>>40505987It depends on context, but ultimately scope isn't infinitely expandable, and attempting to infinitely increase scope leads to massive project management issues of all kinds.
Even exceptional circumstances like Super Smash Bros. Ultimate has visible steps back to make what it did possible. That 70+ character roster was only possible by more heavily reusing the previous games assets than the series has ever done, by having less new stages, by making the single player content mostly reliant on non-intensive dev requirements (variables applied to normal battles) and by dropping superfluous modes and features like trophies.
The only company that has continued to increase scope without having notable drawbacks due to it is Rockstar with the GTA games and that's only because of their status within the industry, because GTA is literally the most successful entertainment product of all time whenever it releases, and because they have absurdly long dev cycles. And EVEN THEN people still complain the games scope isn't big enough (plenty of folks complained that GTA V was just Los Santos, as opposed to when San Andreas was three cities).
The idea that sequels should ALWAYS be bigger sounds good on paper, but for long running franchises it needs to be reigned in after a point or you will absolutely run into issues.
This is also why most monster collecting games like Pokemon typically don't have everything in every game too, funnily enough. 