EA's and developer Starbreeze's FPS remake of Syndicate has been talked about since 2008, and later this month it's finally going to come out.
In its announcement last year, EA said its goal with the reboot is "to provide a challenging action shooter for today's gamers as well as fans of the original".
"I'm sure they will enjoy and recognize the legacy that made it such a classic," said EA Partners executive producer Jeff Gamon.
When you see 2K unveiling an XCOM game that's a little truer to the series' roots, do you wish you'd had a chance to do that with Syndicate?
With Syndicate, it was always intentional from the start to make it into an FPS. That's one of the reasons EA wanted Starbreeze to make it - they wanted that take on it. That said, I love strategy games, and personally I'd love to work on one one day. Syndicate? Eh, don't know. There are many different strategy games, so...
Seems you've managed to retain the tactical heart, though: it's a shooter but, in co-op, you have to stick together or you'll die. How have you approached the Syndicate license in this way, preserving a core idea while changing the genre?
So at first we changed the genre, so a lot of the work was to take the game from just being a shooter to being a game where you really have to make constant strategic choices. It's been a process that we've constantly been working on.
For one thing, we look at the old games, and took what we were able to from that, but it's almost twenty years ago, and it's a different genre. Then we look at other games and especially outside of the shooter genre and try to take elements from that.
What kind of elements?
We're especially interested in things that make players co-operate. Even with friends on Xbox Live or PSN, even with voice chat, it's really hard to get players to co-operate. There's always someone running and gunning, getting into difficulty or racing ahead in Left 4 Dead or whatever.
But if you look at MMOs, they try to make players work together by giving players separate roles, like healer, tank. We gave everyone this power to heal each other to keep the team together. We also made it really hard. If you play it as a straight shooter now, it's actually really hard, even on the easiest setting. If you instead play it a bit more relaxed and help each other out, it becomes quite easy.
Especially the setting: the environment, the cynerpunk, the feel - that can easily transfer between genres. We also knew it was one of the games at the time that was known for being ultra violent. We said, okay, let's keep that: it should be ultra violent and it should be cyber punk.
Back then, 1993, it was kind of hard to show off that sort of thing, but we also lifted elements that feel iconic: the cars, the buildings. For the first co-op mission in our game, for example, we've taken the huge light posts, which were also there in the first mission in the original game. It's also based on the same map as the first. But we still add spice from other cyberpunk books and movies and sources.
Attempt to bring original's dark humour?
It's very easy to make it dark, but we never really wanted to bring across a sense of humour. There are little nods, but mostly the humour is most subtle. Instead, we've made it a lot darker.
As online shooters go, it's very different: slow, based on co-operative play, and there's lots of healing and odd mechanics to learn. Did you have to spend a lot of time thinking about how to educate the player?
It's a problem, and it's still a problem in fact. It's actually easier for non-shooter players to go in and play it than experienced shooter players.
If you play single-player, you'll pick up a lot of the mechanics. If you start off with co-op, though, you will actually get kind of thrown into it. But we have a progression system so you have to unlock new Breaches and progress through things to slow down the amount of learning.
Within a games company, it's really easy to get people who want to do new stuff. It's actually more dangerous to do what everyone's doing, because if you're just doing a rehash, you have to be better than everyone else. Any day you can try out something that's a little new and might rock the world, that might end up having a life of its own.
The demo has come out quite close to the release of the game: is there time to learn much from it?
To some extent we'll be able to tweak certain things. We'll definitely be keeping an eye on reactions.
The turn around from announce to release has been very short. Have you had enough development time on Syndicate?
Let me put it this way: I'm really proud of the end result, but I'm not super satisfied. I want to have been able to have done more, but that's always the feeling you get.
Unless someone says, okay, enough, we need to ship it, development will go on and on forever more or less or until everyone gets bored with it. It's been a long production: it's good to finally ship it, but at the same time, you always think, if we could have had half a year more, we could have done even more.
Comments
18 comments so far...
Metatasian on 3 Feb '12 said:
EA/Starbreeze you have created a monstrosity and forever murdered the legacy of one of the greatest RTS's of all time. The fact that you have to justify your actions in every single interview is proof enough. There is a new C&C coming out soon, it looks amazing and it will sell s**tloads, who says the RTS genre is dead? You're just too god damn lazy to try, instead you follow the path of least resistance and make a generic FPS shooter. I can tell you now that it wont be anywhere near as good as BF3, MW3, Deus EX HR or the bazillion other shooters currently out there. It will disappear into the ether within one month of being launched and end up in the grubby bargain bin at GAME/HMV etc. I hope that the guy who made the decision to take the franchise down this route is forced to sing "We are the Champions" by Queen whilst being aggressively raped by a rabid orang-utan high on opiates and wielding half a broom as a club, live on TV.
AutoPsychotic on 3 Feb '12 said:
I disagree. I think it's a new and interesting take on a classic, and I'm thrilled to see them pay homage this way. Just because it's presented in first-person doesn't make it a "generic FPS". Clearly you haven't tried the demo, or didn't give it a fair chance, if you feel this way. I played the demo for about 12-hours straight and found it to be an adrenaline-fueled thrill ride.
Francisnf on 3 Feb '12 said:
LOL X 10 perfectly put my son.
Francisnf on 3 Feb '12 said:
Are you taking the p**s?
TheLastDodo on 3 Feb '12 said:
So much fail in one post I don't know where to start.
Oh you've played and finished the game? NOPE
.
Yeah because there's been LOADS of cyberpunk FPS's lately, oh right there's been ONE cyberpunk FPS in the last five years
.
If it was about laziness with Syndicate then the new C&C would be an FPS wouldn't it? Y'know since the new C&C is ALSO AN EA GAME
.
The new C&C will sell s**tloads? Not on consoles it wouldn't as RTS's sell feck all on consoles, no-one cares about RTS's on consoles, the numbers back that up, that's why you don't see many RTS's on consoles, hence Syndicate is now an FPS.
I can tell you right now it will be exactly 136x better than BF3, MW3, Deus Ex HR or the bazillion other shooters currently out there, and it will have sprinkles on top.
I love angry fanboys
ensabahnur on 4 Feb '12 said:
Well said Dodo, i just don't get how some people seem to think that RTS games would be better. They've never worked right on consoles, Halo Wars being the execption but even that wasn't exactly a huge seller. As for the new C+C, it might well bring the franchise back to the top but going by the previous concole versions it certainly won't be on PS3 or Xbox, the PC version could be brilliant but i doubt they'll ever get the controls on console right.
The fact is if you want the Syndicate franchise to continue on console this is it, this is the only way it can survive on the consoles. An RTS game would have been the death knell for it!
Deal with it!
gmcb007 on 4 Feb '12 said:
It is a bit fishy as to why they keep coming out and saying things like this. It makes them sound like they're not so happy with the game.
Mmmmgrolsch on 4 Feb '12 said:
I've been looking forwards to this game so much, I just hope it isn't crap as the trailers have been promising. Also RTS games are f**king s**te, so I'm very happy this ain't one.
Fr33Kye on 4 Feb '12 said:
They said it once, cvg just posted an excerpt from this interview, then posted the interview.
I've called starbreeze and can currently neither confirm nor deny that this game will have sprinkles.
Francisnf on 4 Feb '12 said:
Absolute rubbish.
richomack360 on 6 Feb '12 said:
I will be "dealing with it" by having a good laugh when Starbreeze announce record losses.
ensabahnur on 6 Feb '12 said:
Well that just shows what a sad little individual you are, you'd rather see a great developer go down the drains than buy what may turn out to be a great game due to the fact that it hasn't turned out exactly how you wanted it to.
Sad, really, really sad!!
ensabahnur on 6 Feb '12 said:
Really?
Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 Xbox 360
Total Units
North America: 0.15m 38.9%
+ Europe: 0.19m 49.7%
+ Rest of the World: 0.04m 11.3%
= Global 0.39m
Command and Conquer 3 Red Alert 3 PS3
Total Units
North America: 0.10m 50.1%
+ Europe: 0.07m 34.4%
+ Rest of the World: 0.03m 15.6%
= Global 0.21m
Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars Xbox 360
Total Units
North America: 0.33m 90.8%
+ Europe: 0.01m 1.5%
+ Rest of the World: 0.03m 7.7%
= Global 0.36m
Not exactly great sales there are there? Not even 1 million with all of them combined.
Civilization Revolution Xbox 360
Total Units
North America: 0.49m 71.8%
+ Europe: 0.13m 19.4%
+ Japan: 0.00m 0.6%
+ Rest of the World: 0.06m 8.2%
= Global 0.69m
Civilization Revolution PS3
Total Units
North America: 0.42m 69.4%
+ Europe: 0.11m 18.3%
+ Japan: 0.01m 1.8%
+ Rest of the World: 0.06m 10.4%
= Global 0.61m
Again not that great, still better than C&C but probably not that good enough that'll we'll see another Civ game on consoles.
The only exception is Halo wars
Total Units
North America: 1.17m 55.6%
+ Europe: 0.70m 33.0%
+ Japan: 0.04m 1.8%
+ Rest of the World: 0.20m 9.6%
= Global 2.11m
The reason for this exception is due to the Halo brand being at an all time high at the time and the fact that it actually worked as a console RTS.
The Command and Conquer games, from the makers considered at the pinnacle of the genre at one time, were broken messes of control systems and the only people who bought them were probably already fans of the franchise.
Do you really think a Syndicate RTS would have sold more than the C&C games? Do you think EA, who also own the C&C franchise, would have used Ensemble who made the Halo game or the internal company who makes the other game? Its a bit of a no brainer eh?
Also the only people who would have bought the game would have been those who bought the originals, the newer gen of gamers would have no previous interest in it and probably wouldn't be swayed by an RTS game anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, i would have loved them to do it in the old style but only if it was a PC game, i have really missed the RTS genre this gen, its how i know that all the C&C games have been pish on consoles. I used to love spending an entire evening playing the original Red Alert on PC in skirmish mode against some friends, christ we even had mods to make our bombers Millenium Falcons and our Jets Tie Fighters. I miss those days.
richomack360 on 7 Feb '12 said:
I am not sad at all, I have played the demo and if it's a taster to the full thing then placing a turd in my mouth seems to be a more pleasurable experience.
Just pull your pants down and give Starbreeze your cash please.
ensabahnur on 7 Feb '12 said:
Sad, so sad!
TheLastDodo on 7 Feb '12 said:
@ensabahnur
Sounds like he's actually encouraging you to buy the game now
.
ensabahnur on 7 Feb '12 said:
Heh, maybe he should heed his own advice.
Seriously though what sort of person actually hopes that Starbreeze post record losses, fires half their staff and then folds? (i know he never went that far but its the logical conclusion to record losses)
That must be the saddest thing i've heard on these forums, ok we've heard some sad fanboy's rant off about Sony/MS going out of business for their pleasure, that's never gonna happen. But to pray a developer goes bust because they've somehow slighted the memory of something is just bad form. That's peoples livelihood.
richomack360 on 7 Feb '12 said:
Hahah, the forum fish are biting today ! Seriously though, I hope the company and their vile little games just disappear, or thinking about it (as nobody wants to lose their jobs) they get a large digital pie in the face.
I know, I will spend a large time devoted to making something at large cost, then near the eve of the game being released I will pretty much say how pony it is. - logic of a moron.
Never been a fan of Starbreeze, Riddick wasn't that good, or indeed Bungie - both have arrogance in bucketloads, and they share another common factor - their games get progressively worse the longer the studio exists. But please, give them £40, they clearly need the cash to hire some better game producers.
(Just felt like adding Bungie in there for the debacle that was Halo Reach)