I think quality is the most important thing. Who gives two ****s if anyone makes new IP or does anything innovative if the results aren't so hot? Whenever I say that I would like Nintendo, or any videogame company, to do something there is the assumption that I end the request with "... and make it good." Otherwise it's all technicalities.
The problem here is we're just relying on your opinion on what's good or not, and considering some of these newer IPs are critical or financial successes, or both, then your individual idea of what "counts" is moot. Nintendo making that big list of new IPs isn't a "technicality," they're new IPs, just like you asked for.
It's like your boss giving you a 1 cent raise and saying "well you asked for a raise so there you go."
In this instance it's more like your boss giving you a $10 an hour raise, and you still continually demand a raise while refusing to cash your check.
So I look at EAD, IS, Retro or Sakamoto's team and their core game projects and it's all sequels it's like "come on, guys". This is just kind of stale.
Your opinion here is nice and all, but since these games routinely outsell and even outscore other new IPs, even on competing consoles, it's really immaterial. You are basically asking them to throw Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Donkey Kong under a bus and just make new stuff. And while that's admirable in an artistic sense, it's terrible in terms of keeping your hardcore fans happy, and considering the sales of Mario and Zelda and such, that's a pretty big risk to take in the hopes they'll buy something completely unrelated. If you're getting tired of Mario and Zelda, fine. Either try some of Nintendo's newer IP (which you clearly haven't done since you use such blanket statements about them all), or sell your Wii and look elsewhere. But don't constantly whine about new IP and then ignore it when they provide it. You don't even give them credit for trying, so you'll never be pleased.
But it's not like you'll see Nintendo give the big Christmas "slot" to some completely brand new IP and push it like they would push a Mario title.
So now it's "new IPs that personally appeal to me and have gigantic marketing campaigns during Christman." I think we're straying from the original intent of the complaint to get Nintendo to make new IPs in an artistic context and going into some kind of pointless chatter about marketing and other stuff that really shouldn't matter in the context. Why should it matter if it's got a giant marketing campaign or not? Are you saying you'll refuse to even acknowledge Nintendo's new IP until they blow $20 million on a marketing campaign directed specifically at you and your general male interest websites and TV channels? What kind of gamer are you, seriously?
Side note: I suppose we can add Sin and Punishment to the list of new Nintendo IPs. The first was an import title from 10 years ago, and it's more or less a new title (newer than some of the series being thrown around as exemplars of "new IP"), and it's in the core area, and got some pretty heavy marketing. But it probably won't be counted either, because it's merely a "new IP with core market appeal with big marketing" and not a "new IP with core market appeal with big marketing during the Q3 holiday period."
Remember when Halo or Gears of War were brand new?
For those playing at home, I'll let you have a guess as to why Halo got such a big marketing push in 2001. Besides, these are boring stale franchises now, right? Why compare one big franchise, heavily marketed as the big Christmas title whenevr it rolls around to another just because it's "newer?"
It's because it was the first console game Microsoft published for the Xbox. Of course it was going to have big marketing, no matter what it was. And it was going to be an new IP too.Metroid: Other M is going to be one of the Wii's big releases this year. Now is that only because it is a familiar franchise? Would it be one of the major releases if it was the same thing but with a new IP?
I think a big problem with this assessment is that firstly you are basing this complaint track off the sadly misguided notion that Other M was not a Metroid game at inception. That it was some kind of game about an armored space warrior going through a space station shooting aliens and then Nintendo's IP Synergy StrikeForce rappelled into the dev offices and forced the programmers at gunpoint to shoehorn in a completely unrelated IP like Metroid.
Secondly, is that you think Nintendo having a new IP that's nothing but a cheap knock off of one of their own existing series would be a "good thing." That's incredibly creatively bankrupt when you're just renaming characters in the same games.
I'll close with an example of when an arbitrarily new IP decision would have cost gamers the #1 fighting game series of all time (as far as sales anyway.) HAL was working on a fighting game called Dragon King. It was an interesting mechanic for a fighter that, instead of wearing your opponent's life bar down (though later sequels would include such modes), you merely throw them off the screen or stage. However, the prospects for this fighting game were pretty bleak considering the original characters were somewhat generic, stock characters. Despite the intriguing and innovative gameplay, the game really had no market pull and no amount of marketing could sell the concept with a generic IP. They then decided to use Nintendo's current stable of characters in a unique setting (a fighting game) as a replacement for these generic characters and Smash bros. was the result. The game sold gangbusters and has been ruling the fighting game genre ever since.
If Nintendo tried to do it with a new IP, it would have assuredly perished quickly and nobody would have ever remembered it, particularly not the "new IP" crowd.