Let's talk about what I see as hypocrisy in the FPS genre.

[Ambient_Malice]

So essentially OP you have no perception of detail and now want to argue that it's actually all the same...

Why does this statement seem more true by the minute

... There are many strange double standards where Game A does the EXACT SAME THINGS as Game B, but game B is seen as "stupid", but Game A is seen as "smart".

Your logic is like this:
"Why does game "x" get called bad when it's EXACTLY THE SAME as game "y"?
I can't wait for an answer, it's because people are hypocrites."
People have been more than happy to explain that it's because game "x" and game "y" is not the same, and there is differences in level-, esthetic-, mechanics-design and narrative.

For example, Spec Ops: The Line does very little narratively which Black Ops/Black Ops 2 does not.

Can you bother going in detail on this one because I'm not buying it for a second.

BO-BO2 were written by David S. Goyer, who wrote Nolan's Batman films, and they're quite similar thematically.

Why are do you even try this argument? "Person "x" made "y". "Y" is good. Therefore everything person "x" makes has to be good as well." And I can do the same argument in reverse: David S. Goyer wrote Blade: Trinity, a terrible movie. Therefore Cod:BO1/2 has to be terrible.

People call these games "jingoistic". These are games where your character kills JFK.

And that makes everything better because...? Have you heard of the "I have a black friend" defence? Because this is exactly the same argument.

Where the villain was created by American greed and harrowing injustice. BO2 has anti-drone undertones. (And in Black Ops, you play a soldier who is insane, and led around by a memory implanted by sabotaged brainwashing. The game constantly hints something is wrong with Reznov. YOU are Reznov. It's all excellent mindscrew stuff. But Spec Ops gets praised while Black Ops is deemed to be just another mindless FPS.)

Crysis 2/3 explore themes around immortality, transhumanism, and what happens to soldiers who have sacrificed their humanity for the greater good.

Syndicate, which is not like CoD in any way, explores free will and how revolutionary causes lie to demonise their opponents.

Even Transformers 4 is filled with subtext. Fuel. War. Black ops. Genocide. The state of modern film. The ethics of modern technology. Living on the brink of destitution. Leadership. Sex jokes are replaced with sober reflection.

These works of art have meaningful things to say. But they just don't pretentiously preach at the audience.

You do know what "accidental subtext" is? Because a lot of what you bring up is accidental subtext. There is also a difference between "having" a theme and "exploring" a theme.

Have you played Black Ops and Black Ops 2? Because if you haven't, my job is significantly harder. I have to explain a storyline which rivals Metal Gear Solid in its complexity.

edit:

Syndicate explores free will by pretending to give you a choice of whether to kill a major character or not. Attempting to do so results in her mocking you. At the end of the game, you discover that everything you'd fought for during the entire second half of the game was total bullcrap. There was no kill-switch. You'd gone from being a puppet of Eurocorp to being a puppet of someone who wanted to take Eurocorp down.

Crysis 2's exploration of immortality is not subtext. It has a grandiose speech on immortality from the sort-of villain, who is like Mr House from New Vegas, except much more interesting, IMO.

"So - here you are. Theseus, at last. Welcome. Scant reward for so much effort, eh. Crack the labyrinth, and you would at least expect to see the Minotaur before it kills you. Ah well, it seems only fair. Come, then. Masks off. I am here. Shocked? I would be. I'd revel in it, if I were you: that sudden jump of the pulse, the cram of flight or fight chemicals into the belly. So sweet while it lasts. But it's been so very long since I felt any of it. A century or more since my pleasures were anything but cerebral. I took the path Karl Rasch refused, the cold road to immortality. I'd hope to wear Prophet's suit myself. Take on the weapons he brought us, wear his armor. Enter the labyrinth and confront the minotaur. But now... You. You will have to finish what Prophet began."

"Will there been an afterlife, I wonder? Choirs of angels? Or a fiery pit? One unlearns these falsehoods over time, but the child who learnt to fear hell is never really gone. To tell the truth, I think I had enough of afterlives as it is - this one has been pretty purgatorial. Almost fifty years floating in supercooled jelly like some medical specimen, thoughts creeping like rats through cramped silicon corridors of machines trapped behind video screens and camera systems. Never sleeping, never resting, never ceasing to think about the world I no longer belong to. No, if this is a taste of the afterlife, I think simple oblivion will do nicely."

Meanwhile, Crysis 3's ending has a lot to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrFuD2BJUbQ

Also, have you seen Transformers 4?

It goes from:

All the dinosaurs dead.

Modern films are trash. Too many sequels.

NO FINANCIAL AID.

CIA unit CEMETERY WIND's genocide against Autobots.

The first place they hide is an abandoned fuel station. This ties into the "extinction" theme. Death of dinosaurs. Fossil fuels, etc.

Head of tech corp justifying why melting down Autobot corpses is okay.

The film also explores fathers wanting to protect their children from themselves.

 

[Irick]

My point is that I think these "mainstream" IPs are often quite intelligent, but they are they are unfairly deemed to be idiotic garbage.

I just don't see much value in them as anything more than an exercise in design by committee. I mentioned Auteur theory before, but a lot of these games series shift 'directors' more often than most people change clothes.

For example, Spec Ops: The Line does very little narratively which Black Ops/Black Ops 2 does not. BO-BO2 were written by David S. Goyer, who wrote Nolan's Batman films, and they're quite similar thematically. People call these games "jingoistic". These are games where your character kills JFK. Where the villain was created by American greed and harrowing injustice. BO2 has anti-drone undertones. (And in Black Ops, you play a soldier who is insane, and led around by a memory implanted by sabotaged brainwashing. The game constantly hints something is wrong with Reznov. YOU are Reznov. It's all excellent mindscrew stuff. But Spec Ops gets praised while Black Ops is deemed to be just another mindless FPS.)

I can't speak for or against black ops. I literally only played enough of it to get to play Zork in the intro screen. For that reason I always have a grin on my face any time I hear it mentioned. However, a quick look at metacritic doesn't have it doing so poorly in critical reviews. It's the community reviews where it gets lambasted.

Crysis 2/3 explore themes around immortality, transhumanism, and what happens to soldiers who have sacrificed their humanity for the greater good.

Hmm. I'll do a further run through of Crysis 2 if I can ever get it to run under WINE. I just couldn't deal with the huge departure from the interesting setting of Crysis 1 to a more or less generic linear shooter. Something very valuable was lost for the Franchise IMO.

Syndicate, which is not like CoD in any way, explores free will and how revolutionary causes lie to demonise their opponents.

These are all valid textual interpretations. If you can find value in them, that's good. The root issue is... they don't seem to communicate it well. Honestly if you feel these games deserve a textual analysis, you should do it. I'd read it. Seriously.

Even Transformers 4 is filled with subtext. Fuel. War. Black ops. Genocide. The state of modern film. The ethics of modern technology. Living on the brink of destitution. Leadership. Sex jokes are replaced with sober reflection.

These works of art have meaningful things to say. But they just don't pretentiously preach at the audience.

I don't find anything pretentious about the games I've mentioned. I'm not really sure it's fair to bring in that sort of a false dichotomy.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

I can't speak for or against black ops. I literally only played enough of it to get to play Zork in the intro screen. For that reason I always have a grin on my face any time I hear it mentioned. However, a quick look at metacritic doesn't have it doing so poorly in critical reviews. It's the community reviews where it gets lambasted.

I'd suggest that this is largely because CoD games get their scores sabotaged by a super toxic and super whiny MP fanbase. In fact, CoD's fanbase is filled with super crappy people, IMO.

I don't find anything pretentious about the games I've mentioned. I'm not really sure it's fair to bring in that sort of a false dichotomy.

I meant pretentious in the sense that games such as Spec Ops hammer home their "point" with a massive gold hammer. I especially dislike the way Spec Ops makes you do bad things via contrived, railroaded gameplay, then expects you to feel guilty - such as the white phosphorus scene. I vastly prefer the approach Black Ops 2 used, where the game tried very hard to trick you into doing something bad, but the player could still refuse. This makes the player PERSONALLY guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnp6TkLUNkc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnrf6YSqXNY

Black Ops presents you with real ethical dilemmas which have real consequences. Spec Ops just railroads you from one fake decision to the next. (Yes this may have been deliberate, but after playing Black Ops 2, it just feels lazy.)

 

[Irick]

I meant pretentious in the sense that games such as Spec Ops hammer home their "point" with a massive gold hammer. I especially dislike the way Spec Ops makes you do bad things via contrived, railroaded gameplay, then expects you to feel guilty - such as the white phosphorus scene. I vastly prefer the approach Black Ops 2 used, where the game tried very hard to trick you into doing something bad, but the player could still refuse. This makes the player PERSONALLY guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnp6TkLUNkc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnrf6YSqXNY

Black Ops presents you with real ethical dilemmas which have real consequences. Spec Ops just railroads you from one fake decision to the next. (Yes this may have been deliberate, but after playing Black Ops 2, it just feels lazy.)

Well, I can point out that there isn't really much moral dilemma in Black Ops. Not a lot of time is given for questioning, and the revenge motivation seems like it would put the player in a morally justifiable situation. Are these bad things? In Spec Ops The Line, there isn't that justification. The lack of justification does drive home the point, but... why shouldn't it? It's not heavy handed, it's just deliberate.

I don't really see anything in those Back Ops videos that would make me seriously question the justifications of state actors/terrorism. I don't really see much but the usual tropes. I don't deny that those scenes are emotion packed, or that they would make you remember the choices made, but it doesn't make me question my role. It just makes me question the choice.

It's still framed as you being a hero. A beaten and battered hero who has to live with emotional scars, but your actions are morally justifiable. They tricked you into killing your friend. It was your duty to play as close of a role to a terrorist as possible. There are still clear good guys and bad guys, and you're on the good guys side.

It's not bad, but it's familiar.

 

[TheGamerElite33]

all of these FPS OP mentioned are consolized casual FPS. try playing REAL FPS like

STALKER
Half life
Deus Ex
Doom
Shadow warrior
etc

 

[Ambient_Malice]

I meant pretentious in the sense that games such as Spec Ops hammer home their "point" with a massive gold hammer. I especially dislike the way Spec Ops makes you do bad things via contrived, railroaded gameplay, then expects you to feel guilty - such as the white phosphorus scene. I vastly prefer the approach Black Ops 2 used, where the game tried very hard to trick you into doing something bad, but the player could still refuse. This makes the player PERSONALLY guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnp6TkLUNkc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnrf6YSqXNY

Black Ops presents you with real ethical dilemmas which have real consequences. Spec Ops just railroads you from one fake decision to the next. (Yes this may have been deliberate, but after playing Black Ops 2, it just feels lazy.)

Well, I can point out that there isn't really much moral dilemma in Black Ops. Not a lot of time is given for questioning, and the revenge motivation seems like it would put the player in a morally justifiable situation. Are these bad things? In Spec Ops The Line, there isn't that justification. The lack of justification does drive home the point, but... why shouldn't it? It's not heavy handed, it's just deliberate.

I don't really see anything in those Back Ops videos that would make me seriously question the justifications of state actors/terrorism. I don't really see much but the usual tropes. I don't deny that those scenes are emotion packed, or that they would make you remember the choices made, but it doesn't make me question my role. It just makes me question the choice.

It's still framed as you being a hero. A beaten and battered hero who has to live with emotional scars, but your actions are morally justifiable. They tricked you into killing your friend. It was your duty to play as close of a role to a terrorist as possible. There are still clear good guys and bad guys, and you're on the good guys side.

It's not bad, but it's familiar.

The problem is that Black Ops and Black Ops 2 actually have totally different villains.

Black Ops 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kWgGtBk_7o

In Black Ops 1, you are guided by Viktor Reznov. He appears frequently during the story to save you from peril, encourage you, often uttering the words "Dragovich... Kravchenko... Steiner... All must die.

The problem is that Viktor Reznov died years earlier. Everything "Reznov" does is actually Mason. Anytime Reznov appears (after the gulag) "the numbers" start whispering in the background. When Steiner is killed, Mason thinks that it's Reznov, but when you replay the scene from Hudson's perspective, the person doing everything is Mason. Reznov is long dead. Mason was brainwashed as part of a plan to kill JFK (The numbers start whispering when you meet JFK ingame, and you have to resist the urge to pick up a gun and shoot him. The game ends with JFK's death.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0HDTAGbbc0

Black Ops 2:
The villain of black Ops 2 is Raul Menendez.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpnClsbOX08

His sister was burnt horrifically when Americans set fire to a barn they were staying in. This is depicted in the intro.

Later, his father was assassinated by the CIA.

His sister is then killed by your team-mate, Woods, who tosses a grenade in a blind rage.

Menendez's motive boils down to: "Your life will be consumed by absolute loss. Then and only then will you understand what you have done to me."

In his interrogation, he states:

"...Opulence is sinful and we all pay for it... She was taken from me. Do you know what that feels like yet?... An American torched the warehouse for insurance money. 11,000 dollars, that was the value they placed on her life. She was the reason for me to live. What about you, David? What drives you? Is it me?... Einstein once said the economic anarchy of capitalism is the real source of evil. Your father, and his people, took Josefina from me. Pues... tu papa esta muerto. Your father is dead. And his people... finished!"

Menendez is a man adored by 2 billion people. He creates an online persona Odysseus, and gathers a following preaching against, basically, the 1%. He is like Bane from TDKR. He's a LOT like Bane, and that's why it's significant that the game was written by Goyer. The difference is that Menendez is sincere, whereas Bane was faking it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTdYhgcc2cs

Your actions in the game have unpredictable consequences.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121221181024/callofduty/images/2/25/Choices_in_Black_Ops_II.png

Black Ops 2 may depict Menendez as a villain, but he is by far one of the most sympathetic villains seen in an FPS game. He is seeking revenge against a system of cruelty and greed which stole everything he loved.

"...Opulence is sinful, and we all pay for it. Los Angeles was the flagship of their absurd materialism, so I destroyed it. They thought I wanted to kill the president. Madame Presidentè, I could have buried you a million times over... No... I wanted you to see it, to feel what it's like. Today, two billion people exist in abject misery, tyrannized by war. Madame Presidentè, your war machines are no more. Your military is crippled. You cannot stop us now. Cordis Die, rise, and strike when they are down. Strike now, and strike deep!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxDJ-SuHRgI

The speech is especially significant because he didn't just steal the entire US drone fleet - he deliberately destroyed it so nobody could have it. There can be no happy ending for Menendez - but he isn't presented as a madman.

I would compare him to Alec Trevelyan from GoldenEye, another villain with justified anger at a government which tormented his family. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtaQbXfrdNA

edit:
I suppose the problem is Black Ops 2 hinges HUGELY on player choices. It's a key mechanic. Devoid of context, scenes from the game don't make much sense. Shooting your team-mate in the face to preserve your cover doesn't have weight unless you know the story behind it. Unless you've personally experienced Mason's insanity, (bear in mind Mason is a recurring character in BO2, and he's still under the control of "the numbers") it's difficult to explain how this affects the story.

all of these FPS OP mentioned are consolized casual FPS. try playing REAL FPS like

STALKER
Half life
Deus Ex
Doom
Shadow warrior
etc

I've played just about every FPS on PC. And most on consoles.
Ironically, most of those games are actually on consoles, too. I must declare straight off that I consider Perfect Dark to be the greatest FPS game of all time.

Half Life - not really fond of it. Personally, it was responsible for dumbing down the FPS genre. Half Life 2 is worse in this regard. The whole thing feels play-tested into vanilla, bland paste.

Deus Ex - decent, nay, fantastic RPG, but the FPS mechanics are dismal. AI is also extremely lacking.

Doom - not really a fan of FPS games with no plot. I'm someone who plays games primarily for the story, but also for the holistic blend of story and gameplay. Running around blindly shooting stuff for no reason isn't really my idea of fun - it's also why I have no real interest in MP FPS games.

Shadow Warrior - I've played both the original and the reboot, as well as many other BUILD engine games. They're okay, and often enjoyable, but I'm not really fond of how much emphasis the SW reboot puts on relentless combat.

STALKER - I like Stalker, but I strongly dislike Stalker's UI. The conversation system is so clunky that it reduces my enjoyment significantly.

 

[C. Cain]

all of these FPS OP mentioned are consolized casual FPS. try playing REAL FPS like

STALKER
Half life
Deus Ex
Doom
Shadow warrior
etc

No true Scotsman.

Also Deus Ex as a REAL (all caps) FPS? It's probably one of the least pure FPS' imaginable.

 

[TheGamerElite33]

all of these FPS OP mentioned are consolized casual FPS. try playing REAL FPS like

STALKER
Half life
Deus Ex
Doom
Shadow warrior
etc

No true Scotsman.

Also Deus Ex as a REAL (all caps) FPS? It's probably one of the least pure FPS' imaginable.

it is FPS/RPG

but how about STALKER? thats best FPS ever

 

[Irick]

all of these FPS OP mentioned are consolized casual FPS. try playing REAL FPS like

STALKER
Half life
Deus Ex
Doom
Shadow warrior
etc

I've played just about every FPS on PC. And most on consoles.
Ironically, most of those games are actually on consoles, too. I must declare straight off that I consider Perfect Dark to be the greatest FPS game of all time.

Perfect Dark's pretty good, I'll give you that. I wouldn't mind playing it without the N64 stick.

Half Life - not really fond of it. Personally, it was responsible for dumbing down the FPS genre. Half Life 2 is worse in this regard. The whole thing feels play-tested into vanilla, bland paste.

Citation fucking needed Dumbing down of the FPS genre? It's still got all of its old school elements and it waves them proudly. It introduced some of the best puzzles of the time and it did fist person platforming in a way that actually worked. While I can agree with some criticisms being made that it gave way to the current chunk delivery methodology of games literally every game you've mentioned uses this as the primary driving force for story.

Dumbing down the FPS genre indeed.

Deus Ex - decent, nay, fantastic RPG, but the FPS mechanics are dismal. AI is also extremely lacking.

I really hope they go back and address this. Seriously. I'd play the hell out of a redone Deus Ex with tighter combat and better AI.

Doom - not really a fan of FPS games with no plot. I'm someone who plays games primarily for the story, but also for the holistic blend of story and gameplay. Running around blindly shooting stuff for no reason isn't really my idea of fun - it's also why I have no real interest in MP FPS games.

So, here I'll address a very simple criticism of pretty much every game you've mentioned. Including the ones that you've mentioned as generally considered good games. All of their development is done in content chunks. Cut scenes, set pieces. The story isn't made so much as unfolds. It's the criticism I acknowledge against Halflife and Halflife 2. It's why I think Farcry 2 is under rated. It's why i think you miss a large portion of the points I have.

Doom has plot. It's the plot that you make. You are a marine, Hell has just broken loose on mars. Play your role, soldier. Each bullet you fire makes that game. Each secret you discover. Each easter Egg, every level is dripping with detail. The plot is what you make of it. That, to me, is the mark of a great game. What we have been discussing... is mostly what makes a great movie.

Look at Minecraft. Look at Crysis. In these games, new stories unfold depending on how you play the game. Minecraft is the more obvious example, but it's the same sort in intricate interaction of various elements and enemies that makes Crysis fun for me. These are stories, organically created, through the interaction with the game. It is one of the reasons that games are so appealing to me and one of the primary reasons I play them.

 

[XDSkyFreak]

Syndicate 2012's story, by the same writer as Crysis 2, was criticised for vague reasons which seem to boil down to "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME LIKE THE OLD SYNDICATE GAMES!" (Yet nobody complained that Wolfenstein: The New order isn't like the old 2D Wolfenstein games for some reason.) Despite having almost identical game mechanics to Wolfenstein: TNO, Syndicate's game mechanics were criticised, too.

You had me until this. This tells me you are just too young to understand but here it goes: Syndicate was a TBS (that's Turn Bassed Strategy) game similar to XCOM about a dystopian world run by corporations. It had a dark atmosphere and some really nice story telling for the time. Syndicate 2012 was a braindead shooter with none of the subtelty of the original. It was rightfully criticised for dumbing down and downright insulting what the original game was, and for using generic FPS mechanics in a game that was supposed to be more than that (a TBS). THAT is why people railed on it. Also you say written by the guy who wrote Crysis 2 ... as if Crysis 2 is some holy grail of story telling ... something tells me you never played Spec Ops: The Line. Be that as it may, I don't give 2 cents if you wrote an award wining screenplay in the past, if the one you wrote now sucks, then prepare to get criticised. In the same breath you rail against fanboys and proceed to act like one about this one writer who (as I've searched his resume) up until this point wrote some obscure SF novels, 2 Black Widow graphic novels, 1 decent FPS story (crysis 2) and one shit FPS story (Syndicate). He's not the great. By contrast Wolfenstein TNO was very similar to the wolfenstein of old: hardcore b.j. blazkowicz guning down nazi bastards in the most ludicrous settings with crazy guns and having the ability to digest lead through his skin and organs. Wolfenstein TNO was the 2D Return to Castle Wolfestein done in flashy 3D graphics, and the generic FPS mechanics fit it perfectly as a tribute to the old days.

To put it simple: perspective my friend. Syndicate 2012 used bullshit generic FPS mechanics in a game that was ment to be a tribute to a franchise about strategy, planning and had a more interesting setting. Wolfenstein TNO used bullshit generic FPS mechanics in a game that was a tribute to bullshit generic FPS. See the difference?

Rest of it? Meh ... do you really expect logic from the demographic of those modern military shooters? AKA 95% screching 14 year olds that should never have been given mics?

 

[C. Cain]

it is FPS/RPG

but how about STALKER? thats best FPS ever

The best FPS in terms of what? Is it the best FPS in terms of technical aspects (e.g. graphics, gameplay, AI, etc.)? Is it the best FPS in terms of storytelling (e.g. characters, plot, theme, text, tone, subtext, structure, etc.)? Is it the best FPS in terms of visceral enjoyment or indulgence?

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Syndicate 2012's story, by the same writer as Crysis 2, was criticised for vague reasons which seem to boil down to "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME LIKE THE OLD SYNDICATE GAMES!" (Yet nobody complained that Wolfenstein: The New order isn't like the old 2D Wolfenstein games for some reason.) Despite having almost identical game mechanics to Wolfenstein: TNO, Syndicate's game mechanics were criticised, too.

You had me until this. This tells me you are just too young to understand but here it goes: Syndicate was a TBS (that's Turn Bassed Strategy) game similar to XCOM about a dystopian world run by corporations. It had a dark atmosphere and some really nice story telling for the time. Syndicate 2012 was a braindead shooter with none of the subtelty of the original. It was rightfully criticised for dumbing down and downright insulting what the original game was, and for using generic FPS mechanics in a game that was supposed to be more than that (a TBS). THAT is why people railed on it. Also you say written by the guy who wrote Crysis 2 ... as if Crysis 2 is some holy grail of story telling ... something tells me you never played Spec Ops: The Line. Be that as it may, I don't give 2 cents if you wrote an award wining screenplay in the past, if the one you wrote now sucks, then prepare to get criticised. In the same breath you rail against fanboys and proceed to act like one about this one writer who (as I've searched his resume) up until this point wrote some obscure SF novels, 2 Black Widow graphic novels, 1 decent FPS story (crysis 2) and one shit FPS story (Syndicate). He's not the great. By contrast Wolfenstein TNO was very similar to the wolfenstein of old: hardcore b.j. blazkowicz guning down nazi bastards in the most ludicrous settings with crazy guns and having the ability to digest lead through his skin and organs. Wolfenstein TNO was the 2D Return to Castle Wolfestein done in flashy 3D graphics, and the generic FPS mechanics fit it perfectly as a tribute to the old days.

To put it simple: perspective my friend. Syndicate 2012 used bullshit generic FPS mechanics in a game that was ment to be a tribute to a franchise about strategy, planning and had a more interesting setting. Wolfenstein TNO used bullshit generic FPS mechanics in a game that was a tribute to bullshit generic FPS. See the difference?

Rest of it? Meh ... do you really expect logic from the demographic of those modern military shooters? AKA 95% screching 14 year olds that should never have been given mics?

Firstly, I have played Spec Ops. And it's an okay game, but I think it's a hamfisted and contrived one which leans far too heavily upon its twist. I think Crysis 2 is a genuinely well written game, as is Syndicate. Richard K. Morgan's cyberpunk novel Altered Carbon is highly regarded in some circles. Syndicate 2012 is an FPS game based on the Syndicate IP. It's not supposed to be tribute to the old games because it is a totally different genre. C2/Syndicate are similar storywise. They follow similar beats, feature similar characters, and so on.

Secondly, Wolfenstein did not begin as a shooter series. ID Software did that when they took over.

Thirdly, Syndicate 2012 is by no means a generic FPS. Yes, it plays almost exactly like Wolfenstein, but that's because ex-Starbreeze people made Wolfenstein: TNO.

I simply cannot agree that switching genres makes a game bad. Generally, a game should be judged for what it is, not what we wish it would be. It reminds me of the hatred for Xenosaga 2, which abandoned the first game's generic JRPG combat and replaced it with a streamlined system.

edit:

Serious question - have you played, or finished, Syndicate 2012?

 

[XDSkyFreak]

Syndicate 2012's story, by the same writer as Crysis 2, was criticised for vague reasons which seem to boil down to "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME LIKE THE OLD SYNDICATE GAMES!" (Yet nobody complained that Wolfenstein: The New order isn't like the old 2D Wolfenstein games for some reason.) Despite having almost identical game mechanics to Wolfenstein: TNO, Syndicate's game mechanics were criticised, too.

You had me until this. This tells me you are just too young to understand but here it goes: Syndicate was a TBS (that's Turn Bassed Strategy) game similar to XCOM about a dystopian world run by corporations. It had a dark atmosphere and some really nice story telling for the time. Syndicate 2012 was a braindead shooter with none of the subtelty of the original. It was rightfully criticised for dumbing down and downright insulting what the original game was, and for using generic FPS mechanics in a game that was supposed to be more than that (a TBS). THAT is why people railed on it. Also you say written by the guy who wrote Crysis 2 ... as if Crysis 2 is some holy grail of story telling ... something tells me you never played Spec Ops: The Line. Be that as it may, I don't give 2 cents if you wrote an award wining screenplay in the past, if the one you wrote now sucks, then prepare to get criticised. In the same breath you rail against fanboys and proceed to act like one about this one writer who (as I've searched his resume) up until this point wrote some obscure SF novels, 2 Black Widow graphic novels, 1 decent FPS story (crysis 2) and one shit FPS story (Syndicate). He's not the great. By contrast Wolfenstein TNO was very similar to the wolfenstein of old: hardcore b.j. blazkowicz guning down nazi bastards in the most ludicrous settings with crazy guns and having the ability to digest lead through his skin and organs. Wolfenstein TNO was the 2D Return to Castle Wolfestein done in flashy 3D graphics, and the generic FPS mechanics fit it perfectly as a tribute to the old days.

To put it simple: perspective my friend. Syndicate 2012 used bullshit generic FPS mechanics in a game that was ment to be a tribute to a franchise about strategy, planning and had a more interesting setting. Wolfenstein TNO used bullshit generic FPS mechanics in a game that was a tribute to bullshit generic FPS. See the difference?

Rest of it? Meh ... do you really expect logic from the demographic of those modern military shooters? AKA 95% screching 14 year olds that should never have been given mics?

Firstly, I have played Spec Ops. And it's an okay game, but I think it's a hamfisted and contrived one which leans far too heavily upon its twist. I think Crysis 2 is a genuinely well written game, as is Syndicate. Richard K. Morgan's cyberpunk novel Altered Carbon is highly regarded in some circles. Syndicate 2012 is an FPS game based on the Syndicate IP. It's not supposed to be tribute to the old games because it is a totally different genre. C2/Syndicate are similar storywise. They follow similar beats, feature similar characters, and so on.

Secondly, Wolfenstein did not begin as a shooter series. ID Software did that when they took over.

Thirdly, Syndicate 2012 is by no means a generic FPS. Yes, it plays almost exactly like Wolfenstein, but that's because ex-Starbreeze people made Wolfenstein: TNO.

I simply cannot agree that switching genres makes a game bad. Generally, a game should be judged for what it is, not what we wish it would be. It reminds me of the hatred for Xenosaga 2, which abandoned the first game's generic JRPG combat and replaced it with a streamlined system.

edit:

Serious question - have you played, or finished, Syndicate 2012?

Yeah, I played it, and you know what? IF they wanted the game and story they should never have called it Syndicate. Don't give me the different genre bullshit excuse. If they wanted to make a shooter why call it Syndicate? Why not Syndicate: something to indicate a spinoff, or something other than Syndicate? When you call it the same name as a well known game of the old days, you are obligated to honor the memory of that old game in your mechanics, setting and story, something S2012 did no do. Oh and let us not forget the marketing: they presented this travesty as a "reboot" of the series. Well news flash: rebooting a game series means taking it, and updating it's mechanics for the modern era, not taking the name and some vague setting details and pissing all over the mechanics and replacing them with dumbed down crap. That is why Syndicate 2012 sucks, and will never be judged as it's own game. By contrast let's look at all those new games with old names out today: Deus Ex: HR? Kept what made the first Deus Ex good while updating and streamlining. Good. Wolfenstein TNO? First off: yeah, it didn't start as a shooter, it started as a first person stealth game that also allowed you to use guns ... 1)so bassically an FPS with emphasis on stealth and 2)it trully became famous as a pure shooter under id. What does this new game bring? The fun and crazy of the old days in flashy new graphics. Stays true to the name once more. XCOM: Enemy Unknown/Within? TBS glory in tactical, nice base building, no more cluncky interface and annoying insane micro from the old days. An improved and modern XCOM game. Now your beloved Syndicate 2012? Generic bullshit shooter with the name of a beloved TBS franchise, it's story missing the whole point of what Syndicate was. You see where problems might arise? If you want something judged on it's own merits, don't slap on it the name of something old with defined conventions. Xenosaga 2 was a good game, but it deserved what it got again for using that name in an unrecognisable form. And you know what the sad thing is about Syndicate 2012 (i fucking hate having to make that distinction ...)? It might have worked as a shooter if they made it a tactical shooter, slower and more deliberate, with positioning and planning. But nope, they just made a generic bullshit shooter.

Yeah, switching genres does not make a game necesarily bad. But it's a dick move to pull. You draw in a crowd with one genre then pull a 180, switch genre in hope of having your fanbase buy the game while bringing new people of the new genre on board. It's bullshit. You want a new genre in an established setting? Make it a spinoff. Make it clear it's a side thing. That way people will judge it as a new game in an old setting. But what they did here was name what should have been a spin-off of syndicate a reboot to try and sucker people with nostalgia for the old game into it.

And now as someone who knows Syndicate let me tell you something: this new game has fuck all to do with the Syndicate story. Oh sure, they plastered in some names from the old days (like EuroCorp), but the story of this new game has nothing in comon with the old. This game is for all intents a brand new shooter with a brand new story. They just slapped on the Syndicate wallpaper to draw in a crowd based on nostalgia. This is the true reason this game will forever suck: any good or worth it might have had was smeared with corporate greed and the public doesn't like that very much (oh the irnoy ... the game about the self distructive human greed is remade into a cash grab and fails because of .. human greed. how I love those dumb corporations).

 

[RiseUp]

My problem with the FPS genre is a snobbishness which reminds me of the attitude of hardcore Pacific Rim fans who insist that Michael Bay Transformers movies are stupid, but Pacific Rim is super smart and totally not at all like Transformers, despite the fact Pacific Rim is cut from the exact same cloth. (Many story-driven FPS games are described as being like Michael Bay movies, often by people who are less than fans of Bay's oeuvre.)

Before you ask, yes I did read the full post, I chose this section in particular because it sums up the rest perfectly. These two films aren't cut from the same cloth, despite both being big, dumb action movies about robots. Using a similar analogy, I'd argue that they're similar-looking shirts, but made from completely different fabrics. Whereas Bay shoots nearly everything with the same weight (shown by just how often he'll rotate the camera about an object or character with a large amount of background depth and paralax), Pacific Rim has quiet moments shot like quiet moments, action scenes shot like action scenes, and one instance where it becomes one of the most effective Kaiju movies I've ever seen for the space of 2 minutes. Each of its fights is different not only in choreography but in tone and even shooting style. Let's not even try to compare the writing of the two, which aim for completely different themes and tones, as well as presenting characters differently.

Aside from defending a movie I really liked, that paragraph serves to make a point: that although two separate things are made up of the same elements, it's the execution of those elements that makes the difference. Call of Duty: Ghosts, was mechanically and narratively worse than Black Ops 2 that preceded it, because although the two feel similar moment-to-moment, there are such things as good writing and good FPS design, and one does better than the other in those regards. The Goldeneye "remake" was simply not a well-made FPS. Syndicate was also badly designed, and Battlefield 3 and 4 had some abysmal campaign sections. Crysis is another matter entirely, because it's a fairly decent example of more open-ended linearity. Anyone bashing Crysis 2 and 3 for not being as open as Crysis 1 is doing so for completely subjective reasons, because they're different games.

 

[Goliath100]

snip

"The villain explains the theme" is a hacky way to talk about it. Again, there is a difference between having a theme and exploring a theme. Exploring for example tends to be hard when you have 20, most likely, most of them are accidental. There is no points in just having themes, you only get them by exploring them well.

Now, please explain why BO is so brilliant.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

snip

"The villain explains the theme" is a hacky way to talk about it. Again, there is a difference between having a theme and exploring a theme. Exploring for example tends to be hard when you have 20, most likely, most of them are accidental. There is no points in just having themes, you only get them by exploring them well.

Now, please explain why BO is so brilliant.

Define the difference between having a theme and exploring a theme.

My problem with the FPS genre is a snobbishness which reminds me of the attitude of hardcore Pacific Rim fans who insist that Michael Bay Transformers movies are stupid, but Pacific Rim is super smart and totally not at all like Transformers, despite the fact Pacific Rim is cut from the exact same cloth. (Many story-driven FPS games are described as being like Michael Bay movies, often by people who are less than fans of Bay's oeuvre.)

Before you ask, yes I did read the full post, I chose this section in particular because it sums up the rest perfectly. These two films aren't cut from the same cloth, despite both being big, dumb action movies about robots. Using a similar analogy, I'd argue that they're similar-looking shirts, but made from completely different fabrics. Whereas Bay shoots nearly everything with the same weight (shown by just how often he'll rotate the camera about an object or character with a large amount of background depth and paralax), Pacific Rim has quiet moments shot like quiet moments, action scenes shot like action scenes, and one instance where it becomes one of the most effective Kaiju movies I've ever seen for the space of 2 minutes. Each of its fights is different not only in choreography but in tone and even shooting style. Let's not even try to compare the writing of the two, which aim for completely different themes and tones, as well as presenting characters differently.

Aside from defending a movie I really liked, that paragraph serves to make a point: that although two separate things are made up of the same elements, it's the execution of those elements that makes the difference. Call of Duty: Ghosts, was mechanically and narratively worse than Black Ops 2 that preceded it, because although the two feel similar moment-to-moment, there are such things as good writing and good FPS design, and one does better than the other in those regards. The Goldeneye "remake" was simply not a well-made FPS. Syndicate was also badly designed, and Battlefield 3 and 4 had some abysmal campaign sections. Crysis is another matter entirely, because it's a fairly decent example of more open-ended linearity. Anyone bashing Crysis 2 and 3 for not being as open as Crysis 1 is doing so for completely subjective reasons, because they're different games.

How was the GoldenEye remake not well designed? How was Syndicate badly designed? What were Battlefield 4's "abysmal" sections?

 

[Irick]

Secondly, Wolfenstein did not begin as a shooter series. ID Software did that when they took over.

Wolfenstein _did_ start as a shooter series. It was a 2D shooter. ID took the same formula and put it into a 2.5D game, which is still basically a 2D game just from a different perspective. It's literally just a 2D game with walls giving it the illusion of 3D. This transition worked because Wolfenstine's essential formula did not change. It was still shoot Nazis and progress in the level.

Winfenstine 3D didn't take anything away from the formula, it just added new. The transition to full 3D was smooth and the gameplay was simple enough not to suffer for it.

Thirdly, Syndicate 2012 is by no means a generic FPS. Yes, it plays almost exactly like Wolfenstein, but that's because ex-Starbreeze people made Wolfenstein: TNO.

It's not a Syndicate game. It misses the essential aspects of Syndicate and instead gives us a Wolfenstein game (without even the benefit of being on an amazing iD engine)

I simply cannot agree that switching genres makes a game bad. Generally, a game should be judged for what it is, not what we wish it would be. It reminds me of the hatred for Xenosaga 2, which abandoned the first game's generic JRPG combat and replaced it with a streamlined system.

No one is claiming this. What we are claiming is that you can't rip out the heart and soul of a series just to make it into an FPS. That's like turning Shadowrun into a ridiculous multiplayer only arena shooter game.

If they had kept the strategy elements and instead let you take control of a character for some FPS fun on the side, that would have been an interesting mix up in the established mechanics, but it instead stripped out all of the strategy elements.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Secondly, Wolfenstein did not begin as a shooter series. ID Software did that when they took over.

Wolfenstein _did_ start as a shooter series. It was a 2D shooter. ID took the same formula and put it into a 2.5D game, which is still basically a 2D game just from a different perspective. It's literally just a 2D game with walls giving it the illusion of 3D. This transition worked because Wolfenstine's essential formula did not change. It was still shoot Nazis and progress in the level.

Winfenstine 3D didn't take anything away from the formula, it just added new. The transition to full 3D was smooth and the gameplay was simple enough not to suffer for it.

Thirdly, Syndicate 2012 is by no means a generic FPS. Yes, it plays almost exactly like Wolfenstein, but that's because ex-Starbreeze people made Wolfenstein: TNO.

It's not a Syndicate game. It misses the essential aspects of Syndicate and instead gives us a Wolfenstein game (without even the benefit of being on an amazing iD engine)

I simply cannot agree that switching genres makes a game bad. Generally, a game should be judged for what it is, not what we wish it would be. It reminds me of the hatred for Xenosaga 2, which abandoned the first game's generic JRPG combat and replaced it with a streamlined system.

No one is claiming this. What we are claiming is that you can't rip out the heart and soul of a series just to make it into an FPS. That's like turning Shaodwrun into a ridiculous multiplayer only arena shooter game.

If they had kept the strategy elements and instead let you take control of a character for some FPS fun on the side, that would have been an interesting mix up in the established mechanics, but it instead stripped out all of the strategy elements.

Syndicate is like Mario Kart. Or Pokemon Snap. Or Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus. It takes existing characters/groups/settings and places them in a whole new gameplay framework. It's like taking the Legacy of Kain IP away from Denis Dyack and turning it into a game like Soul Reaver.

Starbreeze wanted to make a Syndicate FPS game. Their game is not obliged to have any mechanical similarities to the old one. If this were the 90's, EA would have hired devs to make SYNDICATE RACING and SYNDICATE PINBALL and maybe even a Syndicate GBC platformer.

 

[Irick]

Syndicate is like Mario Kart. Or Pokemon Snap. Or Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus. It takes existing characters/groups/settings and places them in a whole new gameplay framework. It's like taking the Legacy of Kain IP away from Denis Dyack and turning it into a game like Soul Reaver.

Starbreeze wanted to make a Syndicate FPS game. Their game is not obliged to have any mechanical similarities to the old one. If this were the 90's, EA would have hired devs to make SYNDICATE RACING and SYNDICATE PINBALL and maybe even a Syndicate GBC platformer.

We're not obliged to like their Syndicate FPS, nor are we obliged to review it outside the context of the original game.

Right now, if you take an interesting IP and make it into an FPS, you better bring something more to the table than just a solid FPS. FPS games have been the go to genre for unsure game publishers for the longest time that it now is seen as a lazy choice. Rebooting any IP as an FPS just feels like a cash grab, especially when that FPS compromises on core elements in order to make it an FPS.

I didn't particularly like Dirge of Cerberus. Pokemon Snap was fun as hell, but it was made when Pokemon was in full swing. There was no lack of Pokemon games. We had Stadium just around the corner, we had all of the GB games. It was a cash grab, but we didn't care because there was demand for the IP in just about every genre and damn was snap creative.

You want to compare Syndicate to Snap or Mario Kart? Well, then it would have to stop being a niche strategy game and instead by a massively popular cross media franchise.

So yeah, we're going to harshly criticize it, because it doesn't belong in our niche. Yeah, it's not going to be popular, because Syndicate wasn't either. No, we're probably not going to take it seriously, because it refuses to take us seriously. It sweeps what we loved about the franchise under the rug because FPS games are assumed to sell better. Yeah, the developers might actually have been fans of the IP, but that doesn't protect them from criticism.

You want to reboot Syndicate? That's fine. If you choose to reboot Syndicate in an entirely different genre and without any of the core elements, we're going to need to see reasons.

The only Syndicate FPS reboot that would make sense to me would be a Rainbow 6 style tactical shooter with some wonky bullshit thrown in. Not an action FPS.