Earlier this week Satoru Iwata (president of Nintendo) said: "You shouldn't be expecting Call of Duty-like games to be offered from Nintendo. For that type of game my belief is that, if there are companies out there who can do this very well, then instead of us try to do it this, or to compete with them, it would be better to have them do it on our platforms, so to invite them and to support them to offer this kind of entertainment on our platform" (Source: Independent).
That sounds like a good idea to me, but apparently not making an FPS, according to some of the media, means Nintendo is stuck in the past and doesn't make Hardcore games: "So if there's anything truly 'hardcore' (meaning: not including Mario or the likes) on the Wii U, it will have to come from third parties" (Source: Fragland) and "This Examiner doesn't blame Nintendo to sticking with what they know. For Nintendo, Mario and Zelda has been their bread and butter and why they may push innovation in one department, they're franchises are stuck in the past. It doesn't make them bad games, it means that if you've played on [sic] Mario or Zelda game, you've played them all"(Source: Examiner) .
How can sticking to your morals and choosing not to compete in a genre that's filled with highly popular games like of Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, and Tom Clancy, in (in my opinion) a genre that's not very innovative make Nintendo stuck in the past and not hardcore? Dude, Nintendo is the one least in the past: they are making a new high-tech console, while Microsoft and Sony are still insisting that 6-7 year old tech is still high-tech, not to mention that Zelda: Skyward Sword uses high-tech motion controls.
Though I agree that the first Zelda and Zelda: Skyward Sword are the almost exactly the same (same with Mario). . . . okay, that was me being sarcastic--I don't really agree with that. Just play Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy, or any other Mario games, and you will see that they are not almost the same (same with Zelda).