If you were the authors, how would you have named the game instead?
- Thread starter Annoluce
- Start date
Sounds about right — And here I thought steam "reviews" were the epitome of giving useless labels to games - but this community has broken that record! Congrats!
As for a more serious reponse the original post - anything that describes the game's setting. So as a few have suggested Elite: Galaxy would be apt.
Not having played any previous games, if I saw the title Elite: Dangerous (with any pictures/context) for the first time - I probably would have skipped it entirely, as nothing even suggests it's set in space.
That's the one. Thank you.
Oh noes. How dare people have a negative opinion about a product they paid for that probably hasn't delivered in the manner they expected or were promised. Burn them
I find it interesting how people are dwelling on the more negative names that have been suggested in this thread. While this is largely a list of light-hearted word games, it hints at the constant division between people who "get" the basic nature of these games and those who don't.
Why do I find this interesting? In searching for that Amiga Power magazine scan from further up the thread, which I only vaguely remembered from my misspent early adulthood, I came across this page containing a number of review indices for Frontier: Elite II. There's an interesting spread of overall scores reflected there, mostly clustered in the mid 80%s to high 90%s, but with the Amiga Power review itself at an unusually low 65%.
Here's a slightly tweaked quote from the summary paragraphs of that review (the full-page scans are on the same page, or there's a OCR version about halfway down this page for those who'd like to see it in context):
Sound familiar? With all the other reviews singing the game's praises, there's Richard screaming in the wilderness about how dull it all is. And the thing is, he's wasn't wrong. But nor were any of the other reviewers. This genre is what it is, it's one of the most subjective genres imaginable, and it's digital Marmite. The specifics of the nitpicks may have changed, but the overall gut-level response that splits opinion between the love-it and loathe-it crowds really hasn't altered much in 25 years.
(They're not as easy to find, but I'll bet there were even one or two scathing reviews of the original back in 1984 too.)
Just an interesting observation, I thought, given the semi-nostalgic tone of this thread. Nothing wholly original, but a passing diversion. I now return you to your scheduled wordplay.
Why do I find this interesting? In searching for that Amiga Power magazine scan from further up the thread, which I only vaguely remembered from my misspent early adulthood, I came across this page containing a number of review indices for Frontier: Elite II. There's an interesting spread of overall scores reflected there, mostly clustered in the mid 80%s to high 90%s, but with the Amiga Power review itself at an unusually low 65%.
Here's a slightly tweaked quote from the summary paragraphs of that review (the full-page scans are on the same page, or there's a OCR version about halfway down this page for those who'd like to see it in context):
Richard Longhurst said:
Sound familiar? With all the other reviews singing the game's praises, there's Richard screaming in the wilderness about how dull it all is. And the thing is, he's wasn't wrong. But nor were any of the other reviewers. This genre is what it is, it's one of the most subjective genres imaginable, and it's digital Marmite. The specifics of the nitpicks may have changed, but the overall gut-level response that splits opinion between the love-it and loathe-it crowds really hasn't altered much in 25 years.
(They're not as easy to find, but I'll bet there were even one or two scathing reviews of the original back in 1984 too.)
Just an interesting observation, I thought, given the semi-nostalgic tone of this thread. Nothing wholly original, but a passing diversion. I now return you to your scheduled wordplay.
Last edited:
I'll admit that one of the main reasons I ignored ED at first was the name. Honestly, I can't think of a more awkward name than "Eliteangerous". It makes no sense, it's just 2 different obtainable ranks within the game. The name Elite to begin with is terrible, it says nothing about the game whatsoever. When I hear the word "elite" I think of elite soldiers. Then to add dangerous is cringe worthy in my opinion. Who calls their game "dangerous" unless it's supposed to be funny, like naming a character "buddy dangerous" or something like that. I like the game, but I think it's one of the worst named games in history.
angerous". It makes no sense, it's just 2 different obtainable ranks within the game. The name Elite to begin with is terrible, it says nothing about the game whatsoever. When I hear the word "elite" I think of elite soldiers. Then to add dangerous is cringe worthy in my opinion. Who calls their game "dangerous" unless it's supposed to be funny, like naming a character "buddy dangerous" or something like that. I like the game, but I think it's one of the worst named games in history.
Elite : Undue Faffage
Elite : Entitlement ?
Elite : The Résurrection
New thread, same as the old thread. lol
You need to be an author to name a game?
Cmdr. Peacock considering various titles to submit to Frontier Development
Cmdr. Peacock considering various titles to submit to Frontier Development
I was kinda hoping for Elite: Nubs... thinking that the legs would get cut off before they ever had a chance to grow and we end up with Grand Theft Spaceship...
but no, just Elite would have been fine.
Elite : Microtransactions