Quote
AT LAST. Someone intelligent enough to understand my point. Yes, a good innovation is one the preserves the core purpose of the game & the fun. A bad innovation is one that destroys it and ruins the fun.
Nope, I think you misunderstood me entirely. As KDR mentioned, your original post implied that just about any fundamental change to the original gameplay is poor design - that a sequel should be "more of the same". You defined "bad" innovation as "completely different from the original game", using Mario Sunshine as an example - a game which many complained was *too* much like the original. Thus, just about any significant change in a sequel is bad. The above statement contradicts this sentiment, leaving me to what infinitesimal enhancements you consider to be "good innovation".
Quote
MP2 should be exactly like MP1, but with a new world to explore and cleaner control.
I disagree. There should always be a *reason* for a sequel - some kind of genuine enhancement. I'm not saying this has to be a huge change, but if MP2's only improvement was "cleaner control", I would not be interested at all. I already have Metroid Prime, why would I want another? Now, don't get me wrong; changes can be a bad thing. A good example, IMO, is WarCraft III - I just wasn't all that interested in levelling up heroes, as far as multiplayer was concerned. Yet to list that as some sort of evidence that games should not innovate - except very slightly - is completely asinine.