I have to recognize that some games went for massive changes and found success.
But I’m fundamentally opposed to it anyway, unless they don’t displace the original game/series.
For example, yes WoW was/is a huge success, but I personally still think it’s a tragedy that we lost the Warcraft strategy games, 'cause those were great.
I watched a video once defending Breath fo the Wild from all the “it’s not a real Zelda game” criticism, saying that a game series has to evolve and renovate itslef, or it will grow stagnant and die.
My take on it is that those “samey” elements are what gives a series its identity.
For example, I wouldn’t necesarily think “oh, new Warcraft game, I guess I’ll check it out” if I didn’t know wether that means its an RTS, an MMORPG, a CCG, a Clash of Clans clone, or something else entirely. (to clarify, this is a hypothetical where all those games were in the “mainline” Warcraft series. I don’t have a problem with spinoffs in diferent genres).
We need some consistency for the series to mean anything.
Also, change/innovation for its own sake is how you end up with things like Zelda 2 