make sense to group them that way.

Bayo 2 and DKC are proof of that, as you said yourself they have little in common aside from being funded by Nintendo. What common reason would someone have for disliking (or liking) both of them? They are as different as two games can be.

I mean, if someone admitted to liking both purely because they are published by Nintendo, wouldn't that be an admission of bias? That having Nintendo's logo on a product automatically makes it attractive to them? The opposite must also be true, if you dislike a game purely because it has Nintendo's logo on it, you dislike Nintendo for the sake of disliking Nintendo, and not based on any of their games' qualities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvKwkv8_V0o&list=UUs0AqQc_0sxwqJROHuJeEpg

Nintendo, as a whole, are very kid friendly on the surface.They stick to similar themes in their games and have become pretty damn good at it. They don't venture much outside of their comfort zone.

This supports my conclusion that such generalizations should only be made by people who are poorly informed on the matter at hand. I don't see how recognizing a drastic difference between Ocarina of Time and Link Between Worlds is "too discerning." Even an Xbox fan can tell the difference between a 2D game and a 3D game.

Users here should be informed enough to know that New Super Mario Bros and Fire Emblem have little or nothing in common. So why are they grouped together when discussing gaming preferences?

Is there any word or phrase you could replace "Nintendo" with that would make me understand that you are referring to Mario, Fire Emblem, and Metroid in the phrase "The Wii U is great if you like Nintendo games" or "I don't like Nintendo games"?

But we can see beneath the surface. This is a gaming website for people dedicated enough to that hobby to discuss it regularly with strangers. We shouldn't be so uninformed as to assume that Zelda, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Mother, Pikmin, and Xenoblade are all "kid friendly" and all share similar themes.

And I think most of us are not so poorly informed, yet some choose to bundle these games together anyway.

i dont realy like nintendo games, the typical artstyle is just meh. and the music sucked on every nintendo console.
sega looks just so much better and the soundchips are much more fancy

Alright then, care to define 'casual'? He may have ignored the term, but you ignored his argument. Further proving his point.