Gaming has a curious double-standard regarding when a franchise is allowed to change and when it isn't. Series that go out of their way to never let the gameplay change too much end up like Armored Core, enthusiastically loved by the tiny fanbase that comprehends the gameplay, and sort of irrelevant to everyone else. Then again, changing too much too quickly draws complaints, too.

This puts long-running mainstream franchises that can't really afford to become niche titles or alienate die-hard fans in an interesting position. There have already been complaints about Halo 3's gameplay feeling too dated when compared to shooters like Gears of War or BioShock, and I'm currently playing Project Gotham Racing 4 and wondering how much more I would like if it I hadn't already played the more-sophisticated Forza 2.  This said, if Halo 3 or PGR4 had too openly mimicked any competitor, wouldn't the long-time fans (justly) feel slighted?

It's strange, because when it comes to niche titles, a lack of change tends to strike me as a selling point. Playing Culdcept and Culdcept Saga back-to-back for the November issue and finding them nearly identical (aside from visual overhauls) was actually very delightful for me. I'm sure if I went back and played some of the import-only Culdcept titles, I'd find that their gameplay was utterly identical, too. It's the same part of me that finds Atelier Iris games and N1's refusal to abandon sprite-based graphics appealing, for their steadfast refusal to "break" something classic just to look updated. A lot of gamers who enjoy niche titles tend to have similar views.

So why isn't this a view that is more widely respected when it comes to more mainstream titles? After all, gamers weren't pleased that Super Mario Sunshine was effectively Mario 64's gameplay with a few little twists; they were pissed that it didn't represent the quantum leap forward. Then again, what everyone loved about Twilight Princess was how it hearkened back to the N64 Zelda games in almost every way. I suppose the crux of the post is: why is it sometimes okay to make a franchise game extremely similar to previous titles in the series, and why is it sometimes not?

EDF is another good example of a game series that's fun because the gameplay never changes that much, that's true. The only thing 2017 was missing was online co-op, which would basically make it the perfect arcade-style 3PS.

With Halo 3, it's not even that it's "just an FPS". I play a lot of FPS in the course of covering the 360 beat. It's that Halo 3 resembles Halo 1 & 2 far more than any other competing modern FPS on the market right now. The rest of the genre has evolved and changed while Halo refuses to depart from its original gameplay formulas. I can't say that I find this good or bad, just... well, interesting.

See, with Zelda, I think it's interesting that people immediately defend TP by saying that it's better than another game like Wind Waker, instead of making a third argument that's logically possible: to be disappointed that it's another Zelda game that tries to be more like old Zelda games than something trail-blazing.  People make complaints about games like this all the time... just not about Zelda. Why not? 

On Megaman - I liked Megaman through Megaman X I think 6 or so, then they started going 3d and stuff and it died to me.  I liked it a simple 2d platformer.  Also, Legends wasn't a bad series for Megaman, but the new stuffs awful and I can't stand that network battle series at all.  Why don't people insult Zelda?  Rabid nintendo fanboys.

I feel the same way with the Metroid and Super Mario series, honest.

I loved the 2D Metroids, but can't stand the current FPS's.

Same with Super Mario. I love the 2D games (or even the 2.5D, in the case of NewSMB), but I can't get into the 3D Mario's... even Super Mario 64.

I can't imagine why you'd hate on a game for letting you break sequence. I wish more modern games would let you do it. I know something that was delightful about the early N1 strategy games was the freedom to had to build weird characters and teams, yet still win battles with them if you built carefully. What soured me so badly on Soul Nomad was absolutely, well, linear and prescribed the gameplay was. It gave you the appearance of being able to make choices without actually letting you do anything very meaningful.

I remember getting all or nearly all of the hidden items before going after the dungeons.  That was always fun.

I've given up on trying to figure out what people want and just go for what makes me happy.  ChibiRobo to ChibRobo Park Patrol?  Yeah, I'll have some of that.  Mario 64 to Mario Sunshine?  No problem!  Get the series feel right and give me something fun to do and I'm a happy person.

On the other hand, there's always stuff like Guitar Hero II to Guitar Hero: 80s.  Zzzz....  Total snore-fest.  I also wish there'd been a longer gap between Katamari Damacy and We <3 Katamari.  Nothing makes a game less special than an annual sequel.  Doesn't mean I don't want to play more, just that a decent length of time between one and the next keeps things fresh.

James