XYZ SAGA!

Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
19,035
Location
Birmingham
Warning, activating rant mode!

Not sure if this is the right forum to put this in, since these games pervade consoles and mobiles as well, but what is with the overdramatic pretentious naming of these stupid casual games?

The latest one I've seen advertised is "Farm Hero Saga". Now as far as I can tell, it's basically a glorified version of bejewelled, the only relevance the name actually bears to the game is that the "jewels" are actually vegetables - a tenuous link at best.

The game (again as far as I can tell from the ads) features no heroes, and it certainly isn't a: "long story of heroic achievement, especially a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic." or "long, involved story, account, or series of incidents."

Something like Final Fantasy, or even at a stretch Half-Life or similar could be considered a "saga" but not a puzzle game with no storyline to speak of?!

Not sure why it winds me up so much - 1st world problems and all that, but do they just have some name autogenerator which picks 2 random words and puts "saga" at the end?! Muppets!! </rant>
 
King.com have trademarked "Saga" for gaming after the success of the idiot-pleasing Candy Crush Saga. They're trying to hit the jackpot again with such innovations as Farm Heroes Saga, Papa Pear Saga etc.

Fortunately, they are failing to gain traction with anything other than Candy Crush, so we will hopefully see them disappear in due course
 
They've been pretty naughty with it too;
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/01/22/candy-crush-saga-developer-goes-after-banne/1

Banner Saga is an actual game, and a Saga. Think that's bad?

Try this;
http://www.kitguru.net/laptops/mobile/jon-martindale/candy-crush-maker-is-still-trademark-trolling/
They wanted to trademark "Candy", but there was an earlier game than Candy Crush Saga (CCS) called Candy Swipe. So King.com have bought an old 2003 game to use as proof they own the rights (actually a defensive move because Candy Swipe could have caused a lot of problems for CCS - I mean, CCS is an obvious clone of CandySwipe so King.com could have been facing a hefty bill)
 
Downloaded Candy Crush as my parents had it on there tablet and thought I'd have a blast.

It's a glorified Bejewelled which you can only have 5 lives and then must wait 30 minutes for another & to continue in a level they want 69 pence a time!

Best thing about it is, more than once they've given me an unsolvable level, it's actually impossible to complete the levels with the 'candy' that drops down, got to level 25 and went back to playing Bejewelled.
 
Downloaded Candy Crush as my parents had it on there tablet and thought I'd have a blast.

It's a glorified Bejewelled which you can only have 5 lives and then must wait 30 minutes for another & to continue in a level they want 69 pence a time!

Best thing about it is, more than once they've given me an unsolvable level, it's actually impossible to complete the levels with the 'candy' that drops down, got to level 25 and went back to playing Bejewelled.

CCS is a horrible game! It starts quite fun and seems addictive, I found a way around the 5 lives thing (change the time) and so I played it a lot for weeks.

I got to level 100 odd and decided I hate games that want you to pay to continue and I got annoyed at keep having to change the time, so I uninstalled and left negative review on the store.
 
these arent really games they're just interactive colours that wives can poke whilst you watch topgear. They keep the brain alive and prevent sleep until her programme comes on.
 
isn't this the recipe for mobile games?

the process goes:
take an old flash game that nobody bothered to trademark>convert into mobile 'apptastic' format>profit and be hailed as a paragon of modern games development

i look at the app store and think to myself

"this is what i used to spend ages trying to get around the block filters at school to play, and now it's meant to be worth money!? it was free to play then and worthless now"

even if they aren't charging it's a moral rip-off
 
Back
Top Bottom