Would the Halloween series have been better if Michael and Laurie weren't siblings?

This was something they introduced to help justify why Michael Myers was still going after Laurie in the second one, but I never felt it was needed. The movie picked up at the exact point the first one ended. Having Michael still being after Laurie because he hadn't managed to kill her in the first movie, or that Laurie had the misfortune to encounter him again, wouldn't be hugely unbelievable stretches that needed that sort of justification.

I understand that in 1981 the main character and the villain being family members wasn't as played out as a plot point as it is now. And I also get that they didn't plan to have Michael in any of the subsequent films. But the whole brother/sister reveal felt lame, especially watching it in more modern times where that sort of twist is almost cliché.

Re-watching the first one, it feels less scary knowing that Michael Myers is some guy chasing after his sister, rather than somebody who is attacking people at random. Laurie looking out of the window and seeing a complete stranger is scary. Somehow, seeing her brother makes those scenes in the first movies feel less sinister. Also, in the sequels any subsequent final girl has to be made out to be some kind of relative to Michael Myers. It felt like on deciding to bring back Michael in Halloween 4, they had that cross to bear. I also found it hard to believe that if they were brother and sister, Laurie not living in Haddonfield any more would mean that Michael would stop trying to find her and kill her.

Maybe in H20, when Jamie Lee Curtis returned, it gave her a reason to be involved with Michael again. But that was about the only benefit I can really see to it.

Would the series have been better for not having them as siblings?