CosmicQueso
Member
Just slightly better than Syndicate, unfortunately.
EDGE: Syndicate Sold 150,000 Copies.
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
Just slightly better than Syndicate, unfortunately.
"What about Fallout" is like "what about Call of Duty?" There are a dozen military themed, multiplayer friendly FPS games with cinematic single player campaigns and none of them sell one tenth what COD sells. Some games enter the zeitgeist and there's no way to quantify their success. There's no formula for making the next COD or the next Fallout 3 or else that's what every publisher would do and every game would sell 10 million copies.
Not entirely, obviously the 1st person view was the biggest change but many of the design systems were very similar
1)Open world, -free to explore any where you please
2)SPECIAL
3)Stats based on percentages
4)PERKS
5)VATS- Target enemy anywhere
I wouldn't say they were nothing like 1 and 2.
I pains me to see publisher and devs still having no fucking idea what's going on.
They changed the game too much and became something that looks like shooter #34590687 and that's the sole reason why it did not sell well.
How blind can they go? And since when a fan favorite delivered in "fan service" style receives complains the likes of "oh, you didn't innovate enough". That's bullshit. Perfect example of a dev that simply don't know the fuck they are doing nor the people they are targeting. Congrats, you got the sales you deserved.
They changed the game too much and became something that looks like shooter #34590687 and that's the sole reason why it did not sell well.
How blind can they go? And since when a fan favorite delivered in "fan service" style receives complains the likes of "oh, you didn't innovate enough". That's bullshit. Perfect example of a dev that simply don't know the fuck they are doing nor the people they are targeting. Congrats, you got the sales you deserved.
CosmicQueso
Member
Rogue Warrior and Brink were also Bethesda games. No free ticket to strong sales.
And regarding Fallout, if you'll recall the reaction to Fallout 3 prior to launch was pure hate from the former Fallout fans. Then Fallout 3 was released, was great, and was a hit.
The logo on the box and the quality/sales potential of the product inside have absolutely no correlation. C'mon man.
Even a ripoff of Deus Ex would have been preferable. The Starbreeze guys clearly could have made a much more involved game if they really wanted to.
NullPointer
Member
That's a shame. Anybody who liked the Darkness should give it a shot. The extra Solo/Co-op modes are also pretty decent. Its also polished to hell and back again.
Guess it got lost in the shuffle.
Tokyo Rain
Member
I lost interest when I saw they were abandoning the original gameplay and trying to capitalize on the name/legacy.
Rated-Rsuperstar
Member
Sure that's the sole reason. Let's not even consider that the game was announced and released in a 6 month window that included zero marketing.
Lack of innovation. Lack of vision. Lack of originality. Lack of creativity. In other words, just pure laziness.
CosmicQueso
Member
If you play it you can see what they were trying to do with some of the set up in the world and some of the mechanics they were plopping in. It struck me as just straight up creep in scope and that they couldn't fully execute. The detail in the world was intense. The game's worth playing.
Even better though is that I've finally decided to go back and play Chronicles of Riddick, a Starbreeze joint. Awwww yeah.
I can still lament such capable developers settling for something that was so unambitious in its finished form.
CosmicQueso
Member
Why? *ALL THE FOLLOWING ARE GENERALIZATIONS OF OVERALL TRENDS AND YES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EVERY RULE*
Because Shooters were the #1 genre last year for the first time.
Because Shooters have been a growth genre for the past 4 years.
Because Call of Duty owns all sales records, and it's a Shooter.
Because there were more Shooters in the top 10 sales chart last year than in any year previously.
Because most other genres have been declining, with the exception of Fighting and Action, since the Music game bubble of 2008.
Because the casual market has disappeared, as have the Wii and NDS markets.
Because companies have bills to pay and it's the one genre where people still buy their games new.
It's not laziness. At all. It's more desperation hoping for something to make some money.
CosmicQueso
Member
Actually it was overly ambitious is my point, and they couldn't execute on it. Take the co-op. Super fun, innovative, a completely new take. But there was no voice or text chat (on the PC version at least).
Then they create these incredibly detailed levels, and have an interesting set of weapons and a lite RPG component and then just didn't realize it fully.
It was like they had a ton of ideas they wanted to cram in and just ran out of money or time and then of course it wasn't marketed.
Lamentable, yes. But I think there's gotta be much more to the story.
NullPointer
Member
Buy LOW, sell HIGH. It doesn't work as well the other way around.
CosmicQueso
Member
Which brings us back to your Kickstarter idea. Big pubs don't think in buy low, sell high terms.
SkoomaSuckinSwit
Member
Because many gamers prefer the first person perspective, over third person view?
Makes game experience more immersive. Makes you the center of the story, and not the avatar on the screen?
ChimpanzeeThat
Member
Is it bad that I didn't realise it was even out?
it doesn't help it was banned in Australia
Not really, most of those guys were laid off if memory serves correct—and a majority of the rest have gone to MachineGames, rumored to on a Wolfenstein reboot.
I want to say that there was a rumor that what came out was the second version of the game—and the first version is what spawned the Paradox guy's comments about it being inspired by GTA. If that was the case, I imagine they might've scaled it down due to ambition and cost—even though the could have possibly made that for around the final price tag of the game.
I H8 Memes
Member
I only played the demo and didn't see any reason it would be banned in Australia.
That's why I like you Derrick. You are a man after my own bitter black heart.
EatinOlives
Member
The fuck am I reading
Nobody asked for exact copies. Hell, I'm pretty sure people would've liked it if it were some first-person RTS hybrid concept. Something to set itself apart from the sea of generic FPS lookalikes.
What kind of bullshit attitude is this? "Our game did terribly in the market, but I refuse to call the game a flop because people would've hated our poor little game regardless of what it was?" Is this man 5 years old?
APZonerunner
Member
Look at it this way - Syndicate was the first EA game with multiplayer in ages to ship without an online pass.
EA: "Online passes clearly work, consumers want them...!"
EA: "Online passes clearly work, consumers want them...!"
phosphor112
Banned
Requiring Origin didn't help. My brother and I refused to buy it because of that alone.
Maybe I AM your bitter black heart given voice? /shamatwist
Beat me to it.
Poimandres
Member
So does it still feel like a Starbreeze game even after lots of the staff left for Machinegames?
I really liked Riddick and The Darkness.
I'd pick this up... but it's banned in my country. Blergh.
I really liked Riddick and The Darkness.
I'd pick this up... but it's banned in my country. Blergh.
Messofanego
Banned
It doesn't have a hub world or much memorable characters, but is a cool world. It does have all that First Person full body awareness. It has good voice acting. One improvement is the shooting, it's so much more satisfying than in their previous games.
And great co-op.
FieryBalrog
Member
Kindly shut up with your excuse-making for such a tired, derivative exploitation of an IP. I'm glad this failed.
lol, make it isometric, add MP, develop it for a year or two with a small team and price it a 20-30$ instead of developing it for 5 years with a full team. 500 000 copies sold at least.
Also they could make it MP only browsr game with microtransactions and rake in cash. But it's EA we're talking here, they are too slow and big for stuff like that.
Except SPECIAL was nothing but a cosmetic thing in Oblivion with Guns 3. Maybe Oblivion with Guns 3: New Vegas fixes this, but after OwG3, I couldn't care. So OwG3 is not a Fallout game, sorry.
EdgecrusherLSU
Neo Member
This is such a horseshit argument and I hate it when devs use it. Like if the devs of God of War made the next installment a co-op shooter and used that as an argument when they failed.
Most fans of a certain game series don't want huge sweeping changes, they want slow gradual upgrades to the core experience of the game.
legacyzero
Banned
I only got around to playing the co-op demo.
TOTALLY worth more than 150k sales. The only game trailer that I've seen where Dubstep actually fit
TOTALLY worth more than 150k sales. The only game trailer that I've seen where Dubstep actually fit
This game is probably the most uneven experience I've had recently. The highs are so goddamn high you think it's the best game ever, and the lows are such baffling bad design is just confusing how they could be there. Worth playing for sure for FPS fans. For Syndicate fans it basically has nothing to do with the previous games.
alexandros
Banned
That is absolutely fine by me! If the IP falls into obscurity, there is a chance that the original developer will get it back from the publisher and do a proper game with it. See Fargo with Wasteland 2 and Stainless with Carmageddon.
Glass Rebel
Member
I think when you revive a franchise and don't make it in the same genre... at least have some kind of "spinoff" in the vein of the old game. I doubt 2K had gotten much flak for the XCOM fps if they had shown XCOM: Enemy Unknown alongside it.
EA could have gone the same route, call it Syndicate Wars and people would have probably accepted this thing or even welcomed it.
EA could have gone the same route, call it Syndicate Wars and people would have probably accepted this thing or even welcomed it.
That Skrillex song was probably one of the best things about the game.
NinjaBoiX
Member
It's pretty good, just finished it at the weekend. It's inconsistent, visually speaking, indoors looks great, outdoors, not so much. But as a straight shooter, it's decent. Guns feel good, there is a nice light strategic element with breaching and DART, I little timing with breach spikes, and a few choices to make through the campaign. It sounds decent too, but I lost track with the story. Will play again though, as it's nice and short.
For the same reason EA poured 200 million dollars in a WoW clone, I suppose.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Really? It was just a fairly even, consistant game for me. Im curious, what were the highs and lows for you? It was fairly similar the whole way through, I don't really understand these peaks and troughs you speak of.
Vlightray
Member
Definitely, I enjoyed the title alot. The Boss fights actually presented a fun challenge too for me.
B_Rik_Schitthaus
Banned
I can't speak for the highs (even at it's best it was OK) but the lows are the boss battles, on hard they were just frustrating wastes of time, having to pump hundreds of rounds into a human opponent always feels stupid.
michaelius
Banned
Very happy to see it flop.
Publishers need to learn that people don't want shooters based on old IPs just because it had guns in it.
Publishers need to learn that people don't want shooters based on old IPs just because it had guns in it.
Noisepurge
Member
bought it at launch...still haven't finished it lost interest due to lack of variety. They could have done so much more with upgrades and those suicide-skills.
lost interest due to lack of variety. They could have done so much more with upgrades and those suicide-skills.