«

[The Fifth Horseman]

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

Xcom already had a space fighter game which got out and failed spectacularly in all aspects, and the Xcom FPS is planned and in development since what? 10 years at the very least? Maybe even 15? I remember reading about it in very old PC magazines.

You're thinking about Alliance. That one's dead, buried and exorcised.
The "new" XCOM game doesn't have any direct connection with Alliance.

the 3D Metroids turned out to be fantastic

Yes, but fundamentally they simply transplanted the original gameplay model into a 3D environment without major mucking around. Not a particularly radical change if you think of it. What you're thinking of is They Changed It, Now It Sucks. What's getting people riled up here is that this is Syndicate In Name Only, appearing to be effectively Deus Ex with Serial Numbers Filed Off.

[Panthro]

No! Not TV Tropes! Must not click...

[Eagle of Fire]

You're thinking about Alliance. That one's dead, buried and exorcised.
The "new" XCOM game doesn't have any direct connection with Alliance.

I know that very well. But there cannot be a difference from one or the other in my mind. I don't see why there should even be one.

FPS games are not the kind of games which have much difference in their gameplay. It didn't really evolve much if at all since Doom. Okay, you can strafe now and you can use your mouse to aim. And except that? You still see your gun in your hands in front of you, you aim, you shoot, you kill. That's a generic FPS for ya.

I guess the same can be said from most genres, but no other genres have been nailed as often than FPSes.

If and when that Xcom FPS get out I'll expect exactly what I saw in that magazine over 10 years ago. Because that's what it will be anyways.

[hunvagy]

What Fifth mentioned is more likely a throw off then the "get off my lawn" approach. I know we love the old games, and I wasn't very happy about X-Com, Ultima, Wing Commander and now Syndicate, the IPs that the publisher after a decade of a hiatus just gets out of its portfolio and applies it ot the XXI. century. Yet my main problem with the new Syndicate is that the timing is too convenient. It has been outsourced as Project Redlime for years now, but I think EA management didn't know whether creating a cyberpunk shooter was feasible in this day and age. (And lets face it, Shadowrun was a disaster). So when Eidos Montréal dropped Human Revolution on us, and it got a positive feedback, tons of sold copies, they probably green lighted the project for good.

As I said before, the market has changed. No one save indie developers will invest in a genre that is no surefire hit. Companies aren't run by the creators of the games, but by business man, and they will have profit in sight, not the game itself. I'm not even trying to deny that. So the new Syndicate will be a FPP game. Yes, it'll have guns (actually, would be kinda awkward to see the all powerful cyborg beating Rentacops with a trash can lid). And yes, FPP games don't really evolve outside their comfort zones, aside from a few interesting sidebranches, like Zeno Clash. That doesn't mean it can't be a good game though. None of us is required to like the new game, none of us is required to even acknowledge it's existence. A handful of gamers hung up on old games aren't the target audience that can decide whether this game is made or not. All I'm saying is that dismissing it just because it's an FPS is faulty logic. As for the argument that the fps iterations have driven the franchises into the ground.. Microprose certainly didn't go bankrupt over X-Com Interceptor. They were bought up. And Interplay's (and the Fallout IPs) demise had nothing to do with Fallout 3. I even dare say that Fallout as a franchise survived into 2011 because of Bethesda giving it a facelift. It is now accessible to the "console kiddies" as well, and though our opinions differ, it is a good game. I salute Beth for including the V.A.T.S, which was a bold move. And I love it, I rarely play it as a glorified Doom.

[DarthHelmet86]

^What Hun said...again. Are you reading my mind Hun?

[yoga]

Originally Posted by hunvagy

What Fifth mentioned is more likely a throw off then the "get off my lawn" approach. I know we love the old games, and I wasn't very happy about X-Com, Ultima, Wing Commander and now Syndicate, the IPs that the publisher after a decade of a hiatus just gets out of its portfolio and applies it ot the XXI. century. Yet my main problem with the new Syndicate is that the timing is too convenient. It has been outsourced as Project Redlime for years now, but I think EA management didn't know whether creating a cyberpunk shooter was feasible in this day and age. (And lets face it, Shadowrun was a disaster). So when Eidos Montréal dropped Human Revolution on us, and it got a positive feedback, tons of sold copies, they probably green lighted the project for good.

As I said before, the market has changed. No one save indie developers will invest in a genre that is no surefire hit. Companies aren't run by the creators of the games, but by business man, and they will have profit in sight, not the game itself. I'm not even trying to deny that. So the new Syndicate will be a FPP game. Yes, it'll have guns (actually, would be kinda awkward to see the all powerful cyborg beating Rentacops with a trash can lid). And yes, FPP games don't really evolve outside their comfort zones, aside from a few interesting sidebranches, like Zeno Clash. That doesn't mean it can't be a good game though. None of us is required to like the new game, none of us is required to even acknowledge it's existence. A handful of gamers hung up on old games aren't the target audience that can decide whether this game is made or not. All I'm saying is that dismissing it just because it's an FPS is faulty logic. As for the argument that the fps iterations have driven the franchises into the ground.. Microprose certainly didn't go bankrupt over X-Com Interceptor. They were bought up. And Interplay's (and the Fallout IPs) demise had nothing to do with Fallout 3. I even dare say that Fallout as a franchise survived into 2011 because of Bethesda giving it a facelift. It is now accessible to the "console kiddies" as well, and though our opinions differ, it is a good game. I salute Beth for including the V.A.T.S, which was a bold move. And I love it, I rarely play it as a glorified Doom.

.powerful cyborg beating Rentacops with a trash can lid).

Ha ha ha

Perfect analysis and humor as usually.

I like yr posts, Hunvagy..

[TotalAnarchy]

Actually Starbreeze is one of the developers that went experimental with the FPS genre. Their debut game Enclave, is also a weird one.

[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.

[Eagle of Fire]

That's interesting to see that Eidos Montréal is actually branded as such.

Even more interesting is the fact that I live 30 minutes away from Montréal and I never heard of "Human Revolution" up to now...

[DarthHelmet86]

If a brand name tricks you into buying a game without looking at it first or finding out what they have done with it I think the fault lies with you. DN:F was a lot of fun for me I had a great time playing it compared to some of the older console versions I think it is a much better Duke Nukem then them.

And to be fair they might just be slapping the name on it to get some nostalgia reactions from some fans and hope they will buy into it. Or they might actually be out to expand upon a game series they loved, I can't tell I don't know the people. Not everyone thinks that every game with the same brand name needs to be the same game in the same format over and over.

But this is all a matter of opinion no one is right or wrong and no one is going to flip sides over a clever post on a forum. Gamers have become an Unpleasable Fanbase nothing a game maker can ever do will satisfy everyone. You are free to hate this game, rage about it, call it names and pick out every fault but I am going to be over here playing some games and having a good time.