Alright, 3 was ok. As for trilogy, we are on a trilogy of trilogy's on Star Wars, so by 2025 we will probably have trilogy ^ trilogy SW.

havent watched star wars 7 dont care to do so either

Fine, when Donald and Daffy turn up at your door with baseball bats...

but daffy belongs to warner

its a ploy !

It was a nightmare, specially Bubsy 3D.

an alpha pushed out pretending to be a finished product

Bound by Flame. I'm not really sure what that title tried to be, but it tried to be something, that's for sure. Alas, it failed to be anything memorable or enjoyable because of ridiculous difficulty even on the lowest setting. I think it tried to be like the Souls games, but in its own universe and with slightly different mechanics. It didn't get one thing right. The game is not terrible, but it's not far from that either. It does have some redeeming values though, like a couple of likable characters, but everything else just falls short of acceptable. It's a decent one way journey, but don't expect much out of it.

Sounds like it either falls into Blandy Bland or just outside of beige.

Games that try too hard. Hmmm... let's me see.

Pretty much any new game made with a budget of over $1,000,000. They say that shit likes to roll uphill. It would appear that this theory may have some evidence to support it. Sadly, AAA gaming is just trash right now. I'm really hoping things turn around. The future does not look bright.

The face of the industry is about to make a three way change. First, there is VR. Second is the (any day now) collapse of the console market in the face of pointlessness. (If they're built on the same spec as a normal PC, what's the use?), and third, there is the always shifting role of leading companies.

Part of the reason is also corporate models of success. I'm not at all against corporations, but I'm very critical of their methods. Large corporations usually have at least 2 very adverse strategies for continued success that actually negatively affects success. Those are 1 - infinite growth and 2 - aversion to risk. Those two concepts alone do as much to damage innovation and profit than a having a corrupt CEO who was skimming off the top.

And that's why they all try too hard. A typical studio or publisher will find a certain game formula that seems to work and then just copy and paste it literally until it has exhausted all creative energy. Then the scales start to slide and a smart company will just latch onto a newer formula and hopes that it can ride that new one for a bit longer. There's no actual need for innovation or alternative strategies when the current one is seeming to be very profitable. That to me is why so many big AAA gaming companies are stifled. People buy things without conscious thought or 'putting their money where their mouths are'. If people buy crap, there's absolutely no motivating factor for the big publishers to not keep making crap. If you were an inventor and you invented some amazing machine that people would pay $100 dollars for, but then you realized through a price hike that they would also pay $200 for it, which prices is going to end up being on the sticker? I think anyone with half a brain would know the answer to that one. At that point, the actual quality of that amazing new machine is secondary, leaning towards being irrelevant.

When gamers stop buying crap, they'll soon discover the diminishing of said crap. I refer to the definition of insanity for an even clearer answer.

Rogue Warrior

It was trying so hard to be an edgy, "real life", tough character, whatever, that it forgot to be a good game.