It's speculation that AAA western blockbuster IP have more potencial to sell better than Metroid and Donkey Kong Country? Yeah, it's speculation, but it's not exactly blind.

You make it sound like western games is a genre everyone likes...

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "dynamic action." I know that Metroid has action, but combat is not the point of Metroid. Platforming and exploration is. Enemies are merely obstacles to traverse around. Combat is simple in Metroid for the same reason it's simple in Mega Man. Can the combat in Metroid be improved to better serve it's purpose? Absolutely, but describing the new action as "exhilerating" implies a depth and focus in combat that is destracting and detrimental to the gameplay and design of the franchise. It's like saying that Mega Man needs "more complex enemies and a deeper set of combat tools." No it doesn't, because that's not the kind of game that is.

The comparison to Dark Souls was made to emphisize that the more passive reason why someone would play Dark Souls, in its case it's the world building, is akin to the primary reason that many people play Metroid, in its case it's the atmosphere. If Dark Soul's secondary focus was its combat, meaning if it's combat was simple and meant to be merely a supplement to the world building, a lot of people wouldn't play Dark Souls because they'd find it boring, even though the world building in Dark Souls is arguably more engaging than it's combat. Metroids in that boat now. The type of gameplay that Metroid offers is one that required patience and meditation.

A lot of people find that kind of experience boring. That doesn't mean it is, but adding complex combat mechanics in an attempt to make Metroids already adequate combat "more exciting" is destracting from what makes that methodical gameplay work. That means you either get something more mainstream that isn't Metroid, or you get something more Metroid that doesn't sell as well because it offers a niche experience.

I'm not ignoring those shifts at all, but I'm saying that the gameplay experience Metroid offers doesn't line up with those shifts. It's more than just being "dark and gritty." It's about being accessable, being easy to start and finish, and it's about being offered a steady stream of instant gratification, which flies in the face of a gameplay experience like Metroid.

TLOU is an easy game, though. It has familiar mechanics, a steadily and intentionally paced plot, easy to complete gameplay, and linear gameplay. That's not a bad thing, but it's the epitome of a mainstream game. "Zombies" isn't a genre. TLOU is an action adventure game. It had literally nothing going against it. TLOU sold itself on story telling, but it would be ignorant to think that it wasn't also selling itself on it's action. It wasn't as blatent as "look at how many zombies you can kill," but it would not have sold if the gameplay wasn't as accessable and easy to digest as it was.

The point isn't specifically to get Nintendo selling giant 10m juggernauts, but to attract a radically different and specific audience that Nintendo lacks, which is the mainstream western audience. Mario, if you hadn't noticed, doesn't do that. Metroid won't do that unless it becomes something it's not, which it shouldn't do. It makes no sense to work Metroid into this linear action packed experience that it never was, just to appeal to an audience the game was never meant for. Metroid does not have the potencial to fill the kind of role I'm describing while remaining true to itself. The audience just isn't that large for it, and that's fine. Just because Samus can shoot things doesn't mean her games have to play and sell more like other games where you can shoot things.

Uh... It's not a genre. You don't have to like it. But western games are what the majority of gamers who aren't currently interested in Nintendo hardware or software, which is the vast majority of gamers, likes. There's no getting around that. Most people who don't want Nintendo want mainstream western AAA games. If Nintendo provided good mainstream western AAA games, then more of those people would be interested in Nintendo.

I agree Retro could have been the key to the west, however the problem is Nintendo will never let their franchises grow beyond what they are or take big risks on new franchises.

Look at star fox for example I bet when that launches it will be a HD version of the N64 game with some slight addons.

The characters alone in star fox have/had the potential to build a big epic game with CGI, acting and story. Imagine a star fox game that matched uncharted and the last of us in quality. It would be an epic franchise that would suit all ages.

Retro should have had Metroid Prime 4 ready for Wii U launch and now be well underway into a new IP project.

I think that Xenoblade proves that Nintendo is more than willing to invest significantly in something new and ambitious.

A good game is a good game. Western or not...

I think the Wii U has made it pretty clear that if Nintendo continues playing it safe with familiar, conservative software, they will wither away into extinction.

Xenoblade Chronicles X is one of the few examples of what they should be doing a lot more of; epic, ambitious games that appeal to those outside their established player base. The problem is, it's a JPRG, a genre whose appeal in the West has diminished severely over the last decade. It's also just one game.

They can't just keep doing what they want any more; they have to adapt to the market.

What does that have to do with anything? I never said non western games aren't good.

Yes, yes, YES. Especially the italicized, extra especially the bolded, and super extra especially the underlined.