Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News Guido Henkel's Deathfire is now Deathfire: Ruins of Nethermore

Self-Ejected

theSavant

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
2,009
I don't get it. "Deathfire" sounds like a heavy metal band (and by that a title only teenagers would choose), and "Ruins of Nethermore" sounds generic, dead and desolated already. Now you have a heavy metal band, wearing black T-shirts with skull prints, walking around in a urinated environment. Great. Why should anyone like to play this?

Sure you can say other game titles are unimaginative either, but they are more popular:
"Might & Magic", "Swords and Sorcery", "Wizards & Warriors" ... all of these can be associated to medieval fantasy - the more of it these titles are "timeless".

Nowadays a project can fail simply because of an uninteresting title! And to be honest all the suggested names suck. Does he not see this?

It's the same as as "Thorvalla" - it just sounded like *nothing* (the majority of people might have associated it with a plump peasant wife - even though it was a combined word of "Thor", "Walhalla", or similar from nordic mythology). I am not happy to say this, but it's just the way it is.

I'm not saying that a good title makes a good game, but if it starts with a unimaginative name already - or if someone presses to hard and desperate to achieve new word creations - the result will most likely suck. And that is exactly what happens. I hope he comes to his senses soon.
 

Lady_Error

█▓▒░ ░▒▓█
Patron
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,879,250
By the same logic, Ultima is a bad title, because it does not directly associate with medieval fantasy.
 
Self-Ejected

theSavant

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
2,009
Lady Error: Yes, I don't find "Ultima" a good name, as it's kinda meaningless.
Basically tuluse nailed it: "Deathfire" just sounds stupid nowadays.

It's somehow pointless to elaborate why, because it just is. If Guido does not realize this, the next (Thorvalla-like) fail has begun.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
3,524
I can't help but think he made the situation a lot worse by saying it was just a working name and then completely going against that by using it anyway. Now he likes it so much he's going to name the entire series that? (yeah good luck with that)

Where's the writer's instinct in all of this? My instinct is telling me "never use a term as bad as deathfire no matter how well you can explain it in game terms"
 

Lady_Error

█▓▒░ ░▒▓█
Patron
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,879,250
The game is gonna be (probably) on the darker side, so Deathfire: Ruins of SoandSo is fine for that.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom