So... sequels.

[xPrometheusx]

Not wanting to be a pedantic dick, but I'm not entirely sure what this proves; surely that means that people coming in at different times in the series aren't 'sheeple that buy the name'?

Probably a point I'm missing here or whatever.

Sorry for double-posting, you ninja'd me with your reply. Thanks for the disclaimer, it makes me feel better about myself. Honestly!

And regardless of when they come in, new players buy cod because it's cod. It's the shooter. There isn't any consideration for gameplay or repetitiveness, they do buy it because it's the current CoD, which is supposed to be the standard. They're still buying it for the name.

Then why are they in the same series?

They should have made a new IP.

They made BS after SS. They should make a new IP unless they don't think their game is good enough to survive without using the BS name.

As someone else said earlier, its that name-brand recognition. It may not be a bioshock, but being able to slap the name on it ensures that everyone who enjoyed bioshock 1 and/or 2 will see that game and go "hmm! The first one or two were really good! I'm gonna get this!"

You're right, it's a fair point and kinda a cheap marketing tactic, but I'd rather have a sequel that looks like it should /be/ an original game than a sequel that looks like the original game.

 

[oplinger]

if they spread their resources a little more and made, say, 6 shorter, 10 dollar original games and sold them for 20 instead of one 60 dollar sequel, than they could fix that. Or they actually took a chance with a new game like publishers did every time they released a new series years ago, then the problem would disappear.

And what kind of quality are you expecting from these 6 shorter games? the same AAA quality, but the size of the game cut short? Like an episodic game?

Or like 6 short indie games developed by 5 people in a few months?

I don't think either option would "fix" anything.

Say you are making 6 games, all scheduled to be released in a year. Say you take an average budget of 20 million for a big 60 dollar AAA game, and just divide by 6, and hand it out to people. That's about 3.33 million. now say you have a team of 100 people for that big AAA title, split that by 6 too. about 17 people per team. budget wise you'll still pay these employees the same amounts.

Median, let's say 50k a year for 17 enployees, that's 850k.

Shave off .3 million for marketing, for all the projects.

You'll also need to spend time creating the engine, or licensing the engine. Licensing is cheaper, but in most cases the cheap option for licensing means they get revenue from your game. Otherwise, 500,000 dollars down.

Now, i won't go through all the monetary losses, by this point you would almost be done with half of your budget.

The quality drop would be phenomenal.

Say you make your own engine, it could take 3-6 months to create a brand new engine for your games development. You can still work on the resources, but without an engine it would be hard to get models into the game, or animations, depending on how you code it, technical stuff aside. That is less time to polish your game.

You're 6 months into your project, you have 6 months, and possibly only 1.5 million to make a game decent enough to ask for 20 dollars. It needs to sell 150,000 copies just to break even. All of them need to do this to be financially viable. If one offsets the others, the others have to balance it and if all 6 projects just break even, the whole idea is a bust.

Not a solution.

That's 6 new IPs, you may find a couple of the 6 worth making a sequel out of, and that's the companies investment, but many companies don't have that sort of cash, or just aren't willing to risk that kind of money. Also they may end up in the same sequel cycle we're complaining about.

 

[Blunderboy]

Well, congratulations, you're in the minority, by a lot. I've never known ANYONE who's played the original CoD (well, at least not when it released) and plays MW3 today. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, the entire gaming community that is the Escapist is a minority just because of the general intelligence level. It seems to have dipped a bit recently, but again, that's another discussion.

Maybe this would be a better argument against someone with a lower post count/more recent join date than yours.
As I said, about half of the people that I played with then, still play now, so it?s clearly not that small a minority. The fact is, while the games keep making money they?ll keep getting made. It?s an industry.
It is bad games that are the problem, regardless of what number they have after their name.

 

[xPrometheusx]

I scissors your post.

Once you have an engine established, you can use it for any number of games, not every game needs it's own. Take Unreal, for example. That engine practically defined the current-gen consoles, and there isn't a single really binding quality to every game made by it, albeit most are shooters. That's a one time expense, and on top of that, EA already has at least one engine established for each of their franchises that could be used or salvaged/modified for a different game. That'd be much easier than building an entirely new engine.

And the big factor you're failing to account for is time. Activision is in a rigid yearly schedule, and sadly, EA/DICE seem to be following suit. Giving your developers more time flexibility to create a game works wonders, it would seem. The other half of the time area is how long the game is. Most good Original Content games have a shorter game length but a higher replay-ability value than AAA titles. Emphasizing that value rather then "ooh, shiny graphics" makes a much better, lower cost game.

Now, I feel like with time comes money, and that's the key area that I'm missing here. And because I'm bad at math, combined with the fact that it's now 2:30 AM, I can't say if that's right or wrong. So maybe you're right. But it still seems plausible to me.

 

[xPrometheusx]

Maybe this would be a better argument against someone with a lower post count/more recent join date than yours.
As I said, about half of the people that I played with then, still play now, so it?s clearly not that small a minority. The fact is, while the games keep making money they?ll keep getting made. It?s an industry.
It is bad games that are the problem, regardless of what number they have after their name.

I don't know what my join date or post count has to do with anything... oh wait, I forgot, they reflect my IQ level, right? Something like, if it's under 50 multiply it by 2 and if it's over, that's my intelligence level until it hits 120, right? Then you go into long division... hell, I donno!

Look, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. Your experience obviously differs from mine, and from mine I can say without a doubt that the majority is constantly cycling. If you don't believe me because your experience differs, I respect and understand that, but if I didn't see my own opinion as more reliable, than I'd have some serious self-esteem issues to deal with.

 

[Blunderboy]

Maybe this would be a better argument against someone with a lower post count/more recent join date than yours.
As I said, about half of the people that I played with then, still play now, so it?s clearly not that small a minority. The fact is, while the games keep making money they?ll keep getting made. It?s an industry.
It is bad games that are the problem, regardless of what number they have after their name.

I don't know what my join date or post count has to do with anything... oh wait, I forgot, they reflect my IQ level, right? Something like, if it's under 50 multiply it by 2 and if it's over, that's my intelligence level until it hits 120, right? Then you go into long division... hell, I donno!

Look, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. Your experience obviously differs from mine, and from mine I can say without a doubt that the majority is constantly cycling. If you don't believe me because your experience differs, I respect and understand that, but if I didn't see my own opinion as more reliable, than I'd have some serious self-esteem issues to deal with.

It's a response to your statement about the intelligence of the community going down hill. It makes little sense saying that when you joined more recently than the person you're trying to insult.
Just because I happen to have played and enjoyed CoD doesn?t make me an idiot 'Dude Brah' kind of guy.
Of course you see your own opinions as better, but there's a way to do that without calling everyone who differs from that opinion a stupid sheep.

 

[oplinger]

I scissors your post.

Once you have an engine established, you can use it for any number of games, not every game needs it's own. Take Unreal, for example. That engine practically defined the current-gen consoles, and there isn't a single really binding quality to every game made by it, albeit most are shooters. That's a one time expense, and on top of that, EA already has at least one engine established for each of their franchises that could be used or salvaged/modified for a different game. That'd be much easier than building an entirely new engine.

And the big factor you're failing to account for is time. Activision is in a rigid yearly schedule, and sadly, EA/DICE seem to be following suit. Giving your developers more time flexibility to create a game works wonders, it would seem. The other half of the time area is how long the game is. Most good Original Content games have a shorter game length but a higher replay-ability value than AAA titles. Emphasizing that value rather then "ooh, shiny graphics" makes a much better, lower cost game.

Now, I feel like with time comes money, and that's the key area that I'm missing here. And because I'm bad at math, combined with the fact that it's now 2:30 AM, I can't say if that's right or wrong. So maybe you're right. But it still seems plausible to me.

2 year schedule. They give their devs 2 years, but they use multiple devs.

But I mentioned licensing, also if you're programming 1 engine for 6 projects, it still takes time, even more because those 6 games may not need the same things. They won't be the same genres, art styles, etc. So you'd create a very specific engine, or license one out. (UE3 costs 700k to license, or 100 dollars per license plus a fourth of your profits)

Also most good original content games don't really sell as well as stuff we're familiar with.

Mirror's Edge, Killer 7, many many indie games...

Note: Critical acclaim does not mean it sells/sold well.

but if you get a schedule, usually the schedule is based on cost vs profits for the quarter or fiscal period, if it's not viable for the period, the project does not happen unless projections indicate it would balance out next period.

 

[xPrometheusx]

r statement about the intelligence of the community going down hill. It makes little sense saying that when you joined more recently than the person you're trying to insult.
Just because I happen to have played and enjoyed CoD doesn?t make me an idiot 'Dude Brah' kind of guy.
Of course you see your own opinions as better, but there's a way to do that without calling everyone who differs from that opinion a stupid sheep.

I'm not trying to insult anyone here. But I've gotten an interesting before & after on these forums. When I originally joined almost a year ago it was to post, like, 2 threads, but I got a decent glimpse of the forums. There was a lot less arrogant bitching and a lot more intelligent discussion. The arrogant bitching just hasn't yet overrun the intelligent discussion, and isn't really close to doing so. But it's there now, and I don't remember it being there before.

I'm not going to touch the personal thing. I don't recall calling you an idiot, but I've still yet to be disproven by anything other than your experience vs. mine and the momentary zelda example (sort-of) that a LOT of the sequel audience isn't just people buying the game because it's a sequel. I'll once again bring up what someone (I'm so sorry that I'm not bothering to quote you, person, I'm tired) said about it being a marketing technique. People WILL buy the game because it says CoD on the box. Or Bioshock.

2 year schedule. They give their devs 2 years, but they use multiple devs.

But I mentioned licensing, also if you're programming 1 engine for 6 projects, it still takes time, even more because those 6 games may not need the same things. They won't be the same genres, art styles, etc. So you'd create a very specific engine, or license one out. (UE3 costs 700k to license, or 100 dollars per license plus a fourth of your profits)

Also most good original content games don't really sell as well as stuff we're familiar with.

Mirror's Edge, Killer 7, many many indie games...

Note: Critical acclaim does not mean it sells/sold well.

but if you get a schedule, usually the schedule is based on cost vs profits for the quarter or fiscal period, if it's not viable for the period, the project does not happen unless projections indicate it would balance out next period.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the acclaim vs. sales thing. THAT, I think, would be the biggest obstacle to the model. Like I said above; it ain't making millions, than we don't publish it, regardless of how good the game is. That's just the EA-fucks-everyone mentality though. And then there's more math, so I'll have to take your word for it. I still think they could find a way to make the model work, but I'm pretty sure I'm being mathematically dis-proven here.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Not wanting to be a pedantic dick, but I'm not entirely sure what this proves; surely that means that people coming in at different times in the series aren't 'sheeple that buy the name'?

Probably a point I'm missing here or whatever.

Sorry for double-posting, you ninja'd me with your reply. Thanks for the disclaimer, it makes me feel better about myself. Honestly!

And regardless of when they come in, new players buy cod because it's cod. It's the shooter. There isn't any consideration for gameplay or repetitiveness, they do buy it because it's the current CoD, which is supposed to be the standard. They're still buying it for the name.

Well...yeah, but how can one generalise as to WHY they're buying it? Buying it because it's CoD, a highly acclaimed and well advertised game in most places (let's don't go there) that, to a newcomer might hold enough enthusiasm to buy it, or just because 'it's CoD' which could mean a whole number of things.

Buying something because of a name is a strange generalisation, surely if you're buying something before playing it for yourself, that could be construed as buying it for a name?

Then why are they in the same series?

They should have made a new IP.

They made BS after SS. They should make a new IP unless they don't think their game is good enough to survive without using the BS name.

As someone else said earlier, its that name-brand recognition. It may not be a bioshock, but being able to slap the name on it ensures that everyone who enjoyed bioshock 1 and/or 2 will see that game and go "hmm! The first one or two were really good! I'm gonna get this!"

You're right, it's a fair point and kinda a cheap marketing tactic, but I'd rather have a sequel that looks like it should /be/ an original game than a sequel that looks like the original game.

It's a cheap marketing tactic, but if allows a good sequel to be made, the system works in some respect.

 

[Blunderboy]

Le Snip

Oh the bitching and moaning has always been here.
We're not going to agree with each other. You seem to think that sequels are inherently bad and that people only buy them for the name. I think that each game should be judged on its own merits.
I?m just going to leave you to it before we start running in circles.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Sorry, but what's the point of this thread?
What I see is there are good sequels and bad sequels, and series that keep shitting out sequels every year are pretty much always bad.
Alright, isn't this completely common knowledge? Every single person who identifies as a gamer thinks this. I just don't really see the discussion value beyond

"Yeah, fuck those companies"

 

[xPrometheusx]

Sorry, but what's the point of this thread?
What I see is there are good sequels and bad sequels, and series that keep shitting out sequels every year are pretty much always bad.
Alright, isn't this completely common knowledge? Every single person who identifies as a gamer thinks this. I just don't really see the discussion value beyond

"Yeah, fuck those companies"

Actually, originally I wanted it to serve as an opinion article (A.K.A. I just wanted to get it off my chest), and I also wanted to see if there was anyone else out there that agreed with me, because I'd never seen much of that crowd. Come to find out, a lot of people did/do! But after that point, we started to debate WHY most people buy the next game in the series. And here we are.

Le Snip

Oh the bitching and moaning has always been here.
We're not going to agree with each other. You seem to think that /most/ sequels are inherently bad and that /many/ people only buy them for the name. I think that each game should be judged on its own merits.
I?m just going to leave you to it before we start running in circles.

Fixed. But I agree. I'm just going to leave that here. The goal was accomplished. I started a debate and was introduced to a couple of points that I hadn't thought of previously, notably, the financial one. So... yeah.


Also, it's now 3:00 AM. I'm sleeping. Bye.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I'll call people sheeple as long as they act like it. It's not necessarily because they like a game series, its because they mindlessly buy every entry.

Actually they buy them because they enjoy them, they like playing the most up to date shooter and can't get that by playing one that was released in 2005. They aren't 'sheeple' they just enjoy something else, you sound like an absolute moron when you say sheeple.

OT: I enjoy a lot of sequels, most of them actually improve and add to the content already in the previous games. A lot of them will contain references and plot points relevant to their predecessor and some of them start off an entirely new story in the same universe.

What I don't understand is why you throw Skyrim into the sequel hatred cake mix. Skyrim is nothing like Oblivion in terms of story, setting or gameplay and it's even more removed from Morrowind. They all share a fantasy setting and melee/magic/archery based combat but they're not just the same game released over and over. The same goes for Fallout. They've released two of the rebooted ones and they're both as removed from each other as TES3, 4 and 5.

 

[TheDutchin]

Snip

Troll or a sociopath? What I hear: "Others can enjoy these games, and they probably do. But because millions of people like something I don't means that there is something wrong in the world, and the world should adjust to me!"
Also, there is plenty of change from one CoD game to the next, I'd even say there was as much change between a CoD game and a Zelda game. Just because you like one and don't like the other doesn't change the facts. Calling people sheep because they continue to buy things they enjoy is just... just... I'm really trying hard not to get flagged for this post but your sheer level of ignorance is... astoundingly antagonistic. Alliteration. I don't know a single person, on the internet, or IRL that simply buys CoD games (or as you seem to have forgotten your post was about in the first place, any sequel) because they say CoD on the cover. I bought MW2 because MW1 was the greatest multiplayer game I had played up until MW2 came out. So maybe that makes me a sheep, for buying the sequel because I loved the first game, but... just no. No it doesn't. I'm not even going to pretend like I understand that logic. MW2 for me, didn't disappoint, I loved it. Still my favourite multiplayer game, ahead of Goldeneye. That says something. Then I heard about Black Ops, (I didn't buy WaW because when I first got MW1, MW2 was set to release in just under a year. I didn't get WaW in the first place because I heard MW1 was better. It was.) ANYWAYS, I bought Black Ops because my favorite multiplayer game had a not-so-sequel coming out, and it had plenty of new features, wager matches (the only reason I still play that game), a currency system (that didn't end up working as well as I had hoped), not just new guns but new perks, kill streaks, and come on man, a freaking crossbow! I bought it, was disappointed, only play it for wager matches now. Baa? MW3 then was set to come out, and I was leery, Black Ops was such a disappointment that I didn't really want to risk 60$ on it, but I bought it anyway, because it was the true heir of my favourite multiplayer game of all time. That's not to mention any of the new features I knew about pre-release, and was honestly excited for. There were some of those too.
At what point in time in my thinking did I turn from a person with different likes than you, to a sheep? Was it at the beginning? When I liked something you didn't and is mainstream and (unfortunately) also loved by 12 year olds? Because that's what this sounds like.

TL;DR, Bought every CoD game but WaW (own it, gift) but with logic and thought behind the purchases. Baaaaaaaa!?

 

[TheDutchin]

I'll call people sheeple as long as they act like it. It's not necessarily because they like a game series, its because they mindlessly buy every entry.

Actually they buy them because they enjoy them, they like playing the most up to date shooter and can't get that by playing one that was released in 2005. They aren't 'sheeple' they just enjoy something else, you sound like an absolute moron when you say sheeple.

OT: I enjoy a lot of sequels, most of them actually improve and add to the content already in the previous games. A lot of them will contain references and plot points relevant to their predecessor and some of them start off an entirely new story in the same universe.

What I don't understand is why you throw Skyrim into the sequel hatred cake mix. Skyrim is nothing like Oblivion in terms of story, setting or gameplay and it's even more removed from Morrowind. They all share a fantasy setting and melee/magic/archery based combat but they're not just the same game released over and over. The same goes for Fallout. They've released two of the rebooted ones and they're both as removed from each other as TES3, 4 and 5.

It's nice to see after finishing my rant that someone has already much more eloquently put exactly what I said in under half the characters. Tip of the hat to you sir.
+1 Internets

 

[Blunderboy]

I'll call people sheeple as long as they act like it. It's not necessarily because they like a game series, its because they mindlessly buy every entry.

Actually they buy them because they enjoy them, they like playing the most up to date shooter and can't get that by playing one that was released in 2005. They aren't 'sheeple' they just enjoy something else, you sound like an absolute moron when you say sheeple.

OT: I enjoy a lot of sequels, most of them actually improve and add to the content already in the previous games. A lot of them will contain references and plot points relevant to their predecessor and some of them start off an entirely new story in the same universe.

What I don't understand is why you throw Skyrim into the sequel hatred cake mix. Skyrim is nothing like Oblivion in terms of story, setting or gameplay and it's even more removed from Morrowind. They all share a fantasy setting and melee/magic/archery based combat but they're not just the same game released over and over. The same goes for Fallout. They've released two of the rebooted ones and they're both as removed from each other as TES3, 4 and 5.

I know I said I would leave but this post is so wonderfully eloquent and sums up my feelings that I just had to add my support.

Also, @TheDutchin. Your post wasn?t baaaaaaad either.

 

[rob_simple]

The majority of people playing MW3 were NOT playing the original Modern Warfare, those people have long since left. It's just that new players are vastly outnumbering tired vets as gaming gets ever more popular.

It's good to see that unsubstantiated claims are still rampant on the internet.
I play games that I like. If they are part of a series then that should not make me feel bad for liking them.
I?m not a sheep, I?m a person. It could be argued that I?m a better person than some because I?m not giving people shit for liking what they like.

You seem like a smart gentleman, if we were having this discussion in a pub, I'd buy you a pint for that.

OT: OP, how old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Because all of your posts reek of that 'I have seen something happen once so now I know how the world works' attitude reserved almost exclusively to obnoxious teenagers.

Sequels aren't inherently a bad thing. Almost all the best films I've seen in any given series are the second installment, and when they are handled properly by a company, game sequels can be used to improve upon and refine a good concept (see: Assassin's Creed 1-2).

The problems arise when companies stop trying to challenge established structures inherent to a franchise and instead resign themselves to releasing what amounts to little more than an expansion pack every few years (See:Assassin's Creed Revelations; almost everything Nintendo has released since the late 90's) because they know there is both a dedicated fanbase who will lap up everything the release and a market who will recognise the brand (say, Mario) and associate it with quality gaming.

And honestly, I don't feel CoD falls into the latter category. I only play the single player in any game, and the stories in CoD, while hilariously unrealistic and usually batshit insane, are the video game equivalent of a Die Hard film: if you can switch off your brain for a few hours they are fantastically entertaining. Do I think they're worth £40 a pop? Not really, but the same is true of almost every game I have bought in the last ten or fifteen years; sequel or otherwise.

As the fella what I quoted said, I play games that I enjoy, and prefer to judge each game by its own merits and, most important of all, not before I've had a chance to actually play them myself.

 

[shrekfan246]

...did you just complain that Fallout has too many unoriginal sequels?

OK. I'm going to... I'm just going to leave now.

Yeah, I really liked that part too. I think he was trying to play off of that old "Fallout 3 is just Oblivion with guns!" mentality.

OT: I'm going to agree with what everyone else has said in this thread. I buy a game if I think it'll be good. I don't buy it if I don't think it'll be good. If it's a sequel to a game I already played and enjoyed, the chances are rather high that I'm probably going to expect a quality title. The fact that it's a sequel doesn't really have any impact on whether or not I buy it, it just gives me a predetermined buffer for quality that I can usually reasonably expect.

 

[StBishop]

[..]CoD. Approaching critical mass at... what, 8 games? And they haven't had any truly innovating gameplay since Modern Warfare 1.

I don't actually like call of duty but,
a) Nazi Zombies in 2008 (World at War)
b) Back to Vietnam (where we haven't been for ages) in 2010 (Black Ops)
c) into the future and playing as the underdog rather than a superpower fighting rebels/freedom fighters/terrorists who're under equipped in 2012 (Black Ops 2)

Admitedly this is all Treyarch, the off brand CoD, but it's still CoD.

I'm sure the multiplayer has been in some way innovative, are kill streaks and innovation? I honestly don't know, I don't play VS multiplayer in 'realistic' FPS games.

I can put Battlefield on that list too, after playing the over-hyped stupidly expensive entry into the series that is Battlefield 3.

I don't know much about Battlefield but I hear that BF3 is pretty amazing, and apparently the spin offs (Bad company) of the series are pretty "badass" and took a few steps in a new direction before Activision decided to try be "CoD but better". Again, I don't know about BF personally, it's all what I've heard.

Assassin's Creed can go up there,

Iteration does not preclude innovation. The movement system and environments in Assassin's creed are pretty unique to the series. Also, go play the first one, and then any of the others. Tell me there's no difference, I dare you.

as can Elder Scrolls,

I'm pretty sure Skyrim is a rather large change from Oblivion. I for one hated oblivion and loved Skyrim. From what I hear the "Radiant AI" in Skyrim is revolutionary. It could be marketing, I don't care honestly, but I like any system which allows me that much content with such a high quality of polish.

Fallout,

You trolling me? A game which goes from Isometric tactical combat to real time FPS? That sounds like a stagnant series full of iteration to me.

Dead Space,

They're moving to a homogenous, co-op, cover based shooter. At least it's a shift from the original game. I didn't really like the series that much but the games aren't really all the same.

Gears of War,

I'll just straight up give you that one. Each was a newer, better, bigger, shinier, version of the last. I don't think that's inherently bad, but you're right, the games since the first haven't really innovated. (Even though the first one is generally credited with the popularity of cover based shooting. A dubious honour some might say, but it did blaze a trail)

Grand Theft Auto...

From top down, to 3D. From silly with a series of semi related stories in missions, to a compelling (according to personal taste) story and interesting (again, taste) characters. Nope, nothing new here. Completely the same game that GTA2 and that GTA4.

the list goes on. Some REALLY good examples are the EA sports games. All of 'em. Just lump them all into one big ball of subpar sequel mediocrity and throw it at the gamers after gluing on different colors of glitter.

Well Dragon Age 2 wasn't anything like Dragon Age: Origins, that's something.

I've grown tired of the endless parade of sequels. What happened to original content? Gone are the days where you could look to a bigger publisher for -god forbid- actual innovation. If there's any to be found, it's passed to smaller "indie" developers, because they're the only companies out there actually willing to take risks.

Well, while I don't totally agree with you, the sentiment is true, indies will take more risk. But that's the point. This isn't really all that new of an idea. People have been saying this for over a year.

Why should Activision publish the next groundbreaking equivalent of AC1, Bioshock 1 or Mirror's Edge when they know that their huge sheeple fanbase will buy the next installment of CoD just because it says CoD on the box? Baaa.

Use of the word sheeple aside. That's not their fault. It's the consumers, if you don't like it: vote with your wallet. Buy indie.

There's the flip side, of course. I can't go without addressing it. Two of the most anticipated games for me this year are Borderlands 2 and Darksiders 2 because the first entries into their respective series', in my opinion and in most of the fanbase's, honestly deserved a second game.

But Darksiders was God of War + Zelda. That's not exactly innovative. Don't get me wrong, it's a great game and I am looking forward to Darksiders 2, but I hardly think Darksiders 2 is going to be innovative. And Bordelands 2 won't be too much of a departure from Borderlands, if anything it's a refinement. Just like Assassin's Creed 2.

I'm looking forward to Bioshock Infinite as well, since the folks at Irrational Games and 2k really look like they're trying to reinvent the series. If you look between Bioshock 1-2 and Infinite, it's hard to tell they're even in the same series. THAT's what a sequel should be. Innovation or further exploration of a loved game. Not just another entry because people will buy it. Because we have these sequels that give something new to look forward to, then... well, I already addressed CoD.

Well you do realise that 2K get a stack of cash from making the best yearly basketball game there is don't you? That shit (which I like) that they sell to the 'sheeple' is what bankrolls Bioshock.
Also, Bioshock 2 was really, really, bad. It's not a very good example of the industry making bold moves.

What shocks me, though, is that I've never seen anyone else with this attitude anywhere on the internet, aside from all the disgruntled sheeple wondering why the $60 CoD 57 looked the same as the $60 CoD 56.

You don't get around much on the Internet do you? Here, Bioware Social Network, Destructiod, the Video game board on 4chan, and countless other places are home to this sentiment.
Some of us don't think it's as bad as you seem to, but there's a large portion of people who care about gaming as a media, and I'd say most of the one's who don't make money off of it feel the same way you do.

So, to the people reading this, is there anyone out there that can say they feel the same, that they're tired of the parade of sequels? Or am I just blowing steam?

If you ever have a question that boils down to "Am I the only one who...?" the answer is no. It is always no. You are never the only one. Ever.

Also, love the Doritos ad for the spamcheck. Way to throw yet another piece of advertising into my face, Internet.

I haven't seen that one yet. I look forward to it.
If you'd like to avoid adverts you can join the publisher's club, it's pretty cheap and all the cool kids are doing it. You get other stuff too which I'm unaware of.