New Syndicate game

Fnz

super_furry wrote: »

Why does every classic remake have to be an FPS these days?

I know, a Syndicate dance 'em up would have been awesome!

gizmo

Speaking to OXM, game director Neil McEwan said "time has moved on".

"It was always going to be an FPS," he revealed. "The original nub of the idea was to take that viewpoint from the original game and zoom into the Agent's head, and play that part. A closer experience - to become one of those Agents."

"[Our] game speaks for itself. We've been very lucky to work with a great, original world, and create another facet of it really. I would love [fans of the original] to like it. You're never going to please everyone.

"I don't want people to stop playing the old games," he added, "but time has moved on."

McEwan and team are "big fans" of the original, isometric, tactical 1993 Syndicate game - and are "definitely paying as much homage to it as we can". That homage will manifest through the "essence of the world" and your role as an Agent within it.

"That sounds wanky but it's true," remarked McEwan

I don't understand the first bold point, surely controlling the agent from his point of view is completely contradictory to the idea of the original games?

Outside of this, he touches on one of the things I don't understand about this remake. The change in perspective has, quite obviously, pissed off the majority of people who played the original. Now, whether they will buy this new game is up for debate of course but if you piss off the people who actually remember the IP, then surely you loose the entire point of using the IP in order to sell the game since the only people left will be the younger generation who have no idea what Syndicate is?

Starbreeze defends new Syndicate FPS

Sarky

Syndicate agents have always been unthinking remote controlled proxies, and the only personality they developed was when you augmented them fully and their cybernetic skeletons started breathing in their storage vats. That was part of the charm- They never questioned orders, never had any remorse or misgivings. They were just tools.

That was kind of the whole focus of the originals. Hell, the closest you could get them to thinking for themselves was to flood them with paranoia-inducing drugs so that they attacked everything on sight. Nobody joined as an agent; Recruitment was a case of stealing and reprogramming other agents, or just abducting people off the streets.

I'll give it the same scepticism I had when I first heard about Human Revolution. I'd be utterly delighted to be as wrong about a FPS Syndicate as I was about that game, I really would. But I'm not going to get interested unless they can show me that it'll be bloody spectacular.

hooradiation

gizmo wrote: »

Now, whether they will buy this new game is up for debate of course but if you piss off the people who actually remember the IP, then surely you loose the entire point of using the IP in order to sell the game since the only people left will be the younger generation who have no idea what Syndicate is?

Why would anyone need to know what syndicate was in order to buy it?

gizmo

hooradiation wrote: »

Why would anyone need to know what syndicate was in order to buy it?

Because one assumes the point of resurrecting a 16 year old IP is to make a game which will leverage the popularity of said IP in order to increase sales. If you make a game which is so radically different from the original games to the point that it causes the original fanbase to ignore it (which I said is up for debate of course) then all you're left with are potential customers who don't know anything about the franchise and who won't care if it's based on that IP anyway.

Kiith

You just know he'll start off as a faceless agent, and then question some order that he's given, and will then rebel against his former allies. Will probably be a resistance, as well as a hot younger woman and older grizzled veteran.

Generic here we come!

hooradiation

gizmo wrote: »

Because one assumes the point of resurrecting a 16 year old IP is to make a game which will leverage the popularity of said IP in order to increase sales.

If it's that old, the actual amount of leverage you can get is going to be limited anyway.
I'm sure it'll generate some kind of interest by virtue of the name, but really at this stage the number of people who'd remember the original and still bother to play games is far outweighed by those either don't remember it at all or are only vaguely aware that it's a game older people liked.

gizmo wrote: »

If you make a game which is so radically different from the original games to the point that it causes the original fanbase to ignore it (which I said is up for debate of course) then all you're left with are potential customers who don't know anything about the franchise and who won't care if it's based on that IP anyway.

I don't see how this really a problem though.
The syndicate name might generate some interest by reputation but the syndicate IP is more than just the name. Syndicate has a setting and world that is interesting and fairly different to what's currently on the market, people don't need to be aware of the original games for those aspects to drum up interest.

gizmo

hooradiation wrote: »

If it's that old, the actual amount of leverage you can get is going to be limited anyway.
I'm sure it'll generate some kind of interest by virtue of the name, but really at this stage the number of people who'd remember the original and still bother to play games is far outweighed by those either don't remember it at all or are only vaguely aware that it's a game older people liked.

Well that's my point, why call it Syndicate in the first place then? Of course, if they never had any intention of releasing a Syndicate title with similar gameplay to the original then it's all the same but I guess I, like many others, just see this as a wasted opportunity for the licence. Still won't stop me from buying it if it's good, I'm just disappointed that they've chosen to abandon so much of the original concept.

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't see how this really a problem though.
The syndicate name might generate some interest by reputation but the syndicate IP is more than just the name. Syndicate has a setting and world that is interesting and fairly different to what's currently on the market, people don't need to be aware of the original games for those aspects to drum up interest.

Oh I don't disagree, as I said above I'm just disappointed they're not using the setting and doing something which is either similar to the original or something which updates the original concept without just changing it into a "visceral" FPS. This is only going from the screenshots and the marketing blurbs released so far but if they were going to do something really different mechanics wise then it would have been something they'd be pushing from the start.

At the moment the thing I'm looking forward to the most is the 4-player co-op with missions based on the original game. For an example of what I mean above with regards updating the original concept, if they had used that idea in the single player game but given you 3 AI team-mates to control directly from an FPS view and then allowed you to switch to an overhead view like in the original to control your team of 4 remotely, then we could be onto a winner. That way you'd tick both boxes, you'd be more faithful to the original game but also cater to a modern audience who love to jump in and get their hands dirty from an FPS perspective.

hooradiation

gizmo wrote: »

Well that's my point, why call it Syndicate in the first place then? Of course, if they never had any intention of releasing a Syndicate title with similar gameplay to the original then it's all the same but I guess I, like many others, just see this as a wasted opportunity for the licence. Still won't stop me from buying it if it's good, I'm just disappointed that they've chosen to abandon so much of the original concept.

Well, my the second part you quoted covered most of this, but i think you're looking at it wrong - why have an IP if you're not going to use it?

gizmo wrote: »

Oh I don't disagree, as I said above I'm just disappointed they're not using the setting and doing something which is either similar to the original of something which updates the original concept without just changing it into a "visceral" FPS. This is only going from the screenshots and the marketing blurbs released so far but if they were going to do something really different mechanics wise then it would have been something they'd be pushing from the start.

At the moment the thing I'm looking forward to the most is the 4-player co-op with missions based on the original game. For an example of what I mean above with regards updating the original concept, if they had used that idea in the single player game but given you 3 AI team-mates to control directly from an FPS view and then allowed you to switch to an overhead view like in the original to control your team of 4 remotely, then we could be onto a winner. That way you'd tick both boxes, you'd be more faithful to the original game but also cater to a modern audience who love to jump in and get their hands dirty from an FPS perspective.

Why even bother being "faithful" to the original though? What's the point?

And I'm deadly serious here - there is a trend among the vocal minority that inhabit message boards to demand that concessions to the old games be made in the name of being faithful - but gaming has changed a lot in the past eighteen years.
Expecting a modern game to make concession to a type of game that has fallen out of favour seems like a waste or time and effort.

I mean the idea you just quickly came up would be, if implemented, something that makes me less likely to want to play the new syndicate. Simply because i have no goddamn desire to babysit 3 AI chumps.

And the only reason to do that is to placate a small subsection of the market most of which won't buy the game anyway because it's not enough like the original or some other perceived slight.
There seems to be very little to be gained by pandering to an unpleasable fanbase, why bother?

Maximilian

hooradiation wrote: »

Why even bother being "faithful" to the original though? What's the point?

Imagine Ridley Scott announces Blade Runner 2 and then you find out that its a romantic comedy about a nerdy replicant who falls in love with a ****ing vampire whatever. I can't be bothered to finish that. Let just say it ends up being whatever genre of film is making the most money, currently.

Yes it may well end up being a good film in its own right but calling it a sequel or a re-imagining is completely cynical. People who were fans of the original have every right to call foul when they see something they cherish being corrupted for the sake of the almighty dollar.

So to answer your question (with a question) - what's the point of reviving a franchise that bears no resemblance to the original? I'm also looking at you X-Com.

Also for another take: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/13/agents-of-change-starbreeze-talk-syndicate/

Retr0gamer

If it's a good game I can forgive it. What's disappointing for me is that it's yet another FPS, and it looks like a typical one as well unlike Deus Ex. I'd rather a few more risks taken than yet another forgetable addition to the genre.

Branoic

The only effect this fps announcement has had on me is I now want to go back and play the original. Anyone know if it's available (legally!) online anywhere? I thought GOG might have it, but no luck.

hooradiation

Maximilian wrote: »

Imagine Ridley Scott announces Blade Runner 2 and then you find out that its a romantic comedy about a nerdy replicant who falls in love with a ****ing vampire whatever. I can't be bothered to finish that. Let just say it ends up being whatever genre of film is making the most money, currently.

That's a little hysterical - and not really a fair comparison. A game where you shoot people in the face isn't that far removed from a game where you tell a squad of guys to shoot people in the face.
This might make more sense if the upcoming game were, i dunno, a JRPG complete with an androgynous lead, a bucket load of ellipsis and jailbait schoolgirls... but it's not so lets leave this nonsense for some other time.

Maximilian wrote: »

Yes it may well end up being a good film in its own right but calling it a sequel or a re-imagining is completely cynical. People who were fans of the original have every right to call foul when they see something they cherish being corrupted for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Oh, please.
This is business, this is always about the "almighty dollar" and it always has been.

Maximilian wrote: »

So to answer your question (with a question) - what's the point of reviving a franchise that bears no resemblance to the original? I'm also looking at you X-Com.

Because having an IP that you're not using is a waste of a perfectly good IP and the style of the older games aren't immutable.

Maximilian wrote: »

Also for another take: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/13/agents-of-change-starbreeze-talk-syndicate/

RPS is an awful site and that piece was a prime example of the whiny nonsense that pervades it.
Neil McEwan is right, times have changed. A game in the style of the originals won't sell well on the two major platforms so changes have to be made, insisting that it oughtn't in order to placate a minority of people is a waste of breath.

Retr0gamer

Branoic wrote: »

The only effect this fps announcement has had on me is I now want to go back and play the original. Anyone know if it's available (legally!) online anywhere? I thought GOG might have it, but no luck.

EA have only just started publishing games on GoG so I'm willing to bet there'll be a release of the originals to tie in with promotions for this game soon.

gizmo

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, my the second part you quoted covered most of this, but i think you're looking at it wrong - why have an IP if you're not going to use it?

Oh of course they should use it, my point is more why use a successful IP for a project whose only resemblance to that IP is the general setting of the game?

Now, don't get me wrong, that's not always a bad thing. Look at Starcraft: Ghost for instance, there was no such uproar over that game, and it was due to do exactly the same thing. The difference was, people also knew there would be a Starcraft 2 which was a true sequel to the original so they were happy with multiple titles set in the same universe. Same goes for C&C: Renegade (even if it was rubbish) and the cancelled C&C Tiberium game.

hooradiation wrote: »

Why even bother being "faithful" to the original though? What's the point?

And I'm deadly serious here - there is a trend among the vocal minority that inhabit message boards to demand that concessions to the old games be made in the name of being faithful - but gaming has changed a lot in the past eighteen years.
Expecting a modern game to make concession to a type of game that has fallen out of favour seems like a waste or time and effort.

With regards being faithful to the original, I guess the more interesting question is this, will using the IP increase sales more due to its popularity than it will cost them in using it the way that they've announced?

As for the game mechanics in the original, they haven't really fallen out of favour, while the RPS article does ignore the realities of the industry with regards the need for sales, they do make a valid point with regards Starcraft and Total War. As I said above, they could make an effort to retain more elements of the original game and transplant it into an FPS to appeal to a modern audience. My personal issue as I mentioned isn't that it's an FPS, it's just that it seems more like a generic FPS from the blurbs rather than something which is trying to do something a bit different by utilising the IP more effectively.

Branoic wrote: »

The only effect this fps announcement has had on me is I now want to go back and play the original. Anyone know if it's available (legally!) online anywhere? I thought GOG might have it, but no luck.

It's probably on the way given that Dungeon Keeper was recently made available on the service.

Maximilian

hooradiation wrote: »

That's a little hysterical - and not really a fair comparison. A game where you shoot people in the face isn't that far removed from a game where you tell a squad of guys to shoot people in the face.
This might make more sense if the upcoming game were, i dunno, a JRPG complete with an androgynous lead, a bucket load of ellipsis and jailbait schoolgirls... but it's not so lets leave this nonsense for some other time.

Talk about missing the point. An FPS is a world apart from an RTS. By your logic COD is not far removed from C&C. Hey, it's all about shooting people in the face.

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh, please.
This is business, this is always about the "almighty dollar" and it always has been.

Game developers, musicians, filmmakers - don't all do it for the money. How many great movie IP's have been milked to death by crappy sequels. Said milkers tend to be the studios/publishers etc. Sure they have a right to do it but it doesn't make it any less lamentable.

hooradiation wrote: »

Because having an IP that you're not using is a waste of a perfectly good IP and the style of the older games aren't immutable.

I'm sold on that argument. Bravo. Can't wait for Godfather: the Musical in fact. Bad analogy again? Ok, Can't wait for um, System Shock, the Wii fitness game.

hooradiation wrote: »

RPS is an awful site and that piece was a prime example of the whiny nonsense that pervades it.
Neil McEwan is right, times have changed. A game in the style of the originals won't sell well on the two major platforms so changes have to be made, insisting that it oughtn't in order to placate a minority of people is a waste of breath.

I like RPS but golly, what PC games blog do you think I should be reading?

Neil McEwan is not right. He is of course entitled to his opinion, as are you. Are you however suggesting that people who wish for a true sequel to syndicate aren't entitled to their opinion? - just a bunch of moany whiners eh?

tl:dr - you don't need to make silly attacks on people's opinions just because they differ from yours. Nobody thinks any less of you.

hooradiation

Maximilian wrote: »

Talk about missing the point. An FPS is a world apart from an RTS. By your logic COD is not far removed from C&C. Hey, it's all about shooting people in the face.

Not really that far removed - a shooter in the C&C universe wouldn't be the strangest thing to ever happen.
but if you're going to insist on hysterical mismashing of titles and genres by all means continue

Maximilian wrote: »

Game developers, musicians, filmmakers - don't all do it for the money.

Their employers should stop paying them then, if it's not about the money.
But seriously, lamenting that a sequel is "for the money" and ignoring that the previous version was also "for the money" is one of those spectacular pieces of cognitive dissonance that people seem to be able to pull of frequently.

Maximilian wrote: »

I'm sold on that argument. Bravo. Can't wait for Godfather: the Musical in fact. Bad analogy again? Ok, Can't wait for um, System Shock, the Wii fitness game.

What, are you suggesting there should there be some kind of "true fan" litimus test that new installments in a series need to pass?

Catering to a vocal minority is an excellent way to make your game into an irrelevance, limiting the audience to those who are already intimately familiar with the series minus whomever decides that this latest one has led to the series being RUINED FOREVER.


Oh, and I'd watch Godfather: the musical.

Maximilian wrote: »

I like RPS but golly, what PC games blog do you think I should be reading?

oh, please. Spare me this juvenile nonsense.

Maximilian wrote: »

Neil McEwan is not right. He is of course entitled to his opinion, as are you.

no, he IS right. I'm not sure how anyone could, in all seriousness, claim that times have not changed since 1996. It's a different market with different expectations and wants. Ignoring these would be monumentally stupid.

I'm not sure how this can even be debated outside the realm of wishful thinking.

Maximilian wrote: »

Are you however suggesting that people who wish for a true sequel to syndicate aren't entitled to their opinion? - just a bunch of moany whiners eh?

I'm not sure what failing in understanding has led you to the conclusion that because i consider the RPS to be written by whiners that i am somehow "suggesting" that they aren't entitled to an opinion. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Accusations of someone thinking that people are not "entitled to an opinion" is one of the laziest and nonsensical ad hominems i can think of.

Kiith

hooradiation wrote: »

...spectacular pieces of cognitive dissonance...nonsensical ad hominems...

Can you dumb it down a shade? :pac:

Maximilian

Kiith wrote: »

Can you dumb it down a shade? :pac:

I lol'd. I'm also going to stop feeding the troll.

hooradiation

Kiith wrote: »

Can you dumb it down a shade? :pac:

What! dumb things down? For the glorious PC gaming master race?

Do you have any idea how angry that makes them?

Name Changed

I love Syndicate. I still play it a far bit. What a game.

Nody

hooradiation wrote: »

Not really that far removed - a shooter in the C&C universe wouldn't be the strangest thing to ever happen.
but if you're going to insist on hysterical mismashing of titles and genres by all means continue

It happened, most people who ever played it try to get lobotomized to forget it...

TinCool

I have literally been living under a rock for the past 6 months and only saw this thread on my probably once a week visit to boards.

I loved Syndicate and Syndicate Wars back in the day, such atmospheric games... One word... "minigun".

FPS ? **** that.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Nody wrote: »

It happened, most people who ever played it try to get lobotomized to forget it...

i liked it

Burgo

Paradox are developing a game called Cartel. The timing is interesting, because this is a game of two familiar halves: one real-time squad-based RTS action, the other on a global research and diplomacy map. And it is set in a near-future world of global mega-corporations, or “cartels”, battling for ultimate supremacy. Sound familiar? It should do. This is the antidote to EA’s new Syndicate being an FPS, and Paradox aren’t too shy about it. I talked to Paradox’s Shams Jorjani about what the Swedish publisher is up to, and whether this could be regarded as Syndicate: Total War.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/21/paradox-announce-cartel-interview/

Maximilian

My respect for Paradox only increases with every new game.

Sisko

Regarding it being an FPS , I had always hoped it would be 3rd person tbh. Its just such a waste of so many possibilities.

As I said a few months ago:

Sisko wrote: »

Ah crap.

I've been wishing for a new syndicate game since the 90's. I'll admit I never pictured it being another top down isometric style game though. I saw it as a GTA-ish style 3rd person open world style game.

Still having the ability to control multiple agents however , similar to how you order squads around in some military shooters. But more streamlined for a syndicate game.

Just picturing the cyber punk future city, flying cars and so on.

It could be sooo good.

An fps though? What a shame.

What a shame indeed.


*edit*

Anyone ever play nomad soul? Think of this but as syndicate and with modern graphics and gameplay.

Kiith

Sisko wrote: »

Anyone ever play nomad soul? Think of this but as syndicate and with modern graphics and gameplay and David Bowe.

FYP :cool:

gizmo

Sisko wrote: »

Anyone ever play nomad soul? Think of this but as syndicate and with modern graphics and gameplay.

Yea, that's what The Nomad Soul needed, more poorly implemented genres thrown in on top of the third person adventuring and platforming, first person shooting and beat'em up sections. Don't get me wrong, I loved the game but it was a glaring example of trying to do too much in a game and failing to polish any of them to a high standard.

Sarky

Yes, but it had David freaking Bowie in it, which renders most criticism invalid.