Earlier today, we asked you what you thought the ideal gap between sequels is. The answers were varied, and before we get to our second question of the day, let's look at some of your responses.

Every other year is good for me. - Robertman2 vs. the World

I'd say about two or three years. Enough time to make the best game possible. Once a year is a little too much for me personally. - The Last Saiya-jin

I'd prefer developers take the time to innovate. More of the same, even when a good formula, does a disservice IMO. So if that takes years instead of months, so be it. - Kyle Wadsworth

I think 3 to 5 years is really the sweet spot. It's enough time to build anticipation for fans of the series, but not too long that it just becomes an arbitrary waiting game (I'm looking at you, Half-Life). Of course, exceptions can be made in the case of certain genres such as sports games (which is a category I've started to think shooters like Call of Duty fit more into), but for the more story-heavy franchises, I think everyone benefits from longer development times. - Charlie FoHammer

Enough time for me to get excited about a sequel and build up hype, but not too much time to where I won't care about the series anymore. I think Bungie did it best with Halo. - Toothdecay

They should wait as long as it takes to make a great game. If it is a great game, I don't care if it is an annual release, but they have to ensure it is good. - Chris Mrkvicka

With all of that in mind, there are a number of franchises that have gone annual this generation. Of course sports titles are released yearly, but now we've got Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, a military shooter from EA, and LEGO games. 

Are there any of these that you used to keep up with, but no longer do? If so, which ones and why? Do you have any concerns about re-entering a series after time away, or are you ready to jump in regardless of a lapse in play?