I don't get it. I'm desperately trying to, but I don't.
Everywhere I see threads talking about how Blizzard can't be innovative, every expansion, sequel, etc is just more of the same. I don't get this.
SC1 was a great RTS, with a good story. SC2 was a great RTS, with a good story. They threw in a bunch of new things, new units, upgrade features, and kept some old neat things, like missions where the objectives changed based on your decision. But it was still StarCraft, and still an RTS. Are people saying it shouldn't have been?
Same with Diablo. Diablo 3 comes out, and there's all this talk of how it doesn't innovate. It's still a top-down, hack-n-slashy dungeon-crawler designed around getting loot. Which is EXACTLY what I would have expected the CONTINUATION of a series of top-down hack-n-slashy dungeon-crawlers designed around getting loot to be.
I'm trying to think of a game that had a sequel that was wholly innovative. The Mario games, which differ greatly in how each of them work, are definitely innovative, however, they are not a series. Each game is pretty much independent of any previous game. So that doesn't count. Same with Zelda.
I'm thinking of other games that actually had true SEQUELS that were innovative, that didn't just add new things without changing everything drastically. And I'm coming up dry.
I don't know, when I play a sequel, I expect it to play more or less like the original, but with old issues addressed, and some new stuff added in. Is that bad? Someone help me out here, and help me think of a sequel to a game that was truly innovative.