Guilty Gear is going to change.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_4794_en.html

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161381

And the point of the article isn't that these gams are bad.  Zelda is on the list after all.  And some games change and they are never the same again (Sonic).

 What about breeding, contests, the fact that you can challenge trainers after you've defeated them, two new types(metal and dark), new ways of finding Pokemon, the Battle Tower, natures, abilities, the Underground, berries?

 Just a few comments about some of the games.

 Pokemon: In this case, blame the gamers for buying so many, thus letting Nintendo get away with so few innovations.

 Metal Slug: Have new games (not compliations) even come out in the last couple years?

 Guilty Gear: This list was evidently made before the new game was announced.

 Virtua Fighter: There have also been only three new VF games in the last ten years.

 Street Fighter: First of all, most of the major changes were in the mid 1990s, just before ten years ago. Second, Capcom tried to change with Exe, and that didn't turn out well.

 Zelda: I have to call that. Even if general gameplay is the same, the tone and feel of the games are much different. You could mistake Pokemon Emerald with Diamond, if you are unfamiliar, but you could not mistake Wind Waker with Twighlight Princess.

Change can be good and bad. Change itself is not inherently praiseworthy. Some of the series really needs some good changes, but at least they haven't changed them for the worst.


Sonic is a great example of bad change.

zelda? do not agree with that.

1) I only mentioned that it wasn't a bad game because I didn't want people jumping on me for criticizing the game so badly. the game itself is quite genius in that it's simple but can do so much.

2) They have added things to the game but how much has that changed the base gameplay? Almost not at all. Pokemon is still part glorified paper/scissor/rock, part cock fight, part collecting game. Things like new ways of finding Pokemon, natures, abilities, berries, and all that hasn't changed the gameplay. It is still you find Pokemon. You raise Pokemon. You battle Pokemon. Don't take offense to this, one of the things that makes Pokemon so great is that it's so simple but can do so much.

3) I know you can sit there and rattle off things added to the game but you can do that with any game on that list. In Zelda they've changed the art style, completely different story and theme. The Virtua Fighter has added new fighters. Street Fighter...well maybe you can't say that with SF games. The point is the core gameplay hasn't changed in those 10 years.

4) Tetris new games modes, by definition, change the core gameplay. You still have classic Tetris but you also have sticky, puzzle, stack, the one with the ball, 3D Tetris, and many more game modes. All of those change the core gameplay.

Have they changed or have not, depends largely on how much you have played those games.
For example in Pokemon, battling with 2 pokemons was a major change in strategic point of wiev. But i guess for non-pokemon gamer the change was pretty much nothing.
Also, there was pretty big change in the Twilight Princess gameplay (for the bad, i think), but it's definately something that anyone, who's not a fan of the series, will notice. Edit: I was meaning "will not notice". About Zelda, Phantom Hourglass has big change on gameplay. And Pokemon Stadiums & Colosseum were pretty much different from previous pokemons. But you can count them out, since these are either new ones or exceptions, and point in this thread was that some active series change slowly (or not at all).

In regards to Zelda, considering that Ocarina of Time is generally considered the best game ever made, why would Nintendo change the formula in subsequent games? I mean, why would you mess with perfection?