RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!

[Meshugger]

Starbreeze's Syndicate - New Info Leaked (via NeoGAF)

 

[Hurlshort]

I'm a lot less upset about Syndicate than I am over XCOM. Syndicate was an action game at least. Sure, it would be better if they did something like Republic Commandos with a squad and different missions, but the 4 person coop might capture that.

 

Xcom is an absolute travesty.

[Guest Slinky]

Xcom is an absolute travesty.

X-COM in name only?

[Purkake]

Xcom is an absolute travesty.

X-COM in name only?

X-COM in name only.

[entrerix]

i've never even finished a game of x-com and i am boycotting the new one. i was already pissed that fallout 3 was titled fallout 3 (not a true sequel), but i would have been absolutely livid if it was just titled "Fallout". I wouldn't have bought it (which would have sucked, cause i actually ended up having fun with the game).

 

Just like i don't pay to watch bad remakes of good movies, im not giving any money to this new :xcom.

 

 

or at least, if it ends up being an amazing game and everyone is raving about it, i'll wait until its $10 before i buy it

[Spider]

At least Syndicate has a distinct setting, differing from X-Com. I think a FPS Syndicate could be interesting if they designed it to match up somewhat to how the old games played. Strong mission-based gameplay, researching upgrades, team of agents being sent out to do their stuff, etc. All things that for me is the core of what Syndicate is, and all things that work just as well in the FPS genre (just look at the original Ghost Recon).

 

But from what I've seen that's not how they did it, so my interest in the game is a lot weaker now.

 

On a sidenote, I wouldn't exactly call the original Syndicate an action game. It was about as much of an action game as Commandos is.

[Nepenthe]

Sorry to inform you Slowtrain, but the game business ain't about entitlement and "serving the fanbase" today anymore.

 

EA can do with it's IP whatever they want.

 

See it on the bright side, at least Peter Molyneux isn't working on it.

Why is that the bright side?

That it won't be a kinect game?

[Morgoth]

...although having a killer cyborg dog on your side sure would be cool.

[Nepenthe]

...although having a killer cyborg dog on your side sure would be cool.

Make sure you preorder ME3, then

[mkreku]

It's Starbreeze, no worries. It will be good.

[sorophx]

where's all the talk about Dead Island? is it good or bad? I heard some people say it's a "classical RPG", true/false?

[Tale]

It's Starbreeze, no worries. It will be good.

Only if they hate the franchise. They seem best with IPs they don't like.

[WDeranged]

where's all the talk about Dead Island? is it good or bad? I heard some people say it's a "classical RPG", true/false?

 

Not classical, more on the Borderlands/WoW side of the fence, everything respawns within minutes and the game is kinda geared towards multiplayer but it masquerades as a single player game pretty well, as long as you don't expect a persistent world or deep story telling it's quite a lot of fun.

[Pop]

It's Starbreeze, no worries. It will be good.

So hey, about that.

 

(I really have to give Ferg and co a hell of a lot of credit because they've kept this company afloat in spite of the typical indie-via-major game development milieu as outlined by that article)

 

For those interested, a leaked version of the script (possibly outdated at this point, so take with salt) made the rounds a few months ago. It's a prequel, apparently, so as to avoid the whole "opiate-and-meth-driven cyborg" angle and make the agents real characters with thoughts and feelings. Your character's parents are murdered and you are subsequently drafted as a corporate hatchet man. It's not certain at all whether you will discover that your employers are behind their murder, and it's certainly unclear whether or not at some point you will take up the mantle of hero-liberator to take on your corrupt corporate overlords. Also there is a female character who may or may not fall in love with you.

 

where's all the talk about Dead Island? is it good or bad? I heard some people say it's a "classical RPG", true/false?

I gave some thoughts in the Now Playing thread. Long as you don't mind truly horrific QA (and why would you?) then it's a pretty fun game, especially for splattercore horror enthusiasts. Some really bad design peppered throughout (shades of Arcanum), but fun.

 

As for its RPGness, as has been said, you've got a whole boatload of fetch quests and a level system / skill tree that nets you passive bonuses and short-lived, not-terribly-useful rage abilities (ala the tank in Borderlands). Basically it's great if you just want to **** around and brain zombies all day but otherwise it's as bland as ARPGs come.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Pop

[MechanicalLemon]

Why Bethesda passed on "A Game of Thrones"

[sorophx]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/13...d-fps-revealed/

 

speaking of making FPSs out of every franchise

 

EDIT: hmm, mys source stated that this was not a joke. but Serrano clarified that it actually was. go figure

Edited September 13, 2011 by sorophx

[Hurlshort]

Why Bethesda passed on "A Game of Thrones"

 

I actually don't think that would be a good fit. Martin's books are good because they have fantastic characters, which is really Bethesda's biggest weakness. Sure, they would recreate Westeros and let you run through it and explore, but it would be hard to capture the personalities that make it an interesting world.

[HoonDing]

That's the point. It's not about recreating the book experience, they'd just make use of the setting to make an open-world game, like Cyanide is now using the setting to make a strategy game.

 

There has been a FPS made in the Wheel of Time setting, and action games set in Middle-Earth. Not to mention there's tons of adventure games using sci-fi/fantasy settings from books, e.g. Discworld, Shannara, Companions of Xanth, Death Gate, etc. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

Edited September 13, 2011 by virumor

[Gromnir]

Why Bethesda passed on "A Game of Thrones"

 

I actually don't think that would be a good fit. Martin's books are good because they have fantastic characters, which is really Bethesda's biggest weakness. Sure, they would recreate Westeros and let you run through it and explore, but it would be hard to capture the personalities that make it an interesting world.

 

dunno 'bout the character focus bit as a deterrent. the setting o' martin's books is at least as important as his characters. westeros alone is a rich, detailed and vibrant locale for developing story either in books or games. add in future possibility o' essos with the free cities and dothraki (sp?) sea, and you got loads o' material on which to build. given how much effort martin has put into his setting, we would suggest that his sandbox is as inviting as were interplay's fallout locale. honestly, we cannot even recall the name o' the setting o' the oblivion games, but it were well-received 'nuff to spawn multiple bestselling games. martin's world is at least as enticing as is oblivion, no... and it not have all those silly demon-gates neither.

 

besides which, what really kills martin's world for gaming is lack o' magic and exotic races. tell fans o' the genre that they cannot play anime-inspired dark elves with bloated bosoms and donkey ears? sacrilege!

 

regardless, the real reason for bethesda reluctance is as follows:

 

"We wanted to do our own world."

 

is an understandable pov. fallout were a relative unique situation 'cause while the setting already had considerable development and a small legion o' rabid fans, there were no bishop whose ring needed to be kissed every time a bethesda developer wanted to add content. no George Lucas and star wars. no wotc/hasbro and d&d. no George R. R. Martin and song. bethesda is not a desperate indie developer looking for the next handout to be staying solvent. bethesda is big 'nuff to be wearing their own ecclesiastical jewelry.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 13, 2011 by Gromnir

[Gizmo]

"We wanted to do our own world."

 

is an understandable pov. fallout were a relative unique situation 'cause while the setting already had considerable development and a small legion o' rabid fans, there were no bishop whose ring needed to be kissed every time a bethesda developer wanted to add content. no George Lucas and star wars. no wotc/hasbro and d&d. no George R. R. Martin and song. bethesda is not a desperate indie developer looking for the next handout to be staying solvent. bethesda is big 'nuff to be wearing their own ecclesiastical jewelry.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Despite what you've just said... (and I agree)... Do you think Bethesda could do justice to someone elses' world? I'm not so sure myself, (I'm not to impressed with FO3 as series fan) but I am impressed with their talent (and technical ability) at crafting viable open world games; and of their modeling & texturing prowess.

 

Still... I've occasionally wondered what it might be like if they licensed Palladium Books' RIFTS world setting and did their game yet again but this time draped in that IP. It's future Earth, its got robots, cyborgs, demons, psychics, knights, power armored infantry, centaurs, vampires (they luv those), Mecha, necromancers, magical gadgeteers with weapons that are 'mana' powered [PPE in that game]. I can't help but think it a perfect match for those companies. (And I'd buy it too).

 

The only caveat that sticks out like a rusty straight pin in the deal... is Bethesda's penchant for not doing proper character classes, and RIFTS is dependent upon them.

 

GET THIS... (I didn't know thins until minutes ago)... Rifts was once licensed as a video game in 2005 as an NGAGE title ~a turn based title at that.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Gizmo

[MechanicalLemon]

That's the point. It's not about recreating the book experience, they'd just make use of the setting to make an open-world game, like Cyanide is now using the setting to make a strategy game.

 

There has been a FPS made in the Wheel of Time setting, and action games set in Middle-Earth. Not to mention there's tons of adventure games using sci-fi/fantasy settings from books, e.g. Discworld, Shannara, Companions of Xanth, Death Gate, etc. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

 

I figure that an open-world game set in Westeros could work if it was kind of like New Vegas with the Great Houses instead of factions.

 

besides which, what really kills martin's world for gaming is lack o' magic and exotic races. tell fans o' the genre that they cannot play anime-inspired dark elves with bloated bosoms and donkey ears? sacrilege!

 

[Hurlshort]

GET THIS... (I didn't know thins until minutes ago)... Rifts was once licensed as a video game in 2005 as an NGAGE title ~a turn based title at that.

 

Great find! What a shame, the only RIFT game we get is for the N-Gage

[Gromnir]

"We wanted to do our own world."

 

is an understandable pov. fallout were a relative unique situation 'cause while the setting already had considerable development and a small legion o' rabid fans, there were no bishop whose ring needed to be kissed every time a bethesda developer wanted to add content. no George Lucas and star wars. no wotc/hasbro and d&d. no George R. R. Martin and song. bethesda is not a desperate indie developer looking for the next handout to be staying solvent. bethesda is big 'nuff to be wearing their own ecclesiastical jewelry.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Despite what you've just said... (and I agree)... Do you think Bethesda could do justice to someone elses' world? I'm not so sure myself, (I'm not to impressed with FO3 as series fan) but I am impressed with their talent (and technical ability) at crafting viable open world games; and of their modeling & texturing prowess.

 

 

am gonna concede from the start that we clear ain't the target audience o' bethesda games. the only bethesda game we ever finished were fo3, and is not as if that game makes our top 10 list. however, your observations pinpoint why we thinks bethesda would actual benefit from trying to "do justice to someone else's world," as 'posed to building their own. fo3 was very successful- there is no denying that point. in spite o' fo3 success, am thinking it is clear that the strength o' the game were Not the characters and quests. as hurlshot identifies, character development is hardly a bethesda strength. similarly, we thinks that their quest design is simple and largely uninspired. nevertheless, even obsidian's ceo, uncle fergie, observed that bethesda managed to capture the spirit o' fo while making palatable to gamers who were born after the reagan presidency. as hard as it is for fallout purists to accept, what made fo3 successful were bethesda's spin on the setting, regardless o' how fast-and-loose the boys from DC played with interplay's source material. as such, is precisely 'cause o' their substantial technical prowess and creative paucity that we is thinking that bethesda is best suited to trying to "do justice to someone else's world." am not trusting bethesda to come up with their own world near as much as we sees 'em being competent craftsman who can recreate and mass produce the works o' some other developer or author. unfortunately, betehsda is too successful to voluntarily put their energy and resources into building a franchise owned by somebody other than themselves. is doubtful they again do a game for which their talents is most suited.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[vault_overseer]

Well, looks like bodycount was a great success

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/14/codemast...ount-developer/

[Gfted1]

Looks like Nightshape dodged a bullet. Good for him.