Syndicate gets rebooted as a "Visceral First Person Shooter Experience"

[Mattemeo]

And that's never going to happen. Syndicate is a product of its time. It's nearly 20 years old now, shockingly. I know the leap from isometric RTS to FPS is a broad one but it's so churlish to dismiss the game outright before it even has a chance to show its credentials. One of the first things that made me think it had something going for it was the fact that it's being written by Richard Morgan. Corporate Bastard Cyber-dystopia is his bag, baby.

I'm fully aware it could just be another shithouse shooter. I loved Syndicate though, and I am willing to put down the four miniguns and wait to see the result.

[Azazel]

You know what I liked about Syndicate? The Game. The background/world/ethos was secondary.

You know what I liked about Quake? The Game. Luckily, game developers have served me well in this particular genre since it came out.


Rebooting Syndicate as a(nother) faceless cyberpunk shooter might work, but more likely it'll just be another average-to-good faceless sci-fi/cyberpunk shooter that will be forgotten again 2 years after it's released.

[calapine]

And that's never going to happen. Syndicate is a product of its time. It's nearly 20 years old now, shockingly. I know the leap from isometric RTS to FPS is a broad one but it's so churlish to dismiss the game outright before it even has a chance to show its credentials. One of the first things that made me think it had something going for it was the fact that it's being written by Richard Morgan. Corporate Bastard Cyber-dystopia is his bag, baby.

I'm fully aware it could just be another shithouse shooter. I loved Syndicate though, and I am willing to put down the four miniguns and wait to see the result.

Well, have you seen what they did with the XCOM "re-imagination" that is in the works?

Also I don't accept the "the gameplay is too old" argument. True for isometric turned based combat, yes.
But Syndicate always was real time and could be ported sucessfully to 3D (as "Syndicate Wars" proved).

[koro]

I'm not even convinced that overhead/isometric turn-based combat is that dead of a gameplay convention either. The Final Fantasy Tactics series continues to sell pretty well, Disgaea and its ilk still have their grindy niches, and even dogshit games like Grotesque Tactics on Steam still sell well enough to warrant a sequel because there's just so few games like them out there. I believe it's still possible to make an old X-Com like TBS or a Syndicate-style real-time game, make it well, market the shit out of it, and have it be a hit.

But FPSes are the safe option despite costing vastly larger sums of money to make, and I must admit there are far worse developers out there than Starbreeze.

[Velorath]

You know what I liked about Syndicate? The Game. The background/world/ethos was secondary.

You know what I liked about Quake? The Game. Luckily, game developers have served me well in this particular genre since it came out.


Rebooting Syndicate as a(nother) faceless cyberpunk shooter might work, but more likely it'll just be another average-to-good faceless sci-fi/cyberpunk shooter that will be forgotten again 2 years after it's released.

So it stands to reason that this new Syndicate should be judged based on The Game, and so far all anybody can really say about that is that it's coming from fairly good development team, it's got Cyberpunk trappings in the setting and gameplay, and there's a four player co-op mode (which is uncommon enough in FPS games to get my interest).

The Syndicate name already served it's purpose here.  It got this press release noticed in a way that "Starbreeze announces new FPS" wouldn't have been.  Also, if Syndicate's setting is so unimportant, than realistically, there's nothing stopping any developer from creating a new IP with Syndicate's gameplay.  Nobody is doing it though.

[tgr]

So we've got X-COM remade into some sort of FPS, and now Syndicate, also remade into some sort of FPS. I can just imagine how the reaction would be if Deus Ex had been remade as a strategy game or as a platformer.

[Sky]

True for isometric turned based combat, yes.

No.

[Azazel]

You're exactly right - it could be a good game. It could be a new Deus Ex. But as you said, the name is just being used to draw attention to the title - which has nothing really to do with Syndicate.

[HaemishM]

I know the leap from isometric RTS to FPS is a broad one but it's so churlish to dismiss the game outright before it even has a chance to show its credentials. One of the first things that made me think it had something going for it was the fact that it's being written by Richard Morgan. Corporate Bastard Cyber-dystopia is his bag, baby.

I'm fully aware it could just be another shithouse shooter. I loved Syndicate though, and I am willing to put down the four miniguns and wait to see the result.

You know what could have worked and been in-line with the Syndicate history? Making the goddamn game a DOTA game. Or something vaguely RTS. It's the same with the X-Com remake. If the gameplay bears so little resemblance to the original that you could re-brand it as a new IP and no one would fucking notice, then why bother buying the IP in the first place? It's not like either X-Com or Syndicate has any meaning to most of the 20-something crowd whose first PC was Windows XP.

[koro]

Of course, having Starbreeze make the game could potentially be a bit of a thing, seeing as Starbreeze today is nothing like the Starbreeze that made Riddick and The Darkness.

Insiders point out that the MachineGames founders also departed [Starbreeze] over frustrations working with EA Partners. "Another one of the big reasons the MachineGames guys left was because they could not work with EAP," says a source. "And that's kind of interesting, because the main principle with EAP [is that they are set up to leave developers alone]. They're working with Epic on Bulletstorm, and Valve... Obviously Epic and Valve can do their own thing and EA doesn't say much. And that's how it should be. If they step in, which they have done now on Syndicate, where they send producers over there to embed them with the dev team, that's a really bad sign... Starbreeze did something very, very wrong for a very long time with Syndicate."

[Azazel]

Damn. Good article. Thanks for the linky.

[Azazel]

Interesting article from RPS, with a choice quote from a Starbreeze Dev

Rickard Johansson: “I don’t want people to stop playing the old games, but time has moved on.”

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

In all seriousness though, what I don't understand is the FPS>all mentality that so many of these guys have. And I say this as a fan of FPS. it's like they all seem to think that they're going to pull COD-level sales and reviews, and when they fail (Homefront) they get Effed in the Ay. I mean, how many totally forgettable (for forgotten) FPS games are out there after all? Same deal (almost) with the 3rd-person genre, where they seemingly all want to be "like Gears, but with ____".

[Velorath]

Interesting article from RPS, with a choice quote from a Starbreeze Dev

Rickard Johansson: “I don’t want people to stop playing the old games, but time has moved on.”

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

In all seriousness though, what I don't understand is the FPS>all mentality that so many of these guys have. And I say this as a fan of FPS. it's like they all seem to think that they're going to pull COD-level sales and reviews, and when they fail (Homefront) they get Effed in the Ay. I mean, how many totally forgettable (for forgotten) FPS games are out there after all? Same deal (almost) with the 3rd-person genre, where they seemingly all want to be "like Gears, but with ____".

Did Homefront fail because it was just another FPS, or did it fail because it was a mediocre game by most accounts?  Also, Syndicate was a game that pretty heavily involved shooting stuff.  Change the camera angle and for all intents and purposes, it's a squad-based shooter, with some RPGish research/upgrade stuff for your squad in between missions.  Really, the main complaint I can come up with here is that it seems like you're only controlling one person instead of a squad of four.  Aside from that, the core gameplay is switching from "click on enemy in isometric view to shoot" to "Click on enemy in first person view to shoot".

[Tebonas]

The people who don't understand there is a difference between Isometric squadbased gameplay and third person gameplay with a single playable character are part of the problem, though.

[jakonovski]

This is all made more amazing with the resurgence of the rts and moba genres. A good fps can be made, but not by wilfully ignorant and cynical IP exploiters.

[tgr]

Moreover, a well-made Syndicate sequel proper would quite clearly sell pretty damn well: the fanbase is huge and the concept is strong enough to bring in newcomers. Unfortunately, ‘pretty damn well’ isn’t enough for a top-tier publisher anymore, not in these ultra-competitive times – that’s the nub of it. There isn’t the same interest in bread and butter, solidly-selling releases anymore: if a game isn’t a bonkers-scale smash hit the big firms just aren’t happy.

This pretty much describes 99% of my impression of an increasing amount of publishers these days. Combine that with gamers demanding more and more graphics geewiz instead of just solid and fun gameplay, budgets that are spiralling out of control, yearly remakes, an ever-increasing supply and prices that are ever-increasing, and you end up getting these kinds of articles at least once a year as well.

[Velorath]

This pretty much describes 99% of my impression of an increasing amount of publishers these days. Combine that with gamers demanding more and more graphics geewiz instead of just solid and fun gameplay, budgets that are spiralling out of control, yearly remakes, an ever-increasing supply and prices that are ever-increasing, and you end up getting these kinds of articles at least once a year as well.

True, but on the plus side, between Steam, PSN, and XBL I think there's also more well-made, lower budget indie stuff available this gen than at any time in the past.

[jakonovski]

Yeah, there's no need to go beyond shaking our heads when it comes to these things. There are so many excellent games out there that nobody can hope to play them all.

[apocrypha]

Ok then, does anyone know any really good isometric squad-based tactical combat games that are out at the moment? I can't remember anything decent since Silent Storm and that was 8 years ago! Oh, and I suppose Valkyria Chronicles, although that was kind of an odd (but good) beast.

[tgr]

Well, you do have the Alien Swarm, Alien Shooter and Alien Breed series.

[jakonovski]

Ok then, does anyone know any really good isometric squad-based tactical combat games that are out at the moment? I can't remember anything decent since Silent Storm and that was 8 years ago! Oh, and I suppose Valkyria Chronicles, although that was kind of an odd (but good) beast.

League of Legends? 

[tgr]

Immacutu

[Azazel]

Did Homefront fail because it was just another FPS, or did it fail because it was a mediocre game by most accounts?  Also, Syndicate was a game that pretty heavily involved shooting stuff.  Change the camera angle and for all intents and purposes, it's a squad-based shooter, with some RPGish research/upgrade stuff for your squad in between missions.  Really, the main complaint I can come up with here is that it seems like you're only controlling one person instead of a squad of four.  Aside from that, the core gameplay is switching from "click on enemy in isometric view to shoot" to "Click on enemy in first person view to shoot".

I understand that the main difference between Call of Duty and Company of Heroes is the perspective. Same deal with Space Marine and Dawn of War II.

 

[Azazel]

Moreover, a well-made Syndicate sequel proper would quite clearly sell pretty damn well: the fanbase is huge and the concept is strong enough to bring in newcomers. Unfortunately, ‘pretty damn well’ isn’t enough for a top-tier publisher anymore, not in these ultra-competitive times – that’s the nub of it. There isn’t the same interest in bread and butter, solidly-selling releases anymore: if a game isn’t a bonkers-scale smash hit the big firms just aren’t happy.

This pretty much describes 99% of my impression of an increasing amount of publishers these days. Combine that with gamers demanding more and more graphics geewiz instead of just solid and fun gameplay, budgets that are spiralling out of control, yearly remakes, an ever-increasing supply and prices that are ever-increasing, and you end up getting these kinds of articles at least once a year as well.

Bolded part is the pertinent bit - not sure what makes them think that slapping a franchise name on a shooter is going to make something a smash hit. I'm not sure how well X-Com is going to sell, and I'll say the same for Syndicate. Why they expect either to do better than Homefront or even the new(ish) Wolfenstein, or Section 8, or Quake Wars, or AVP, or Duke is the other curious bit. AFAIK all those games "did okay" and were mostly considered "okay games" or better. None of them did gangbusters numbers or set the world on fire though. Seems like the strategy is make a new FPS and hope/pray it's the next CoD/Battlefield/TF2/CS. If possible slap an existing franchise name on it in lieu of a licence. (See also: Prey)

I do wonder how well Far Cry 2 and Crysis/2 did, though. I know Crysis got mauled by teh piratez, though I'm sure the usual hyperbolic over-estimations were present there as well.

[UnSub]

Kaos Studios (behind Homefront) allegedly had a horrendous crunch period (6 months of 10 hours a day for six days a week) before that title released, then the entire studio was shut down by THQ (?). Complaints of Homefront being short and mediocre didn't help, and the expensive TV ad campaign certainly didn't keep costs down.

Here's the thing: this isn't about being a PC title, it's about being a Starbreeze multiplatform title. Starbreeze do FPSs. FPS are easy enough to convert across PCs and consoles - certainly easier than RTSs.

I'm happy to wait and see what happens. Given Deus Ex 3's pedigree I was sure that was going to be awful but by all accounts I was wrong.

Alien Breed

OMG they turned Alien Breed isometric when the originals were overhead view they've ruined the series forevah! 

[Velorath]

Did Homefront fail because it was just another FPS, or did it fail because it was a mediocre game by most accounts?  Also, Syndicate was a game that pretty heavily involved shooting stuff.  Change the camera angle and for all intents and purposes, it's a squad-based shooter, with some RPGish research/upgrade stuff for your squad in between missions.  Really, the main complaint I can come up with here is that it seems like you're only controlling one person instead of a squad of four.  Aside from that, the core gameplay is switching from "click on enemy in isometric view to shoot" to "Click on enemy in first person view to shoot".

I understand that the main difference between Call of Duty and Company of Heroes is the perspective. Same deal with Space Marine and Dawn of War II.

 

CoH and DoW are both about a thousand times more complex gameplay-wise than Syndicate, which was fairly shallow.  Had they done the new Syndicate like Rainbow Six Vegas, that could have been something pretty close to the original games. Instead they decided to make the squad-based stuff part of the mutiplayer (with the missions apparently modeled after ones from the original game).  Would have liked to see it done RSV style, but what's done is done.  Like I said, the game will succeed or fail based on it's own merits.

As to your constant comments about how mediocre FPS's have mediocre sales, well yeah, no shit.  It's not like mediocre isometric squad based games (like the Freedom Force sequel) have lit up sales charts.

[koro]

Moreover, a well-made Syndicate sequel proper would quite clearly sell pretty damn well: the fanbase is huge and the concept is strong enough to bring in newcomers. Unfortunately, ‘pretty damn well’ isn’t enough for a top-tier publisher anymore, not in these ultra-competitive times – that’s the nub of it. There isn’t the same interest in bread and butter, solidly-selling releases anymore: if a game isn’t a bonkers-scale smash hit the big firms just aren’t happy.

This pretty much describes 99% of my impression of an increasing amount of publishers these days. Combine that with gamers demanding more and more graphics geewiz instead of just solid and fun gameplay, budgets that are spiralling out of control, yearly remakes, an ever-increasing supply and prices that are ever-increasing, and you end up getting these kinds of articles at least once a year as well.

Bolded part is the pertinent bit - not sure what makes them think that slapping a franchise name on a shooter is going to make something a smash hit. I'm not sure how well X-Com is going to sell, and I'll say the same for Syndicate. Why they expect either to do better than Homefront or even the new(ish) Wolfenstein, or Section 8, or Quake Wars, or AVP, or Duke is the other curious bit. AFAIK all those games "did okay" and were mostly considered "okay games" or better. None of them did gangbusters numbers or set the world on fire though. Seems like the strategy is make a new FPS and hope/pray it's the next CoD/Battlefield/TF2/CS. If possible slap an existing franchise name on it in lieu of a licence. (See also: Prey)

I do wonder how well Far Cry 2 and Crysis/2 did, though. I know Crysis got mauled by teh piratez, though I'm sure the usual hyperbolic over-estimations were present there as well.

I know FarCry 2 did okay, though I don't think it had any legs at retail. Crysis 2 was apparently a huge smash from what I've seen, despite the game being pretty much a step down in every possible way from the original.

Crysis the First's "mauling" by pirates is about as accurate as the "lost sales from the second-hand market" whinging by the Heavy Rain devs in that article up there.

[tgr]

As to your constant comments about how mediocre FPS's have mediocre sales, well yeah, no shit.  It's not like mediocre isometric squad based games (like the Freedom Force sequel) have lit up sales charts.

Do they need stellar sales to break even or turn a profit, though?

[Velorath]

As to your constant comments about how mediocre FPS's have mediocre sales, well yeah, no shit.  It's not like mediocre isometric squad based games (like the Freedom Force sequel) have lit up sales charts.

Do they need stellar sales to break even or turn a profit, though?

It depends I guess.  Having heard Ken Levine talk about Freedom Force vs. the Third Reich on a podcast years back, it didn't sound like he considered the game a success and the franchise pretty much died there.  Even beyond the fact of whether or not it was profitable, you have to look at whether or not a development team could be better used elsewhere.  In the case of Irrational/2k, the could probably have a small group of talented people work on a low budget Freedom Force game and make a small amount of money, or they could put those people on the Bioshock Infinite team.  I think it's pretty telling that the closest major modern (well 2002-2005) equivalent to Syndicate, which got a lot of positive critical response, and was fairly popular with the PC gamers on message boards died off fairly quickly.

[UnSub]

AFAIK, Freedom Force is a dead franchise precisely because FFvs3R sold so poorly. Then BioShock did very well and that's where the studio now focuses most of its attention.

What a lot of people miss in the Heavy Rain secondary sales issue (which is another topic I can go on about, but one derail at a time) is that it is basically pointed out that 1 game sold equals about $10 back to the studio. So if you ask, "do they need stellar sales?" and between the retailer (who takes 40% to 50% of the box sale) and the publisher (who can take another 25% to 45% of the box sale, plus collects the revenue AND can hold off paying until certain sales conditions are met) then yes, for a studio to remain viable they need decent sales.

Especially if a studio sinks (say) $5m of their own money in and then takes $25m from the publisher for the game. That's 500k sales for the studio to break even on their investment.

[Fabricated]

Also FFvs3R had starforce if I recall, aka computer AIDS.

[koro]

If a retailer takes 40-50% of a box sale, then where does all the bitching about razor-thin profit margins for sales of new games from Gamestop come from?

[UnSub]

Rent, salaries, corporate overhead, franchise fees, advertising / those catalogues, storage somewhere for all the second hand games no-one buys,  etc. Their profit might really only be a few bucks on every new box sale, but the margins are much higher on second hand sales. Someone has probably broken it down for GameStop on an SKU basis, but the information probably isn't publicly available.

Looking around, there's a GamaSutra article that breaks down GameStop's financials. A quick calculation of gross profit over gross sales revenue suggests that new software sales have a margin of about 21%, while used products (software and hardware) have a margin of about 47%.

[Amaron]

ITT: Twatty assumptions about announcement of reboot of beloved game no one here has played in at least 15 years. I fucking love f13. IT'S SHIT BEFORE IT EXISTS!

It doesn't actually matter if it's shit or amazing.   Even if it tops deus ex in every way it still won't have anything to do with Syndicate.

[eldaec]

Someone should remake freedom force as a dota thing and bring it forward a few decades.

Biggest problem that franchise has is the era it is set in and overdoing the homage to comics of the era. The style issues it has make it entirely unmarketable without a refresh, but are all eminently fixable without spoiling the feel of the game.

Freedom force would even have been a better mmo property than for example champions.