Games That Should’ve Had Different Titles

Have you ever played through a game and thought, “Man, the title doesn’t feel right”, or “the game doesn’t match the title”? I for one have been through those kinds of experience, and I’ve been through it enough to be able to write an article about it.

That’s not to say these games were undeserving of their respective titles. Some, if not all of them, are great games in their own right. What I’m trying to say here is that in my opinion, the content, concept, and direction that these games took does not match with the franchise that they are trying to represent. Some games made it here purely because their titles are too wordy and ended up becoming a mouthful. I also propose my own title suggestions if I was put in charge of titling these games. My takes are entirely subjective, of course.

Mafia III

Released in 2016, Mafia III received mixed critical reviews for its glaring technical issues and grindy, repetitive gameplay. However, critics everywhere seemed to agree that the story and characters are well-executed, especially where voice performances were concerned. It boasted a unique setting for a game with the term “Mafia” on its title: instead of the 1930s Chicago setting favored by crime movies such as The Untouchables and even its own predecessor Mafia, Mafia III favored a late 1960s deep south setting, taking inspiration from cities in Louisiana such as New Orleans.

Even though organized crime was central to Mafia III’s gameplay, players couldn’t help but realize that they weren’t doing any mob-related activities in-game: they couldn’t promote capos and consiglieres within their ranks, they don’t have their associates kissing their engraved rings, and they don’t have their own hitsquads assassinating their rivals as they eat spaghetti meatballs with their families.

Low-ranking you may have been, at least you’re part of the mafia in the two previous Mafia entries, complete with your own suit, tie, and fedora combo. Here, you lead your own organized crime syndicate… but it’s just not the mafia. The fact that players take on the role as African-American protagonist Lincoln Clay didn’t help either, since he was never going to be a member of a mafia crime family. Remember, this was the late 1960s, a time when racial segregation was still on the high and people like Clay were treated like servants at best and slaves at worst by the high society of southern United States.

I suggest: Death in the Bayou

I believe that the term “bayou” would have worked as a strong identifier for the game’s setting. After all, few would fail to associate the word “bayou” with a southern USA setting such as New Orleans, which served as a clear inspiration for Mafia III’s location setting. Additionally, the game does feature an expansive bayou region in its open-world map along with some missions that took place in it, so one can still say that deaths do happen in the bayou in-game.

The only thing that serves as this title’s dealbreaker is the fact that Mafia III is, in fact, tied to the previous Mafia games. The game may have a different protagonist in Lincoln Clay, but someone made it to the game from the previous one: Vito Scaletta. The Italian mobster who played the main role in Mafia II has a significant role in Mafia III as one of Clay’s underbosses. Although Lincoln’s story has little to do with Vito’s in the previous entry, Vito’s own overarching storyline was carried into Mafia III. Plastering a different title into Mafia III would most likely throw the interest of most Mafia fans out the window and cause confusion among those that played the game and found out that Scaletta was still alive and well in the late 1960s. Such a sad timeline that we live in, but what’s done is done.

Unless the devs gave a heads-up pre-launch that this will be a spin-off set in the Mafia universe, that is.

Saints Row IV

From street gangs to futuristic soldiers to plain-and-simple aliens. The Saints Row franchise has come a long way indeed, and Saints Row IV serves as a prime example of that statement. Apart from the jarringly bizarre concept of fighting aliens using superpowers in a simulated landscape, Saints Row IV is one of the most fun games I have ever played. Still, that didn’t stop longtime fans from alienating it from its predecessors, negatively comparing its over-the-top tone with the previous entries’ more grounded and balanced themes.

I love this game, but I won’t be blinded by my affection: the series did start to deviate too much from a narrative standpoint in Saints Row IV, even by its crazy-drunk standards. The crime syndicate boss protagonist becoming the president of the United States? Them getting invaded and abducted by aliens to be put on a simulated Pleasantville version of one of the cities they have taken over? THE ENTIRE EARTH GETTING PULVERIZED? It does seem more like an insane alternate-universe version of Saints Row rather than the series’ canonical timeline.

I suggest: Saints Row — State of the Union

Funnily enough, Saints Row solved its own problem in its next entry, 2015’s Saints Row: Gat out of Hell. In the spin-off game, the boss’ second-in-command Johnny Gat ventured to hell to rescue the boss, who has been abducted by Satan. Yes, it only got crazier from Saints Row IV. So much so, Saints Row developer Volition didn’t even bother with giving the next entry a numerical title. Granted it’s a far shorter game, but therein lies the solution: a subtitle, to indicate that this is too crazy to be part of the Saints Row canon, too outlandish to be considered as a mainline entry.

So yes, my proposition treats Saints Row IV as a spin-off of sorts, same as Gat out of Hell. The “State of the Union” subtitle made sense to me — it refers to the State of the Union Address, an annual speech made by the president of the United States to the Congress in updating the nation with current conditions relating to economy, news, agenda, achievements and priorities. It’s something that the only the president could have done, which is exactly who we are playing as in Saints Row IV. With that title treatment, Saints Row IV becomes less of a deviant mainline entry and more of a over-the-top alternate scenario game — a game about that one time the boss of the 3rd Street Saints became president and fought aliens with superpowers.

Doesn’t sound too bad now, does it?

A whole bunch of Call of Duty entries (Black Ops 3, Black Ops 4, Black Ops Cold War, and WWII)

What is up with the Call of Duty franchise and sub-par titling schemes? Black Ops 3 jumped too far into the future, stripping the Black Ops title of its identity both story-wise and gameplay-wise. Black Ops 4 did pretty much the same, only this time with no story. Black Ops Cold War is a mouthful to pronounce, which ended up being referred to as Cold War anyway. WWII was a painfully generic subtitle, made even more generic by the fact that the series 1) started off as a World War II-focused game franchise which made the title redundant, and 2) have done away with a better-sounding WWII-related subtitle in World at War (2008).

For Black Ops 3, I suggest: Psycho Ops

With only a smidgen connection to Black Ops 2 save for a distant reference to Black Ops 2 antagonist Raul Menendez in the campaign, why even call it Black Ops 3 in the first place? Instead, let’s just call Black Ops 3 for what it is: a futuristic take on psychological warfare, just as the game’s story campaign suggests.

In case you forgot, Black Ops 3 tells the story of a group of cybernetically enhanced soldiers trying to stop a rogue AI made from a hive mind from spreading through the direct neural interface (DNI) system commonly found in the future. At first infecting another elite group of cybernetically enhanced soldiers causing them to defect and wreak havoc, the AI later came in contact with the player character and infected them as well. As it turns out, the AI hive mind was trying to capture and imprison the consciousness of dead DNI users in a simulation meant to calm frontline soldiers, dubbed in-game as “the frozen forest”.

Mental dream sequences were a common occurrence in the Black Ops 3 campaign, most of which are centered around the player character and their comrades encountering and/or fighting the hive mind AI in their subconscious selves. With the game’s theme being centered around the war going within one’s psyche instead of without, I believe Psycho Ops would be a great alternative to the disconnected Black Ops 3.

For Black Ops 4, I suggest: Blackout

The thing about “Blackout” is that the term itself is already used in Black Ops 4 for the battle royale mode found in the game. Other than the Blackout game mode, Black Ops 4 has very little going for it: the multiplayer and zombies mode didn’t deviate too far from the previous title, and the campaign is practically non-existent. All that’s left is Blackout, so why not name it Blackout altogether?

For Black Ops Cold War, I suggest: Cold War

Either that, or Black Ops 5. Both have their own merits, and both are definitely easier to pronounce than Black Ops Cold War. Who in Treyarch thought that a subtitle in a subtitle was a good idea?

I for one thought that Call of Duty: Cold War was a better suited title for the game. “Black Ops 5” would imply that it’s a chronological sequel to Black Ops 4, which it wasn’t; it was the chronological sequel to the first Black Ops. “Cold War” on the other hand is easily recognizable by fans of the series as the first Black Ops was set during the Cold War. From the subtitle “Cold War”, fans can easily deduce that the game is still set in Cold War, which would lead them to deduce that it’s going to carry over from the first Black Ops, or at least be strongly related to it. Associations, everyone.

For WWII, I suggest: European Front

On reality, Call of Duty: WWII didn’t capture the entire scope of World War II. As such, a titling scheme similar to World at War won’t be suitable. It was almost exclusively focused on the European theater of the war both in its single-player campaign and its multiplayer mode. Iconic battles taking place in the Pacific like Iwojima and Guadacanal was omitted from the game, as well as battles not involving the United States such as Berlin and Stalingrad.

So now here we are with Call of Duty: European Front. I believe the subtitle suited the game since that’s precisely what it was: a Call of Duty game focused entirely on the European front of the World War II. It might not have the same impact as World at War, but at least it wouldn’t be as vanilla as WWII. Forcing the name of the war into an abbreviated form doesn’t make it a cooler title, people.

Also while there is a chance of confusion with the 2010 iOS title Brothers in Arms 2: Global Front, I believe that chance is quite slim. Different platforms for different audiences, different game franchises, and guess what, the mobile game’s setting does take the player to various theaters of WWII, not just the European one.

Battlefield Hardline

The one game that shouldn’t be titled Battlefield, the black sheep of the Battlefield family. That’s not to say that the game itself is bad however. Single-player campaign issues aside, most found the game to be a respectable entry in the Battlefield franchise, especially since the launch of the divisive Battlefield 5. And in retrospect, I find the single-player campaign to be quite engaging and refreshing, in spite of its cliched plot. There’s something else that I respect: at least Hardline’s campaign lasted longer than two hours.

Like I said earlier, Battlefield Hardline shouldn’t be part of the Battlefield franchise. Not because of its shortcomings, but because of how far it deviated from the Battlefield formula of large-scale military conflicts complete with its land, sea, and air combat systems. And while Hardline almost has all that, it lacked the vital military element in favor of playing as cops and robbers instead of soldiers. And sadly, there is only so much Battlefield element that you can cram into a 10–31B situation. I mean, how do you fit holding objectives alpha, bravo, and charlie into a cops and robbers scenario?

I suggest: Hardline — Takedown

The point here is leaning towards NOT using the Battlefield title rather than finding an exemplar replacement to its current title. After all, Hardline is one of the view Battlefield titles to not be developed by DICE. As for the suggested title, I believe we can start with the pre-existing subtitle, Hardline, which I think is quite catchy in of itself.

By promoting Hardline as the title and giving it a corny but representative subtitle like Takedown, we already have our replacement title for Battlefield Hardline. “Takedown” here could mean a lot of things: cops cracking down on a heist crew before they were able to escape with their loot, robbers disabling security before drilling into a cash-filled vault, or both at the same time. Alternatively, if you don’t want the game to be confused with 2004’s Burnout 3: Takedown, the game can always drop the subtitle and go with just Hardline instead.

***

As much as I’d like this scenarios to happen, I understand why game developers and publishers had to go with these subjectively less ideal titles: branding.

It is no secret that the wider gaming audience prefer familiar titles over newer, more aloof ones. That’s the reason why some movies present themselves as their predecessors’ sequels in spite of having little to no connection to them. That’s why Black Ops 3 was titled the way it was. Studios can always use a head start so that they can market their games more easily, and presenting a game as a sequel despite lack of obvious connections is one of those ways: it’ll attract an already existing fanbase. Black Ops 3 would’ve attracted fans of Black Ops the same way Mafia III attracted players that has fallen in love with the franchise after their adventures in Lost Heaven and Empire Bay.

Some publishers were more desperate than others. Saints Row IV’s concept of fighting aliens using superpowers in a simulation was originally reserved for a Saints Row: The Third DLC titled Enter the Dominatrix. Before that, Volition already had plans to make an entirely different fourth entry titled Saints Row: Part Four with an entirely different setting and concept. However, Volition’s publisher THQ were on the verge of bankruptcy at the time and were in need of some quick income. That’s right, Saints Row IV, for better or worse, was technically a game with a rushed development.

Bottom line, I personally don’t see this trend going away; there is always a need for it, and at the end of the day, someone will always need their payday. However, that’s not to say that we’re not allowed to voice our opinions on these minor but noticeable inconveniences. Just keep them as what they are: opinions.

While for me, I’ll just call them as I see them.