Call me a spoiled sport. Call me jaded. I loved Dead Space, but I would of been happy to never see a sequel. I hate the fact that every game ends up being a franchise and in the end, ruin the experience completely.
I get what you\'re saying. It\'s frustrating thinking that a company is making Game 1.5 instead of trying to invent something new.
But at the same time, there\'s only so much they can do in one game. I\'m sure they have a boat load of great, innovative ideas to stick into a dead space game, but they cant put them in because it would take too long to make a game..it already takes 2+ years just to make the one they\'re putting out (which is part of the problem).
So I still think games can be innovative and still be a sequel. I may not want to play through dead space again, but I do want to play a new experience in the same universe.
So I think it depends more on the game than generalizing that all games are cheapened by having sequels. Bioshock is a great example. I didnt even both with bioshock 2 since it looked exactly like the first one, but the next bioshock looks amazing...they changed it up enough to be innovative (or so it seems..they\'ve only shown a CG trailer), but still has that bioshock feeling and doesnt alienate the fans.
In a perfect world, new IP\'s would be coming out every year and be amazing..but there\'s way too many question marks around new games. It took a while for people to adopt dead space as a big title...they arent going to go through the same troubles of releasing a new name with new concepts every time..just doesnt make sense financially.