It's anamorphic! :dance:
This being a fairly meh FPS will probably make XCOM look pretty good for at least trying to incorporate some aspects of the original.
It's anamorphic! :dance:
So the initial response to this game has been that the first level of singleplayer is ace and then it becomes monotonous shooter with crappy guns and near complete uselessness of the "dart-6" chip that is supposed the whole point of the game. If the level design flunks, it is hard to save.
Otherwise, the Mp-side of things has been heralded as quite awesome with true difficulty that requires cooperation. It also includes the dart-6 thing better. Problem being that you can't play it on higher difficulties if you are just meshing it out with randoms.
After reading: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...pc/#more-96016 I think I'll try the demo first.
To quote the article "In Syndicate ’93, you’re a knowing and driven overlord, calculating your own method of achieving an ultimate objective. In Syndicate 2012, you’re a walking gun who follows preset waypoints until he gets to the cutscene.
And then this bit: "No strategy. No subversive sadism. No roleplaying. No inhabiting the dark powermonger fantasy. No sense of world. No stomach to stick to its ‘you are the bad guy’ concept. Just a man with gun running through a series of doors. A My Little Pony game would at least be about something."
Apparently the CO-OP is pretty good, but its the singleplayer that matters to me.
Bit of a damp squib then.
I was hoping for an FPS/RPG hybrid, even if it was fairly linear and light on the RPG elements, but the RPS reviews make it sound like a fairly meh shooter.
Yeah. Shame. :/
Oh just get the game you fatbags
Quite glad to see that this game crashed and burned.
EA comments on the failure of the Syndicate Reboot:
Hmmm. Their attitude seems to be that resurrecting the IP didn't work, not that their unwarranted and immense deviation from its original format lost them the crowd they could have had champing at the bit for it. My bet is that they'll just stick to safer IP rather than acknowledge that trying to sex everything up isn't the answer.
Wouldn't surprise me. This line from IGN gets me:
"We gave the game a 7.5, indicating that it was a good title, but it didnít do gangbusters at retail."
I don't understand the gangbusters bit, but if you watch the video on the page they mention that the single player is "generic and forgettable" and yet they gave it such a high rating. Sure I know its not in the 9's like Skyrim etc, but its still quite high.
For me if something looks nice but is only good on the multiplayer end (when that's not supposed to be the focus of playing the game) then that'd be more in the 5's I'd have thought. It's basically saying that aslong as your game looks good we'll give it a 7+ score. Presentation over substance basically.
Oh geez, a game can't ride on an IP alone and needs to actually be good* to do well, SHOCKER!
* or hyped to all hell
I find that with game reviews in general. Most AAA titles range from 6-10 with 6 being unplayable / awful and 10 being perfect. Presumably that will be the "don't piss off the people buying advertising space" effect. There will invariably be a bunch of less high profile titles which get the low scores to show that they aren't biased in any way.
Started playing this last night. A few hours into it now. The story is a bit muddled and not very well told, but the setting and graphics are very nice. I really like the artstyle and there are some very cool setpieces. The actiongameplay is a very natural feeling blend of shooting, meleeattacks, "breach"-powers and use of environmental elements. It makes you feel like a total badass. One thing I really liked as well is how the upgrade system is explained. Once you kill another cybernetic, like a boss for instance, you extract a chip from their brain and use it to augment your own powers. Makes it feel more tangible than simply gaining a +100XP or whatever when you kill a boss.
The only point where I was reminded of the original game was just after I'd gotten my hands on a minigun for the first time and I was walking through a park mowing down soldiers and civilians alike. Made me feel like I was walking in the shoes of one of 1993 Syndicate's cyborgs. But aside from those few seconds near the start of the game it doesn't have much in common with the original besides the name.
I'm only 2-3 hours into it yet but so far I like it. Compared to other Starbreeze games I'd say it's better than The Darkness, but not as good as Riddick. Kinda wish I'd gotten over my aversion for Origin and gotten it for PC instead of 360 though. It'd probably work better with mouse+kb, and I'd like to try out the co-op and MP as well.
Ah. What little I've played of the Mega Man games I never managed to defeat any bosses. I imagine Mega Man's version of extracting chips is somewhat less grisly than Syndicate's though.
Well yeah course . I will say that as much as I hate the game for having NOTHING to do with Syndicate, since I love Deus Ex I wouldn't mind playing it just once to see what it's like. Though if you don't feel like a unfeeling cyborg and I mean cyborg not a free thinking one, then I don't see the point, but still.
Your character isn't a cyborg, just a guy who's had some stuff installed in his brain. But since you're playing the typical silent videogame protagonist who shows no emotion and simply does what the objective tells him to do, you feel as much like a cyborg as you do in most games. Doesn't Gordon Freeman feel like a cyborg?
Well no since he doesn't just shoot the security guards or scientists. Though of course you could choose to play that way though the game urges you not to unlike Syndicate (the original + Syndicate Wars) where it's kill whatever you like without any effect on whether the goal of the mission is reached, other than when your goal is to persuade or a protect an individual of course.
Come on now, cyborg != massmurdering psychopath. Why would Gordon have to kill everyone he sees to qualify as a cyborg? I'm saying I feel like a cyborg in most games where I play a silent protagonist because I blindly follow orders and my character never expresses any emotion about the acts I perpetrate. Syndicate is one of the few games where the blind obediance (caused by linear gameplay that leaves you with no option) actually makes sense from a character standpoint.
I was meaning more of an unfeeling cyborg, than just of whether he's a cyborg or not. To give a more accurate version of what I meant. In the earlier games your agents were all controlled from elsewhere by a central authority so no independent thought of any kind came into the equation since they had bionic brains etc. So you'd send your agents somewhere fill them up with drugs and have they set to kill anything that comes nearby with a gun un-holstered whether they were a cop, civilian, enemy agent etc. So not something like say a Terminator who can think and act independently to achieve a task, since whilst they are still given orders/a mission they act independently to complete it.
Unlike say your Gordon Freeman or Adam Jensen who has the free will to choose how to take on a task.
But to feel like a cyborg in a game fair enough, any FPS game can do that. Hell even Doom does that.
Finished it, after just two (rather intensive) evenings of playing it. Maybe 5-7 hours long? Pretty good! I'm gonna stick to my earlier verdict of "better than The Darkness, not as good as Riddick".
Contrary to what some of you have said, I heard the co-op/multiplayer was terrible. The SP didn't look any worse than the average FPS, if it had good co-op I might pick it up.
Yeah, I'll co-op on the PS3 with anyone.