That bridging out to wider audiences by changing gameplay always ruins established game series'?

It does? Always? Pretty much depends on what you consider under "ruining"...

The latest X-Com? Fallout 3 / New Vegas? Tomb Raider? Hitman: Absolution? All changed a lot of the gameplay, all going for a wider audience, all succeeded (some more, some less) commercially where the series was pretty much dead before.
Ruined or revitalized?

Just because some marketing guy claim "the game will be more accessible", doesn't automatically mean "it's going to be shit". Neither does going for a wider audience, which IS the case for ANY game / company. Nobody's aiming for a smaller potential target.

Edit: besides, taking one statement from a marketing speech to judge, without ANY clue about the final game, gameplay / art changes (besides the open world aspect), is as far from being "objective", as one can get.

Well, your examples pretty much proved my point. New X-COM, removed inventory, gutted base management, removed action-points, removed number of weapons, squad customization, you name it and it was removed or streamlined. Fallout 3/NV, lol well they did turn a complex skill-based turn-based RPG into a console-orientated first-person shooter, not much to mention there.... Tomb Raider? Well the early tomb raiders have (reasonably) large levels with almost no scripted events, tough puzzles and traps. New Tomb raider is barely even a game, more like a corny interactive movie strung together with lame QTE's. Oh and regen'ing health instead of items, no swimming (underwater puzzles), no platforming elements.

And yes, more accessibility = shit, it's pretty much a universal law. Making games for bigger audiences means more mediocrity because the vast majority of your average blokes aren't that bright. Plenty are. When you aim for specific

Your strange claims I've heard before though. Why would I care if the "names" of these old franchises still exist if the games are nothing like the originals and are utter trash? Your like a Kotaku shitposter shouting how "At least Bethesda kept Fallout alive", yeah by turning it into something it never was.

Retard.

It always looked like the principal problem that people had with ME was the "combat". From the marketing materials it was implied that combat was very much a part of the gameplay, when in fact it was really all about the fast-paced speed parkour. IIRc, many went in expecting an FPS with platforming elements, when what they got was a platformer with FPS elements.

If EA wants to expand on the combat to make it more "accessible" I see no problem with that, as long as they keep the focus on the parkour.

I would say the biggest issue with ME combat was that they made it mandatory in several section of the game. Having lousy combat mechanics is not an issue when it's optional and that the game encourage you to avoid combat anyway.... but it's more problematic when the game forces you to fight several unavoidable enemies with it.

On other hand you are like typical 15 years old 4chan poster. Do you really believe that calling people cocksuckers and retards make your arguments more valid? How old are you?

You final argument, debate techniques and common netiquette have well earned this -1.

I said retard, and I think it's warranted in that instance. Only someone dull-witted would think that "reviving" a game series' entails completely changing the gameplay until the nothing is recognizable except for the trademark name. And yes, I think it's relevant because there's a disturbing trend in internet discussions of video games of late (with regard to older franchises) of saying "at least EA/Bethsoft/Firaxis/ZYZ are keeping the franchise alive!" as if the goal of all video games is not to make good games but just as an endless money stream by pouring mediocrity and milking the name. Forget that the Civilization series under Firaxis are more dumbed-down and less complex than Civilization II over a decade ago, or that Bethsoft removed everything that was good was the original Fallout games and made a shitty action-FPS with the trademark.

But nope, according to said people, the quality of said games doesn't matter, nor does alienating it's original fans. All that matters if that "The Franchise(TM)" survives and games continue to be made.

It's like no one knows what a sequel is supposed to do anymore. You keep the same essential character of the thing, but make technical improvements, and give more/new content. It's not a license to make a different game altogether. Unless you're an asshole.
Lol, what is this Reddit? Upvote and downvote? God go play on Facebook or something champ.

I like to call it common decency and civil behavior.

Every genre of computer game has declined, that is my point. Strategy games have yet to pass Civ 2, MoM, MoO, HoMM3 in complexity over a decade later, FPS have gone backwards since the decline of PC arena shooters, with adventure games you've got TellTale making glorified interactive movies with no puzzles (pretending to be adventure games), and don't even get me starting on RPG's.

It's hard to comprehend just how utterly devastating to computer games the goal of "bigger audiences" through consoles instead of focusing on core audiences has been. It didn't just ruin PC games it ruined console games too by trying to merge them into one market, and it's only in recent times there's been an upsurge in independent PC scene.

Am I the only one who like the fact that this:

is followed by stuff like this:

:)

Keep up with the insults, they add so much to your arguments. ^^

Quote from the lowest rated X-Com review I could find (7/10):
Despite some bugs and average production values, Firaxis convincingly restores XCOM to life: its difficulty, management and tactical gameplay are there. Very nice to explore, Enemy Unknown leaves you with but one desire: to play a sequel that is richer and prettier than ever.

Completely changing gameplay? Unrecognizable?

Who claimed the quality doesn't matter? Every title I mentioned, has gotten good if not great reviews, a few made at least nominees for GotY awards. Not sure what quality requirements you have though.
Alienating the original fans? Yeah, can't be avoided to a degree. Otherwise we'd still getting the same old mechanics reapplied over and over again, with just engine upgrades. Who still wants a Gothic 1 with it's clunky controls but prettier graphics released as Gothic 5? Would the more tactical combat from Mass Effect 1 have made ME 3 a better game?

But yeah, according to you it would have been better if those franchises where left buried. But then again, you also claim to not care for these old franchises, who are nothing like the originals. You don't care, but keep bashing anyway.

We have that. It's called "Call of Duty". An incredible source of innovations in the last decade. NOT.

I congratulate you on getting what Crosmando wants :-P

Declined compared to what? Based on what criteria? In what ways? The problem that a lot of us here have (myself definitely included) is how we love to view the past through rose-tinted goggles. As great as Civ 2, MoM, MoO or HoMM3 were, they weren't by any stretch of the imagination perfect games, and there were tons of bad games that were released back in what we think of as the Hallowed Past.

If anything, you could argue that games have potentially gotten better with time, as developers and writers have learned more about writing for an interactive medium, and technology has improved in terms of graphical fidelity, engine technology, and capacity for player choice in the game world.