You are, or were, comfortable in GunZ. A new game would mean new things to learn, and what if you didn't turn out as good?
"MAIET lucked out the first time." "They've ruined the game, confirmed!" Convenient memes that propagate easily. You don't know whether the new system will play to your strengths again. Why not do your best to nip enthusiasm in the bud? Preemptive sour grapes is the best policy here.
You would know it's going to be bad -- look how good you were in the first game! You're an expert on the sequel because it's in the same series. It's not like you have a vested interest to discredit the second game (see "attention" below).
Even better if you become good at the sequel too. "Yeah, the previous one required so much more skill, this is nothing, ezpz, I always said so." This is fail-proof, unlike taking a chance on something new. Showing optimism means sticking your neck out.
You've got the conclusion in mind. It's a bad game with awful physics, slow controls and no depth. Watching the closed beta test videos, you then find supporting arguments, always keeping the conclusion you want to reach at the fore of your research. Scientific method, don't you know? Plus, you're still neutral and unbiased, and you can keep projecting such an effective unconcerned attitude.
In fact, only someone that's highly astute and observant would notice your insistence on badmouthing a game you pretend to have no stake in at every occasion.
As in so many other cases, the problem is easily boiled down: a new game means new people to play against. New elite players will surface, getting all the attention. It will be a new "in" crowd, and you may not be a part of it. That's why you will eventually grudgingly migrate to GunZ 2 anyway; you don't want to be left behind and forgotten.
Oh, wait, hold on-- http://bit.ly/SGe9kU
Negative non****, GEN-CINT! The ASSTWSST is a ROGER-DONKEY!
there's just not a whole lot to hype - most of the reason gunz was good was because maiet coded gunz so badly that it happened to work out well for them, not really because of any gameplay design choices they made (i don't think you can deny that they got lucky).
your argument would make a lot more sense for sequels of almost any other game - gunz is just kind of the exception in that the developer has explicitly stated that gunz 2 will be simpler and that it won't have k-style, which was the primary draw of the game. the technical-ness of gunz 1 is the main reason why it's only almost dead after 7 years of no significant balance/gameplay patches and not entirely offline yet. it's not the fact that k-style is being removed that's the issue, it's that it will most likely not be replaced with anything else that would give the game depth, since maiet has since learned to program properly and hasn't shown that they're actually able to make a good game on purpose.
or you can do a wall run and run on the wall whilst shooting your enemy into the dark and deep beyond.