The rise of the FPS was the fall of the Flight Sim. Not sure how you're disputing this.

FPS games have been blurred by all the mixed gameplay we're seeing shoehorned in, but to say that FPS is the death of Flying Sims?
Yeah, no.

Flying and driving simulators have always been around and getting improved, while new forms of simulator get invented.
Train simulators, trucking simulators, even a bus simulator that claims to be the most realistic presentation of driving a city bus evarrr.

Doom didn't kill any of them. Doom didn't even hold a candle to them because there were plenty of people who preferred Descent or Terminal Velocity to Doom. Hell I knew people who preferred Magic Carpet to Doom for the simple fact that Doom was limiting.
Having said that, Doom was in its own genre alongside Ken Labyrinth, Blake Stone and later, Rise of the Triad.
It wasn't competing with Chuck Yeager or MS FS 5.

Also, I don't remember anybody bench marking their PCs with Doom, unless by benchmarking you mean: "Yep, DX"


This memory lane moment brought to you in part by Bluesnews, and Gamers like you.

Talking down to people and telling everyone how right you are isn't sharing wisdom with the masses. It's why no one respects your opinions or cares about what you said about fallout 3 which plenty of other people did too. A grain of sand has more influence on my views, you have done nothing to demonstrate your supposed knowledge but toot your own fat horn. Try acting like a human instead of pandering like a corporate robot if you want people to listen to you.

Prez wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 09:54:

Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 09:35:
People need to get over a name and look forward to good games.

And you berated me when all I was doing was deriding myself for hoping that a remake would be isometric strategy when I know full well the realities of the market and desires of publishers would almost mandate it be an FPS. I made the mistake of mentioning CoD, and I get a lecture from you, even though I was not "blaming" anyone (aside form myself) or anything other than current market trends. I AM looking forward to good games. I LOVED Fallout 3, and I will be the first to buy XCOM and Syndicate if they are great. That should not preclude me from expressing disappointment that they very may very well have nothing to do with their namesakes beyond generalities and wondering why the devs would bother using the names at all.

The main reason I'm berating in every direction is because I had these exact same conversations when Fallout 3 was announced. Go to any of those 200 post threads and see people calling me stupid because the perspective changed.
Then see most of those people calling it game of the year.

We know nothing about this game, just title and perspective, but many of those same people are throwing the same tantrum already. Yes, some people are being calm and expressing disappointment, but others are condemning the game, the industry, and pretty much anything they can set sights on.

Kept in some form... If by that you mean 'kept' but completely butchered in every aspect, then I agree, otherwise no. Fallout 3 is a sad joke in comparison to the original Fallouts in exactly the aspects you list here. They're not even close. NV is closer but still way worse.

Care to elaborate on why NV is way worse than Fallout 1 & 2? I've played and enjoyed all three but I think NV is the best. There's a lot more choice in NV and almost every quest has branching paths and moral choices. You even get to choose your own end goal, something that none of the Fallout games let you do before.

Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 09:35:
People need to get over a name and look forward to good games.

And you berated me when all I was doing was deriding myself for hoping that a remake would be isometric strategy when I know full well the realities of the market and desires of publishers would almost mandate it be an FPS. I made the mistake of mentioning CoD, and I get a lecture from you, even though I was not "blaming" anyone (aside form myself) or anything other than current market trends. I AM looking forward to good games. I LOVED Fallout 3, and I will be the first to buy XCOM and Syndicate if they are great. That should not preclude me from expressing disappointment that they very may very well have nothing to do with their namesakes beyond generalities and wondering why the devs would bother using the names at all.

The rise of the FPS was the fall of the Flight Sim. Not sure how you're disputing this.

I'm disputing it because I was as fanatical a flight sim nut as anyone could be short of building a HOTAS-equipped cockpit in my house to game in. I was with the community in its heyday and endured its long fall into obscurity where it currently resides. Flight sims fell out of favor with publishers for a number of reasons, but the popularity of FPS's played very little role in that. There were 2 main reasons that flight sims "died" as you put it:

1) the hardcore flight sim crowd was as hard to please as any community this side of Tribes. Everyone had their own personal opinion as to everything on how realistic everything should be to the fidelity of the flight engine. Great flight sims would sit on the shelf due to boycotts by the opinionated diehards who made up the market and bad word-of-mouth from people convincing others the game was crap. This was particularly bad because flight sims generally had only small marketing budgets attached to them and relied in large part on word-of-mouth.

2) The same community was so elitist and hostile to newbies that they basically choked off any potential for market growth. Sales numbers reflected this and the games in production slowed to a trickle.

Flight Sims were every bit as action-y and visceral as FPS's; the two genre's could have easily co-existed had the situation been different. Also note that Microsoft's flight sims continued to due extremely impressive numbers long after other studios were losing their ass on them. A big reason was that they had the marketing budget to rival that of Doom's, but they also made the wise decision of ignoring the hardcore elitists and making the games more accessible to a larger audience. Ubisoft also stayed with the Flight Sim and the Sim genre in general, and would have remained successful had they been able to put out a complete working product without ridiculous DRM driving everyone away. IL-2 Sturmovich sold extremely well in spite of it's complexity because it was well-made and marketed properly.

This comment was edited on Sep 13, 2011, 09:51.

And it's less that I want to be an obnoxious know-it-all and more that the predictable flow of these topics is aggravating.

"Oh woe is me, my favorite game from when I was 12 is being remade and it's going to be an FPS! How dare they! Surely some $uit in marketing is responsible for this. It will be terrible. What made this game important was the perspective and nothing else, and changing that means this will be a flaming pile while keeping the perspective means it would be an amazing game that was certainly worth the time, money and effort for the developer! This is why I only play indies, yet rather than look to their community for a true successor I'll cry about how this name is so important and can't be used for anything that has a new perspective under any circumstances!"

People need to get over a name and look forward to good games.
There are plenty out there to choose from and, coming from Starbreeze, this will probably be another. We won't know for a long time, as of right now we pretty much just know the name, genre and setting of this game, and the more important two of those three look solid enough...

Prez wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 22:14:
Your statement about Doom killing flight sims only illustrates that you have no clue about the flight sim genre. At all. Yet you still have to run your mouth like you know everything.

Sure I do. It was once the single most popular genre. It was a serious money-maker, and people bought flight sims to show off their computer.

Then Doom came along. Suddenly there was a better genre to show off the computer. It was less complex from a gameplay perspective and it didn't require a special input device.

The rise of the FPS was the fall of the Flight Sim. Not sure how you're disputing this.

Syndicate wasn't really a strategy game. There were some tactics involved in combat, sure, but you spent the bulk of the game walking around and mowing people down.

Personally I'd say that makes it a real-time strategy game, but admittedly genre can be pretty subjective. I would agree with the sentiment that this game has a better chance of not sucking than the X-Com "remake", though I don't see how with removing research, money management and squad control it can still retain a Syndicate vibe.

Keeping an open mind though.

saluk wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 04:31:
Fallout 3 was different from its predecessors, but felt like a modern day take of an older franchise. The most memorable things about fallout for me (the humor, world, moral choices, and character advancement) were kept in some form in fallout 3.

Kept in some form... If by that you mean 'kept' but completely butchered in every aspect, then I agree, otherwise no. Fallout 3 is a sad joke in comparison to the original Fallouts in exactly the aspects you list here. They're not even close. NV is closer but still way worse.

Syndicate wasn't really a strategy game. There were some tactics involved in combat, sure, but you spent the bulk of the game walking around and mowing people down. It was basically a squad-based, isometric shooter.

Based on this announcement, it looks like the new game will retain some of the core elements of the original (premise, setting, upgrades, shooting) and abandon others (research, money management, squads in single-player). I can live with the removal of the latter, provided that the levels remain large and open-ended. If it ends up being a completely linear and scripted CoD-fest, I'll be disappointed.

Fallout 3 was different from its predecessors, but felt like a modern day take of an older franchise. The most memorable things about fallout for me (the humor, world, moral choices, and character advancement) were kept in some form in fallout 3. About the only thing missing was the really boring turn based combat vs rats at the start of fallout 1 that almost kept me from playing the game. If your most memorable elements of fallout don't match mine I can see how you would see fallout 3 in that way, but this is kind of the danger of upgrading any franchise. Everyone's idea of what made it work is not the same.

I agree, for the most part. Fallout was an RPG, not a turn-based strategy game, and therefore turn-based combat was not essential to the experience. Role-playing, on the other hand, was essential and FO3 did a decent job of retaining this. Unfortunately, FO3 also had pretty lousy writing. I'd say New Vegas was a more faithful successor to Fallout 1 & 2.

vrok wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 20:58:

Alpha Geist wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 16:30:
WTF mate? Just another Bastardization of a once beloved classic churned out for "the masses."

Oh, and before someone mentions Fallout 3 (and/or NV), that was an exception to the rule. I don't see all the CORE elements that made Syndicate what it was under the guise of "a unique action shooter."

Fallout 3 would be an exception to that rule? LOL, no. Fallout 3 was most definitely a prime example of what you describe. The most horrible franchise bastardization ever, in fact.

Fallout 3 was different from its predecessors, but felt like a modern day take of an older franchise. The most memorable things about fallout for me (the humor, world, moral choices, and character advancement) were kept in some form in fallout 3. About the only thing missing was the really boring turn based combat vs rats at the start of fallout 1 that almost kept me from playing the game. If your most memorable elements of fallout don't match mine I can see how you would see fallout 3 in that way, but this is kind of the danger of upgrading any franchise. Everyone's idea of what made it work is not the same.

I really doubt the most memorable elements of syndicate could be kept for anybody with this approach. While the combat system in an rpg could be argued to be a means to an end, the combat system in a tactical strategy is basically the game. In a way though, it could be kind of like Swat 2 -> swat 3. Not really the same, but it worked well.

I do enjoy starbreeze games, so this may turn out good, misuse of ip or not. But I kind of hope it doesn't, cause I hate EA and don't want to reward this kind of behavior. Why do we have to make games that sell millions of copies? Why not make 3 or 4 really unique titles that sell 250k each for 1/4th the cost. Same amount of money, plus you can take more risks, and reach a more diverse audience to boot. There's a huge market for fps games, yes, but they are sated. There are other markets that are dying of starvation.

Beamer wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 21:37:

Prez wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 19:31:
Everyone wants to make FPS's now that CoD currently rules the revenue roost.

Stop blaming this on things you don't like when ignoring the impact of things you do.

God you are an arrogant know-it-all. One who knows far less than he pretends to I might add. Firstly, you are assuming that I don't like CoD when I gave no indication either way. My point is that the big money-maker these days are shooters, and I picked CoD because it is the biggest money-maker. Or are you going to refute that too, genius?

Your point about it being Doom's fault is so stupid that I'm wondering if you are even trying. I don't remember Populous and Dungeon Keeper being made into FPS's because of Doom's popularity. Your statement about Doom killing flight sims only illustrates that you have no clue about the flight sim genre. At all. Yet you still have to run your mouth like you know everything.

Try thinking a bit before you spout off your senseless opinions. It might help if you consider the possibility that some of us Intellectual inferiors (as you view us) actually know a thing or two about all the things of which you pretend you are an expert.

Prez wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 19:31:
Everyone wants to make FPS's now that CoD currently rules the revenue roost.

You're blaming this on CoD?

The overwhelming swarm of FPS games destroying everything in their path started with Doom. Remember flight sims? Doom killed them. It took out everything else it could.

Stop blaming this on things you don't like when ignoring the impact of things you do.

Alpha Geist wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 16:30:
WTF mate? Just another Bastardization of a once beloved classic churned out for "the masses."

Oh, and before someone mentions Fallout 3 (and/or NV), that was an exception to the rule. I don't see all the CORE elements that made Syndicate what it was under the guise of "a unique action shooter."

Fallout 3 would be an exception to that rule? LOL, no. Fallout 3 was most definitely a prime example of what you describe. The most horrible franchise bastardization ever, in fact.

This comment was edited on Sep 12, 2011, 21:06.

Longjocks wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 19:34:
Doom the text adventure?

Does 'roguelike' count as 'text adventure'?
http://doom.chaosforge.org/

...or were you strictly being sarcastic in the Zork sense of the term?

Any takers on Wizball the flight sim? Or IK+ the RTS? Doom the text adventure?

Well, okay, I don't mind cross-genre franchises. Star Wars is one example where some great experiences have been had (and, admittedly, many bad) from space combat to action games to RPGs. But Star Wars has always stayed with us consistently as a franchise. To dig up a relic from 20 years ago and turn it into something completely different to what made the game so great in the first place... I just don't know... not sure of the point.

Damn - I should have known to not get excited at the prospect of a Syndicate revival when the rumors started swirling about. You'd think I would have learned by now. Everyone wants to make FPS's now that CoD currently rules the revenue roost.

Oh well, back to wait-and-see mode. It may end up being a good, even great game, but I have my doubts about its chances of doing justice to the Syndicate name.

Like I said, if you wanted to sell F-150s, you look at the Lightning. Ford's very, very good at marketing their cash cow vehicles and I've yet to see Ford try and cross-segment two completely separate demographics that do not share the same consumer buying trends.

It's like leading a horse to water.
THE GT WAS NOT MADE TO TURN A PROFIT! It's "demographic" is about .05% of the population. It was made to increase brand cache, not to sell itself.

Jesus, the Viper was the king of this.
And why do you think so many car companies spend so much on autoracing?
1) To increase brand recognition, so that some guy goes "Oh man, Audi dominated Le Mans, they're cars are badass"
2) R&D
3) Sales (as some race cars, but not all, make it into showrooms in some form)


Or do you think BMW Motorsports somehow turns a huge profit?

WTF does "a unique action shooter" have to do with the beloved Syndicate (plus American Revolt)& Syndicate Wars IP?

My gut tells me this new reignite is not going to contain the tactics, strategy, overlord squad based shenanigans, R&D and depth of the true classic that Syndicate was (and is) ... all packed into a "Visceral FPS Experience."

WTF mate? Just another Bastardization of a once beloved classic churned out for "the masses."

Oh, and before someone mentions Fallout 3 (and/or NV), that was an exception to the rule. I don't see all the CORE elements that made Syndicate what it was under the guise of "a unique action shooter."