Since the launch of the DS and Wii Nintendo have again and again on every press conference talked about how they have always been revolutionary, but is that really true? Apart from the NES and GB during the 80's and recent success of the Wii and DS I can't see much revolutionary stuff (and it's arguable how revolutionary the NES or GB was since they didn't do anything other consoles hadn't tried before, they just managed to release great games along with the systems like Mario and Tetris). The SNES is just a beefed up NES, the N64 added an analog stick, but kept the old cassette format instead. The GC didn't have anything that the PS2 or DC didn't have even though it came out after those consoles. GB Pocket and GB color were just incremental updates and GBA as well. 
 
Mario, Zelda and Metroid have been the back bone of Nintendo software wise since the NES-era. 
 
You might say Pikmin or Virtual Boy as examples of new thinking, but really Sony, SEGA and MS have had just as much revolutionary stuff as Nintendo. Had you asked anyone during the N64 or GC era if Nintendo was a revolutionary company then that person would likely have said no. 
 
They should have kudos for the DS and the Wii, but those systems alone don't prove what Nintendo want us to believe, that they have "a history of revolutionary thinking" or however Reggie puts it during his key notes. And those systems would not have been made had the N64 and GC sold like the PS1 and PS2.

" . Had you asked anyone during the N64 or GC era if Nintendo was a revolutionary company then that person would likely have said no.  "

" @dagas said:

" . Had you asked anyone during the N64 or GC era if Nintendo was a revolutionary company then that person would likely have said no.  "

You're pretty full of shit, huh.  "

They are certainly revolutionary, just not in a hardcore gamer kind of way. With the wii they managed to sell millions of outdated hardware with a gimmick that only now Microsoft and Sony are copying, making money off each one, same with the ds. The 3ds, as far as i know, is unlike any portable ever. Todays Nintendo games may not be "revolutionary" to you, but they are to everyone who bought a wii who had no interest in gaming before. 

Joystick. Rumble.  Motion Sensitive Peripheral.  Touch Screens.
 
All these video game STAPLES have been initiated by Nintendo. 
 
Thats pretty damn revolutionary.

Nintendo has always done a lot of innovating. They've also been slow on adopting some technology (disks, online stuff etc.), but they're right on the ball a most of the time, and they're behind in a few cases. They're always working towards innovating with their new consoles, and they've made huge changes to the gaming landscape. Evolutionary is probably a better term since they've sparked evolution in the industry, but if any of the major hardware manufacturers deserve to be called revolutionary, it's Nintendo.

Who the hell would say Pikmin is revolutionary? You don't seem to understand why people call Nintendo revolutionary... You don't even seem to understand the difference between "new idea" and "revolution." 

I think I probably had more "first time" experiences with the N64 than with any other console since the NES. If he's measuring innovation by market success, I guess the Virtua Boy and Dreamcast and 3DO were all devoid of it too.

"Lol" is the only appropriate response. I give you this thread to figure out why your argument is unsound. I mean, do your homework on the history of the games industry if you seriously believe this.

This is a very good question.  Here are the most obvious reasons for yes and no.
 
Yes
1) The DS having 2 screens and using 1 as a touch screen can be seen as revolutionary for a game system.
2) The Wii was the first system to use motion controls.
 
No
1) Every generation of systems from the big N usually has revised versions/sequels of there games.  (this being a good and bad thing)
2) Wii has a lot of mini games from Nintendo that can be seen as a easy way to make a quick buck.
 
I'm a huge Nintendo fan but at the same time I think they can innovate more.  For a console maker they seem to be very interested in finding the next big thing as a software maker they seem to just want to make money sometimes.  
 
With these points I would still say there one of the more creative game companies out there, and most definitely left a HUGE mark (even if were not giving them credit from being the company that mainly took gaming out of the toilet in the 80's).

The introduction of the Nintendo Seal of Approval alone was a revolution. These are the people that invented the system of console releases only being okayed by the console manufacturers and made sure that the games industry didn't die in a pool of its own terrible third-party games. These are the people who made the handheld gaming market what it is and as Kyreo said joysticks and rumble seem pretty revolutionary as well. Nintendo are indeed pioneers in their industry.

Innovative to an extent, but mostly smart. I'm not even sure how they were able to tell that motion controls on a cheap system with last gen hardware would be so successful, but to the winner go the spoils I guess.

I know about the rumble pack and I did mention the analogue stick, but I still don't think they have done more than the others. The video game industry would have been worse without Nintendo I agree, but Nintendo would not have done much if it wasn't fore SEGA and later Sony. I don't say they haven't come up with new stuff, just that the others have come up with as much new stuff over the years (it's just the last 6 years or so that Nintendo really have been thinking outside the hardcore box). And to say I don't know my video game history is a bit harsh considering I've played pretty much every major system since the NES. 
 
Nintendo is a company just like any other who base their success on the proven stuff (Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc) and then experiment with new stuff as well and in the case of the Wii and DS they succeded while the Virtual Boy or the GB Printer for example were flops. SEGA had their arcade and Sonic teams as a base and then experimented with online gaming, Seaman, polygons (Virtua Racing), cell shading (jet set radio) and other things.  
 
I continue to not believe Nintendo's version of history where they have driven innovation in the video game industry for all time and others have just tried to copy them. To some extent that is true, especially these days with Kinect and Move trying to cash in, but it's a very simplified version of history.

" Innovative to an extent, but mostly smart. I'm not even sure how they were able to tell that motion controls on a cheap system with last gen hardware would be so successful, but to the winner go the spoils I guess. "

Nintendo was fine up until the Wii. I wouldn't call them innovative or anything, but at least the N64 games didn't look like total ASS like the PSX did.
Gamepube was technically more capable than the PS2 and there was a lot of good looking shit on it. Disk swaps were sort of a non issue for me. 
NES and SNES definately had quantity when it came to games. So that was always nice.
 
But the Wii literally has nothing but party games, worse specs than the original XBOX, and a controller that at best, makes their "core" games harder to have fun with.
 
But it made money, and I guess we're finally getting actual cool shit like Dance Central for the 360 out of it. And uh. That's pretty much it. Everything else on Natal is going to get real boring after the novelty wears off.

Sure, some of it is just self-important nonsense, but what company PR line isn't? On the one hand, Nintendo can be attributed for the standardization of the Analog Stick, Motion Controls, Touch Screens and so forth. On the other hand, ever since the N64 it seems like they have always been slightly behind on something every console generation (You know. Like how the Gamecube had no online and the Wii's online is still incredibly anachronistic and backwards?)  
 
 However, from a gameplay perspective...?  I'm going to be the contrarian here and say that Nintendo's 1st party in house development hasn't made anything even borderline revolutionary since Ocarina of Time.

Haven't you heard? It's called the "Revolution", dawg. Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

theres a difference between revolutionary and evolutionary. If anything right when the Wii game out everyone was yelling revolutionary new controls, however it hindsight some might say their control scheme is changing the world, which Sony and Microsoft creating their view on waggle controls yet gameplay wise. Personally i don't like the motion control stuff, i would just rather set on a couch with a good controller and play my games, but the companies think they know best. Lets just have to see how well Move and Natal sell over holidays. 

yes