crap i'm cherrypicking LOL my bad

Nintendo always usually worked in that way. It's because the graphics, engines code, game code, sounds and music can represent the least amount of work of a game. The biggest amount of work is the game design, gameplay, and general polishment. This can take years, and thousands of trial and error checks, and still you will never be sure if it's good enough or not.

@debvegger: I guess you are right. Most HD games can cover flaws, shallow gameplay, repetitive designs or little content with good graphics or a worthy multiplayer mode. It's true that Nintendo games may take up a lot of time since quite a lot of them end up being masterpieces.

I don't deny that, but as a Nintendo fan, and a whiner :) , I want to stop relying on nostalgia from previous amazing incredible AAA masterpieces and play them once again haha. I'm just spoiled I guess.

They don't whore out their franchises they just whore out Mario.  Boy does he work hard.  One day he is saving the princess, the next he is driving a kart (or bike) the next he is playing football, then tennis, then golf.  Success has been tough on the fat plumber (you'd have thought he'd have lost weight by now).

If you want to see what it is to whore a franchise you need look no further than EA.  Do we really need a new football, US football, golf game every single year with minor updates? 

Great art should never be rushed. Make something great instead of making it on time.

Because miyamoto is lazy :P he need some inspiration in order to make games.

The hypocracy here is ridiculous. The games are great because Miyamoto won't release them unless they are. Then we critisize for taking too long, well which is it? What do you want, crap sequels or innovative original work?

And besides its pretty weak, lazy and un original to rely on the same formula in game after game. A new gun is not creative, more violence is not creative, arguably a dog / education / sport / yoga game isn't creative either ( not according to some) BUT its original atleast.

The true test of Nintendo's casual / blue ocean approach will be clear ( as if it isn't already for eg. Deca Sports, Big Beach) when MS tries to do something new.

It won't work, not like the way Miyamoto games (and other japanese dev.) have worked in the past.

You're comparing a dozen+ companies to Nintendo, and your wondering why it takes a little longer to bring the games out. I think they do really well, considering they are making so many games.

Ramping up game production doesn't really make sense for Nintendo unless they are guaranteed success in future generations , Nintendo is a conservative company and won't take huge risks for the sake of bigger long term profits ala Blu Ray PS3 , Sony aqquired the most development resources during the PS1 & PS2 era but now they've had to cut back production in some places and divert resources to more casual projects , sold off assets etc.

People don't seem to understand that Nintendo can't guarantee they'll win Next gen and even if they make a killing next next the generation , generations after will be entirely new ball games!. The gaming markets rapidly change every 8 or so years and staying ahead in such a dynamic industry is near enough impossible . The PS1 and PS2 did little for the PS3 just as the DS & Wii may not do much for future Nintendo consoles , no one forsaw the PS3's faliures but are generaly more open minded now with the Wii's is succesful.

Um.. i'm pretty sure breaking away from the new-console formula (ie. increasing graphics -- not completely change how games are controlled) was fairly risky.. although, unlike bluray.. it paid off for them extremely quickly, rather than cause them to suffer loss with every unit sold