I think any gamer would be lying if they said didn't have a favorite game series. When the publisher alters the nature of the game, or seemingly sidelines the series, the fans are on occasion not happy.
However, if such changes potentially lead to innovation, should the fans just deal with it?
Let's say theoretically Nintendo has to decide between Pikmin 3 and wii vitality sensor for the holidays. I love Pikmin!...but the potential for new and innovative ideas might be more prevalent with wii vitality (assuming it hasn't been scrapped). Sure Pikmin 3 might showcase pseudo rts/motion harmony. Wii vitality could be dumb, yet it could spawn new ideas and different ways to approach immersion in video games. That's not to say I don't want Pikmin 3 more than wii vitality, b/c for my money I really do. However, if such a dilemna occurs perhaps I should be accepting if Nintendo decided to push wii vitality. Again that is theoretical. Both would be fantastic :D
I'd venture to say wii fit paved the way for kinect. Despite many gamers panning it as a detriment to the video game industry, it sold hardware and helped broaden even Sony and Microsoft in the long run. Ideally 'core' titles should be released alongside such titles, as was done with Mariokart wii and brawl with wii fit.
And then there's changing a fan-favorite series. I am a splinter cell conviction hater of sorts. Sam Fisher gave up his stealth roots for a playable action movie. However, two of the greatest attributes from conviction was the enhanced cover system and the story depiction on the walls in-game. While I certainly would have wanted the Sam Fisher of old, I can appreciate the changes made. If future Gears of War(cover) and Half life(story) titles are influenced and challenged by conviction the industry benefits.
What do you think? Are core gamers not accepting of innovation and new ideas as much as they could be?
