This whole point of this discussion is to refute that just because you know how a previous game plays, that means you know how this game is, which is just incorrect. You're looking at Color Splash like it is Sticker Star, which is just an incorrect way of looking at it. This isn't Sticker Star, and you shouldn't go into it thinking like that, but as a new game. It's that reason why people passed on it, they pre-maturely assumed that instead of giving the game a fair chance. And no, it is not a drastic drop in quality. Otherwise, you are giving Sticker Star way too much credit, and Color Splash not nearly enough.

And yes, all those things can change with a new game, and this one too. Games can be improved upon. They're not just going to release the same game with nothing new done. In terms of genre, Color Splash certainly does challenge the concept of how traditional RPGs usually are, taking the usual 'beat the enemies until they die' concept and adding a sort of puzzle element to it, resulting in some very unique and interesting battles, or just battles that require some trial and error to figure out how to beat the enemies (and this is not with the thing cards either). Though for those who prefer the standard strong boss fight battle, they have some of those too. Content as well is different and quite varying. Almost each level you play through has something new and unique to it, making it feel like you really are in a large world. You start off with a green field, a beach, and caves, but then you also find yourself at a bone digging site, a creepy mansion, traveling with pirates, boarding a run away train, and so on. Game machanics admittedly don't feel much different, since the style has been a staple since Mario RPG, but there are some things that make it different and unique. So simple, yes, the things you listed can be changed when you play a game. I really didn't want to answer this because, you just need to play it to get it.

I don't agree that you can be completely informed on a game just by looking it up. Reading up on how a game plays just isn't the same as playing it yourself. You can get an idea on a game and decide if you think you'll like it, and honestly, pokemon and fire emblem don't really change all that much, as well as story not being a major point in these games. The gameplay in those is the major bulk in those, and they just different games!

Since you spoiled yourself to TTYD and you came to enjoy it, perhaps the same can't be said if you did the same with Color Splash? It may be more appealing than what you initially think, though experiencing the adventure yourself 1st hand is usually the better option.

You don't really refute my point on games and poor sales either. You claim that you base your opinion on Color Splash being a poor game because of poor sales, but then deny that with other games that also sold poorly, or generally poor games that still sold well. That just doesn't help your case. Althought sales can be a good indicator of if a game is good or not, it's not always the case. Sometimes good games... just sell poorly, and vice versa, for different reasons. People likely didn't buy the game because they thought Sticker Star, assuming it was bad as well. Though, me and the minority who played it, really know how it is.