Sometimes sequels to beloved gaming franchise stray away from it's conventional gaming roots to experiment with new concepts and ideas, this causes a stir and controversy among the fanbase. They often demand the developers to play it safe and to stick the game within it's roots, they simply do not like change. They're comforted by the idea that developers are playing it safe instead of them formulating with new concepts that could push the gaming medium foward.

Is changing the gameplay formula of a beloved game series is a good? If you were to ask me that, I say it depends whether if not if the changes are great and give the game a new yet distinct identity or if the changes makes the series worse and turn it into a conventional game to appeal to a certain audience. The best examples games straying from it's roots to create something unique and different is Resident Evil 4. Resident Evil 4 was a huge departure from the previous games by straying away from it's survival-horror roots, but it the series was stagnating and needed something different. Resident Evil 4 turned the series into an exciting and unique, over the shoulder shooter that was loads of fun to play. Some did not approve of the change, but the series needed change in order to prevent itself from stagnating, Mega Man was becoming stale after the third installment. Resident Evil avoided Capcom's early mistakes for the better.

The best example for games to change for the worse in order to gain wide spread appeal are the new Tom Clancy's games, such as; Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell. Earlier Tom Clancy's video game brands were distinct from other games because they emphasized on realism and being smart to achieve goals effectively. Now they've become watered down to become more arcadey to be just like most games within the industry and easy to gain more wide spread appeal in order to boost up their revenue.

Tell me your thoughts. 

I don't really care about changes in the game that much, but i do care if consoles in the future will be controller free or a wiimote/move like controller as the standard, that would really sucks and i would be bashing nintendo in every gaming forum if that happens.

I don't like change, in my favorite games it wasn't for
good

Chrono Trigger - Chrono Cross
Super Mario Rpg - Paper Mario

Yes!

But thank god for Activison

There's a difference between accessibility and watering-down, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3 for the Xbox was different than it's PC counter-part. It was a more accessible and yet it was just as tactical as the PC version, Rainbow Six Lockdown dumbed it down to turn it into a straight up, Michael Bayish generic action game. Vegas was an improvement but it wasn't much better, tactics were non-existent as the most useful tactical option were the ways you could breach a door. They changed the gameplay for the worse, they could've come up with other ideas that could've made it work. They could have turned it into jungle warfare game or a Navy Seals game without dumbing down the tactical options.

I didn't mind the fact that the Ghost Recon series went from the jungles to the near future urban warfare theme, but they shouldn't have sacrifice the tactical nature. They could have added new tactical options by replacing old ones, not dumb it down to the point where the only strategy you could use with your squad is telling them where to go.

As for Splinter Cell, I didn't mind Conviction as much as the other Tom Clancy installments I've mentioned, but they could have at least made the gameplay deeper. The only Splinter Cell title I wasn't fond of was Double Agent, by far the worse game in the entry and it was average at best.

I'm not implying that Advanced Warfighter, Vegas, and Conviction are poor games (Lockdown however, was). They're enjoyable but they could've made changes without totally dumbing down the gameplay. 

People don't like change in general.

Imho, the plague of this generation, and the upcoming, will be the end of the traditional 'buy a game as a finish product', started by the introduction of the DLC in general, and the microtransactions.

If the changes are for the worse, I'm not fond of them. Nowadays it seems that the differences between sequels is that they get more and more casual and even RPG's are getting watered down. Those kinds of changes do not sit well with me at all.
Changes can improve games for sure but they can also harm them or make them less appealing.

all good change is good, but as for gamers i don't think so. i welcome any good change to a genre or game. like FF13. im not getting that game because it's not a turn based game.

Resistance 2 on the other hand took the ability of holding more than one gun and only gave me two that i don't mind because of Black and how mutch fun i had with that game only using 2 weapons.

some times it's ability verses whats good for the game and what won't work in a game. developers haft to learn how to balance those changes with what can and can't be done and not force it. cause if they force it then it won't work.

spot on. and that shows that gamers and publishers are just alike when it comes to taking risk. new IP'S verses changging an existing franchise. neither want's to take risk, but on that same note gamers and developers always won't something new. we the gamer are never satisfied!