Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 27

  1. Post

    Posts in this thread appear as comments on the following Gameplanet article:

    Read article...

  2. Post
    #2
    The Game was fine,Better then most shooters out there. The hate was unwarranted

  3. Post
    #3
    Cept for that bit where it completed ignored its isometric rts history?

  4. Post
    #4
    Loved the gun handling in this game, they should have added a non-coop mp mode.

  5. Post
    #5
    I think the dislike was warranted. Their game had nothing to do with the originals, they just slapped the title on to try and cash in on the franchise.

  6. Post
    #6
    The thing that confuses me is, surely they knew that FPS-ing such a beloved franchise was going to make Syndicate fans rage. So why use the name? A cash-in would only work if the franchise's fans were on your side, wouldn't it? Them devs so crazy sometimes.

    I liked the game well enough though. Solid FPS, sweet co-op, but - if I may squeeze a Syndicate joke in - nothing completely mind-blowing.

  7. Post
    #7
    "... We knew from the get-go that there was going to be a small but very vocal [group] of gamers and journalists that was going to hate us whatever route we took."

    Small? It was everyone everwhere.

  8. Post
    #8
    "We couldn't keep it faithful to the original because if we did we would have been accused of not being innovative. So we made a first person shooter instead."

  9. Post
    #9
    To be fair what he says is true, they were ****ed either way. When you reboot old franchises you always have people who want it identical to the original and those that will criticise the lack of innovation if all you do is update.

    It was a solid shooter nothing stand out but a decent game.

  10. Post
    #10
    So by that logic innovating is making a new game for the most over used game genre ever.

    You can still innovate while sticking to the roots(just look at the new XCOM: Enemy Unknown) so i call BS on what they saying. They just took the easy route to try and make a quick buck off the name

  11. Post
    #11
    We knew from the get-go that there was going to be a small but very vocal [group] of gamers and journalists that was going to hate us whatever route we took.
    Translation: We didnt give a shit about fans of the franchise.

    The game was generic and uninspired. The fact it was nothing but a name cash in is why it deserves every bit of hate it got. Something that 2K must have taken note of. XCOM FPS has all but disappeared from the world.

  12. Post
    #12
    God forbid anything is ever rebooted.

  13. Post
    #13
    Murakami wrote:
    God forbid anything is ever rebooted.
    Like this even qualifys as a reboot.

  14. Post
    #14
    Murakami wrote:
    God forbid anything is ever rebooted.
    Miss the point much?
    A reboot should at least be the same genre as the original. A reboot is NOT taking a known ip and sticking its name on a unrelated product.

  15. Post
    #15
    Well, the X-Com FPS wouldn't be sooooo far off the mark if it was trying to recreate X-Com Enforcer

  16. Post
    #16
    CoRk wrote:
    Well, the X-Com FPS wouldn't be sooooo far off the mark if it was trying to recreate X-Com Enforcer
    Well the XCOM FPS is another matter as it really has nothing at all do do with X-Com at all. Different setting, Different era, different organisation, different aliens hell apart from defending the earth from aliens it really has nothing in common with the X-Com ip at all.

  17. Post
    #17
    I wish they 'hadn't innovated', that's what I wanted.

  18. Post
    #18
    Coming soon

    Age Of Empires 4

    Modern day FPS set hundreds of years after the origs

  19. Post
    #19
    I think they looked at Fallout and saw how big a success it made. I mean the old school Fallout's where quite similar, and then reboot it into an Elder Scrolls type game.

  20. Post
    #20
    Except Fallout 3 is:-
    A. A continuation of the existing fiction universe, including tone and series' idiosyncrasies like dark humour.
    B. Still the game genre, RPG. Adapted the GURPS and perk system from the original games.
    C. Made an attempt at adapting the turn-based combat where you could target specific body parts, complete with hit likelihood percentages, via VATS.

  21. Post
    #21
    VATS = easy mode

  22. Post
    #22
    Rezoken wrote:
    I think they looked at Fallout and saw how big a success it made. I mean the old school Fallout's where quite similar, and then reboot it into an Elder Scrolls type game.
    A big success? You clearly missed the part where a huge, huge portion of the existing Fallout fanbase absolutely hated it. The majority of FO3 fans came from the TES series, not Fallout.

    New Vegas on the other hand is a much better example of a re-imagining of a series that was received well by the series' fanbase.

  23. Post
    #23
    i personally think they deserve any criticism. They utilized a cult classic name and settings to try cash in with a less than stellar FPS? What did they expect? If the game was anything less than hard-on inducing good, it was destined to be considered a failure. Even Fallout3 bent over abit to include some of the originals mechanics ( freeze targeting etc ) , there was no way they could just tack on the FPS and hope all goes well. You do not eer deserve the pink slip you get but i am all for this, we gamers should reward their mediocrity with no sales.

  24. Post
    #24
    CoRk wrote:
    "We couldn't keep it faithful to the original because if we did we would have been accused of not being innovative. So we made a first person shooter instead."
    void wrote:
    To be fair what he says is true, they were ****ed either way. When you reboot old franchises you always have people who want it identical to the original and those that will criticise the lack of innovation if all you do is update.

    It was a solid shooter nothing stand out but a decent game.
    This simply isn't true. It just isn't!

    Look at Diablo 3 and its relative success (despite being a piece of shit). A modern isometric game which bears many similarities to Syndicate and Syndicate Wars in how it's played. Obviously it's very different too, but it shows how a modern interpretation of an old franchise can be done successfully.

    They could have made a ****ing amazing new isometric syndicate game using all the bells and whistles of modern technology, made the gameplay awesome as, but they dropped the ball big time.

    They absolutely were not ****ed either way, that's just a copout fallback argument to try and save face. If they'd remade syndicate how a syndicate game actually is, it would have sold way more copies and probably been very popular, given how popular D3 is.

  25. Post
    #25
    Unless you are churning out games that are almost exactly the same as the one you released 6 months prior(looking at you COD), stick to the motto.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


    All they had to do was take the orignal game, make it look pretty and take advantage of the modern tech, and they would be shitting $100 notes forever.
    Instead they ****ed up and ruined a cult classic.