EA Defends Syndicate FPS

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

EA Defends Syndicate FPS

image

EA insists that rebooting the Syndicate series with a first-person shooter was "the right choice."

The decision to turn Bullfrog's venerable, real-time tactical series into an FPS was met derision from fans, many of which accused publisher, EA, and developer, Starbreeze, of trying to cash in on the recent success of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. While Syndicate has thus far failed to set the world on fire - it's currently standing at 76 out of a 100 on Metacritic - EA producer Jeff Gamon stands by EA's decision to change the series' genre.

"So a lot of people playing this game would probably have heard of the original Syndicate but not necessarily have played it," he told Eurogamer. "Obviously we get asked a lot about the reaction of fans of the original to us taking it into first-person direction. But we have to maintain that was the right decision. Why remake that classic in its original form when it's still out there? So with a whole new audience and tastes in video games, and a whole new suite of platforms to develop for, the game we made was the right choice."

Syndicate's lead co-op programmer, Lars Magnus Lang, echoed Gamon's sentiments.

"I knew that no matter what we did people would have strong opinions about it," he said. "I can be the same with some games, also. I can still feel like, oh, did they have to do that?"

"They might have heard of it, but most people haven't played it," he continued. "We wanted to cater to those people also, to everyone. I'd rather make a really good game for our players and make them really enjoy it, than just make a copy of an old game with updated graphics. That's not that super fun for either the end user or us. That game already exists."

Lang then compared the fan reaction to Syndicate to the negative press Fallout 3 received when it was first announced.

"I remember Fallout 3 also had the same thing. It is kind of forgotten now because it was great. Almost everyone liked it. There's always a few..." he said.

The two aren't exactly alike. Fallout 3 marked a change of perspective for the Fallout series, rather than a change of genre. Despite occasionally looking like one, Fallout 3 is definitely not a first-person shooter.

"We make it good on its own merits, then we take the universe, the setting, the cyberpunk, and really be true to the original Syndicate, and that's it," he said.

While I enjoyed Syndicate - particularly the co-op campaign - I do hope EA takes a leaf out of 2K's book and green lights a game that more closely resembles the source material. If not, I'm sure Paradox will quite happily take my money.

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

Y'know, I actually don't really mind them turning it into an FPS. I never much liked the old game anyway.

Just a shame they didn't turn it into a good FPS.

Best thing about that game was the trailer.

I never played any game from the old Syndicate series (wasn't into Strategy/Tactics at the time), and was actually quite excited for this game because I love cyberpunk and it looked awesome. I waited for an Escapist review and now that I know it has a 6 hour linear campaign, I'll wait until it'll cost $10. If it has the length of a DLC, it should be priced as such.
I don't think think making it an FPS is a mistake, but making it short and linear definitely is.

Time to fire up my copy of EYE - Divine Cybermancy I got on Steam during the holidays to satisfy my sudden Cyberpunk craving.

I didn't played the original Syndicate back then, mainly because I was pretty busy with my SNES back then. For the Fallout comparison, well, just as Grey said, it only shifted it's perspective, it didn't changed to a different genre at all.

I really don't mind changing perspectives for modern audiences, it also worked marvelously for Metroid, but I like it when it works, not because it's forced upon us.

Having played the original, I was mildly concerned about the whole 'FPS' thing. I knew they were going to slip up on it. It really makes me wonder if they actually played the damn game. They say they 'got the feeling' of cyberpunk, but you can do that watching Blade Runner.

If certain publishers (I am glaring at YOU EA) insist on re-booting old games, could they insist that the developers get more control than you feel comfortable with. It would probably improve the game that comes out, and would be more of a re-imagining than a regurgitation.

of course they think it was a good choice. after all, they took over bullfrog productions and closed them down.

im sure thats how they were thinking;

€A: origin is doing well so far. amazing how origin works. dint know you can keep so many personal details on it. just make sure our slaves remove bad comments about it. get it?
now, how can we make more money?

person 1: we could create a new game, something new, you know. i have an idea of....

€A: shut up! you know i dont like to hear that.

person 1: but sir....

€A: wait a minute.... we have starbreez in our hands, right? they have made a nice game of riddick and have a good reputation.
what about this classic game made by bullfrog? after all, we have the license from their games.
what was it called.... yes, syndicate. today every one likes FPSs. lets give the order starbreez to make a FPS out of it. thats how we make another profit. add a co-op mode in to it so that people are forced to use origin.

person 1: but sir, what about the fans who liked the original syndicate?

€A: you shut up. your ideas are way to risky. you are fired.
the rest of you, back to work. you know what to do.

how many good games from the past have to be pulled through the dirt today? just sad.

"They might have heard of it, but most people haven't played it," he continued. "We wanted to cater to those people also, to everyone. I'd rather make a really good game for our players and make them really enjoy it, than just make a copy of an old game with updated graphics. That's not that super fun for either the end user or us. That game already exists."

anyone else find it funny that they are copying bog standard safe cyberpunk first person shooters intead of trying to remake a game most people havnt played these days.

as far as i can tell the logic sort of goes like this..

what IP do we have that will work to cash in on deus ex? syndicate.. ok FPS games are popular and cyberpunk is the new black so make it one of those oh and dont take any chances or risks with development

Grey Carter:
I'd rather make a really good game for our players and make them really enjoy it, than just make a copy of an old game with updated graphics. That's not that super fun for either the end user or us. That game already exists.

I dunno. Seems to work fine for ActiBlizz.

Zhukov:
Y'know, I actually don't really mind them turning it into an FPS. I never much liked the old game anyway.

Just a shame they didn't turn it into a good FPS.

Exactly. I've never understood the amount of hate unleashed whenever anyone dares think of taking a franchise to a new genre. Change is not always bad. Look at Warcraft and Fallout for obvious examples where such a change worked really quite well. Even the fact that this Syndicate has nothing whatsoever in common with the original other than the name would not necessarily be a problem, as long as the world and story were still interesting. The problem here is not that they made an FPS, it's that they made a short, bland, utterly generic and pointless FPS.

Grey Carter:
I'd rather make a really good game for our players and make them really enjoy it, than just make a copy of an old game with updated graphics.

An admirable sentiment, with just one rather obvious problem - they didn't actually do either.

Yeah the FPS isnt the problem. This game realy doesnt have a reason to hate it, just to be disappointed that it could of been so good if they had worked on it more...

Well of course EA would say they did the right thing. EA has never made a mistake, if you ask them.

OT and non-sarcastically: It may in fact not be a bad decision, IF the end result (and maybe even the goal all along, who knows) is to raise awareness of the license in advance of rebooting the strategy game itself. A lot of current gamers simply don't know about the original. Maybe this lacklustre game will make them more aware of the better one that came before, and maybe a better one to come? Who knows. It's worth hoping, I think.

If EA said "You know... making Syndicate an FPS was a shite idea in retrospect." that would be newsworthy.
As it is it's "publisher being a publisher".

No one is complaining that it's an FPS. It's the fact that it's a bad FPS that people are complaining about.

EA being a Cancer on the industry again!? STOP THE PRESSES!

Never got to play the original, but I understand the pain of watching something you love get warped into a boring,generic, safe, shooter cash in.

Zhukov:
Y'know, I actually don't really mind them turning it into an FPS. I never much liked the old game anyway.

Just a shame they didn't turn it into a good FPS.

Best thing about that game was the trailer.

Couldn't agree more, other than great atmosphere the original Syndicate didn't had much going for it and could be resumed as "Equip best body mods, 4 miniguns and 4 shields / finish the game".

Who in their right mind would want to work with EA...do they pay that well? Are there no other publishers? :S

How, oh how, can I take this apart? Why with simple logic.

Grey Carter:

EA insists that rebooting the Syndicate series with a first-person shooter was "the right choice."

If you're "insisting" and "defending", you're already on the back foot.

"So a lot of people playing this game would probably have heard of the original Syndicate but not necessarily have played it,"

So, you're admitting you sold a game based on the name solely. Right.

"Obviously we get asked a lot about the reaction of fans of the original to us taking it into first-person direction.

Which I think was something along the lines of "Why?" - but you don't even give them voice for that - you just continue with...

But we have to maintain that was the right decision.

Yeah, you HAVE to. Not that you want or need, but you HAVE to.

Why remake that classic in its original form when it's still out there?

Because it was asked for? Because it's been done with many other games? Because otherwise you're building a game based only on a name?

So with a whole new audience and tastes in video games, and a whole new suite of platforms to develop for, the game we made was the right choice."

Isn't this a little bit like "Because we said so"? I'm seeing no research, justification or even evidence here.

"I knew that no matter what we did people would have strong opinions about it,"

That's sort of the point...

"I can be the same with some games, also. I can still feel like, oh, did they have to do that?"

So...you're OK with condemning people who feel the same way you do?

"They might have heard of it, but most people haven't played it,"

Prove it

"We wanted to cater to those people also

"Also" implies you are catering to which other group?

, to everyone.

Oh, to the strong opinions and the ones who haven't played it AND everyone.

I'd rather make a really good game for our players and make them really enjoy it,

Which you failed at.

than just make a copy of an old game with updated graphics.

That people wanted.

That's not that super fun for either the end user or us.

Why are you talking for someone in the same league as yourself when you've already said that what they wanted was wrong?

That game already exists."

No, it doesn't. The OLD version exists, they were asking for the NEW version. That doesn't exist, that's what you were asked for.

"I remember Fallout 3 also had the same thing. It is kind of forgotten now because it was great. Almost everyone liked it. There's always a few..."

"the same thing", "was great", "almost everyone", "a few"; disparaging remarks you'd usually hear in Democrat vs Republican or Labour vs Tory.

"We make it good on its own merits, then we take the universe, the setting, the cyberpunk, and really be true to the original Syndicate, and that's it,"

"The Cyberpunk" - you actually don't know what the hell you're on about, do you? If you were true to the original Syndicate, you wouldn't have given the main character a name.

Let's just see how high Cartel's influence gets it. Because if you try to shut them down EA, I've got a chest-nuke ready for you.

Jeff
Gamon

Holy Shit! EA IS AFTER THE TRIFORCE!

Quick, someone don Green tights and hoody and take action!

Also, EA defending a game that cost them money? No shit, there aren't many producers who would say "Yeah, it sucks."

Also, incoming "EA screws up another beloved franchise" rants.

Adam Jensen:
No one is complaining that it's an FPS..

...Were you around on the internet when it first got announced?
OT: I can see what they mean. Hell, maybe somebody will end up giving the original a shot and loving it. I doubt it, but maybe.

EA really needs to stop defending itself, because it doesn't have to.

EA, please stop defending yourself for being a business, you don't have to explain your actions like this.

Qitz:

Jeff
Gamon

Holy Shit! EA IS AFTER THE TRIFORCE!

Quick, someone don Green tights and hoody and take action!

Also, EA defending a game that cost them money? No shit, there aren't many producers who would say "Yeah, it sucks."

Also, incoming "EA screws up another beloved franchise" rants.

Well he would be, if his last name was Ganon not Gamon.

Sonic Doctor:
EA really needs to stop defending itself, because it doesn't have to.

EA, please stop defending yourself for being a business, you don't have to explain your actions like this.

Qitz:

Jeff
Gamon

Holy Shit! EA IS AFTER THE TRIFORCE!

Quick, someone don Green tights and hoody and take action!

Also, EA defending a game that cost them money? No shit, there aren't many producers who would say "Yeah, it sucks."

Also, incoming "EA screws up another beloved franchise" rants.

Well he would be, if his last name was Ganon not Gamon.

See now, that's just what he wants you to think. He really is Ganon in disguise as Gamon. Come on man, open your eyes! It's so simple you can't ignore it.

Well I'll be getting the proper RTS remake of Syndicate. This game doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. One because its a FPS pawn off. And Two EA is involved.

I actually kinda liked the co-op demo its just not really my kind of game.

In other words, we had an FPS waiting in the wings and instead of making a new story around it we just plundered an old beloved property so in one swoop we saved on the development budget and potentially got more fans without having to spend on advertising as they already know the property exists.

An obvious derivative cash-grab game didn't earn accolades for originality and quality?
STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I do like how he contradicts himself "We made the game because older gamers recognize it" to "We made it for everyone."

So which demographic is it? Should we include children under the age of 11 and middle-age housewives in that demographic? Last I checked, they were included in "everyone".

Grey Carter:
Despite occasionally looking like one, Fallout 3 is definitely not a first-person shooter.

I'll say that's a matter of interpretation; not definition.
Unless you played as a strict melee specialist or only threw grenades/mines, you were limited to solving "random encounters" through a gunfight, which was VERY MUCH a shooter in application, stat tomfoolery be damned.

Grey Carter:
"I remember Fallout 3 also had the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing. Fallout 3 was actually good and not a paint by numbers, committee safe bland fps for the layman.

Seriously, every time I see someone say that they wanted to reach everyone then make a game a shooter, I can't help but feel that they're basically saying "People don't like RTS games, they like shooting things, because shooting things is easy". It's hard not to get that vibe from publishers and devs that shooters are for dumb people. Would peoples brains really explode if you made it strategy? Seemed to be plenty of Halo fanboys with their heads intact after the release of Halo wars (Ok, probably not the best example of an RTS, but you get what I mean).

Am I against it being a shooter? Not at all. What I AM against is the idea that you need to make it a shooter to cater to everyone. What's next, Commander Keen gets remade into a gritty sci fi fps?

So they decided to release a meh fps game that will probably be lost to time with no one really caring as opposed to trying to do something a bit original that would have really stood out... yeah that sounds like ea's mo. At least it was based roughly on the universe of the original games though.

The main reason they decided to go the FPS route is purely financial. If they rebooted the original and kept the originals gameplay it would be a PC only game. They wanted to sell it to consoles. FPS are eagerly accepted on a console. Now we have Syndicate reboot as a FPS.

Now why would they go straight to the FPS, and not try to blend the genre. Because it also costs less to make a straight FPS than the make a tactical 3rd person shooter that has strategy elements. They can shorten development time, make a simple linear shooter that has a structured story. Pump it out quickly and have it on store shelves for the public to by based on nostalgia not the game.

Basically Syndicate is what you get when you have a publisher that is trying to make a game that has "mass market" appeal, short development time, and uses an existing IP.

"Blah blah blah, I don't care about the fans, new ones or old ones... I just care about their wallets." -Lars Magnus Lang

That's what I got out of that.

I don't see why it WOULDN'T be an FPS. FPSes are more immersive and that means better storytelling and better replay.

All games should be FPS.

Zachary Amaranth:
I don't see why it WOULDN'T be an FPS. FPSes are more immersive and that means better storytelling and better replay.

All games should be FPS.

image

Can I just say "6 hours" though?

Zachary Amaranth:
I don't see why it WOULDN'T be an FPS. FPSes are more immersive and that means better storytelling and better replay.

All games should be FPS.

I don't know if you're trolling or just out of your mind. Last I checked, Zelda isn't an FPS and it still manages to have better storytelling and replay value. Ergo any other franchise you care to name that ISN'T an FPS.

OT: They made a so-so FPS game based on a name synonymous with an old strategy game, and they're surprised that the game is selling badly and the Metacritic score sucks (Seriously though, 76/100 is considered shit?). Oh, EA. Consistent at least!

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Fallout 3 didn't succeed as a continuation of the old Fallouts, it succeeded on its own merits (i.e. open world exploration, and some truly silly/fun weapons). There's plenty wrong with Fallout 3 (the terrible, terrible main plot, but it's Bethesda and I expect nothing less) but it was successful because it took elements that the developer was successful at and applied them in a well-developed manner. Having not played Syndicate yet, I can't fully speak for the product, but from the information I gathered it seems that either the team or the publisher strictly limited their options and tried to play by the 'FPS handbook' as much as they could to make a 'safe' game for revenue. That's the difference between Fallout 3 and Syndicate I believe. One openly embraced what the developer was successful at and expanded on it, while the other seems to have applied a half-hearted effort.

The_root_of_all_evil:

image

OMG adorable.

Sorry, I'm a fan of KITTEHS!

buy teh haloz:

I don't know if you're trolling or just out of your mind.

There are, of course, other options. People jump to "trolling" or "crazy" way too fast.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here