You caught on quickly.
As a sidenote, curl endorses Bayonetta, but dismisses Astral Chain. You'd think that noteworthy similarities welcome similar judgment, but it's pushing subjectivity to a whole new level.
To be honest, I completely forgot about Astral Chain.
Isn't that a co-owned IP like Fatal Frame or Wonderful 101 though?
This confuses me a little honestly. If your argument was that you want new Nintendo IPs that are developed in-house, I could understand. I think there's a little bit of a difference in saying "I want Nintendo to fund third parties creating new IPs" and "I want the Mario team to make a new IP", for example. But not including an IP because of the difference between co-owned and fully owned? That seems extremely silly. It's considered first party by Nintendo, I really don't understand splitting hairs about IP that Nintendo basically own. Or do we think Platinum is going to buy out Nintendo's ownership and go PS4 exclusive? Nintendo made major design decisions with the title, led the team in a certain direction, they even let the team go on hiatus for two years straight to make NieR Automata and didn't break up plans for the game because of it, which is a kind of strange loyalty and freedom you don't see often.
It's Nintendo's baby, just like it's Platinums. The same could be said of Fire Emblem, Pokemon, etc.