You're right, but you phrased it in a way liable to misinterpretation.
Suppose someone really likes a game, he then starts making his own which builds upon that game. The new game is usually then too similar to the previous game, and might be hard to tell apart gameplay-wise from the other unless you actually have some experience with said games yourself. Example, Mike Z really liked fighting games, so he made Skullgirls. What makes Skullgirls' gameplay special compared to others? Only fighting game enthusiasts will know.
The biggest problem here is that 'experienced gamers' will design games with pre-conceived notions in mind rather than from the ground up. If you ask someone really good at first-person shooters to make a new FPS, he'll start designing with things which he feels should belong in every FPS, like loads of guns, reloading, huge sprawling maps, hitscan enemies, regenerating health, and so on, because those are the kind of games he has the most experience with and thinks is what makes a FPS work. If you ask a complete layman to design a FPS, he'll have to do so from the ground up and take nothing for granted. Medkits are essential to most seasoned gamers, but a layman would ask 'why?' to that because he hasn't the faintest clue. Why is there ammo? Why is there reloading? Why is there all these weapons? To gamers these questions are self-evident, but such a mindset prohibits innovation beyond 'X but with Y'.
Basically, seasoned gamers make clones, complete laymen will either do what everyone else is doing, or come up with something rough but unique. For Nintendo it kind of makes sense for their new IPs, until they make sequels for it. Again and again. Then you're just building on a concept.