“Anthem”, “Crucible”, “Concord”, “Marathon”…see a pattern yet?

This thread is awful and includes titles that have sold millions of consoles and units. Not every game in a franchise can be a hit, but there is a reason they green light sequels and it's not because they didn't sell well.
 
Anthem deserved better.

If it was a complete RPG with soft co-op instead of trying to be a Destiny-esc game I bet it would have been received better and maybe word of mouth leads to sales and by now we would be playing Anthem 2.

anthem_KpgkKC8.jpg
Yeah if Anthem was a totally different game then what was released that would have been better.
 
Yeah if Anthem was a totally different game then what was released that would have been better.

The gameplay was absolutely fine.
Good even.
But the Destiny style loop and lack of content probably killed it.
Give us the same gameplay but structured closer to Mass Effect 2 than Destiny.
 
All shit games.

But I think Anthem still sold pretty well I remember articles saying it sold 5M copies. Not a blockbuster, but not terrible at all. If it was a better game, maybe it hits 10M.
 
Never even heard of Crucible. Canceled while never really leaving its beta? I wonder how these games can even be developed so far when the consumer feedback is so obviously "no thanks".
 
GaaS/multiplayer games have been like this for ages now. Had no faith in them to begin with but now they've gotten worse. Generic and boring, grind to the eternity or pay to get what you need for a little fun until something new shiny update comes up on store for 9.99$ #amazing offer, and the pattern goes on. Nobody asks for a new GaaS game but we would love to have a game like Clair Obscur Expedition 33 or Split Fiction.
 
Weird thread. Marathon was a thing in the 90s and was quite successful for being a game series on Macintosh.
 
Yes, you do see a pattern:

-abstract, one word titles with "gravitas"

-meant to sound important, epic or philosophical

-Sound "cool" and "modern" in trailers

-names never describe gameplay, tone or genre



Hows the gameplay: generic, forgettable, lacks identity. just like the title of the games.

Why? The names are meant to trick the consumers into thinking that these games have depth. Branding first, soul never.
Retarded. Anthem,Crucible,Concord were all new IP's and total unknowns. Marathon is one of the most important FPS franchises ever and is also sharing the same continuity as the most successful live game, Destiny. Totally different situation. Marathon is not lacking in aesthetics or identity, literally no fucking games name hints at its genre either…
Its issue for sure is gameplay, not the shooting or minute to minute aspect but its lack of innovation and overall content.
 
Anthem was an awesome title that drew me in, too bad they wasted it on that POS game and now nobody can ever use it again.
 
I agree OP, they should instead use honorable Nippon light novel names for games.

Something like "I was a mild mannered salaryman, but was reincarnated as a slime, and had to save a princess in another world".
 
Except that Marathon had a rich history on the Mac during the 90ties, and an active modding/open source community to this day.

Except that Anthem was pretty good in terms of graphics and world, but failed due to lack of late game content. And probably because EA realized that with the asset quality being so high it would cost them a fortune every year to add content.

Why? The names are meant to trick the consumers into thinking that these games have depth. Branding first, soul never.
 
OP getting creamed. Quick make another stupid thread please.
I mean, I do see a lot of "reeee-ing," but none of it makes for a convincing or compelling counter-argument. The rebukes rather read a lot like something from Reddit, which is not a good look.

OP isn't wrong. The games he mentioned are creatively barren and utterly soulless. Is anybody really going to say otherwise? With an argument that isn't "oh my god, OP is mentally ill?"

I, however, do have a counterpoint to make against the OP's assertion: you are only noticing this because today's games are creatively barren and soulless, and the developers' attempts to make them seem more interesting than they really are are only that much more galling for what is lacked in substance.

There's not enough there to warrant these "epic" naming conventions. There's no mystery, no greater depths, no new gameplay to discover, and nothing to look forward to beyond "This is our hero shooter/extraction fps - it's just like the other games. Please play ours instead."
 
Last edited:
"Anthem", "Crucible", "Concord", "Marathon"…see a pattern yet?
Yes, you do see a pattern:

-abstract, one word titles with "gravitas"

-meant to sound important, epic or philosophical

-Sound "cool" and "modern" in trailers

-names never describe gameplay, tone or genre



Hows the gameplay: generic, forgettable, lacks identity. just like the title of the games.

Why? The names are meant to trick the consumers into thinking that these games have depth. Branding first, soul never.
Lol, no
 
Last edited:
I mean, I do see a lot of "reeee-ing," but none of it makes for a convincing or compelling counter-argument. The rebukes rather read a lot like something from Reddit, which is not a good look.

well, the counter argument is that there's zero correlation between naming schemes and game quality or originality.

Marathon itself disproofs it. Marathon isn't a new IP, it's the name of an extremely well received shooter trilogy.

other similarly named games like Halo are also well received.
 
Why? The names are meant to trick the consumers into thinking that these games have depth. Branding first, soul never.
People are making fun of you, but you're not wrong. In fact, there's an excellent book on branding called Fundamentals of Branding. It's an old book so it should be available for under $10. I encourage anyone to read it if they want to have a better understanding of branding and marketing a product.

These companies spend millions of dollars in creating the brand 'identity' for their product. There's a real financial investment in making the product appear epic, universal*, accessible, culturally meaningful, etc. It's not a coincidence that one-name-low-syllable titles are the brand identity for a bunch of GaaS games. GaaS are intended to reach a mass audience. If you've ever done any brand building/personality creating work, you 100% know that if what you're creating is intended to reach a global audience, the name of what you're making is as equally important as what you're making.

The marketing arms are doing their job(s) in that they're trying to make what they're creating look and sound super appealing to anyone and everyone. Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of focus on things that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay or quality of the experience. Concord is an excellent example. The reveal trailer (which was horrendous) focused on the branding (logo, name, music, colors) that they wanted you to give a fuck about. Unfortunately, when people played the game, they realized the best part of the game was the things unrelated to the game.

*Universality is rarely achieved. A game like Fortnite is extraordinarily rare, and the 'universality' of that product was a combination of engine expertise and theft of a competing product's (PUBG) gameplay mode. A lot of companies can't replicate that 'universality', and as a result, they can't move fast enough or integrate modes and features from other games at the same rate as Fortnite.
 
I mean, I do see a lot of "reeee-ing," but none of it makes for a convincing or compelling counter-argument. The rebukes rather read a lot like something from Reddit, which is not a good look.

OP isn't wrong. The games he mentioned are creatively barren and utterly soulless. Is anybody really going to say otherwise? With an argument that isn't "oh my god, OP is mentally ill?"

Not a good look for you if you're unable to distill "the names have nothing to do with how the games turned out and many games that are named similarly have released to great success"
From the first few posts.

OP isn't wrong. The games he mentioned are creatively barren and utterly soulless. Is anybody really going to say otherwise?

Are they 'creatively barren and soulless' because of the names? Is the OG Marathon 'creatively barren and soulless'?

READ!
 
I was going to do a bit about how my favourite game is [long title], but I looked up the longest game name and I don't want to be associated with it even as a joke so you can just have the trivia instead.

Article:
Summertime High School: A Young Man's Notes—How a New Exchange Student Like Myself Ran Into His Childhood Friend on the School Tour, Then for Some Reason Became Super-Popular with the Girls for His Daily Scoops on the School Photography Club Even Though He Only Takes Panty Shots, and What He Thinks as He Goes on Dates During His Summer of Island School Life.
 
Anthem deserved better.

If it was a complete RPG with soft co-op instead of trying to be a Destiny-esc game I bet it would have been received better and maybe word of mouth leads to sales and by now we would be playing Anthem 2.

anthem_KpgkKC8.jpg
It was also the only other game since Superman returns on the 360 that started nailing flying mechanics down as well in terms of weight and momentum.
 
Anthem generic, forgettable, lacks identity gameplay?? Here, OP:

adjective: generic
  1. 1.
    characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific.


    You are welcome.


 
What's the alternative? Japanese youth novel style titles?
"I was just a regular Space Marine on Mars, but the forces of hell spilled over and now I have to rip and tear the monsters to protect earth and my pet bunny."
Pharmaceutical style names.
Enjoyawell
Shootafun
Pardodgattak
Roplayagame
 
Top Bottom