Well, I did call it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.315467.12818381]. If they'd just stuck to their guns and didn't do the whole obvious betrayal thing, it would've been much better.
Syndicate Never Stood a Chance
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's not doing well? Must be because it couldn't have lived up to expectations, it was doomed from the start - nothing could've been better than Bullfrog's Syndicate games.
ha
ha
Syndicate suffered the same fate as Shadowrun. It used a brand that has a voracious and exacting fan base and didn't stay true to what made the source material so popular in the first place.
Syndicate (the Original) was a tactical game about squad management, Syndicate (the reboot?) was basically a good cooperative game in the vein of Borderlands using aesthetics that have been (unfairly or not) associated with Deus Ex: HR.
As another example, look at the two upcoming X-Com games - an FPS in production that has already been panned by fans and a reboot of the original game design that was announced some time after but has already garnered a great deal more excitement.
When you attempt to utilize a brand, you better make sure that your product lives up to the expectations of the fans that made the original product popular enough in the first place to have the sequel/reboot even get the "green light".
Syndicate (the Original) was a tactical game about squad management, Syndicate (the reboot?) was basically a good cooperative game in the vein of Borderlands using aesthetics that have been (unfairly or not) associated with Deus Ex: HR.
As another example, look at the two upcoming X-Com games - an FPS in production that has already been panned by fans and a reboot of the original game design that was announced some time after but has already garnered a great deal more excitement.
When you attempt to utilize a brand, you better make sure that your product lives up to the expectations of the fans that made the original product popular enough in the first place to have the sequel/reboot even get the "green light".
Look. Publishers. This isn't rocket science.
When you take a francise that is known for its gameplay and you reboot it to have nothing resembling the gameplay it was known for people who were fans of the gameplay aren't going to take to the new property.
Take XCom. People didn't like it because it was a game that featured alien-invasion. They liked it because it was an anti-alien task-force simulator. Removing the simulator from it removes the essence of what XCom was about.
It's one of the reasons that Valkyria Chronicles was such a sleeper hit--it's battle system was pretty much what a modern XCom should play like.
When you take a francise that is known for its gameplay and you reboot it to have nothing resembling the gameplay it was known for people who were fans of the gameplay aren't going to take to the new property.
Take XCom. People didn't like it because it was a game that featured alien-invasion. They liked it because it was an anti-alien task-force simulator. Removing the simulator from it removes the essence of what XCom was about.
It's one of the reasons that Valkyria Chronicles was such a sleeper hit--it's battle system was pretty much what a modern XCom should play like.
Not always true though. Example Fallout 3. Fallout 1 and 2 were well known for their combat system interesting quirky squadmates. They put it in a FPS perspective and it still worked with only one squadmate. Fallout NV did even better. I would say that remaking a modern game isn't about keeping the original combat system intact but more about keeping the feel of the game and not introducing it into an already bloated market. If Fallout 3 had been a FPS where you play say a brotherhood initiate fighting through wartorn scenery (the only thing really connecting to the previous) it would of bombed, because we already of plenty of those games.DracoSuave said:
As a fan of one and two I had no problem with the game. Though i do think they should do a XBLA isometric game.
Oh i see. SUCCESS THEN! That was the first thing I noticed.Grey Carter said:
im pretty sure ?A told him to say this. ?A knew its a famous title so they hoped for a better cash in.
good thing i dint buy this game. changing a classic game in to a shooter is just wrong. maybe if its really cheap to get like 10$ or so, i might get it if nothing else is around. for this the game seams to be alright.
good thing i dint buy this game. changing a classic game in to a shooter is just wrong. maybe if its really cheap to get like 10$ or so, i might get it if nothing else is around. for this the game seams to be alright.
pretty much every game with a ?A logo on is bad news. just look at ME3. it had to be them for this awful ending we got and day 1 DLC.Scorpid said:
maybe i just stay away from syndicate after all. otherwise ?A still gets my money.
This.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
I have been wondering about this for quite a while now.
I still don't get it. I find no satisfactory answer. All I see them doing is generating uninspired, mostly generic tunnel-vision on-rails interactive experience fare and destroying old, but established franchises in the process.
It's like a horde of raging George Lucas clones, with the only difference being that Mr. Lucas limits himself to raping his own creations, while a whole army of coders, developers and publishers are seemingly eager to buy rights to rape shelved franchises.
As for CliffyB's most recent statement - he can't possibly be openly condemning the practices of his employers, bosses and trusted colleagues.
Maybe, just maybe, I'll get to experience the online multiplayer component of 3D, first-person shooter Syndicate myself before the servers go dark. But, just as with that annoying prequel- and origin-mania, I just feel very little sympathy for turning everything into a 3D, first-person shooter experience. It just doesn't work for me.
Live up to everyone's expectations? Of course not. But you could have started by not making it an fps. That would have helped.
I actually enjoyed Syndicate and want to replay the game someday in the future. I paid half price for it during an Amazon sell and went into it not knowing a thing.
I can understand why people felt "betrayed" and I get it. I see it as selling out and leaving fans of the series for dead. Especially pandering to the other side of the genre spectrum.
I can understand why people felt "betrayed" and I get it. I see it as selling out and leaving fans of the series for dead. Especially pandering to the other side of the genre spectrum.
I dont think the problem is a liscense was turned into another genre. No one was upset when they made Halo: Wars.
Its that the game itself couldnt stand on its own. There were some problems with the games that made it bad from FPS standards but the fact that its not not its predesessors doesnt make it automatically bad.
Its that the game itself couldnt stand on its own. There were some problems with the games that made it bad from FPS standards but the fact that its not not its predesessors doesnt make it automatically bad.
I remember the only people who felt upset were the folks on the Bungie forum. It was more of they don't care attitude then anything.Shadowstar38 said:
It failed for obvious reasons. I'll be the 100.000th person to say the fans of the branding hate it for being a generic FPS and the fans of generic FPSs are playing Call of Duty.
But it's good that developers learn that you can't just slap an old franchise's name in an FPS and call it a reboot, spiritual sequel or whatever and expect magical gains, you have to put some effort in it. "Gamers" can be very dumb consumers, but (thank the gods) they are not THAT dumb!
But it's good that developers learn that you can't just slap an old franchise's name in an FPS and call it a reboot, spiritual sequel or whatever and expect magical gains, you have to put some effort in it. "Gamers" can be very dumb consumers, but (thank the gods) they are not THAT dumb!
"I don't think we could've ever lived up to some people's expectations."
Here's a handkerchief, now go away. :|
I think that Syndicate's reboot failed because it featured too many unnecessary things. For example it's beyond me why UI features all this informations about items i can't use.
Cut the crap, make more intuitive and less scripted maps for Syndicate 2 = profit.
Here's a handkerchief, now go away. :|
I think that Syndicate's reboot failed because it featured too many unnecessary things. For example it's beyond me why UI features all this informations about items i can't use.
Cut the crap, make more intuitive and less scripted maps for Syndicate 2 = profit.
Agreed on your first point, although I liked the new Syndicate more than it seems you did.Shadowstar38 said:
I know I'm in a serious minority here - I played and loved the original Syndicate back when it came out, and I thought the new FPS was pretty good.
Other than using the same title, this wasn't much of a "reboot". It didn't re-tell the story of the original Syndicate, because the original Syndicate didn't have a story, it had a setting. This was just a different game that took place in the same universe.
Sure it had its flaws - the story was such that anyone who's seen a movie in the last fifteen years could predict its every turn, and they sure did overdo the bloom. But it had some nice scenery and set-piece fights, the breach abilities were fun, the voice acting and music was good, and it fleshed out the world of its setting in ways that the original really couldn't.
