So a large number of people here have probably been around long enough to see a good number of game franchises grow over the years. There have been a good few games which have...changed the direction of their games, to say the least. And gamers, being gamers, have always reacted, although in different ways. The first type of franchise is the one that sticks to its guns, giving the player basically the same type of gameplay with marginal additions and upgrades. However, as more and more games in the franchise are made, it recieves more and more critisism from critics and gamers alike for their unwillingness to change. Culprits include: The 'musou' series (Dynasty Warriors, Samurai Warriors), Call of Duty 1-3, many, many JRPGs, etc. The other type of franchise is the one that one day makes the massive change from one direction to another, often changing genre entirely. They offer completely new types of gameplay to gamers, and features from previous installments are more rare, if included at all. However, this garners criticism once again from critics and gamers alike for the unfamiliar direction their games have taken. Culprits include: Resident Evil, Devil May Cry, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. Of course, there has been the odd exception. So, what do gamers want? (Also, quick note that I'm not claiming that 'gamers' as whole are just one entity, but just judging on 'popular opinion'. Also, I'm sure that there are probably other better examples than the ones I gave, but I had a mindblank. Fail.).
Btw, Sonic 4 is going back to the roots... because that's what gamers want. If you're going to change a game drastically, you have to do it right so it appeals to fans and new players alike (i.e: Super Mario 64). Hope that helps!
I think I fall into the first category. There are always exceptions, but by and large I think if it's not broken, don't fix it. Dynasty Warriors takes it to extremes though. If there's really an urge for the developer to try something new, make it a spinoff and see how it's received, don't take a risk by drastically changing the core IP. Almost related note: REmake looked awesome, just how amazing would RE games look on current consoles if they'd stuck to that forumla? RE4 and 5 were fun, but I miss the classic style.
I thought that they did pretty damn well with the day segments in Sonic Unleashed. I remember replaying some of those levels over and over again because of the great visuals and sense of speed, and the integration of 3D gameplay was great. It was the night levels that were long, grueling, and stuck out like a sore thumb. In general, it's hard to keep an IP fresh while retaining the same sort of gameplay that made the original fun in the first place. It's natural to see a popular franchise bomb every so often, just like a director can't make a great movie every single time. But there's a different between the occasional failure through the decades and simply nose-diving the entire time (yep, I'm looking at you SEGA, and pretty much every game you've developed).
I have to admit that I am quite a fan of the Musou franchise. I don't know why I like it, and probably shouldn't, but something about it keeps me playing. They tried to give Dynasty Warriors an 'overhaul' in DW6, but then they just ended up still getting low critic scores, and the fans didn't like it that much, either. Eh.
I've got DW6, it's quite fun if you're in the mood for a mindless grind, or you've got a friend to mindlessly grind with... I'd probably skip a few games before I felt the need to buy another though.
"If it ain't bike don't fix it". That's factual in many real things such as cars, toilets, and fences. But, it doesn't describe games. Games should be updated if the gameplay is aged. The RE franchise needed the reboot from 4, but it took out too much horror in 5. Sonic.... Please.... Don't get me started.... I think they forgot that he isn't a real hedgehog, he's supposed to run at 50 bajillion fps. The COD start to seem like new weapon & player skins now. The past 3 have run on the same exact engine, but people would rather buy new sports games every year too.
I think the best way to approach this is keeping the same core gameplay but add new mechanics and learn from the mistakes of the original. The best example of this IMO is the Super Mario Galaxy series. The first was excellent, and the second is even better. The main praise for the sequel has been how it kept the same basic highly-praised gameplay of the first while fixing the mistakes of the original and adding all kinds of new additions and challenges. Gamers, or me at least, don't want to play to the same game twice just with different levels or campaign but rather play an evolved game that adds new challenges while retaining what made the original great.
Why change a winning formula? If the public likes it and it's making money you'd be foolish to revamp the whole thing. That'd be like turning Mario Galaxy 3 into an FPS for no reason whatsoever. RE got lucky with 4, but it could so easily have been a spin off series, 'cause now we've got a hole where there used to be a bunch of awesome zombie games. Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising are too arcade-like and comical to take it's place, so we've got nothing.
You said "if it ain't broke...." doesn't apply to games. I'm giving you an example of a game that isn't broke. Now you're telling me it doesn't apply to games, except ones with aging gameplay... which sort of means they are broke, so the phrase makes perfect sense.
I thought it stood to reason that the phrase, when used in this context, generally meant "a game which no longer holds an appeal". It's not selling, therefore it's not working. Either through generally being bad, being glitchy, too short, having boring gameplay...
