On the issue of sequels

http://www.ugo.com/a/worst-videogame-sequels/?cur=main 

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=4&cId=3154508

This is what I got when I searched for "Best Video Game Sequels". I had no problem finding a share of BAD video game sequels, but people seem to not want to admit that Video Game sequels are occasionally good or even better than the original. As a matter of fact, a quick search of "best video games of all time" revealed a lot of top lists wherein the top 10 were littered with sequels.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm

A fan grabbed a huge number of these lists and averaged out the numbers, and of the ABSOLUTE top 5 from these averages, 4 of them are sequels. On top of that, save a few lists, most of these lists themselves are filled with almost nothing but sequels. 

Still, fans complain over and over about sequels. Even Zero Punctuation, a very popular online series of review videos, constantly complains about Nintendo constantly remaking their mascots despite often using them as skins to present new and innovative styles of gameplay to the mass market. They're called stale, uninventive, and greedy. At the same time, we call Twilight Princess a triumph of game development.

So what is it that gives sequels such a stigma in the industry? Is it because there's recycled material? Every  company recycles code and material, even in non-sequels. Is it because they're less polished? If anything, sequels are more polished. Is it because they stagnate gameplay? A lot of sequels actually add to the advancement of game design. Ocarina of Time INVENTED the z-trigger lock on system for 3-d adventure games. Is it because sequels create a business model that causes the industry to not want to risk itself on new IPs creating a continual cycle of the same content over and over from company that can't afford to push the boundaries? Okay. You got me there.