Each fall and spring we can expect a surplus of games to fill our stockpile. I ask you though, how many recent games that you have purchased are original titles? Probably only a few. Now, let us say that there are 10 games coming out this fall, I can bet that there will be a sequel to a popular franchise, I can expect another "Call of Duty," and then there is probably a prequel thrown in there somewhere. "Call of Duty" still makes millions each year and while I am not saying they are bad games, I always think in the back of my head, "When will this end?" I then think, "Well, when should a game series end?" This question, while not the most controversial issue in gaming, is still a hot topic in the gaming community.

I'm not saying in any way that the games I will be talking about are bad and need to end, I am just a gamer who thinks that certain series are dragged out way beyond what is necessary. Some gamers find it comforting that their favorite series are always coming out with new games. I am at fault with this as well with franchises like "Mass Effect" or "The Elder Scrolls." The worlds in these games are massive and one game cannot fit everything, so companies try to fit as many games as they can. But to me, a gamer, it seems too easy. A lot of companies bring back franchises to re-ignite old flames of nostalgia. For example, "Gears of War 4" will be coming out late 2016. The series seemed to have ended with "Gears of War 3," but even then they had a prequel "Gears of War: Judgement." This seems like game companies are too lazy to come up with new ideas, but at the same time (I will be contradicting myself), these series are in high demand. Gamers keep wanting games they know they are comfortable with.

There are some games though to somewhat contradict this argument that deserve a sequel. Some games have so much success and a story that continue on that many gamers feel it is necessary for another installment of it.

Shooters are a very difficult genre to deal with, especially the multiplayer dependent games. They have a successful model and all they have to do is change a few things here and there and BAM! They make so much profit by pretty much adding new models or something like that. Some innovations are game changing, but for the most part, they don't have much of an impact. Now "Call of Duty" and "Battlefield" have new games coming out nearly every year and it is expected from these companies to make these games over and over. Personally, I think we should move away from this model and these companies should attempt to move in new directions.

Now, if I had to say when I think a games series should end, it would all depend on the genre and then how the creators are looking to tell the story. I would go with having one story arc over a few games (typically these are done in trilogies) and then that series should end. Sometimes though companies will revive the series and start a new trilogy. I, however, think that is beating a dead horse. The "Halo" franchise is guilty of this. They started with Master Chief defeating the covenant in one trilogy and now he is back at it again facing off against the prometheans. I feel as if everyone had their story with Master Chief and was left with a good finale in "Halo 3." Most gamers were ready for Bungie (now 343) to take to a new IP, but 343 kept it safe and went with making another Halo Trilogy.

At the end of the day I am only a gamer that will most likely be buying the next game in nearly every series I own, but deep down (and I think this goes for most gamers), we want something new and exciting. Surprising gamers with something new and exciting, rather than the 15th installment (I am looking at you "Final Fantasy") would be a good change of pace for the gaming industry. With how gaming companies are today, it is too predictable for us as gamers to know what to expect from these "new" games.