3D World has a lot of geometric shapes (like squares), and practically all levels take place in the sky or over lava, which is what 2D tile-based platforming put on a 3D plane. I'm just not a fan of that level style, just as how I'm not a huge fan of Rainbow Ride, Lethal Lava Land, or Whomp's Fortress.
People have been bringing up new items, levels, enemies, power-ups, etc. as reasons Nintendo is still innovating, but every iterative game (like New Super Mario Bros. 2) people have been harping on are doing exactly that, even classic "rehashes" like Call of Duty, Dynasty Warriors, Mario Party have been adding "new" stuff, so people are looking past that point. The new power-ups in Galaxy 2 aren't even handled well, with Yoshi's power-ups being extremely limited, and on a timer, with Yoshi being extremely limited itself. Galaxy utterly failed in expanding and improving on Galaxy 1 in that aspect, and they had the potential to innovate and make great uses of the Boo Mushroom, Red Star, and Ice Flower, but they're pretty much nixed or again relegated to one super linear "gimmick" level.
Double Cherry has a spark of brilliance, but it's not enough to make up for the overwhelming safeness the game has. Same thing for Captain Toad, he even has an entire game around that.
Nintendo has innovated in the past with gameplay-heavy features. Super Mario 64 is a hell a lot different from its contemporaries with a health system, slightly more varied combat, and a whole lot of other core gameplay differences, probably due to system limitations, but it really stands out due to this.
Super Mario Sunshine has the entire F.L.U.D.D., which again, is a lot different from merely introducing new power-ups, enemies, and levels. It's like giving Mario a permanent weapon which definitely helps the game to stand out. Sunshine is flawed, yes, but it doesn't have much to with F.L.U.D.D. and more to collection issues, which can be alleviated in a sequel.
Super Mario Galaxy is... well, Mario in space, and it plays a bit like Super Mario 64 but higher emphasis on yet another weapon: the star spin. The entire concept was pretty novel at the time and IMO it's like Mario breaking the frontiers or something. After Sunshine's languishing state, critics praised that as a return to form (I think it's pretty good; I'd give it 8.5-9/10, flaws keep it from being higher than 9). And it's a pretty damn new deal at the time, especially when you compare it to its predecessors.
New Super Mario Bros., meanwhile, is a solid classic return to the series, but I don't think it's considered spectacular despite being fairly aged, so you can't really say nostalgia drives it, especially when it's older than Super Mario Galaxy.
New Super Mario Bros. Wii is really good too, but it's unfortunate that New Super Mario Bros. 2 and New Super Mario Bros. U are made later so people tend to associate the series as a whole as "rehash" and "cash-grabs" when I think the first two entries don't wholly deserve hate.
Super Mario 3D Land came around as a new thing as well. I don't remember it being impressive and neither did critics, but I did enjoy it all the same.
Again I think the biggest problem with the recent games is that the recent mainstream platformers happen to be Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, Super Mario Maker, and New Super Mario Bros. U. They're all "sameish" in a sense, and Super Mario Maker would've sounded hella amazing if I wasn't aware that fan-made Mario level creators exist and have much more flexibility despite some advantages Super Mario Maker has over them. Nevertheless, I had low expectations for Super Mario Maker, and I expected lack of obvious features, arbitrary restrictions, and lack of flexibility, and it actually delivered that to my disgust. The only neat things are Mystery Mushrooms, gimmicky stuff like SFX and putting wings on everything but Super Mario Maker is heavily restricted if you want to make serious levels on par with New Super Mario Bros. Wii. My point is, though, they all feel pretty formulaic with the whole flagpoles, time limits, worthless coins, and the heavy emphasis on stomping and power-ups.
"Mario in space" sounds more exciting because it's revolved around an entire Mario game rather than a power-up, especially when power-ups are used very sparingly (I'm looking at you, Yoshi). I give it to you that the Cat Costume has a big presence and I was excited to see it, but it isn't quite the same deal as in Galaxy, as it feels like it's on a much smaller scope. I feel space is perfect for so many possibilities, especially for a surreal world like Mario's, and again, I can't describe it to you in objective terms.
I've already brought up Mario & Luigi + Paper Mario, actually, and I'd love to see a sequel on this, maybe even adding more in-series references like recipe-making, iterative power-ups for Paper Mario, and other things. I think the characterization is great, although the series merge in of itself has little to do with this (and Mario & Luigi need to talk for Christ Sake; get cues from Fortune Street, will ya?)
Mister Wu said:
Whoah! Quite many topics touched here!
Regarding RPGs, I think with Paper Jam Nintendo realized what it apparently tried to do with Sticker Star (but failed because of bosses): no new characters, the same settings in the Mushroom Kingdom, Bowser as main villain.
The interview showed that, apparently, this is tangential with what AlphaDream wanted to do which was trying new things with the gameplay (e.g. dodging with three characters, copy blocks, trio moves in battles, as well as paper abilities with three characters and dash in the overworld, with papercraft battles as new giant battles). I'm glad that at least the guys at AlphaDream also developed the characters personalities which is something always welcome, especially when the "Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros." contains bios of pretty much two sentences to describe them.
Regarding going safe, this seems to be a recent trend that apparently also affected the RPGs now, I'm guessing this could have two causes: wanting to launch Mario as a brand that as many people as possible must know (and thus being very simple itself and with a simple concept, otherwise it is difficult to fully understand and remember) and also ensuring that the main aspects of Mario gameplay don't get diluted with secondary aspects (graphics, complex settings, story and so on) to "preserve" the purity of the Mario games.
There might also be economical reasons, as the Wii U flopped and so experimenting might be very costly and quite risky for Nintendo, especially if you end up scrapping a game after two years of development showed that the new idea wasn't very good in the first place.
Then , there are the difficulties of creating proper roster in time, but this is regarding the spin-offs and is a totally different issue, which might become even worse in the future unless Nintendo revises its deadlines and does not promise a game in too little time (Paper Jam itself was released 2 years after Dream Team, and considering the work needed to create pixel art for new characters, this was clearly not much time).
But really, understanding how Nintendo works today internally is not something I can really do, so this wall of text is just my two cents...
Yeah, I want to be fair with Nintendo. They recently lost Iwata, the Wii U isn't doing extremely well, and they're losing shares and stuff. But Nintendo has shown to be daring and innovative such as in Splatoon, or they incredibly expanded on their I.P.s such as Super Smash Bros. Mario just seems to suffer from stagnation.