How were Assassins Creed, Far cry 2 and Splinter Cell risky games? Far Cry and Splinter Cell have followings while Assassins Creed as just new, so if we are saying new games are risky then literally every dev and publisher could be say they are risk takers.
Did you even read what I wrote? I am making an entirely different point there.
Farcry and Splinter Cell have following but they didn't get that automatically now did they?
Farcry 2 was Farcry in name, the game type that people associate with Farcry began with FC2 not FC1. You have to be kidding yourself to believe that they did nothing new in that game compared to the previous one that was made by Crytek. The entire concept they had for that game was something special which didn't work out in the end. Infact that question I should be asking is how was AC1 (or FC2) not an innovation?
On topic of Splinter Cell, are we to forget how different of a game Conviction was? or how different Blacklist was? Sure they all belong to the same franchise but people talk as if they have been doing nothing but releasing Splinter Cell 1 with a new coat of paint.
I am saying these franchise and "formula" exist because they took risks for something new, and the fact that they capitalise on these franchise once the got successful does not changes the fact that these were risks and innovations.
Innovation and risks does not automatically mean new IP, nor does it automatically mean offbeat gameplay. It's a culmination of many different things and not having one of these things does not exclude it from the category.
Then there will be thousands of people who will want their voice to be heard, arm chair developers who will want to dictate development, and armchair businessmans who will want to tell how things should be done. Company would be down year after that. 
