«

[Fuzzyfireball]

Why does EVERYTHING have to be an FPS now?

[hunvagy]

Because games played in the first person perspective are marketable. By the way, seeing all these ranting, by your logic, the Thief games are FPSes too? All we saw is that it is developed by a company whose two games were shooters, and that the premise is akin to Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Which by the way is an awesome game. Yes, it is not a tactical shooter shown from birds eye view, but who knows, they might deliver. Make it gritty, make it feel like Syndicate. It's not like other games didn't have spinoffs, especially X-Com, which is what everyone is whining about. It had a space sim, a 3rd person action game, and a scrapped FPS. It's not fair to condemn a project just because it's not like "that other game bearing the same name 18 years ago". The gaming industry is not like it was during the 90ies, and things changed. Let's just sit tight and see what they whip up, there will be enough time to throw around blame and turd when it comes out and bombs.

[jonh_sabugs]

Originally Posted by hunvagy

It's not like other games didn't have spinoffs, especially X-Com, which is what everyone is whining about. It had a space sim, a 3rd person action game, and a scrapped FPS.

It's not like they lived up to their prequels either. Yes, I agree they could actually pull out something good with syndicate in a FPS, it's just that recent experience with other franchises haven't provided any ground for such optimism. All in all, I still feel what I have said earlier, they are trying to use the famous name of the older games to promote even another generic FPS. One evidence is the fact that they could always come up with something original instead, that would fit neatly into the genre and revitalize it.

[RRS]

Originally Posted by hunvagy

It's not fair to condemn a project just because it's not like "that other game bearing the same name 18 years ago".

It's not fair either to ride on the old franchise name and stick it to some modern crap, fooling people - us, clients - to buy it "for the old times sake".
The whole thing about brand loyalty seen from the client standpoint is that we expect products of constant quality and good post-purchase service. That's why we're willing to pay more for products of a given brand, because we expect them to meet our standards as it was before. If we feel cheated (be it "Duke Nukem Forever is meh" or "George Lucas raped my childhood"), we no longer trust that brand, period.

It you say these are decent products, why can't they defend on their own, without the need of well established brand? Oh, but they're too scared to come up with something new... My claim is that they'd be unable to sell well some of the mediocre products if they weren't labelled with popular brand name.

It's not just about games. Think "Star Wars". If the new trilogy was just a series of new sci-fi movies, I'd say they're watchable, at least once. In few spots the special f/x were decent.
It is only because they're supposed to be in line with the old "Star Wars" why many people (like me) whine about.

[hunvagy]

Originally Posted by RRS

It's not fair either to ride on the old franchise name and stick it to some modern crap, fooling people - us, clients - to buy it "for the old times sake".

They don't want you to buy it. There will be plenty others who do, and not because it's Syndicate from 1993 turned into a shooter. There will be a lot of pissed people, and a lot of people who are okay with the game, as always. In the end, EA makes money and that means they will put out more titles. Also if a company owns 50-60 IPs in the backlog, why take the risk of making a new one? This is not the same landscape when there were 4 rivals who you had to beat and you had to have serious innovations to stay in the market. Especially with digital distribution everyone can choose what and from where to buy, so of course they saturate the market with the genres that sell best. If you think that is wrong, then go ahead, bash games without seeing them or trying them, and stick with the games from the golden age. Nobody will try and stop you.

It you say these are decent products, why can't they defend on their own, without the need of well established brand? Oh, but they're too scared to come up with something new... My claim is that they'd be unable to sell well some of the mediocre products if they weren't labelled with popular brand name.

With the amount of titles big companies put out, they only need mediocre sales for mediocre products. And they get that.

It's not just about games. Think "Star Wars". If the new trilogy was just a series of new sci-fi movies, I'd say they're watchable, at least once. In few spots the special f/x were decent.
It is only because they're supposed to be in line with the old "Star Wars" why many people (like me) whine about.

Umm, no. The "new" trilogy is a cinematographic nightmare. No coherent plot, even if you would distance yourself from SW lore, the first one doesn't even have a real main protagonist, just a bunch of people thrown in front of the camera. It's a Lucas(tm) CG fest for children. And if we talk movies, take the "new" Indiana Jones. Everybody whines but at the end of the day, it is an Indiana Jones movie, even with that fucktard Shia LeBeouf (or whatever his name is). And even with all the naysayers, you don't see angry mobs storming Lucas Ranch lynching George for raping their childhoods.

But this is getting really tiring, so I stop derailing the thread. If you think it's okay to put your head in the sand and deny the existence of the new games, that's your choice. There will be no Tactical Shooters, they will be no games like Theme Hospital, or even Dungeon Keeper. There will be no more games of the caliber of Gabriel Knight. There is no market for them. And since companies prefer staying alive then going bankrupt with the diehard nieche gamers patting them on their shoulders at their graves, they will produce what the majority wants.

[RRS]

Originally Posted by hunvagy

There will be no Tactical Shooters, they will be no games like Theme Hospital, or even Dungeon Keeper. There will be no more games of the caliber of Gabriel Knight.

Why? Because:

Originally Posted by hunvagy

With the amount of titles big companies put out, they only need mediocre sales for mediocre products. And they get that.

They don't want you to buy it. There will be plenty others who do, and not because it's Syndicate from 1993 turned into a shooter. There will be a lot of pissed people, and a lot of people who are okay with the game, as always. In the end, EA makes money and that means they will put out more titles.

As I said before, with most of the people displaying "meh, whatever, I will be over here having a good time playing some games" attitude, nothing will force the companies to improve quality.

One movie reviever in the past said that people accept lousy movies/TV production because most of them weren't exposed to anything of high quality, so they can't feel the difference.

Therefore, to speak in your language and attitude:
go on guys, enjoy that crap you're being mass-fed today,
while I will be over here having a good time tasting some finer, hand-picked quality stuff, even if it can be found only in the past.
(this applies also for books, movies, music etc.)

[DarthHelmet86]

^ That and then that again.

[Eagle of Fire]

By the way, seeing all these ranting, by your logic, the Thief games are FPSes too?

I played the first Thief game. Yes, it is a FPS. A FPS don't actually require guns to make it a FPS. Rune was a FPS too, a damn good one too!

It's not fair to condemn a project just because it's not like "that other game bearing the same name 18 years ago".

I'm sorry, but that's exactly why I'm so disgruntled by so many "modern" games. When I play a game (let's say the first one in the serie) and I see a second installment of that game, I expect the same gameplay. Otherwise why name it by the same name? The answer is obvious: because it would sell well by surfing the wave of the success of the first game.

That's easily in the top 3 of the things which annoy me the most in modern gaming. And that's also why I think it is exactly why it is a good reason to condemn new games in development.

As it was said above: why does every new game have to be a FPS these days? Or, if you take that question in another way: why do they have to destroy so many franchise by turning them into an FPS?

I still maintain what I said though: I think the Syndicate franchise would actually fit well in a FPS. Which is usually not the case for most franchise. In the end if all depends of the gameplay of the original game. But then again that's exactly what is lacking and the most overlooked in modern FPS gaming too.

[TheChosen]

So which old franchises have been ruined by being turned into FPS's?

[jonh_sabugs]

I would say X-Com, Fallout, Metroid and others I don't remember right now. Of couse, this is my opinion, what I consider ruined could be great news for other people. It seems to be a trend also, I think we will see more FPS reboots in the future.

Of course it could me much worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv73B...ayer_embedded#!