When making a sequel to a game, most developers don't seem to add enough new content to really validate making an entire new sequel. It seems that they are afraid to change or improve what made the previous game successful, so instead they take the safe route and simply add a few new features & expand the story line further. I have coined a phrase to describe these games: S.T.A.N.S (Sequels That Are Not Sequels) This is not a good thing, especially now that we have DLC that can add new content without the need of making an entirely new game. There is also another case of S.T.A.N.S, sequels that are not full sequels, for example the Assassin's Creed series Brotherhood and Revelations, which are examples of sequels not introducing enough content to differentiate themselves from their previous games. Of course they will be saving their more game changing content for the [i]actual[/i] sequel (in this case it being assassin's creed 3), but Revelations, which I have played, is almost the same as brotherhood except a few minor features, new map & storyline. Is it really enough to warrant an entirely new 60 dollar game? And what's worse it doesn't progress the major story line that much, it's almost a spinoff. Is it worth creating a completely new title worth 60 dollars instead of simply providing a major DLC to extend the story like that?
Now for an example of a GOOD sequel that is not a S.T.A.N.S: Mass Effect 2. They completely refurbished the game play based on player feedback, push forward the major plot from the last game, even made it so the character in ME1 and your decisions in it pass to ME2, and instead of making a big spinoff title for subplots they simply introduce major DLC packs. This is a sequel that presents itself as an entirely new game,as it should, instead of being a minor upgrade to the previous title. It gives you much greater hope and anticipation to the next title because there is so much more to look forward to. I don't want to pay 60 dollars for something I already played a year ago.