When there is a game franchise, there are multiple ways it can go.  Everyone would assume it got changed enough to be fresh, but also not deviate too much.  So, while the mythical deviate enough to be fresh, but also remain true to the origins, and also be made accessible to an audience is the goal, it could miss the mark.  So, in light of these, I would like to ask which of the following is the worst for a game franchise:

* Tiny upgrade: The developers play it safe and keep the core in the big way, tweak and refine things and add a feature or two and decide to release it as a new game.  One can argue ODST and others went this route.

* Deviation: The developers end up deciding to take the franchise in a new direction that makes it feel that it is no longer the same type of game.  Spliner Cell: Conviction was argued to have done this.  I am sure others can think of others.  Master of Orion 3 is particularly noted for deviating in the getting rid of core races, due to art direction. MOO3 less so for core play mechanics, but in alien races in the game.

* Dumb down: A game is made more accessible to newer players, and those who haven't played it before.  The end result is a game that is less that the prior version.  Mass Effect 2 got ire for doing this by some, and I am sure others titles can be named.

* "Inbreeding": This is arguably the opposite of dumb down, and put in quotes, because the word is not meant to be taken literally.  What I mean here is this.  The designers decided to take the franchise and increasingly pander more and more to the core audience, cutting out the less core player, and making an experience that is laser focused on a smaller and smaller audience.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, board wargames went though this.  The entire industry decided it would make more and more products for a smaller and smaller niche, and go for "realism", and make the games more and more complicated.  Along the way, the newer player was boxed out, as it was "Advanced" everything, included "Advanced Squad Leader" and "Advanced Third Reich".  As far as a videogame franchise goes, Madden football stikes me as one that had done that.  Due to limitations in space, they decided to end up making the product more and more focused on hardcore Madden players, so they dropped coach only mode (tried to spin if off as new title and failed) or the auto-run the plays.  Hardcore Madden players didn't really rely on it, so they grabbed more and more resources to put elsewhere, like the passing arch eyebeam thing (whatever it was called) that was supposed to simulate the accuracy of a QB while playing.  Made it go BLECH with me.  It did finally return though, the autorun plays mode.

Anyhow, which of these is the worst in your opinion for a game franchise?  Or, if I missed one, feel free to also miss it.  I know, totally making it a failed bugfest and regressing is a universal, but the idea here is more with a design philosophy more than implementation incompetence.

If it's too similar it bores me. Tiny upgrade's are the worst that's why I normally skip generations of pokemon. one game made after the initial one is ok if they fix a lot of the things wrong with the first one without making many new mistakes. 



 If they change it drastically idc as long as its fun. I don't really get why mass effect 2 gets all the flack (Besides the lack of the mako, which the DLC has). I thought mass effect 1 was an average rpg and a poor shooter. And ME2 was a good-great shooter that was a streamlined rpg and my favorite bioware game since Baldur's Gate 2. But, that's  just me though.

Dumbing down, closely followed by tiny upgrades.

ie Madden, Call of Duty, Fifa, and a lot of other games.

I can't decide between deviation and dumbing down. Often they come together but not always. Dumbing down is bad because it removed interesting features, deviation is bad because the game feels like it doesn't belong in the series. Spin-offs are another story but even then I usually prefer them taking a whole other stance (another genre etc.) instead of just completely redesigning the old game (gameplay-wise).

Deviation. By far.

i have seen games do all of thoses. Socom 4 can be argued as an dumb down, imbred with cod, deviation from the core gameplay and an tiny upgrade to an few aspects like graphics. 

Really i have never understood "Dumming down" an making it accessable. Because this alienates current fans and potiental buyers that they aren't good enough and moving out to dum down your gameplay is an very risky venture because you can tend to go way too far. 

If your game wasn't accessible to the causal auidence but some much hard core gamers bought the game but didn't reach the sales potiental. then either dont make an sequal and make an new game or make an sequel but improve not go back wards and you can attact an larger auidence, many games have done this and done sucessful. 

Deviation is what always turns my alarms on.

Why would they not try to create a new franchise and own a new IP if the game is truly awesome?

I actually happen to like tiny upgrades and, depending on whether or not I want to play the game with others a lot, I can like both dumbing down the game and "inbreeding", as you call it. As for deviation, I often like new aspects to a good idea (Pokemon spinoffs, for example), but I suppose you're not talking spinoffs so I guess I find it the worst, but it can still be good in some cases.

Tiny upgrades, or should I say tiny changes (because upgrades is generally a misnomer)

Case in point, (totally a statement of opinion here btw) Baldurs Gate 2 was awesome, Since then Bioware has changed very little each iteration but what they have changed is to the detriment of the game, so you reach a point where you are spectacularly bored of the old stuff showing up again, but the few changes are generally bad too. NWN was a disappointment and since then the BW games have got progressively worse thanks to them all being so similar.

Sweeping changes and fresh ideas are the only way to go imo, Speaking personally, it is what keeps me interested and excited for new series' games. From experience, there will always be a few changes that annoy you(me) but there will also be many new intersting gameplay aspects to explore.

If you know you are just getting a minor upgrade on the same thing I generally find there is very little to look forward to. To the point I have got so bored of those series/companies games that live off 'tiny upgrades' I have just stopped buying them all together. And I never bought that many games annually to begin with anyway. In fact if it were not for 2 or 3 core franchises I probably would have stopped gaming long ago...