You're making arguments that they don't care about making a real Syndicate sequel and you're not wrong. None of it really says anything about the game itself being good or bad. I don't judge games based on the name on the box, I judge them by gameplay.

And corporate EA who are looking to maximize profits make a ton of great games, more than most publishers, so I don't think that is a sign of anything either.

If they were making a Syndicate sequel, and they cared, why did they make it a FPS, strategy games can be successful too, look at Starcraft. Why did they have to resort to an FPS?

You're completely missing the point. How does that make it a bad GAME?

Where do I even start? The Syndicate name harms it considerably. It's like an average looking girl with zero personality who unquestioningly follows trends insisting that she's gorgeous and unique. The claims draw attention to her shortcomings, makes people feel the need to bring her down a few pegs and it all just becomes an embarrassment.

The same goes here. Don't claim you're a tactical game with several layers of gameplay if you in fact only have one layer of very much dumbed down gameplay that has been worn very thin. Don't claim your agents are soulless drones controlled directly by some corporate executive if you want them to break away and go on personal missions of revenge. Don't claim you have anything to do with an IP you plainly don't.

Good and bad are relative terms. In this case it's relative to the claims being made. The claim of being a Syndicate game. It falls short. It, by the standards it sets itself, is destined to be bad. It takes the name of a game from one of the true pioneers of the industry and goes on to take the path of absolute least resistance. It's bad by its own standards. It makes itself look sloppy and lazy.

I just think that's all insanity, no offense intended. The name on the box means absolutely nothing to me. What matters to me is that it is a good cyberpunk shooter.

Well, you'll be in good company then. :P

If the name on the box meant nothing they wouldn't be using the Syndicate name to begin with.

Personally I like a good shooter but for a Syndicate sequel/reboot whatever I want.... well a Syndicate game not some silly shooter. So in the end it doesn't matter even if it end up being the best shooter in the whole universe ever, as far as I am concerned it will still be a very lousy syndicate game.

I didn't say it was a bad game.

The problem is that they have to make a Syndicate game that most people will play. Getting your game out to the international market means having a story and a setting that all cultures can relate to or understand, thus increasing your sales when you export your game abroad. The main reason that they're doing an FPS is probably to reboot the francise ina way that the setting can be introduced to a large number of people. Let's face it, half of gamers play some kind of COD/Battlefield/Gears of War type of games, and most of them will find any decently made FPS wort buying.

I'm just hoping that the game is good and will rekindle interest in the world of Syndicate, and hopefully lead to more games based on its setting, such as Strategy or even squad-based RPG/Adventure/Action hybrid. I wonder why they didn't make this shooter squad-based? The cyborgs always operated in a group of four, that would have made an awesome game. That plus doing research outside missions, getting funds fom how well you perform during missions.

In that regard, I agree that it was kind of dumb to make a revenge story. Seems like a wasted opportunity imo.

Seriously is that anybody who actually believe that ? that there is actually one change out of 10 billions that it will ever happens ?

If the game is successfully as a FPS we will.... well... make more FPS sequels, if the game fail, they will just forget about the franchise.

It's like saying that because Fallout 3 and Fallout NV were successful then there is a chance that the next Fallout games will use a top view perspective and will feature turn based combat.

Because Strategy games out there now don't make enough money or not enough money according to the publisher. Blizzard makes a TON of money with each game they release, but EA games can be more of a hit or miss. It does suck that this is not the reboot I was looking for, but if it is a good game than I will probably get it.

I actually have the trailer on my computer; came on a CD but I'm not sure which one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj8yOJcsYTI

So I downloaded the demo but haven't played it yet. Apparently this game is hard as hell and the multiplayer absolutely requires you to work together and tackle your own role.

I see that as the proper evolution of games like this, turning your AI strategy teammates into actual teammates is amazing. I know a lot of people aren't super thrilled about being pushed into multiplayer, but co-op multiplayer is an amazing thing that gaming is getting "right" currently, keep it up I say!

The multiplayer co-op is amazing! Teamwork is recquired, chip upgrades are pretty cool and you can make you own upgrade path. Breaching is essential to surviving.

Well as much as I hate to poach something like Penny Arcade as if I dug it up on my own, maybe I should link an article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-01-starbreeze-in-constant-fear-syndicate-is-too-hard

Good to hear it's as fun as it sounds.