Syndicate
- Thread starter RancidLunchmeat
- Start date
That is how it seems but in reality console gaming has a lot of variety and developers that don't care at all about PC. PC gaming is in the crapper much more than consoles are I think.
I'm not sure if I know them, but I will have to pick the game up when it's cheap like I did with forgettable Dark Athena.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Which is really a huge misconception, and unfortunately the higher ups responsible for the cash flow seem to think so as well. FPS games don't sell, only Call of Duty and Battlefield do. Everyone else is merely fighting over leftovers. Even heavily marketed franchises such as Killzone didn't manage to set the world on fire. Resistance 3 barely cracked a million, and games like Singularity were forgotten the moment they appeared on store shelves.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Eh? COD, BF, Mass Effect (2 and 3), Borderlands, Killzone, Resistance, Gears of War, Halo, Resident Evil (more and more shootery starting with RE4), Bioshock, Uncharted, GTA, Saints Row, RDR, etc. And even turning traditional RPGs into shooters with a light RPG veneer, Fallout 3 for example. Or even TBS games into shooters, that one upcoming X-Com game. Or squad based RTS into shooters, Syndicate for example.
Both consoles are pretty dominated by shooters or shooter offshots. Nothing on either console sells nearly as well as shooters.
Other than an attempt here and there, RPGs are all but dead on the platform. Filled instead with shooters or action games with a light veneer of RPG. Not at all like what we saw on NES, SNES, PS1 or PS2.
Platformers are also moving aside for shooters and shooter offshoots.
On the HD consoles at least. And unfortunately this directly impacts the PC space as many PC games are just ports from console efforts. Hence we see ME1 turn from RPG with shooter viewpoint into ME2 Shooter with a veneer of RPG, or DAO (more popular on PC than console) a real RPG turned into an action crapfest (DA2) in order to woo console players), or Fallout 1+2 (RPGS) turned into Fallout 3 (shooter with RPG veneer), or Syndicate (Squad RTS) turned into a shooter, etc...
Yes, we do still see attempts at other genres on the consoles. All with limited success compared to shooters and hence why the publishers are slowly converting everything to shooters.
It doesn't help that when they do it, the HD console fanbase cheers on another shooter rather than mourning the loss of yet another non-shooter being turned into yet another mediocre shooter.
Regards,
SB
Sigfried1977
Legend
I'm not saying there aren't any. I'm saying most of them actually don't sell all that well, and calling Fallout 3 (a game where you can barely hit a thing outside of VATS mode) a shooter is really pushing it.
When I look through a list of PS3 and 360 games, I don't really get the impression of drowning in shooters. There really is a lot of variety there.
Hmmm. Firstly the console fanbase hasn't been cheering the change of beloved non-shooters into shooters from what I've seen. Secondly, you can't blame the demise of variety in the PC space on the consoles. In fact doesn't it go completely the other way, that games were varied and interesting until DOOM, and then everything started to become a 3D shooter? The age of Lucasarts games and the like was definitely ushered in with the PC's 3D gaming. Simon the Sorceror had two artistic 2D adventure games, and then the most god-awful 3D attempt you ever saw because no publisher would fund anything not in 3D. Lemmings was turned 3D. Worms was turned 3D. The proliferation of shooters comes from XBox as I see, which had lots. Shooters didn't do so well on PS2. This gen launched with Gears and Halo, and sony demanded shooters (Uncharted was made a shooter against ND's initial intentions). And I always felt there was something of the PC gamer in the early XB gamer; PC gamers who got the bestest PC games on their new DX box. Perhaps that's not true, but I don't see a correlation between the modern gamer and the state of the industry beyond people buying the latest fashion. Once upon a time people bought racing games en masse. Another time it was RPGs. Another time strategies, or space shooters. Normally there's one key title that launches the crazy then a host of clones until it fizzles out and we have the next Big Fad. Shooter fatigue seems to be setting in. We'll see where buyers' money goes in the following years.
I find this conversation pretty funny especially considering that the rise and popularity of 3D FPSes/shooters started in the PC market and seeped into the console market.
Outside of Golden Eye, which was released in 1997 and on the n64 so it wasn't availability to the vast majority of the console gamer userbase, you don't really see critically acclaimed and chart topping FPS/shooters on consoles. It wasn't until FPSes began flourishing on the PC did we begin to see major growth in the representation of this genre on consoles.
Look at all the chart topping shooters on the market, the vast majority are represented by games that either were series started on the PC, was originally meant for the PC or developed by companies who built their reputations developing PC FPS games.
Outside of Golden Eye, which was released in 1997 and on the n64 so it wasn't availability to the vast majority of the console gamer userbase, you don't really see critically acclaimed and chart topping FPS/shooters on consoles. It wasn't until FPSes began flourishing on the PC did we begin to see major growth in the representation of this genre on consoles.
Look at all the chart topping shooters on the market, the vast majority are represented by games that either were series started on the PC, was originally meant for the PC or developed by companies who built their reputations developing PC FPS games.
I wonder if Starbreeze approached EA about this Syndicate reimagining or if EA shopped around for a company to make it into a coop shooter.
I'm not against going in new directions, especially with franchises that have been dead for 15 years, but I do wish this game had gone a bit more open gameplay than it sounds like it has. Every review I've read has ripped apart the single player aspect. But it usually gets talked up as a challenging, strategy-oriented coop experience.
Anybody here play both this and E.Y.E. Divine Cybermancy? Comparisons?
I'm not against going in new directions, especially with franchises that have been dead for 15 years, but I do wish this game had gone a bit more open gameplay than it sounds like it has. Every review I've read has ripped apart the single player aspect. But it usually gets talked up as a challenging, strategy-oriented coop experience.
Anybody here play both this and E.Y.E. Divine Cybermancy? Comparisons?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, the move to 3D saw the death of many beloved franchises, developers, and publishers.
Franchises changed and died because everyone was trying to figure out how to transition to 3D and hence many were pushed into 3D before the technology was ready for the game types.
Developers changed and died because publishers wanted to ride the 3D wave.
Publishers died because some franchises just did not work and hence did not sell as a full 3D experience, especially on hardware that was available at the time.
Worms was a perfect example. The 2D gameplay was brilliant and addictive. Especially once you got a few mates around to lob explosive munitions around and then watch the hilarious results. Moving to 3D killed it. The game became awkward, unamusing, and extremely limited. What's interesting is that now that Worms has gone back to 2D it's seeing a bit of a revival on PC. It's still very much a niche game, but it's now a relevant niche game again, instead of a dead niche game.
And sure, Doom enhanced the FPS movement on PC (for many it was Wolfenstein 3D, but for the masses it was Doom), but it wasn't until much much later that FPS started to be as generally popular as many other game types.
Interestingly enouogh FPS started to surpass other game types in popularity when the above mentioned push to make everything 3D happened. In an attempt to make everything 3D, you had to simplify or dumb down many gameplay elements that existed in the 2D games.
It's notable, for example, that Blizzard waited a long time before jumping in on 3D and even after that long wait they had to simplify many elements of their first 3D game. Starcraft 2 was started and launched at the start of the 3D craze, but Blizzard wisely held off. 3D would have meant greatly reduced unit counts and much simpler graphics at that point in time. Diablo II was created and launched when 3D was in full steam but again Blizzard wisely held off. In their first 3D game, Warcraft III, you can easily see the compromises that had to be made in order to fit an RTS into a 3D rendered world. Greatly reduced unit counts in order for the game to not get bogged down attempting to render potentially hundreds of units on screen.
Anyway, the point being that it wasn't FPS games that ushered in the demise and death of many franchises and gametypes. But the push to turn everything 3D when it may or may not have been time to do it. Once you piss off your current fanbase and aren't able to pull in new fans, it's very hard to get the original fans back.
FPS was one of the few gametypes that was easily and noticeably better moving from 2D + sprites to 3D + 3D models. Racing was another one, and hence saw a huge surge in popularity in the early days of 3D on PC.
RTS, TBS, RPG, and adventure games were some of the worst in terms being forced into the 3D world. Detail was lower, sacrifices to enable 3D rendering resulted in obvious compromises to gameplay, etc. It's no wonder that RPGs and Strategy games that remained 2D continued to do better than their 3D counterparts for many years. But with publishers pushing for 3D (what you noted about funding above), some had no choice but to go 3D and hence go out of business. Although some managed to survive.
So yes, I have a love/hate relationship with 3D.
And yes, consoles started off with FPS in order to woo PC customers. Halo on Xbox was a very blatant attempt at it, and it worked. Later as PC manufacturers attempted to move to consoles, FPS developers inevitably had more success. PC FPS translates fairly well to console and console controls. PC RPG, RTS, and TBS don't translate to console controls very well.
Hence the rise of FPS on consoles being driven by PC developers with console developers jumping in. BTW - Yes, I realize that Goldeneye 64 and Turok existed before PC devs started to try moving into the console space.
But now with most formerly PC devs concentrating on console developement, and most current PC devs attempting to transition to console... Console based developement decisions are hence dominating almost all AAA PC games. Diablo III and Guild Wars 2 both featuring design decisions heavily influenced by the future move to consoles, for example.
Hence, the PC dev. movement to consoles is affecting what games are funded for PC similar to how the introduction of 3D acceleration on PC affected what games were funded for PC. I don't blame the devs/publishers for doing it. PC has problems that many don't want to admit exist. But I do hate the indirect effect that it has.
Meh, long rant. If anyone didn't read this, I don't blame them.
Regards,
SB
Prophecy2k
Veteran
But now with most formerly PC devs concentrating on console developement, and most current PC devs attempting to transition to console... Console based developement decisions are hence dominating almost all AAA PC games. Diablo III and Guild Wars 2 both featuring design decisions heavily influenced by the future move to consoles, for example.
Hence, the PC dev. movement to consoles is affecting what games are funded for PC similar to how the introduction of 3D acceleration on PC affected what games were funded for PC. I don't blame the devs/publishers for doing it. PC has problems that many don't want to admit exist. But I do hate the indirect effect that it has.
Meh, long rant. If anyone didn't read this, I don't blame them.
Regards,
SB
To be honest SB most console-based development decisions that inadvertently dumbdown or degrade the AAA gaming experiences are bad ones that are the sole fault of the Publishers involved.
If you're a dev like Blizzard who makes amazing games that sell loads on PC and you decide to move those games to consoles, I don't see why you can't assume that your fanbase will move with the games? Given that being the case, why feel the need to degrade or simplify your game to the insult of console gamers as though they are too stupid or abhor complexity in the games they buy and enjoy. Too many Pubs seem to have this idea that console gamers are one "type" of gamer or a specific demographic and that they only like certain types of games or experiences, when in reality console gamers across the board are probably the most varied bunch of the lot. This problem began at the beginning of this generation and has become increasingly worse as pubs only seem to target a particular cross-section of console owners with the assumption that it's a homogenous consumer base. In turn all of the development investment goes into games that target this specific "type" of gamer, that is assumed to dislike the depth and complexity of traditional PC games and only wants to play FPS games online. Simply because one FPS sold in excess of 10+million units at the beginning of the generation, most pubs seem to focus their marketing & dev budgets on that one genre of game, despite the fact that titles like Skyrim, RDR etc prove that other genres with richer deeper gameplay experiences can also sell very well when given the right developer talent and investment budget.
Many decisions made to degrade or dumb-down games moved to consoles are completely unnecessary, outside of those required for the change in interface. They;re entirely the fault of the publisher, and imho the reason triple AAA gaming is being saturated with a single gaming genre above all others.
I really wanted this Syndicate game to be like Deus Ex HR. It seemed to have a similar style and I liked that. So far all the promo stuff i've seen just makes it look achingly dull to me. There's no reason they couldn't have actually just made it like the old games but just with a 1st person perspective, with the solid shooter mechanics. At least then it would have been something different and fresh, remarkable like Deus Ex HR was (loved that game to death). If you're just gonna water down an old game and crap it out as a run-of-the-mill FPS then i'm not gonna give it a second look.
If you loved Deus Ex HR, then you might enjoy EYE. It's rough and obviously developed by amateur indie folk, but it definitely has some character and style, and it is essentially a Deus Ex style game. It's cheap so the risk is minimal I think. Just don't go in expecting much of it to make any sense.
I managed to score Syndicate for fairly cheap on eBay so I will post about it. I read some comments by DXHR and EYE fans that got me interested enough to buy it if I could get it for well under $60...
Ok I've put some time into this game on PC now. If you like your sci-fi corridor shooters, I suggest getting it for under $30. Don't come looking for anything much from an RPG standpoint.
Reminiscent of-
Chaser
FEAR2
Tron 2.0
DXHR (shooter aspects and world style)
Reminiscent of-
Chaser
FEAR2
Tron 2.0
DXHR (shooter aspects and world style)
