Syndicate Remake Revealed as a Shooter - UPDATED

[MonkeyPunch]

I am a huge FPS fan (along with fighting games it's my favourite genre) but "a unique action shooter set in a not too distant future" - really? Alone that description is just about as run-on-the-mill as you can get. That description alone could summarize more than 30 current FPS games...

Secondly I played a lot of Syndicate back in the day on my Amiga (yes, I am that old) and this looks nothing like a Syndicate game. I'm not that fussed that it's turned FPS* but it just screams "I want to cash in on the Deus EX hype".

*I'd be more interested/less bothered that it's a FPS if they would seem to incorporate something of substance from the original (4 player co-op, big whoop) to at least vouch for taking the name, but it looks like they literally just did that. Take the name to cash in on the retro hype.
After their own statements all they've done is taken a couple of gun designs and location designs. Big bloody whoop. That won't make it a Syndicate game.

[edit] This is the first time I complain about this even though many have been already, but seriously game designers need to do something else than always FPS'. I mean what's next?
Cannon Fodder reboot... we'll make it an FPS. A modern day shooter! That's what games need again! -_- Hey could use the tag line again: "a unique action shooter set in a not too distant future"
Wait, Starcraft 3! Make that an FPS too. Then we could have "a unique action shooter set in the a not too distant future"

So no. Not interested. What a let down.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Despite the nerd rage, there is an underlying message here. On consoles unless it is one of a few genres, predominately FPS, then it ain't getting made. That's not very healthy.

And yes I would also rather have no game than an FPS reboot.

 

[Comando96]

I guess the general consensus is your average gamer is just too stupid and impatient to handle squad based games these days?

Or at least console gamer's, since Deus Ex, although rather good, was fairly simple compared to the original. (Please see ZP episode regarding Deus ex HR)

Speaking of the subject of Deus Ex Human Revolution... don't you think This new Syndicate game is trying at match the art style? It seriously seemed to smack of a similar tone in the screens >.>

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

I would like to express my anger at this, however, out of respect for my fellow Escapists I shall not as the only words that can accurately describe how I feel about this will more than likely induce one or all of the following; Vomiting, diarrhoea, epilepsy, elephantiasis, hives, chlamydia, a coma or possibly death.

But then even that would probably be preferable to having yet another beloved strategy title be desecrated in such a way. EAs logic is completely backwards, not only will fps not care that this a Syndicate title, they probably won't go looking up the previous instalments and the Syndicate fans will be outraged at the change in genre (as evidenced by this thread and the overwhelmingly negative responses).

Also, their comment about recognising weaponry? WTF is that about? Syndicate pretty much had generic styles and names for its weapons, like "uzi", "mini-gun" etc etc, the only one that stands out as being unique or interesting was the persuadertron, can't see how that'd work in an FPS.

 

[Doom972]

"Our goal with Syndicate is to provide a challenging action shooter for today's gamers as well as fans of the original," said EA Partners Executive Producer Jeff Gamon. "Fans of the franchise will recognize many weapons and environments in the game, but in a whole new way."

When I read that part, for some reason I imagined it in LRR Paul's voice from this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/loadingreadyrun/3770-Imagine-If-You-Will

 

[Belaam]

Unless I can Persuadertron a bunch of civilians, then cops, and send them all in to be gunned down by a rival syndicate while I take my time setting up my squad to wipe out the rivals with heavy weaponry, Do Not Want.

The squad setting drove home the expendability of the individual members. You often lost a team member or two, which always made finishing the mission that much harder. Decisions on splitting the group, etc. were some of my favorite elements.

You were the evil corporation with no qualms about outfitting your squad with questionable bioenhancements and urging tactics like killing a scientist's mistress to get him to work harder. That was much of the fun.

 

[eNTi]

fail again... well it's ea... ofc they take the high road and just go fps. stupid pricks.

 

[Rensenhito]

GREAT. Just what we needed: another visceral action shooter experience. Because THAT particular wedge of the market pie was oh-so paltry.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Et tu, EA?

Oscar Wilde couldn't have put it better.

 

[Sicram]

Pfft, like if we didn't have enough shooters in this day and age.

 

[Zyxzy]

Damn it not this again. Is making a tactical squad game really so difficult these days? I mean, I could get behind this if you ended up controlling your squad from the FP perspective but for some reason I don't think that will happen.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Brand recognition people. A game with a name people will recognise will sell better than a brand new IP. If you want evidence of this, look at all the original games that are brought out, get rave reviews from the critics, but crash and burn in the sales charts.

Because if they use the brand recognition card from the start, they know it's not capable of making sales on it's own.

That means as soon as the brand recognition card is played...it's rubbish.

If the word "visceral" didn't give it away already. It's like "compelling" and "cinematic".

edit: "reinvention" - They just Lucas-ised it.

 

[Bobic]

I perfectly understand people being upset about this one because of the genre change.... but the majority of escapists here are console gamers. Why don't you guys understand that Consoles WON'T have over-the-top squad based strategy games. It's just NOT going to happen. Just get the fuck over it.

Alternatively if this was a PC exclusive: (which no big developer will make nowaydays anyway) A)it would undersell like dogshit. B)The majority of people here will whine about not being able to play it! It's a lose-lose situation.

Hence it's either THIS Syndicate or NO Syndicate. Choose.

Bet you're getting sick of people quoting you to say 'NO Syndicate' eh?

 

[Quellist]

Well first when i read it's going to be an FPS i was disappointed but then i read Richard 'Altered Carbon' Morgan was writing the story i guess i can forgive almost any other shortcoming it might have on the strength of that alone.

I feel like a traitor to my RPG and Strategy game roots when i say that but....Richard Morgan...

Seriously, anyone who likes sci-fi noir should check him out.

 

[Cogwheel]

This actually sounds like it could be a really good game. That said, they should have called it something else. This isn't really Syndicate. I would've been far happier if they did an RTS reboot, then an FPS spinoff in that order, but I suppose they need the money or something. Still needs a different name.

Oh well. At least it looks more promising than the X-Com game, I guess?

 

[Bonecrusher]

1- Take a classic IP because it was famous
2- Convert it to FPS because it is the easiest genre to make
3- ???
4- Profit

Ok I love FPS games, I love Cyberpunk games, I am not against to a new Cyberpunk FPS game.

But hey, it is "SYNDICATE". If you turn it to a dull console FPS game,
then you miss the point of the original game...

 

[Quiotu]

Lot of butthurt here.

Fallout 3 did such horrible things to that franchise, right?

I despise Fallout 3. All my experience prove was that it was a buggy, over-hyped piece of shit. But I also didn't play the original Fallout titles so I can't make the comparison.

In fact, this is the perfect time for EA to test the waters like this. A cyberpunk game reboot just came out (DX:HR), and the genre is going to have some attention.

It's just typical "Tit-for-tat" fad milking, rather than making a game that has its own personality. Something does well, everyone rips it off and generally fails to accomplish anything in the process.

Also, this couldn't possibly be a Deus Ex clone if they do it right.

"It won't be a clone if they don't make it a clone."

No kidding!

You know why so many games back in the old PC days were top down? Because most PCs couldn't handle first person perspective yet, and the shooter was relatively new. Ask the original designers what they'd do today, and they might say make a FPS with upgrades. You don't know... it's a different time now. Starcraft 2 is the most recent RTS game, and everyone else has pretty much run away from them. Same with top-down RPGs save for Dragon Age, and you know... whenever Diablo 3 decides to be done.

The technical limitations of the time may have spawned a new genre, but that doesn't mean the genre needs to die because of better computer tech.
Simply put: You NEEDED a macroscale view to command a squad. This isn't changing with the times: it's changing the genre entirely.

Dawn of War 2 does this on new tech, so why can't Syndicate?

Oh right. EA wants to make it a shooter so that it becomes more marketable. Just like how XCOM "had" to become a shooter for the same reasons...

You wanna relive your past, go download the fist two Syndicate games. If my ass can find them, anyone can. You can yell 'get off my lawn' all you want, but you're not gonna get a direct sequel 16 years later. Are you stupid? Human Revolution was criticized for a long time, but it turned out alright; not perfect, but worthy of the name Deus Ex. You all can keep living in your plastic bubble, but I'll at least give it a shot.

If you just want to play new shooters, then it's apparently OK.
But if you want to play a new squad-based tactics game?
"Too fucking bad. You're living in the past. Grow up. You're stupid."

This is why I hate the current gaming industry. You get ostracized and mocked for not accepting the "Push-button, take pellet" model of marketing.

Tell you what, I'll give your desires thought if you can name me more than three modern squad-based, tactical RTS games for consoles that actually sold well and got critical acclaim. I'll even give you the first two for free: Halo Wars and Dragon Age.

Otherwise it's a bit silly to rage about a developer changing the genre of a game because the old genre is one that doesn't sell and not many want, or that really doesn't work well on consoles. No one should expect any series over 10 years old to be rebooted into the same thing, because what worked 10 years ago is old and busted today.

Really, play the first two games again and tell me they work well anymore. I'm even a fan of the series, and I can admit that they did NOT age well. Putting HD textures on them and calling it a next gen title won't help that.

I get what you want... but you don't reboot a franchise by putting a new coat of paint on a 16 year old game and slapping it on Steam, bypassing consoles completely. Hell you barely know where they're going with the game save for some leaked press release and a few images that might be old and wrong now. At least wait for a trailer and some decent information before you cry heresy.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Brand recognition people. A game with a name people will recognise will sell better than a brand new IP. If you want evidence of this, look at all the original games that are brought out, get rave reviews from the critics, but crash and burn in the sales charts.

Because if they use the brand recognition card from the start, they know it's not capable of making sales on it's own.

That means as soon as the brand recognition card is played...it's rubbish.

If the word "visceral" didn't give it away already. It's like "compelling" and "cinematic".

edit: "reinvention" - They just Lucas-ised it.

I'm not sure that quality necessarily has any bearing on how well a game will sell though. Case in point, many people considered Okami to be an amzing game, yet it sold extremely poorly.

On the other hand, many people dislike the Call of Duty franchise, yet the games sell like hotcakes each year.

 

[Tiamat666]

its disapionting they aren't making a syndicate game. Why call it syndicate? just make it a new IP. First X-com now this

First post already steals the words from my mouth.

This Call of Duty game developer generation can kiss my ass. Seriously.

Up Next:

X-Wing, Infiltrator: play as Landino Landwalker as he infiltrates Star Destroyers and blows up TIE-Fighters in the hangar bay.

Civilization, Wonder Defender: Mahatma Ghandi, you have been called by your people to mount your shoulder based rocket launcher and travel the world in defense of the Seven World Wonders! Beat back the terrorist scum that threaten them before the culture bar is reduced to zero.

Populous, Rambo Edition: As God, run around the world with your AK-47 and shoot all the serfs of the rival God before he shoots all of yours.

Yay!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm not sure that quality necessarily has any bearing on how well a game will sell though. Case in point, many people considered Okami to be an amzing game, yet it sold extremely poorly.

Re-invention just nails it though. That's saying "We'll take the pieces we like that are easy and cut/paste our ideas in". That's not even making a game anymore.

They have to know that a re-made Syndicate would sell well, but it's too difficult so they're taking the faster "re-invention" route. That means any moments of genius is does have will be entirely accidental.

On the other hand, many people dislike the Call of Duty franchise, yet the games sell like hotcakes each year.

Shit, I could put a Call of Duty card game out online and I'd have 10,000 players - no matter how bad it was.

But why would you make something targetted to inflame your target audience - unless your audience would be buying it to spite the alleged target audience?

But yeah. They've not just missed the point of Syndicate, they've replaced it with one of their own. One of their cookie cutter, chest high wall, ironsight, regenerating health fiascos that sell so well because they've had their Persuadotron working for ages.