Alas , that kind of progression also occurs with time where people want to put in as much polish and refinement as possible to their content.Consoles don't necessarily speed up this process.In-fact , there would be more evidence to indicate otherwise.
I mean by the time of the third sequel , everybody knows what to expect of one such venerable franchise.I'd argue that its because they found out the winning formula on what works and hence you wouldn't see any more innovations in and of itself.This is because there would be no more reason to innovate or polish if all gamers find that particular game "acceptable".
When you look at the transition from Witcher to Witcher 2 , the controls are completely different yet there was nothing wrong with the combat from the first game.Yet it still manages to have a more complex battle system that was better than the original.I don't see any of that process to veer your "staple" halo/foreza in any direction that diverges from the norm.
You only gave me one example of a game which had totally different game play from its predecessor yet I mention nothing about game play. I alluded to design because the user before me mentioned design and I believe that Halo 3 and Forza are great examples of complexities that you can only achieve when you have a closed system or a console.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to radically change a game's game play from one iteration to the next, especially when dealing in the scope of a chronological sequel. People fall in love with a game for it's game play(not graphics) and radically changing it from one game to the next is extremely risky and you stand to alienate all the games that loved the first.
All the subjectively greatest games have something in common with their predecessor; they don't stray far from the innovation that made them great.