I've come to the opinion that as long as the name is neither offensive or confusing it really doesn't matter what you name your company.
When I think back to some of the publishers / studios that I used to regularly buy games from. Brands such as Ocean, Gremlin, Ultimate, Beyond, Denton, Psygnosis, Ubisoft , Epic, etc… I feel that the brand name had no impact on my purchasing decisions.
Brand reputation on the other hand was extremely important to me. When a brand continued to be associated with high quality games I built a mental association with that strong brand history and my expectations for their future releases. I would happily pay more for game releases by strong brands such as Ultimate based on a belief that their brand was an assurance of continued high quality.
While Ocean (publisher) had an extremely strong brand for releases on the Spectrum in the mid 1980's, they also fronted the releases of a few highly flawed / bugged title releases in the late 80's.
The brand damage caused by these flawed releases was hugely significant in deterring me from making future purchases from this publisher.
What I'm saying is that brand profile is developed over time. Reputations are built based on output, and must be maintained through perceived high quality interactions.
Brand name is by many magnitudes less important than brand positioning and history.
Name your company as you please, it's only when you start to do publicity and eventually push product that you really start to build your brand.
I suspect the desire to find a clever / insightful / meaningful brand name is more about ego and less about the practical value add to the eventual brand.
My only other thought on this is making your brand name Internet search friendly. Single words in common use such as Beyond or Ocean worked well pre-internet, but would be harder to optimise for modern search engines when compared to unique nouns like Nintendo.