Xbox 360

I hate it.

I'd use the example of the Ace Combat series. Boy did they dumb that down with Assault Horizon. I loved the near total freedom the previous entries gave you. There were objectives you had to do, but when it came to how you wanted to deal with an enemy, it was entirely up to you. There were no on rail crap, no God of War style press a button when you see the cue mumbo jumbo, no dogfight mode.

Don't mess with something if it's not broken. Any changes in a franchise from one title to the next should only serve to expand upon gameplay, not limit it.

HMXTaylor_Lee posted...

A television show aimed at an audience of five year old girls taught me that.

"By trying to please everypony, you often end up pleasing nopony, especially yourself."

By referencing a show that, while directed at 5 year old girls, has actually found a far larger audience you may have undermined your point.
---
"'Grab the guns!' 'What about the troll?' 'Leave the troll.'"--ATHF

nonexistinghero posted...

Part of the reason why sales of those games are so bad is because fans don't like to be stabbed in the back. Sacrificing your existing audience in favour of a potential new audience is the worst move you can make as a developer. And no, they can't keep fans happy by slapping in a few references to other games, the most important part is that the main games have to retain the same kind of feel when playing it.

You expand your audience by keeping the original audience satisfied first. then see what you can do to attract new players.

Nope.

If you did that, your incrementality would stagnate almost immediately and you'd be left with the same base for years. What happens when that base moves on and you've done nothing to get the new guy?

They already have you. Either you like where the series is going and you stick around, or you don't and you move on. When you do move on, the hope is someone will be there to take your place.
---
The inherent idiocy of youth often outweighs its many advantages.