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?

it has nothing to do with innovation or casualizing or anything like that, the core gamers you are referring to are just whiny nerd weaboos who cannot accept change in anything, especially a series they like

i mean, theres so many new ideas, artstyles, and all around freshness in games that listetning to a small, but vocal minority is silly. look at ff13, i mean core ff fans hated it, but its the same for core dragon age fans (to be recent), and core zelda fans.

Not when the  change they make waste 50-$60 of peoples hard earned money. If a person finds the game still fun great! However, if what they changed makes you dislike the game that you spent your hard earned money on...... Of course people will be pissed. Has nothing to do with core or casual, or being afraid of a change up. It has to do with what is fun for that person.

I think the key between breaking new ground with a series and sticking with its roots is to release both as entries to the series during the course of a generation.  I guess that one could say that a series needs a proggressive part (innovative and fresh) and a reactionary part (based on the series roots).

An example for me would be Mario platformers.  In the 13/14 years (depending where you live) there were no 2d Mario platformers between SML2 and NSMB.  When I was a gamer in the later half of those years, I wanted a new 2d Mario so badly, I didn't really care if Mario games stayed the same.  Now that 2d Mario has been revived as such, as long as I get my generationally or bi-generationally fix of 2d Mario I'm happy for Nintendo for innovate Mario platformers in any way they wish.

I feel somewhat the same with traditional FF games, FF: 4HoL filled my need for an old school medieval fantasy styled Final Fantasy game.

I cannot speak for Zelda due to the fact that the last Zelda I played was OOC but as for FFXIII and Dragon Age 2, neither were great examples to pick, they are in fact, both prime example of style over substance and there were damn good reasons why fans complained.

Oh obviously the devs are always right, the gamers are always wrong.

New ideas? Lets take SC Conviction for an example. That game rips off gears of war, and rainbow six vegas. It also rips off james bond series. Overall, since RS vegas and gears of war are similar, SC conviction hardly looks "innovative".

If I want to play RS vegas, I would have played it. Guess, what? I already have, both RS vegas 1 and 2. Both made by Ubisoft. There was no need to make RS vegas 3 and name it SC conviction.

There is no need for borderline racism. 

If I like series X because of what it is, I expect it to stay mostly the same. Small changes are OK, but if there's something radical, I expect it to be something new instead of namely a game in series X. Take Dragon Age for example: DAO is a good old-school RPG, somewhat a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate even. But DA2 is a whole different case, it may (or may not) be a good game in its own right but it's too different and in a way doesn't deserve to be called a true sequel - a spin-off, perhaps, but not a worthy sequel.

Oh, and especially if this 'innovation' is actually dumbing down to cater the more casual audiences, I'm going to be pretty angry, and that's what the so-called innovation too often is.

Weeaboo is a meme, not a racial slur.

Hence the use of Borderline" instead of out and out because It's slander. But btw any slang term used to describe a racial group is basically in some way a racial slur like the expression "JAP" it is actually very resist but not meany Westerners know that and still use it by accident.