They could friggin' put it to bed already.
To answer you in a few more words, though...
DaHeckIzDat wrote:Sure, but it's not like we have Modern Warfare 92 coming out this year. We've got a bunch of different offshoots of CoD, like Black Ops, Future Warfare, and Ghosts. Some of which are better than others sure, but they ARE changing thing even if the core gameplay stays the same.
By any reasonable standard, no, they are not changing anything, any more than a ROM hack that puts a Mario sprite in Sonic the Hedgehog
has changed anything. Call of Duty
has been flogging the same rotting pulp of a horse for years and years, regardless of how particular iterations have been dressed up.
DaHeckIzDat wrote:Which makes me wonder, what else do people think they can do to a military themed FPS?
What kind of question is this? There are so many
different ways to make an FPS besides Call of Duty
's tired "spunkgargleweewee" (Yahtzee's word; look it up if you aren't familiar). You've played games that aren't named Call of Duty
DaHeckIzDat wrote:They tried changing the setting in FW, but people cried because it felt like Halo instead of CoD. They could try turning it into an arcade style top down shooter, but then people would whine that CoD is supposed to be a FIRST PERSON shooter.
Neither of these meaningfully addresses the question (the first because it's cosmetic, the second because it has practically no relation to the series at all), but that doesn't matter because, at this point, a game that actually changed anything of substance would not be Call of Duty
. It's like how Halo 3: ODST
was too different to be a "real" Halo
game, except that Call of Duty
has already had spinoffs that are essentially identical to the main series anyway, so there's no room even there for actual imagination.
I don't think that Call of Duty
is a productive avenue of discussion for your original question though, so I'll go back to your original post.
DaHeckIzDat wrote:One of the most common complaints made against Call of Duty is that every game is exactly the same as the last one, but other games like Dark Souls somehow avoid that complaint even though each game is relatively unchanged from the previous one. But then, when other games do try to change things up, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories for example, people complain that it doesn't feel like a [insert franchise] game should, and that's bad. So, in your opinion, what is worse? Never changing, or changing too much?
People in general actually do not hate games for changing too much. A textbook example is the Resident Evil
series, which went from the strange, cramped clunkiness of the PlayStation games to the action of Resident Evil 4
and was universally praised for it. People do dislike games when they are bad, like Resident Evil 6
. Nobody hated Resident Evil 7
for being completely different from Resident Evil 6
, because it was good. It's that simple. As long as there's some obvious connection to the substance - especially the strengths - of the original game, or even the previous one (scariness and lock-and-key scavenger hunts in Resident Evil
's case), sequels can do just about anything as long as they make it work. Look at the Mario games, whose entire history has consisted of using the basic foundations of Super Mario Bros.
or Super Mario 64
to explore imaginative new mechanics, like throwing enemies (in a game that wasn't even made for the series but is still beloved for its own merits) or gravity in space. Sequels don't need to be reinventions, and there's always room for refinement, but they never have to be redundant.