It mainly seems to happen with 3rd parties. I think they focus on medium-term profit while 1st parties consider longer periods. Just see what's happened to the credibility of the Sonic franchise since it moved away from 1-3 games per gen.

They should realise that when they have a fantastic new IP like Assassin's Creed or Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk, these franchises can be sustained in the same way Nintendo has been sustaining Mario, Zelda etc.

Look what happened to Tony Hawk. Tony Hawk 3 was a AAA must buy game. A system seller. Guitar Hero is dead, and Assassin's Creed will probably end up with the likes of Tomb Raider.

pfffft.

i think we the pokemon games the reason people believe the games are being milked is just how simaliar the games are -- really how different is the story/ game between R/B/Y -> B/W ? It is essentially the same game with more Pokemon and a few changes to some characters... people would just like a big change for the next title -- personally i wish the story could get a facelift, the way leveling works could use an upgrade (sure its great if you only use 6 - 10 pokemon in the game, but id rather see things designed a bit better for those of us who like to use a larger variety of pokemon) , Pokemon themselves really, really need to learn how to remember more than 4 abilities, 6 abilities would be a huge gameplay changer!.

Define "milked"

I'd just like to know what you guys define this as.  If it is development cycle, then not to support it or anything, but Call of Duty has 2 year development cycles.  If it is simply how often it releases, then that would be the whole entire fps industry, because it seems to release far too many games that are all almost the same.

Mostly this.

It's up to us, not the developers. As long as we keep buying, it would make no sense for a developer to stop churning them out. It's funny, cause it's just like movies, where people decry the sequels and lack of original ideas.....and then we'll go spend 3/4billion dollars on Transformers 3 later this year.

I guess, as long as the games still have a micron of quality and aren't broken, it's all good.

I would define it as releasing a lot of games for a particular franchise that are almost the same, and rely heavily on that franchise for profiit.

I guess its a combination of critical acclaim, public demand, profit, and ease of development.  Look at Killzone.  Killzone 2 took years to develop, received a ton of acclaim, sold very well.  It took a very short amount of time to pump out Killzone 3.  Yes, the game is an improvement upon the original but the improvement isn't as pronounced, the amount of acclaim has dwindled a bit, the sales aren't quite as good, but the engine was in place so it was completed fairly quickly.  Isuspect many would hope that they take a little time before releasing Killzone 4.  This kind of thing happens often this gen.

Examples of games that got it right:  Uncharted series, Gears of War series, Forza series, Halo series, Call of Duty series (yes, even though they milk the franchise, fans continue to be excited for the next one and the quaility is still there).

Examples of series that got it wrong:  Tony Hawk series, Guitar Hero, Street Fighter 4 (yeah, the game is still good but Capcom is killing/splitting its userbase between too many similar fighting games that we aren't really asking for), Fable series.

Examples of game series that are "on the border":  Resistance (R3 will make or break that series), Resident Evil, inFamous (2nd game hasn't been released--hope it's a good one!), Assassins Creed (too much of a good thin?g), Saints Row (again, a great series that will either be received with open arms or overstay its welcome), and BioShock.

It's not easy to strike that balance and I guess a lot of game companies over-estimate the appeal of their franchise and under-estimate how quickly the attention span of gamers move from one thing to another.  There's an old saying:  "Absence makes the heart grow fonder."  How the hell are you supposed to be excited about something coming back if it never leaves?

easy money from known demand with minimal risk... appart from depleting the demand of course.

Super Mario Bros.

Super Mario Bros. 1 is nothing like SMB 2.  SMB 2 is nothing like SMB 3.  Super Mario World is nothing like SMB 3.  SM 64 is nothing like Yoshi's island.  It's when we got the game Super Mario Sunshine that problems arose.  Here, we got a game that many considered Super Mario 64.5.  It was a very good game and taken by itself without consideration for the rest of the series, it's a GREAT game.  Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a great game but it shares a little too much with the original Super Mario Galaxy.

Nintendo found a way to make every entry in the series feel unique.  I bet you can find a ton of people that would say that one of these games:SMB1, 2, 3, World, Yoshi's Island, 64, or Galaxy-is the best game of the series.  It's because each one seems to stand out from the rest in a major way. It would be a lot harder to find people that think the "me too" mario games are the best of the series.

Chris Rock said about relationships:  "You gotta find a way to keep it new.  If it ain't new, it's through."  It applies to video game series, too.

Assassin's Creed won't be run in the ground. The games are crazy good and I'm happy to be able to play such a fantastic adventure every year.

Guitar Hero: I agree with you

EA Sports: Depends which ones your talking about it, people eat up Fifa and Madden as they do continously improve over the previous installment

Pokemon: The main games: no, some others: maybe but ones like Ranger are/were original and innovative. But they have made some crap, the recent typing game is a brilliant example.

Assassin's Creed: No, no, no. They are actually still making this work. ACII was a top-class game, Brotherhood was hardly going top it but it was still a worthwhile game and the multiplayer did add something new and expanded don the storyline. Revelations will likely do something similar.

Call of Duty: Nothing really needs to be said about this one.