Nay, I was ALWAYS addressing the "why" of it. That being "because they can". To cite a lovely quote from the FMA series: "Reasons are always simple." The better question is "Why DON'T they always?" I brought up great examples earlier, but let me repeat a few of them. What would Hexen have been if it didn't change things from Heretic? Well it would have been a good game, because at the time "Doom clones" were all the rage, and they were beloved. They were NOT bad games nor complained about being too prevalent. But it wouldn't have been the same Hexen that we received. It arguably would have been not as good as what we got. Then again, some other thing we can't even comprehend might have been better, too. The same could be said of had Maga Man X not made such drastic changes from the previous formula of the ENTIRE established Mega Man franchise. If Call of Duty never popularized a previously unfavorable approach to FPS in 2008 with the revolutionary and wildly successful COD4. All of these were major changes in direction for their associated franchises. BUT... it's important to recognize that these questions are all hypothetical, and that we actually got what we got, however much of it was through deliberate change, not simply evolution of the medium or improvement of technique. The simple point being the opportunity is there, and if it can be capitalized upon, go for it! That's the why of it. If change is attempted, and failed at, we shouldn't beg the question "Why change anything ever", we should analyze what it was that failed in particular. What was bad about changing from free-exploration (maze) level design rocket-jumping shooters to "modern shooters" where the progress is determined more by AI advancements and less by player involvement? Don't lambast the change, discern what was a problem. Step off your high horse you soap box preaching twat. See that? THAT'S an insult. Where have I ever insulted you prior to this (and bear in mind, this "insult" serves as a lesson; it isn't even a genuine insult)? Where have I ever been sarcastically derisive to you? When have I ever resorted to quippy put downs? Please, enumerate or otherwise qualify your baseless accusations. "Trivial" is not an insult to you, unless you possess some inferiority fear of being labeled trivial. "Inconsistent" is not an insult, it's pointing out your haphazard relationship with consistency and a tendency for self-contradiction. I say it like it is, and I'm blunt and forthright when I do it. There's no subtext with me, when I address another human being. There's never any ounce of insult, sarcasm, or any of that nonsense you're projecting onto me. You may not LIKE it, but that's your business, not mine, and not liking it certainly means squat with respect to whether I'm insulting you or not. Have I ever called you names? Have I ever attacked you? Have I ever misquoted you to make a joke out of you? Have I EVER laughed at you or your posts? The answers to all of these questions are a resounding: no. No, I've only ever sternly disagreed with you. I've objected to your assertions, and I've rebound against your stubborn refusal to acknowledge when I make a sound point. Does that make me a self-entitled know-it-all? No, that just means I voice a point when I'm assured of its validity. I say it many times, but I'll repeat it to you, I DO state (and this is not a joke) that, "It's easy to never be wrong: I just keep my mouth shut if I don't know for absolutely certain." If you interpret that to be incredulous and arrogant, you would again be marvelously mistaken. It's a self-humbling practice, because I have to refrain from speaking out if I don't know something. I have to discipline myself against attacking everything I do not like or want to disagree with until I know... know beyond a shadow of a doubt... that what I can say is factually accurate. From my perspective, the one tossing insults and sarcasm is you. Yet have I ever levied that accusation against you? No, because it's quite possibly a misunderstanding on my part. A courtesy you've never seen fit to grant me, by the way. What I CAN do is deviate from my normal approach, because apparently I'm too subtle. I typically DO NOT highlight an entire post, or a large chunk of it, because I agree with it and I wish to sing its praise. But because I don't do that, you seem to think all I have are negativity and hatred and opposition. Vis a vis: See, THIS is all a good set of points. Granted, they're grounded in contemporary examples, but they're still good points. Having not played Watchdogs yet (though wishing I could, I simply do not own a next gen console and my PC needs replacing before I get newer games), I can't comment on its particulars from experience, though based on your description it DOES remind me of some of the changes/improvements from Bioshock to Bioshock 2, in particular, the hacking minigame (thus the connection). In BS1, you could access any object that could be hacked, assuming you hadn't hacked it already, and it would pause the game. All combat would cease and resume only once the hacking minigame was completed (or failed). On top of being absurdly impractical with respect to suspension of disbelief, it was also highly exploitable, as certain Tonics (player upgrades) would grant free health upon hacking completion, and failing a hack could never be lethal despite otherwise causing harm to the player. So hacking was a free pause of the action that could give you health and other freebies. Really nasty when abused, on top of just being kinda silly, cause it was all just a plumbing minigame. BS2 changed this up to be a much more simplistic "hit the button when the moving cursor is directly above the green or the blue bars" minigame that COULD be attempted in combat but did not pause the action so it lent itself more to stealthy approaches; fitting for a hacking theme, wouldn't you say? This moved away from the "aquatic" themes that repeated throughout the first Bioshock, but it was largely a welcomed improvement. Another major reason that change between game titles is undergone right now, in contemporary gaming, is the minimalization of the art form itself in favor of the market model. It's not a bad thing to pursue good business strategy, but when that overrides all other decisions in the creation of a work of art, that invites homogenization. The veritable "melting-pot" of gaming, where games begin to blend their mechanics with other, "more popular" titles. Hence why there are so fucking god damned many gunmetal grey wartime first person shooters. Everything I've said up until this last paragraph is still true, but those largely hold to the ideal and past examples, and this is all the more recent trend in gaming. I've still voiced before that what's going on now is NOT what I'm supporting, it's at best a bastardization of the process and a stark failure to accomplish what it rightly ought to, and at worst..... myeh.