70 réponses à ce sujet

[Ulous]

Cyberarmy wrote...

OH yeah i want a Pong FPS now! Multiplayer possiblities just burned my brain.

And Mr.Woo please don't post if you don't have anything constructive.
Anyone with a brain can understand gaming industry is going for the profits after CoD success.

We are not arguing it would be good game or bad, we are just mourning an old, classic, superb strategy game which had soul and style and shaped the tactical strategy genre.

So please give us a break while we (at lest I) cry silently in our corner.

The way I see it is that at least this way you are going to get a Syndicate game, if it wasn't this then it would be nothing. I believe if the game is atmospheric and immersive then it can live up to it's name, Betehesda managed it with Fallout 3 why not with this?

And let's face it, nostalgia is all good and well when it's locked in your brain, but the grim reality is that replaying these games now does not create the same buzz it did back then (at least not for me), a spruced up version of the original game these days would be lucky to make it onto XBOX Live for 1200 points.

[Cyberarmy]

The way I see it is that we get another FPS-TPS game with some RPG/RTS elements poured on it.
And ofc we can't play these oldie games nowadays, they were great when they were first released. İn their bitmap graphics, midi sounds.

We are techonlogicly advancing and i would like to see that games evolve and get superior, in their own style.

We have already too many soulless, unnecessary Shooter games and tactical team combat is a dieing genre.

I just wish they make 2 games, 1 strategy 1 shooter. But im not naive enough to think they will.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 13 septembre 2011 - 08:57 .

[Zanallen]

Meh, I really don't see the issue here. The last Syndicate game was what, 15 years ago? The series was dead. If they want to bring the IP back under a new genre then so be it. Just like I don't have a problem with Bioware turning KotOR into a MMO or even if they wanted to make a full on shooter in the Mass Effect universe. I never even considered the first Syndicate games to be strategy games anyway. They were real time shooters with tactical elements.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

All pointless aspect of comment crossed out, it is not extended media it is the same media, video games. Has nothing to do with extended media and you were stretching with that whole direction you came at it from in first place. You should of stuck to Star Wars video games, Dragon Age video games because has nothing to do at all with books or movies. If going down same media type and decide to bring up movies then it's like the first two titles of LotR then switching the third one to Pop Idol or X-Factor style, while you might enjoy Gandalf singing I will always love you; the fact is the people waiting for the third LotR movie will be pissed off.

There is radical change like DAO to DA2 which came with huge backlash as Bioware very well knows and often happens in every franchise which undergoes such radicalisation. Then there is complete genre change which is a whole new ball park, if a franchise which consists of more than few titles all same genre then that genre is expected to be kept too. They could bring in elements from other games but the genre should stay the same in that main series.

Except it isn't like that at all. This isn't a sequel like the third LotR movie or DA2. The Syndicate series was dead and gone. This is a new game set in the same world. Like how they have the regular Suikoden series and then they made Suikoden Tactics. Or like how we have the Warcraft RTS and we have WoW.

[Chromie]

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Have to agree with this quote.

“I don’t want people to stop playing the old games, but time has moved on.” <--- Stardock

RPS response.

"Has it? Has it really? Perhaps he didn’t notice that Starcraft 2 outsold most of EA’s (and everyone else’s) portfolio last year. Perhaps he didn’t notice that SEGA refer to Total War as one of the major jewels in their crown. Perhaps he didn’t notice that Valve are spending a fortune on a DOTA remake. Perhaps what he really means is ‘publishers will give us a bigger development and marketing budget if we make it a first-person shooter."

Modifié par Ringo12, 13 septembre 2011 - 10:50 .

[Cyberarmy]

“I don’t want people to stop playing the old games, but time has moved on.” <--- Stardock

Sigh....

We are really a dieing breed,
I think i just need to go an "old timer-gamer" graveyard and wait for my end.

IF i haven't got Frozen Synapse to satisfy my needs. I suggest taht game to every turn-based styler fan. A game pushes you to think in both campaign and multiplayer. I know blasphemy...

[grregg]

I have to say it is puzzling to see that people care so much about the fact that someone somewhere is making a game they might not like. Can someone explain?

I mean there are probably thousands of companies making a boatload of products that I won't like. How is it my problem? If a company makes a bad game, it their problem, right? Even if they are about to make the worst game in the history of gaming, why should I care for one second?

[Cutlass Jack]

grregg wrote...

I have to say it is puzzling to see that people care so much about the fact that someone somewhere is making a game they might not like. Can someone explain?

I mean there are probably thousands of companies making a boatload of products that I won't like. How is it my problem? If a company makes a bad game, it their problem, right? Even if they are about to make the worst game in the history of gaming, why should I care for one second?

Because Syndicate was a game we did like. One we'd love to see get a modern update. Not one we want to get seen remade into an entirely different genre.

[grregg]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

grregg wrote...

I have to say it is puzzling to see that people care so much about the fact that someone somewhere is making a game they might not like. Can someone explain?

I mean there are probably thousands of companies making a boatload of products that I won't like. How is it my problem? If a company makes a bad game, it is their problem, right? Even if they are about to make the worst game in the history of gaming, why should I care for one second?

Because Syndicate was a game we did like. One we'd love to see get a modern update. Not one we want to get seen remade into an entirely different genre.

Hmm, I liked Syndicate too, still remember playing it on Commodore Amiga back in the 90s. And I would like to see a decent remake as well.

But even if someone decides to flood the market with 50 horribly bad remakes, what's it to me? Might even be amusing. Certainly does not make me "write in fury" as the OP did.

[Cyberarmy]

Maybe because we get sick of horribly bad remakes. Really, while gaming industry upgraded itself miles away from first Sydnicate at our Amigas, its losing "touch"/"soul"whatever you call it. There are tons of worthless TPS,FPS's around.
The future of gaming industy stinks and tihs saddens me.

And my sadness just become frustration when heard about the game that sucked me in Sci-Fi genre(with X-Com) and shaped my future. I become an electronics expert trying discover "augmentations" (Just kidding im only in car making business)

But of course I understand your opinion about my frustration for just a computer game. Well its the least i can do, come this forums and grumble/cry/rage.

Im sure no game developer will read this and even if they read they will make fun of me like Mr. Woo or don't even care a bit.

Games are no more being build by gamers for gamers...

Edit:Still sleeping...

And BTW about X-Com;
There was a X-Com Fps around 2001-2002, Enforcer if memory serves right, failed miserably. Noone seems to learn from the past.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 14 septembre 2011 - 07:23 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Cyberarmy wrote...

Games are no more being build by gamers for gamers...

And BTW about X-Com;
There was a X-Com Fps around 2001-2002, Enforcer if memory serves right, failed miserably. Noone seems to learn from the past.

Enforcer was space ship shooter if I recall and yeh it failed big time. I think also games are now mostly made for FPS gamers because developers no longer care as much about variety or quality, these days they all after quick buck and easy money via FPS, action or social or short easy to make titles [iphone psp ds fb]. I'm a strategy/RPG gamer where all my favorite genres are getting dumbed down, streamlined, stripped, diluted and plain ditched in favour of boom headshot or low attention span, instant gratification gamer. Bit harsh and probably slight overexaggeration but thats what [feels] like.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 septembre 2011 - 01:54 .

[Cyberarmy]

Well next thing is a Day of the Tentacle and/or a chess FPS/TPS.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 14 septembre 2011 - 02:40 .

[grregg]

Cyberarmy wrote...

(...)

But of course I understand your opinion about my frustration for just a computer game. Well its the least i can do, come this forums and grumble/cry/rage.

(...)

Heh... I guess I understand the sentiment, what puzzles me is the magnitude of the feelings involved. Especially given that every market out there is full of bad products. Movies, music, books, you name it.

Or perhaps to put it differently, I get the grumbling part, but get puzzled by the crying and raging part.

And to address what you and Dragoonlordz said. Most games are made for mainstream customer and you guys are not mainstream. Sorry. Asking the industry to deliver a hardcore product with mainstream production values and at mainstream price is pointless. Of course, you will get an occasional game with a broad appeal that's fun to both mainstream and hardcore audience, but such gems are rare. Or even very, very, very rare.

The gaming industry has yet to figure out how to appeal to more hardcore gamers. They can go the indie movie way and produce interesting games but at much smaller budget and less production value. Or they can go the gaming hardware way and produce interesting games with great production values but sell them at a premium. Or they can shoot for the broad appeal games that both mainstream and hardcore will like. I doubt there is a company out there that can pull it off regularly.

[Dragoonlordz]

@Greg

We grumble when happens to first series or franchise love, the more franchises that go the same way that grumble turns from grumbling to annoyance to anger. If was just one franchise happened to then would just be gumbling but now it has happened to at least three entire well loved franchises. X-Com, Front Mission, Syndicate and I am sure there are many more before and more to come as developers decide to crap on existing franchise and fanbases to turn a quick buck using the names and lore and prior history of past high popular [strategy and RPG] games to make their FPS and Action cash cow titles.

If our genres and our favorite franchises are not mainstream then stop dam well using our [so called] niché franchises to make thier quick cash genre change titles. Obviously we must be mainstream enough for them to take the franchises we loved and abuse them turning them all into the overflooded genres of FPS and Action in first place.

Then theres the streamlined, dumbed down [simplified] franchises, Dragon Age 2, Dungeon Seige 3 etc... Which adds to this feeling RPG and Strategy titles are being butched in favour of cash cow genres, lack of attention span and instant gratification titles.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 septembre 2011 - 05:51 .

[grregg]

Well, again, I don't understand the anger part. I did love X-Com, Syndicate, <insert some more titles here>. But even if someone makes a whole load of bad remakes, what does it have to do with me? How does a new crappy game released in 2011 affect what I think about Syndicate which I played in the 90s?

As I said before, if a company makes bad games, it's their problem, not mine. How in the world would they screwing up a game affect me? The only effect I can imagine is that I'll get some mild amusement of a kind derived from watching fellow humans falling flat on their faces.

And why would they stop using old franchises? Outside of the fact that it is more often than not a bad idea. It's their money. They bought the rights, they paid for the development, they put in their time and possibly their careers on the line. If they want to make Barbie Syndicate where the agents wear pink pajamas and ride around on little ponies, they have every right to do so. If they would ask me, I'd advise against doing it, but hey, it's their behinds on the line.

In short, I would like to see the old games remade, but any amount of failed attempts really have no effects on me.

And the old franchises are niche. I'm guessing that the remakes are made first because the developers liked them back then and would not mind taking a swing at it, and second because they offer a chance of pulling in the old guard. I doubt today's mainstream ever heard of Syndicate and such.

And a final aside, I don't understand your attitude towards mainstream. It's entertainment after all, not everyone likes (or should like) the complexity of hardcore titles. The fact that someone's beverage of choice is coffee, not a perfectly timed (and endlessly debated) ristretto shot does not warrant condescension.

[Dragoonlordz]

Its more akin to they stop making ristretto and change all brands into nescafe original just because more people buy that brand. Which is the problem. They are not making a Syndicate, X-Com and Front Mission strategy titles AND FPS/Action ones they are just making FPS and action alone. As more developers lack imagination or deisre for variety instead only after cash cows alone that one brand future is getting closer and closer.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 septembre 2011 - 06:37 .

[Ulous]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Its more akin to they stop making ristretto and change all brands into nescafe original just because more people buy that brand. Which is the problem. They are not making a Syndicate, X-Com and Front Mission strategy titles AND FPS/Action ones they are just making FPS and action alone. As more developers lack imagination or deisre for variety instead only after cash cows alone that one brand future is getting closer and closer.

I think your reading way to much into it, one brand future? I wouldn't think so because the customer would just get bored of the same thing all the time, in the grand scheme of things FPS games are not as common as you might think..... and good FPS's even less so.

[grregg]

I doubt we'll ever see the "one brand future" as you call it. Games are not ketchup, I hope. Not all movies are Transformers, not all books are Twilight and not all cars are Toyota sedans.

Eventually the game industry will figure out how to cater to hardcore customers. Other industries have after all.

It seems to me that currently companies that want to grab some of the non-mainstream customers try for the broad appeal approach. That's unfortunately extremely hard to do. About as hard as making a Transformers movie that would appeal to von Trier fans.

As I said, eventually they'll have to settle for either going "the indie movie way" with lower budgets and less production value, or "the coffee way" where you can certainly get your ristretto or lungo but they cost more than McDonalds' brew.

[Dragoonlordz]

Ulous wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Its more akin to they stop making ristretto and change all brands into nescafe original just because more people buy that brand. Which is the problem. They are not making a Syndicate, X-Com and Front Mission strategy titles AND FPS/Action ones they are just making FPS and action alone. As more developers lack imagination or deisre for variety instead only after cash cows alone that one brand future is getting closer and closer.

I think your reading way to much into it, one brand future? I wouldn't think so because the customer would just get bored of the same thing all the time, in the grand scheme of things FPS games are not as common as you might think..... and good FPS's even less so.

It is exactly what is happening and yours plus gregs defence of it happening and trying to tell people that they are wrong to speak up and try to stop it happening is imho the biggest problem, people like yourselves ignoring or tryng to stop others who are trying to speak up about what is happening is the part of the problem.

"When the ****s came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 septembre 2011 - 06:55 .

[grregg]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

(...)

It is exactly what is happening and yours plus gregs defence of it happening and trying to tell people that they are wrong to speak up and try to stop it happening is imho the biggest problem, people like yourselves ignoring or tryng to stop others who are trying to speak up about what is happening is the part of the problem.

"When the ****s came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

I'd say that unless EA, or whoever is the Internet's chosen evil developer du jour, chained you to your Playstation and forced you to play their games 16 hours per day, your quote is a bit exaggerated.

We're talking about developers investing their own money, time and what not into developing products that you might or might not buy at your sole discretion. By all means speak up and let them know what you'd like to play, but rage, anger and slightly hysteric suggestions that your rights are being violated by not being able to find a game to play are not likely to change things, I'm afraid.

[Dragoonlordz]

grregg wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

(...)

It is exactly what is happening and yours plus gregs defence of it happening and trying to tell people that they are wrong to speak up and try to stop it happening is imho the biggest problem, people like yourselves ignoring or tryng to stop others who are trying to speak up about what is happening is the part of the problem.

"When the ****s came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

I'd say that unless EA, or whoever is the Internet's chosen evil developer du jour, chained you to your Playstation and forced you to play their games 16 hours per day, your quote is a bit exaggerated.

We're talking about developers investing their own money, time and what not into developing products that you might or might not buy at your sole discretion. By all means speak up and let them know what you'd like to play, but rage, anger and slightly hysteric suggestions that your rights are being violated by not being able to find a game to play are not likely to change things, I'm afraid.

Developers are free to ignore and on occassion listen to us gamers who purchase their products or not, but I seriously have to question your motive and goal of trying to dismiss and stop people voicing their criticism like your doing here. Why are you taking part in a thread where people are speaking up against what they see happening, if your not bothered by it then I have to question your motive to being in this thread. Clearly it is not because you don't understand else you wouldn't be here trying to oppose every statement made in favour of your own not bothered status. Seems to me you do understand very well what people are saying and it has been explained to you over and over, in response your trying to belittle the opposing views in favour of status quo because the status quo doesn't bother you; in fact you seem in favour of it.

By the way "their" money comes from us.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 septembre 2011 - 07:15 .

[Ulous]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Developers are free to ignore and on occassion listen to us gamers who purchase their products or not, but I seriously have to question your motive and goal of trying to dismiss and stop people voicing their criticism like your doing here. Why are you taking part in a thread where people are speaking up against what they see happening, if your not bothered by it then I have to question your motive to being in this thread. Clearly it is not because you don't understand else you wouldn't be here trying to oppose every statement made in favour of your own not bothered status. Seems to me you do understand very well what people are saying and it has been explained to you over and over, in response your trying to belittle the opposing views in favour of status quo because the status quo doesn't bother you; in fact you seem in favour of it.

By the way "their" money comes from us.

This thread is about a Syndicate re-make by a tried and trusted developer, of course some disagree with it's direction and that is fine, it's your opinion and you have every right to express it, like me and Gregg are expressing ours. It is perfectly normal to give an opinion against somebody elses and forums would not be much use if we didn't, it's not about belittlement, (something I personally hate) it's about a difference of opinion. And while on the topic of belittlement making people who favour "mainstream" and "the status quo" out to be some kind of inferior sub-species incapable of thinking outside of the box, is far more belittleing than anything I or Gregg have said.

Modifié par Ulous, 14 septembre 2011 - 07:31 .

[grregg]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

(...)

Developers are free to ignore and on occassion listen to us gamers who purchase their products or not, but I seriously have to question your motive and goal of trying to dismiss and stop people voicing their criticism like your doing here. Why are you taking part in a thread where people are speaking up against what they see happening, if your not bothered by it then I have to question your motive to being in this thread. Clearly it is not because you don't understand else you wouldn't be here trying to oppose every statement made in favour of your own not bothered status. Seems to me you do understand very well what people are saying and it has been explained to you over and over, in response your trying to belittle the opposing views in favour of status quo because the status quo doesn't bother you; in fact you seem in favour of it.

By the way "their" money comes from us.

My motivation? I think I stated in once or twice in this thread. I was (and still am) looking for an explanation as to the magnitude of feelings triggered by the botched remakes of good old titles. And also by apparent catering by developers to the mainstream audience (that part got tacked on during the discussion).

I understand that they can be disappointing, and I think I even said so, but I am still puzzled as to why someone would feel rage or anger as several posters (including you) suggested.

If you can explain again, I'd appreciate it.

My various statements were basically illustrations why I don't understand the feeling apparently involved. For example, why would I be angry that someone spends their own money/time/resources on making a bad game that I can simply ignore? Again, I am not trying to belittle anyone, I am trying to understand, so please explain.

I do understand that explaining why you feel the way you feel is always tricky, but I was hoping someone could manage.

As for the "their money comes from us" comment, again I don't see how it matters. Can you elaborate? I would claim that the origin of money does not matter. For example, you can argue that my money comes from my employer, but once I earn the money and it's deposited onto my bank account, I can do whatever I please with it. Same goes for a game developer. Even if it did earn the money it has via game sales, once the sale is completed it's their money and they can spend it as they please. Possibly on making Barbie Syndicate. If you can argue the opposite, I would appreciate it if you did.

Modifié par grregg, 14 septembre 2011 - 07:36 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Ulous wrote...
inferior sub-species incapable of thinking outside of the box

Thats your words not mine. Your own perception.

If you can explain again, I'd appreciate it.

I explained that if something you dislike happens once you might be dissapointed, if happens a second time you might be annoyed but if happens 3, 4 or 5 more times those feelings get stronger. Thats life and human nature. It is quite simple to understand. Much like if someone flicks a hard boiled sweet at you, it might not hurt but if keeps doing it for hours on end you will be far from pleased or just disappointed. The same principle applies. Something irritating happens once its annoying but you move on, happens few times it gets irratiating and start to get much more bothered by it then if happens half dozen times or more times you begin to lose patience.

X-Com happened stategy to FPS genre change, it was annoying but not huge deal as was just one of the many franchises I loved as a strategy genre franchise. Then again happens with Front Mission strategy again title to action this time, I start to get more annoyed that now two of my most favorite franchises in all the years gaming has also now switched genre for quick profit. Warhammer again was strategy titles and now action too followed by now Syndicate into FPS, I'm starting to get pissed off that all these franchise I liked "were" strategy franchises and now are FPS or action titles because developers hate variety [spice of life] or only care about profit rather than quality of choice available to the customer.

Leave the fecking much loved past strategy franchises alone if you don't wish to make strategy games, if you wish to make FPS games then don't crap on a originally "strategy" franchise fanbase to do it. Sell the IP to another developer one willing to continue the goal of the original series and then you go off with your new found profit from the sale and make whatever FPS new series you wish. Stop dam well specifically targetting [strategy] genre franchises to change into FPS and action for your plain and simple greed. I listed four examples there of strategy titles turned into FPS and action games which clearly shows a trend, one I very much hate and shows that if continues and noone speaks up it will continue to be targetted for genre change for simple profit.

Edit : If still don't understand after that then I got nothing more to say to you, I think I was pretty clear in where I'm coming from.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 septembre 2011 - 08:07 .

[grregg]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

(...)

I explained that if something you dislike happens once you might be dissapointed, if happens a second time you might be annoyed but if happens 3, 4 or 5 more times those feelings get stronger. Thats life and human nature. It is quite simple to understand. Much like if someone flicks a hard boiled sweet at you, it might not hurt but if keeps doing it for hours on end you will be far from pleased or just disappointed. The same principle applies. Something irritating happens once its annoying but you move on, happens few times it gets irratiating and start to get much more bothered by it then if happens half dozen times or more times you begin to lose patience.

X-Com happened stategy to FPS genre change, it was annoying but not huge deal as was just one of the many franchises I loved as a strategy genre franchise. Then again happens with Front Mission strategy again title to action this time, I start to get more annoyed that now two of my most favorite franchises in all the years gaming has also now switched genre for quick profit. Warhammer again was strategy titles and now action too followed by now Syndicate into FPS, I'm starting to get pissed off that all these franchise I liked "were" strategy franchises and now are FPS or action titles because developers hate variety [spice of life] or only care about profit rather than quality of choice available to the customer.

Leave the fecking much loved past strategy franchises alone if you don't wish to make strategy games.

Hmm... I am afraid that you are explaining up the wrong tree so to speak. I do understand that if a somewhat annoying event happens repeatedly, it can build up the annoyance to reach the level of anger/rage.

Unfortunately what I'm failing to understand is why the event would be annoying in the first place. As I said before, someone working somewhere on a game that I don't have to play, buy or even see, has no emotional impact on me whatsoever. So people doing so repeatedly has no impact either, along the lines that N * 0 = 0. Admittedly that gets problematic as N approaches infinity, but we're far from infinity yet.

Now, can you explain why the first event, someone making a crappy remake of a classic, is problematic? Because that's where, I think, the core difference and misunderstanding lies.