Giant Bomb is wrong. IS has never been owned by Nintendo. They are closely affiliated with Nintendo. They partner with hem. They feel like they are owned given how close they are but IS, is not owned by them. GB is a wiki edited by anyone and the only Wiki that lists that. Giant Bomb also thought Shulk was from Fire Emblem and Xenoblade was called Xenocross. Linking GB wiki is like linking Sega Retro.

Opinions can and will change when new facts are learned, so there's no need to tell people not to have a negative opinion especially while you're not doing the same for positive ones.

Now I think it does need to be a Paper Mario game if it wants to use the name. There's already at least one post in this thread of someone saying they're interested in this game after playing the originals. Even I was fooled by Sticker Star, so I bet there's plenty more who will fall for this deception.

I'm just suggesting people (that's why I started with "I think we should...") that maybe 20 confusing seconds of footage in japanese is not enough to have a strong opinion about the battle system, for good or bad. Sure, you are free to think that its trash or a genious system, but with so little information on the topic... I don't know, it's seems like an opinion based on nothing to me. But if someone wants to approach it that way, good for them (I guess).

I myself have expressed my doubts about the battle system knowing how the previous two entries handled things. But since I still don't fully understand how the battles work in the Origami King, that's the only thing I can do: doubt.

Paper Mario has five different games, only two of which are actual RPGs. Maybe when they released Super Paper Mario or Sticker Star it was a controversial move, but nowadays, you guys have to accept that Paper Mario is not (or it doesn't have to be) an RPG series, nor you should expect or demand an RPG game. They aren't even promoting this as an RPG. So if they "fool" you now, you are the one to blame.

Finally, as I said before, this game doesn't need to have a battle system like TYD. It's not a matter of doing that or do something bad. And that was my whole point: people are talking like if the game will automatically be bad if it's not like the originals. No. That's not how things are. They have thousands (no pun intended) of options to create an interesting and fun battle system without it being like the originals or even an RPG at all. It can be a great game on its own right. You may not be interested in that approach, but that doesn't make it bad.

Except from what I've seen they're owned IS used to be Nintendo R&D 1 I know that part is an objective fact to the point when all the R&D divisions were merged to become EAD R&D 1 remained and was merged into IS as subsidiaries have flexibility in how they're registered, for example Creatures Inc are classed as affiliates but are fully owned by Nintendo they are still registered as APE and appear as an asset on Nintendo's ownership under the registered name this is how Nintendo fully owns Pokemon as they own not only one third of the rights but also the private company that owns another third. The are various reasons for such practices whether for operations, business or tax.

IS to me looks to be a similar case where they're an internal development team like Creatures who are structured in a way to operate like a partner but in actually are still fully owned under their registered origin which is why they make development tools only for Nintendo, look at HAL for referenced who are an actual partner that weren't an internal team of even Gamefreak these two companies actually have work that are on non Nintendo platforms in their history IS however doesn't this points to Nintendo having full control. Likely IS are made to independently focus and create development tools like in their R&D1 days so the rest of the company is freed up.

From what I can gather, I don't think Nintendo "owns" Intelligent Systems like they own Monolith Soft or Retro Studios. Both Nintendo and Intelligent Systems usually refer to each other as "partner"... which would be a weird word to use if one part has complete control over the other.

I think IS is just a second party that works incredibly close with Nintendo.

I heard a different story. IS was funded independently from Nintendo and their relationship started as a hardware partner and eventually IS would become a software contractor. They helped R&D1 with a bunch of games, but I can't find any reliable source that confirms that IS was part of R&D1.

Not that any of this matters, because the relationship between IS and Nintendo is extremely healthy an close. Talking about one is almost like talking about the other, even if in reality they are just partners.

Do you have a link of where you got that from because everywhere I check all says they were formed from R&D1 with the original 13 members even being from R&D1, Toru Narihiro their founder was tasked with porting software to cartridge roms I've not seen anywhere that says they were hardware partners at all.

I think I saw it on Wikipedia and also several other forum threads over the internet that asked this same question. Not a reliable source by any means, but its what I read. 

There's also the fact that Intelligent Systems calls Nintendo "partner" in their website. Which, as I said, would be very weird to say from someone who is controlled by said partner. If Nintendo owned IS, they wouldn't call their owner "partner".

Wikipedia doesn't say that now though and as for partners look at what I pointed out earlier Creatures Inc are an affiliated partner as well yet they are a fully owned asset of Nintendo under their original registered name Ape. The are business reasons for the partner structure such as keeping certain properties and assets private.