It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Why is Syndicate so fantastic?(82 posts)(82 posts)
(82 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 19, 2012
What I remember from Syndicate series is its attitude toward violence, which achieves, what, "coolness" instead of being revolting. Sorry limited words here. In Syndicate it is cool to gun down cops, and if some poor civilians happens to be in the way then well too bad. It is like playing GTA but instead of controlling one you control four. My experience in playing GTA is GTA III at the earliest so probably it is not very valid but I can not find any better comparison. At that early a time (1993) they agents can do whatever GTA can do. Hijack vehicles? Check. Bring powerful weapons? Check (mightily. They have nukes). Mow down -everyone-? Yes, and in Syndicate you are usually among the last standing. The ones GTA -cannot-do is destructible environment, which Syndicate can. I am referring to concept here not graphic or tech achievement, because some mission in Syndicate requires you to destroy multi-story building to achieve goals and Syndicate delivers just that.

(Once I wish that GTA engine be used to create sequels to Syndicate. Now we know it is an fps engine ....)
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
CaptainGyro: As trilarion put it " Of course nowadays you have much more other similar games which might be better "
avatar
Fred_DM: such as... ?
what are you asking me for? I'm not the one who played it, and I'm not the one who said it. I 'm just saying I get where people are coming from when they say "nostalgia" as the main reason for being excited now
You're making this way too complicated
Post edited January 20, 2012 by CaptainGyro
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
CaptainGyro: what are you asking me for? I'm not the one who played it, and I'm not the one who said it. I 'm just saying I get where people are coming from when they say "nostalgia" as the main reason for being excited now
You're making this way too complicated
you agreed with trilariton that there have been many similar (and possibly better) games since the launch of Syndicate in 1993.

i'd like to know what games those are, because from where i'm standing - having never played Syndicate - it sounds pretty much like a unique concept that i've never encountered anywhere else.

and that goes for a lot of Good Old Games, which is why many have remained - IMO - worthy to be played even today for reasons beyond mere nostalgia.

a few examples of what i mean:
- Dungeon Keeper 1 & 2 have been copied quite a few times yet the originals have never been surpassed in terms of gameplay.
- Magic Carpet has AFAIK never been imitated, at least not successfully.
- Populous 2 is generally said to be the better god-game than Pop 3 or Black & White.
- Master of Orion 1 & 2 are usually considered the best 4X space games, despite having been imitated numerous times.
Post edited January 20, 2012 by Fred_DM
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
CaptainGyro: what are you asking me for? I'm not the one who played it, and I'm not the one who said it. I 'm just saying I get where people are coming from when they say "nostalgia" as the main reason for being excited now
You're making this way too complicated
avatar
Fred_DM: you agreed with trilariton that there have been many similar (and possibly better) games since the launch of Syndicate in 1993.
no I didn't. I used him as an example of what somebody might mean when they just say "nostalgia". You said using the term tells you nothing, I think it does tell me something.
I have no urge to continue this conversation, so agree to disagree on the whole "nostalgia isn't a valid anwer" thing,
Posted January 20, 2012
Syndicate was and is still great because, in my opinion
- it was a quick action game, missions lasted 5 minutes so you never had to think too much.
- You were all powerful (I mean - super agents with heavy weapons and absolutely no regard for human life)
- The missions, while in general easy (except the escort ones), were QUITE diverse.
- In a rare case where a mission was too hard, you just could do another. Or bring the super-expensive stuff.
- You could test a lot (machine gun ? Rocket launcher ? Laser ? Persuadetron ?) so you could play differently it order to stall repetitivity
- Atmospher was oustanding.

Some games that made my youth aged horribly - NOT Syndicate. I see it as some sort of Canon Fodder in a different setting and with more weapon (but less fun vehicules).
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
Fred_DM: - Dungeon Keeper 1 & 2 have been copied quite a few times yet the originals have never been surpassed in terms of gameplay.
- Magic Carpet has AFAIK never been imitated, at least not successfully.
- Populous 2 is generally said to be the better god-game than Pop 3 or Black & White.
Interestingly, all of those are Bullfrog games, just like Syndicate, and they have a lot in common. I'd put it this way -- Bullfrog were brilliant game designers whose games never quite reached their potential. And yeah, I think DK and MC were the overall best things they have ever done, though they too could be accused of repetitiveness. (Populous 2 is insanely repetitive. It's a common flaw of a Molyneux design.)

Look, I love Magic Carpet. To me, it has one of the greatest game designs ever, and I'd love a modern take on this formula. But I do know that today, with its drawing distance of about two meters, it's almost unplayable. The technology actively harms the game. Some people feel the same about Syndicate. It was inventive, no doubts about that. But this inventiveness was just half-baked. It was ahead of its time, but not quite enough.

AFnord made a very good point when he brought up the first King's Quest. Historically important as it is, it's a perfectly dreadful game, and it's hard to pretend otherwise. Syndicate is still playable and enjoyable, but I wouldn't expect people to love it today as much as they did back then. So yeah, I think nostalgia really is a perfectly valid reason.
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
Narwhal: Syndicate was and is still great because, in my opinion
- it was a quick action game, missions lasted 5 minutes so you never had to think too much.
- You were all powerful (I mean - super agents with heavy weapons and absolutely no regard for human life)
- The missions, while in general easy (except the escort ones), were QUITE diverse.
- In a rare case where a mission was too hard, you just could do another. Or bring the super-expensive stuff.
- You could test a lot (machine gun ? Rocket launcher ? Laser ? Persuadetron ?) so you could play differently it order to stall repetitivity
- Atmospher was oustanding.

Some games that made my youth aged horribly - NOT Syndicate. I see it as some sort of Canon Fodder in a different setting and with more weapon (but less fun vehicules).
This sounds really cool to me. I loved Cannon Fodder as a kid, but never played this one.

What I liked about Cannon Fodder in particular was the way your soldiers would gain rank, and it would be kind of a bummer if the higher ranked ones were killed. I was just wondering if there's a similar system in Syndicate?
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
bazilisek: Interestingly, all of those are Bullfrog games, just like Syndicate, and they have a lot in common. I'd put it this way -- Bullfrog were brilliant game designers whose games never quite reached their potential. And yeah, I think DK and MC were the overall best things they have ever done, though they too could be accused of repetitiveness.
I agree with the general categorization of Bullfrog designs. (Well, I wouldn't call them brilliant since imho they focused too much on presentation and too little on actual gameplay, but perhaps that's just another way of saying that they never reached their full potential.)

Imho, the weaknesses of typical Bullfrog designs are also the reason why they didn't age particularly well. For their success, nearly all Bullfrog games relied on two common factors: novel ideas, and great graphics. Gameplay, and especially long-term motivation, often took a backseat. The games were meant to impress you with their inventiveness and good looks. But today, these games are neither novel nor particularly god-looking, and the often bland and repetitive gameplay therefore pushes into the foreground much sooner.
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
Psyringe: snip
Yes, that's a good way of putting it. I wouldn't be that hard on them myself, but you definitely have a point there.
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
AFnord: There are of course many games that have stood the test of time, that are fun 20 years after their release (Ultima 7 is a good example), but I would say that most are not, in particular not the very early entries in a genre.
Funny you'd say Ultima 7, because I've felt that if I replayed it today, it wouldn't feel even as close as wonderful as "back then", with all its bugs and user-interface issues. I don't know if GOG version has the same issues.

One game that I always want to take as an example of a game that has stood the test of time IMHO is another Bullfrog game, Magic Carpet (and now that I have played the sequel again, it feels good too even though I found it inferior to MC back then for some reason). And this was a bit of surprise to me because one of its major selling points back then was the incredible graphics system, which were about as revolutionary as e.g. Doom's or Ultima Underworld's, or Comanche's voxel, graphics engines.

Since the graphics are nothing to shout about anymore and I find it so enjoyable even today, apparently it wasn't all about graphics then. I'd love to see some kind of remake or similar game, ie. free form action game with light strategic elements.

avatar
Psyringe: Imho, the weaknesses of typical Bullfrog designs are also the reason why they didn't age particularly well. For their success, nearly all Bullfrog games relied on two common factors: novel ideas, and great graphics. Gameplay, and especially long-term motivation, often took a backseat.
I guess I still disagree for Magic Carpet. :) The gameplay is mostly quite repetitive, albeit the further you play, the more special levels you get which are not only about "make a castle, kill enemies, build more castle..." etc., but they were more like puzzles. And even if fighting the enemies was repetitive, there was always the strategic things to consider (where to build the castle, should it be replaced to another location mid-game etc.), the urge to get the better spells activated etc.

One gameplay element that I definitely praise Magic Carpet for was that usually the most challenging parts of the game were in the beginning parts of each level, meaning that you didn't have to replay long boring parts just to reach the point where you died the last time.

Somewhat moot point though, after I found out that there was a way to save the game during levels. :) Maybe I didn't read the manual too well the first time, or was it some undocumented feature... Anyway, I think I played the game through the first time ironman mode, ie. not saving during levels, just because I didn't know better.
Post edited January 20, 2012 by timppu
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
timppu: Somewhat moot point though, after I found out that there was a way to save the game during levels. :) Maybe I didn't read the manual too well the first time, or was it some undocumented feature... Anyway, I think I played the game through the first time ironman mode, ie. not saving during levels.
Wait, what? You could save during the levels? Aaargh!
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
timppu: Somewhat moot point though, after I found out that there was a way to save the game during levels. :) Maybe I didn't read the manual too well the first time, or was it some undocumented feature... Anyway, I think I played the game through the first time ironman mode, ie. not saving during levels.
avatar
bazilisek: Wait, what? You could save during the levels? Aaargh!
I didn't know that either. I never saved during missions.
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
AFnord: There are of course many games that have stood the test of time, that are fun 20 years after their release (Ultima 7 is a good example), but I would say that most are not, in particular not the very early entries in a genre.
avatar
timppu: Funny you'd say Ultima 7, because I've felt that if I replayed it today, it wouldn't feel even as close as wonderful as "back then", with all its bugs and user-interface issues. I don't know if GOG version has the same issues.

One game that I always want to take as an example of a game that has stood the test of time IMHO is another Bullfrog game, Magic Carpet (and now that I have played the sequel again, it feels good too even though I found it inferior to MC back then for some reason). And this was a bit of surprise to me because one of its major selling points back then was the incredible graphics system, which were about as revolutionary as e.g. Doom's or Ultima Underworld's, or Comanche's voxel, graphics engines.

Since the graphics are nothing to shout about anymore and I find it so enjoyable even today, apparently it wasn't all about graphics then. I'd love to see some kind of remake or similar game, ie. free form action game with light strategic elements.

avatar
Psyringe: Imho, the weaknesses of typical Bullfrog designs are also the reason why they didn't age particularly well. For their success, nearly all Bullfrog games relied on two common factors: novel ideas, and great graphics. Gameplay, and especially long-term motivation, often took a backseat.
avatar
timppu: I guess I still disagree for Magic Carpet. :) The gameplay is mostly quite repetitive, albeit the further you play, the more special levels you get which are not only about "make a castle, kill enemies, build more castle..." etc., but they were more like puzzles. And even if fighting the enemies was repetitive, there was always the strategic things to consider (where to build the castle, should it be replaced to another location mid-game etc.), the urge to get the better spells activated etc.

One gameplay element that I definitely praise Magic Carpet for was that usually the most challenging parts of the game were in the beginning parts of each level, meaning that you didn't have to replay long boring parts just to reach the point where you died the last time.

Somewhat moot point though, after I found out that there was a way to save the game during levels. :) Maybe I didn't read the manual too well the first time, or was it some undocumented feature... Anyway, I think I played the game through the first time ironman mode, ie. not saving during levels, just because I didn't know better.
I was not there when Ultima 7 was first released, I got my copy of the game with Ultima Collection, and did not managed to get it to run until Exult reached a playable state (Ultima 7 was notoriously cranky when it came to computer settings), so I can't really comment on how it was back when it was first released, but having played some other games from that time, it feels like most of Ultima 7's gameplay flaws (shallow combat, bugs, easily exploited AI) were present when Ultima 7 was first released. The world still managed to impress me though, it felt so alive, compared to any other CRPG that I had played (Morrowind was its closest competitor, and let's face it, as good as Morrowind is, its NPCs never managed to make the world feel alive).

In regards to Magic Carpet, I replayed the series last year (in reversed order, for some stupid reason), and I could not help but feel that the game did not have enough content to support its length. At 50 (+25 for plus) levels, the game ran out of new ideas long before it ran out of levels. Its gameplay mechanics were sound though, it was a darn fun game, no question about it. But I felt that Magic Carpet 2, with its increased level variety and spell selection was the better of the two games, even if MC2 was an easier and shorter game (and the last boss was time consuming and boring).


And I did not know that you could save mid level either.
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
KOC: What I liked about Cannon Fodder in particular was the way your soldiers would gain rank, and it would be kind of a bummer if the higher ranked ones were killed. I was just wondering if there's a similar system in Syndicate?
In some sense, yes.

There are no ranks as such, but you upgrade the "properties" of single agents (for example chest, legs and so on). If an agent dies during a mission, you lose all those upgrades.
Posted January 20, 2012
avatar
timppu: Somewhat moot point though, after I found out that there was a way to save the game during levels. :) Maybe I didn't read the manual too well the first time, or was it some undocumented feature... Anyway, I think I played the game through the first time ironman mode, ie. not saving during levels.
avatar
bazilisek: Wait, what? You could save during the levels? Aaargh!
Now I don't remember the exact key combination, something like Alt-S and Alt-L. I'll have to check it. There was no menu item or anything for it.

I am not sure if this was in base Magic Carpet, or only if you installed the Hidden Worlds expansion pack (or play Magic Carpet Plus), since the expansion pack seemed to change some other things in the base game as well, like replacing some useless wall of fire spell with some other.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Why is Syndicate so fantastic?(82 posts)(82 posts)
(82 posts)