I've been thinking about this topic for a while, and I figured It'd make for good conversation.
What do you feel about games, that can be sold again, with minimal effort, typically just slapping a year at the end.
For example, Madden, Guitar Hero, Rockband, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Super Smash Bros, Metroid, etc..
I personally am getting a little sick of them, they can release a "new game" with minimal effort, and charge the same prices, it's a little silly. I mean, sure in most cases (like Super Smash Bros, or The Legend Of Zelda) they do change things dramatically, but how many times in TLOZ or SSB, have you gone "the game play is the same as the last one!"
Personally, I am tired of the Zelda series, the latest release that was refreshing to me, was the windwaker, but even that followed the same formula of "get x items, to get x items, to beat the boss." It's just getting a little ridiculous in my opinion. I mean, sure people will be attracted to a series because of it's signature gameplay, but there are ways to reinvent or reimage something so that it's fresh.

I understand your point but you kinda named wrong examples.
Whether you liked or not these game are not simple sequels made with little effort:
Halo
SSB
especially GTA (GTA4 is huge change compared to previous games. and those previous games differ from each other greatly except the graphics)

What do I think ? If it sells the I guess there is a marked for it and it's all good.
Don't really think the zelda series a good example of this tho. They have been mixing it up alot over the years. The only two games that are really very alike is the first NES game and the SNES game. Actually they've been mixing it up too much for my taste and trying too hard to fit some new gimmick into each rendition. Haven't been following the series after Ocrania of time because the mask game, the kiddie cell animation and the new doggy zelda were all to gimmicky for me :P
As for the halo series. It was unoriginal even when they made halo 1 and I couldn't tell halo 1 from halo 2 if I tried i guess.

Sports Games: Crap, release free roster patches for a few years then sell a new version of the game with actual new features
Music Games: Just as crap, sell one game, patch in any new peripherals just in case one of the songs needs a theremin controller and then sell songs as downloadable addons.
GTA: Good, they're a proper sequel rather than an incremental upgrade. New story, new map to explore, sometimes new guns to kill random civs with.

Rock Band is actually stopping with 2 (at least for this year) and plans to just continue releasing DLC. I think this is an excellent idea, since Guitar Hero games always fell by the wayside when I beat all the songs, but with Rock Band's continually updating song list, I find myself coming back to it over and over.
You hit the nail on the head with Zelda. However, they don't release those yearly; they sit around until fans are clamoring for a new one, haul out the Zelda recipe, and cook it to the letter, adding a few gimmicky toppings along the way. Even the wolf aspect of the new one didn't take the series in a very different direction; it was pretty much the Young Link/Old Link mechanic in Ocarina of Time, and the parts where you howl with the other wolf were simplified versions of playing your ocarina. In fact, it absolutely disgusts me that Nintendo hasn't really changed up the formula drastically even once (unless you count the CD-i games, which no one does), yet each game gets outstanding scores and the fans go crazy. Of course they go crazy; you haven't fed them in so long that even the same old spam you've been feeding them for years looks appetizing.

I had thought of this myself before, namely about Fifa (and other EA Sports games), Winning eleven and Guitar hero.
I get a little sick of The sims and Battlefield expansions (or sequels) too. Many first-person shooters sequels are just more of the same passed on as unique efforts.
As for GTA... don't you speak of GTA like that man... d---don't...... don't.... *cries*

Maybe it's because I haven't read the books, but I'll have to go ahead and give a firm "NO" to your bold statement.

The novels are crap and completely unnecessary. My statement wasn't really a question. More of an opinion from a sci-fi lover.

Play yourself some Marathon, and also System Shock 2.
I've played Halo 1 and Halo 3, and to me the best parts of the halo series was the gameplay (I remember being amazed in Halo 1 that I actually had to sneak and use tactics on my enemies).
But on other topics, Reasons why I listed Super Smash Bros and GTA, was because despite obvious improvements (graphical overhauls, addition of new types of vehicles), it hasn't done too much to improve upon what actually had set it apart from other games, the open world aspect. It still uses the whole setup where you have to "unlock" parts of the map, which to me is still a little ridiculous. And then there are the obvious back steps the series has taken, what with the friend system, and getting those damn phone calls every two seconds!!! also the lack of ability to restart a mission right away, but having to go back time and again if you failed...
I want an open world interface, but I also would like the ability to view my missions sort of like how they do for Oblivion.. only I'd like the option to quick travel there. And the driving for some reason is just insane.. somehow they made it worse than it was in GTAIII and it was fabulous in GTAIII.
EDIT: I forgot to mention why I picked SSB
Basically all I've noticed as changes for SSB were roster changes. How lame is that. :(
I was very much looking forward to changes with Brawl, and it was IMO really a let down. the platforming story option was alright, but not as great as I had hoped it would have been.

I enjoy some. Guitar Hero, Singstar etc can be fun... Though Zelda (nothing like that Zelda err.. applesauce where you spend the first 6 hours on a starting island learning the subtle arts of waving a sharp stick around going "Yah!" - Yahtzee, "Odds are you'll be the same bloody guy saving the same bloody girl with the same bloody boomarang" - Yahtzee) is repititive.
Karl

I agree that a lot of it is fun, I have GH 1, 2, 3, and Rockband, I even had GTAIV for a short time, but I sold it because I didn't enjoy the multiplayer and I hardly played it. I also have Halo 3 and enjoy that game from time to time, as well as other continuable series, like Diablo (both), Warcraft (2, 3), and a few copies of Zelda.. It's not that they're bad games, but just that the developers had a chance to do so much more with the games than they did. It's disappointing.
Sure with some console games, like Guitar Hero, they didn't have the means at first to just give out dlc (GH1 was a PS2 game), but it doesn't excuse some items, like the "80's pack" which was a sixty dollar expansion pack, or the "aerosmith pack" or for rockband the "ac/dc pack"
the publishers feel it's a cheap and easy way to cash in.. in my opinion it's a rip off. Acti-Blizz didn't publish Ghostbusters because it wasn't a 'continuable series.' While it would have been bought up by thousands regardless of whether or not it was a good or bad game (although it looks quite good). So now we're forced to wait another year or two for this game, thanks a ton. Well, here's to the continued success of Atari!

Ever thought of a career as the CEO of a software publishing company? You seem to have a solid grasp of the business model.
What I think they should do with the music game stuff is to allow user made content. I know that Lips sort of does it but stuff like guitar hero/rock band could incorporate an editor. It should be able to build an approximation of the track's requirements by examinging the waveform so lazy people can play a reasonably decent version but perfectionists can use an advanced editor where you can drop in the keystrokes needed for each individual instrument and then 'publish' the end result as a song for the game. Once the track slot is purchased, it'd be subject to the same usage restrictions as any other bit of DLC (On xbox that'd be using it on the console it was bought from or if on another console then using it when signed into live with the owners account)
How would they make money doing this you may ask, well my idea was to abandon DLC entirely and sell song slots. That way they could avoid paying royalties to the music publishers because THEY aren't selling specific music. Keeping the per-song rate the same because no company would ever LOWER prices (thats tantamount to communism) and eliminating the need to actually create anything themselves would reduce their costs to basically nothing. Assuming they put in a disclaimer saying you're only allowed to import songs you own, they could avoid legal trouble, rake in money hand over fist AND give the customer the ability to play the music they really want, be it The Firm's "Star Trekkin" or Children of Bodom's cover of "Oops I did it again" (Who could believe a britney spears song would soud so awesome?)

Whatever Mr. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick thinks he can drain the life out of, any sports title by EA, and any Mascot-Game (Mario etc).
Of course, if we look back into the past at say, Ultima and Wizardry, we see how a series could spawn a lot of titles in ye olde days.

the problem I have with games that focus on user generated content, is that it feels kind of like the developers were saying "well... crap.. I can't make a game.. let's just leave it up to the people who play.."
Then you have the wonderful setting of genitalia stages and copyright infringement..
many people have discussed this with me, and I have certainly thought about it, but I just am not aware of what it might entail, and what the requirements might be. I also have some great ideas related to marketing.. (read: bad ideas for the public, good ideas for business).