MORE OF THE SAME ARGUMENT..

Well I thought most of the Modern Warfare 3 backlash was because it brought nothing new to the table. So I don't think it's more exempt than those other series you mention.

I think in sequels there's a certain... Weirdness when it comes to this kind of thinking. It's a sequel after all so most likely you want more of the same and not something completely different. (there are some games where people say that the sequel was "too different" too. It's rare but it has happened. Actually it's not that rare, look at the x-com and syndicate reboots :D)

However there are also certain series that generally get less flak for their sameness every year. I'm thinking especially of sports franchises that get updated each year with a small feature and a roster update. These are games where you sort of expect nothing to change from year to year. And often when they do change things (though still change them less than in non-sport franchises) it's deemed too different and usually "worse".

There's one of te things with more of the same especially with new franchises that basically just rip off other games. WoW-clones, cover-based co-op shooters, gta-like sandbox games etc. These are usually the ones that get the most shit for their "more of the same". Usually because 1) they are not part of the franchise that made this "genre" great and more importantly 2) because they are worse at doing what the main game did.

I think that's usually the problem with more of the same. The ones that make more of the same are often just worse at doing it and generally don't know what makes that stuff great.

Take Half-Life 2 for example. First person immersive storytelling with "show don't tell". Other games try this and they turn into horrible boxed canyons. Where you have to wait for your teammates to open doors and sit through tedious scripted events.

Like... Say... Homefront. Compare the intro to Homefront (I've only seen the intro and a bit of gameplay). With the intro to Half-Life 2. It's essentially "more of the same" (superficially it's almost exactly the same) but it's also done so much worse that you just have to cringe a bit.

This also applies to franchises from time to time. Consider when the developers leave to work on a new project. The fourth or fifth game in a series is often shoveled over to a "lesser" developer who usually make an inferior product. (And sometimes, just sometimes, they reinvent the franchise and bring new life into it)

EDIT: I don't really know what I was saying here. I went on a number of tangents. But... some of it might be relevant.

I think the "more of the same" backlash for "great games" can be hard to notice. Usually because it's more or less hidden as a footnote within otherwise glowing reviews. "This game is awesome, it's basically more of what was awesome last time but it's still awesome."

Eventually you get sick of it. Usually at 3 or 4. 1 and 2 tend to get a pass because 1 is the first attempt and 2 is mostly improving the foundations that was laid down in the first.

When you get to 3 and 4, people start to expect that the stakes need to be higher and that it should all transcend whatever it was before.

It's also a bit of consumer information. "Nothing's changed so there's not really any reason to buy it full-price"

Tropico 4 for example is a game I didn't buy because I already own (and like) Tropico 3 but there really wasn't enough changes for me to pay full-price for it. (Similarily I buy Football Manager games every three or four years) I have no doubt I'd enjoy Tropico 4. But I also enjoy Tropico 3 well enough.

In a strange coincidence, I was asking about this same "con" when I was reading up on the new SW: The Old Republic MMO. The most common complaint I hear about it is that it is a "WOW-clone". I have never played WOW, so does this con even apply to me? Or is the the argument "it's just more of the same" glossing over some fundamental flaws in the WOW gameplay/game mechanics that make them un-fun?

In an even stranger coincidence, I was reading an article about businesses, and how they begin to stagnate when the focus shifts from innovation to salesmanship and efficiency: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/19/peggy-noonan-on-steve-jobs-and-why-big-companies-die/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

(Steve Jobs) has a theory about "why decline happens" at great companies: "The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The company starts valuing the great salesman, because they're the ones who can move the needle on revenues." So salesmen are put in charge, and product engineers and designers feel demoted: Their efforts are no longer at the white-hot center of the company's daily life. They 'turn off.' IBM and Xerox, Jobs said, faltered in precisely this way. The salesmen who led the companies were smart and eloquent, but "they didn't know anything about the product." In the end this can doom a great company, because what consumers want is good products.

The article goes on further to state that it is also the accountants and money men search for ways to eliminate costs and buff up the bottom line:

In this mode, the firm is basically playing defense. Because it's easier to milk the cash cow than to add new value, the firm not only stops playing offense: it even forgets how to play offense. The firm starts to die.

You have got to wonder if in some instances, it is the accountants and marketers that are running the big gaming companies, and games are suffering as a result.