That's probably the single most prolific canard in gaming right now, and illustrates ones blind allegiance to what others fallaciously pass of as insight.

I'm not a fan, but I'm also not ignorant.Call of Duty innovates on core ideals, much like bethesda, even to the extent that fans find themselves discontented with their direction.With Advanced Warfare being a salient example of too much change according to their fans.

I suppose I should just be content that someone has conceded outright, and another tacitly that Fallout 4 is suggestive to the point of repetition, even if there's some shiny ancillary features trying to obfuscate reality.

I'll have to take your word for that, since that doesn't match my experience with FO3 at all.

(Like I said before, I'm not some shooter purist - I'm not sure what the big deal is about ADS vs aiming at a cursor. They both seem to work. Although ADS can be really annoying when a game does it with a huge clunky gun that obscures waaaaay too much screen space.)

disclaimer - I've been playing with the FOOK2 gun mod in FO3 for quite awhile. But I don't believe it changes the actual game mechanics of shooting, it just adds lots of guns.

People hate Advanced Warfare not because of its changes, but because those changes were done poorly, and the game plays like crap as a result. No one hated THAT it changed stuff, only that the changes svcked. Don't even try to pretend you understand the situation when you make remarks like that. Its beyond disingenuous.

I never suggested either such thing.

The shooting isnt -bad-, but the shooting is worse than a game all about shooting, Likewise TES may have okay swordplay, but you are going to have a lot more fun with the melee weapons in a game like Dark Messiah. Bethesda's games just do so much more than other games that have the luxury of focusing on a single component and refining it. I have to admit though, the shooting in Fallout 4 looks up to par with those other games that are all about shooting. I think its because of Skyrim making so much more money that they now have so much more resources to throw at various aspects of development. It makes me excited for what TES VI is going to be like, since Fallout 4 is lined up to be a even bigger mountain of money that can be invested straight into the next game.

In regards to the OP, does everything need to be revamped? I would admittedly have been happy with a new game that had no advancements other than new settings and stories, so it's hard for me to understand how some things remaining mostly the same is a disappointment.

1 Some hated the implementation, but to suggest that no one hated the change to the gameplay shows you can seemingly only argue in hyperbole and the unfounded, this is before we get to your pontification that it svcked (it must have, awesome possum sid so).

Seriously, your arguments are pathetic, often unfounded and typically hyperbolic.It only takes a nominal cognizance of the series to realize that not every COD fan wanted something so reminiscent of titanfall.

Also it's one thing to be disingenuous, but it's another to lie, which some of your statements are culpable of.

2 You also misinterpreted this point as well...

Why is this a bad thing? (I would usually call this a good thing for a series.)

Why would anyone look for and actually buy a numbered series game expecting anything but par for the series?

Also: What possible right would a game that was not par for the series have to be included in it?

Honest question to today's generation gamer: Would Skyrim actually be accepted and lauded as a sequel to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49j2rQY9e8, and I mean as 'Loki 2'? If the answer is 'no' (or 'yes' ) , then why is that?

Some people hate any and all changes no matter what, that is an understoodm that shouldn't need mentioning unless you are trying to intentionally misrepresent what people say. And it takes all of 5 seconds to google "Advanced warefare svcks" and find numerous threads on many forums saying so. I never made the claim that it svcked because I said so, and to attempt to suggest I did is a strawman defined.

As for the rest of your post, take your ad hominem elsewhere, it has no place in actual civil discussion, which you seem unwilling to have.

Because most people expect large changes and innovation between sequels, and most game companies at least put forward the idea that they are doing so.

Few people want to buy the same game they already own, just with a different plot strapped on it.

No. Just features that are dated and could use a new coat of paint. I'm just not the kind of person who enjoys the CoD approach or Hollywood approach of releasing the same product with a slightly different story. I want to see an evolution in the experience. BGS has historically done that and to an extent they are doing that with Fallout 4. I just wonder if they are going far enough. I want BGS to continue to perfect their sandbox, not allow it to become stagnant and stale.

That's additive to the question. You (and only you) are implying that it's the same game that they already own; rather than a new game built upon the foundation of the previous one.
(It's the difference between Halo 5 being Halowars 2; and the reverse. It's the difference between Monopoly 2 ~being a variant of Moustrap instead of based on Monopoly.)

Myself, I am all for buying new games; but if I buy a sequel, I expect it to look and play like an improved upon [evolution] of the previous title in the series.... not look and play nothing like the series; that what other [non sequel] titles are for.