• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony should bring back Syphon Filter to AAA gaming.

But you started a thread for conversation, and I'm being realistic here. The sales aren't there. The fanbase isn't there. The evolution of the franchise leading into something new isn't there.

The problem is you're entire argument requires a person to believe the SF is in a unique position no other restored franchise was ever in, and is uniquely not a series that can be revived.

Nothing you say here hasn't been said before about other games. There would have to be something exclusive to SF that would make it a difficult or near impossible series to remake or reboot, reviving the brand.

Again, what unique problem does SF face that other games that succeeded getting restored didn't?

One of the core parts of your resistance is plot. Which is resolved with a remake or reboot.

It's because the development team itself was tired of the franchise

This isn't accurate.

They at the time years ago when they were asked by Sony for a reboot, didn't have any idea of how they could reboot the franchise.

They instead pitched a new open world Resistance, which was declined.

But you're trying to tie SF to Bend. Sony has had other devs work on franchises not originally from them. That's why I never mentioned Bend in the OP, to keep the possibilities open.

They may not be able to come up with ideas, but maybe another studio could and they could support, or not.

Then there's the alternative option of a remake, which wouldn't need new ideas but they could completely remold the game for modern audiences and fans.

Theres many possibilities to look into.
 

CamHostage

Member
Sony has had other devs work on franchises not originally from them...

Then there's the alternative option of a remake, which wouldn't need new ideas but they could completely remold the game for modern audiences and fans.

Theres many possibilities to look into.

How about we start fresh?

What do YOU see as these possibilities to look into?

  • Why do you think Syphon Filter would be a successful franchise with today's gamers?
  • What modernizations would make Syphon Filter viable again and retain what was great about the series?
  • What could be done to a remake that would retain the gameplay of the original but make it work for today's gamers?
  • What elements of the original/franchise could work 25 years later in a reboot, and what could change without losing Syphon Filter's distinctive appeal?

I've given all my concerns. (I'll summarize them here: outdated/abandoned lock-on system, inscrutable/generic lore, a tough modernization of the core level/AI approach, a sales record of underperformance, a disinterest in the home development team to continue, a dead lead character, a silly Taser weapon that Syphon Filter wouldn't be the same without....) What do you think is still left in this brand that could overcome those obstacles?

And again, I fucking love Syphon Filter! (It was my personal entry point into PS1 after first owning an N64; I've written essays about its innovations and qualities. I know what I'm talking about, and I'm putting up a fight here in part because I've been through and let go of the same dreams for revival that you have here.) I do not want to be the naysayer here. I want to be wrong. So, aside from just throwing more AAA money at it, what can a new Syphon Filter do that would blow my mind and crush my doubts?
 
Last edited:

CamHostage

Member
One of the core parts of your resistance is plot. Which is resolved with a remake or reboot.

Heh, I never cared much about the Syphon Filter plot, other than it set a good mood. (One of the reasons why I don't see remake/reboot make sense is that this is a franchise which nobody remembers what happened in it.)

My core of resistance generally starts with the fact that the name "Syphon Filter" comes from the game's ethnic-cleansing bioweapon. If you leave it in a reboot, what do you do about the problem with the name referring to something you don't want to mention or keep going in sequels? And if you remove the Syphon Filter virus from Syphon Filter, why have it at all be called "Syphon Filter"?

Maybe the answer is just that "Syphon Filter" is an otherwise meaningless term that looks cool on a logo, then sure, whatever I guess.
 
Last edited:

Duchess

Member
My core of resistance generally starts with the fact that the name "Syphon Filter" comes from the game's ethnic-cleansing bioweapon. If you leave it in a reboot, what do you do about the problem with the name referring to something you don't want to mention or keep going in sequels? And if you remove the Syphon Filter virus from Syphon Filter, why have it at all be called "Syphon Filter"?
Well, easy. Sony just makes one game called "Syphon Filter".

And then if they do decide to make a sequel, call it "Syphon Filter Ragnorok".

Simple.
 
How about we start fresh?

What do YOU see as these possibilities to look into?

  • Why do you think Syphon Filter would be a successful franchise with today's gamers?
  • What modernizations would make Syphon Filter viable again and retain what was great about the series?
  • What could be done to a remake that would retain the gameplay of the original but make it work for today's gamers?
  • What elements of the original/franchise could work 25 years later in a reboot, and what could change without losing Syphon Filter's distinctive appeal?

I've given all my concerns. (I'll summarize them here: outdated/abandoned lock-on system, inscrutable/generic lore, a tough modernization of the core level/AI approach, a sales record of underperformance, a disinterest in the home development team to continue, a dead lead character, a silly Taser weapon that Syphon Filter wouldn't be the same without....) What do you think is still left in this brand that could overcome those obstacles?

And again, I fucking love Syphon Filter! (It was my personal entry point into PS1 after first owning an N64; I've written essays about its innovations and qualities. I know what I'm talking about, and I'm putting up a fight here in part because I've been through and let go of the same dreams for revival that you have here.) I don't want to be the naysayer here. So, aside from just throwing more AAA money at it or putting it up as PS's alternative to Perfect Dark, what can a new Syphon Filter do that would convince me it can come back?



Heh, I never cared much about the Syphon Filter plot. (One of the reasons why I don't see remake/reboot make sense is that this is a franchise which nobody remembers what happened in it.)

My core of resistance generally starts with the fact that the name "Syphon Filter" comes from the game's ethnic-cleansing bioweapon. If you leave it in a reboot, what do you do about the problem with the name referring to something you don't want to mention or keep going in sequels? And if you remove the Syphon Filter virus from Syphon Filter, why have it at all be called "Syphon Filter"?

Maybe the answer is just that "Syphon Filter" is an otherwise meaningless term that looks cool on a logo, then sure, whatever I guess.

Every thing you're listing just ignores a remake or reboot, and acts like that's not an option and the series is locked to failure based on previous games.

Except that doesn't make sense when talking about a remake or reboot. Which would be a fresh start.

My core of resistance generally starts with the fact that the name "Syphon Filter" comes from the game's ethnic-cleansing bioweapon. If you leave it in a reboot, what do you do about the problem with the name referring to something you don't want to mention or keep going in sequels?

You keep bringing this up but I don't get why.

There were 4 games involving the virus, and two that were dealing with elements branching from the virus.

A remake would just be remaking the first game, or maybe the first 4 games.

A reboot would make a new series of games tackling the virus in a different way.

If a reboot succeeds it may only have 1 or 2 sequels. A reboot series wouldn't need 5 more games. Endless sequels is something people are trained to expect, but plenty of games don't do that.

A reboot SF doesn't need 5 games reaching the point of "worrying" about how to incorporate the virus.

This is all linked to what appears to be your biggest gripe with a remake or a reboot, the story.

In a reboot the story changes.

In a remake the core of the plot remains the same as changes are made around it to be remade.

The story and name of the game are among the least relevant issues to remaking or rebooting the series tbh.

Remaking and rebooting won't keep the same lock system from 1999 either. It would be changed like other reboots and remakes. Either a new implementation, or a massive improvement. Gabe's not going to have the iconic run either.

Even the taser would be changed.
 

CamHostage

Member
Every thing you're listing just ignores a remake or reboot, and acts like that's not an option and the series is locked to failure based on previous games.

Except that doesn't make sense when talking about a remake or reboot. Which would be a fresh start.

Look, I'm trying to be nice... Please share what you think would make for a good Syphon Filter reboot. Tell us why the idea excites you!

Because ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, or what you disagree with what I think (which I can't tell since you're just hand-waving away all my points by shouting the word "REBOOT" back at me?) None of this matters. It's just talk about a game the two of us are passionate about in different ways. This GAF thread is not going to make a new Syphon Filter magically appear or cancel it from existence, so whatever.
 
Last edited:
Look, I'm trying to be nice... Please share what you think would make for a good Syphon Filter reboot. Tell us why the idea excites you!

Because ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, or what you disagree with what I think (which I can't tell since you're just hand-waving away all my points by shouting the word "REBOOT" back at me?) None of this matters. It's just talk about a game the two of us are passionate about in different ways. This GAF thread is not going to make a new Syphon Filter magically appear or cancel it from existence, so whatever.

All I was trying to do was get you to clarify your concerns and instead of doing so you either repeated the same statements again or slightly changed the topic.

The primarily example of this was me pointing out a reboot or remake would likely resolve your issue of how a reboot or a remake would deal with the title virus for the sequels.

I explained a remake wouldn't actually change the storyline.

I explained how a reboot series didn't have to have a high number of sequels, and could tackle the virus differently than the original games, avoiding that problem.

You've basically repeated the same concern like 4 times but never actually addressed what I said, instead you kept repeating them.

Now you make this sarcastic toned post which doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

If you feel a remake or reboot is not going to avoid the problems you mentioned earlier regarding the game title or the plot, you could explain why which might help me understand you, but you've actively avoided doing so.

Would not a reboot or remake make the fact they killed off Gabe irrelevant?

You've mentioned outdated gameplay mechanics from the old games multiple times as a reason why either would not work as well, but the whole point of a remake or reboot is to improve and modernize the game so it's no longer using outdated mechanics. So why do you still fell it's mechanics would still remain outdated in a remake or reboot?

These are just simple questions based on your concerns. But you don't really back up your concerns and avoid explaining them, so I keep trying to figure out what problem you believe is unable to be fixed.

You claim I'm handwaving your posts but you're really handwaving mine, and when you bring up things like this for example:

Outdated/abandoned lock-on system,

Is this not the very thing a remake or reboot is expected to fix just like it has been done for other series?

If it won't fix it why? Do you expect whoever the hypothetical developer might be to not improve this in a remake or reboot?

Anybody would ask the exact same questions. I understand you think the series is dead and should be abandoned to move on to other things, but it's almost sounding like you want to write everything about it off.
 

Roni

Member
Heh, I never cared much about the Syphon Filter plot, other than it set a good mood. (One of the reasons why I don't see remake/reboot make sense is that this is a franchise which nobody remembers what happened in it.)

My core of resistance generally starts with the fact that the name "Syphon Filter" comes from the game's ethnic-cleansing bioweapon. If you leave it in a reboot, what do you do about the problem with the name referring to something you don't want to mention or keep going in sequels? And if you remove the Syphon Filter virus from Syphon Filter, why have it at all be called "Syphon Filter"?

Maybe the answer is just that "Syphon Filter" is an otherwise meaningless term that looks cool on a logo, then sure, whatever I guess.
I subscribe to that line of thinking as well, syphon filter is a very specific name that pigeon holes the franchise's narrative and doesn't let you go anywhere else... A more generic name would be best.
 

Humdinger

Member
I have fond memories of the Syphon Filter series. It was the first console shooter I ever played, and I loved it.

However, I've seen people asking for a return of Syphon Filter for many years, and it never happens. We just get, "No, we have no plans for that." So, I wouldn't hold out hope. Also, CamHostage made some good points about how many of the things that made the series fun just wouldn't translate well to modern gaming.
 
I'm all for this, and I've said it for years. But now, that MGS isn't what it used to be, Syphon Filter really has a chance to stand out. It's just old IP, resting there...waiting to be put to good use.

And with Sony's quality of 3rd person, narrative driven games, they'll probably knock it out of the park!
 

CamHostage

Member
...You make this sarcastic toned post which doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

If you feel a remake or reboot is not going to avoid the problems you mentioned earlier regarding the game title or the plot, you could explain why which might help me understand you, but you've actively avoided doing so.

I genuinely wanted to try and get this topic back on track and into your hands of just proposing, "Imagine if they made a new Syphon Filter...?" Yes, I did lash out at you in frustration of your responses back at me, but I'd still honestly appreciate it if you to actually take up that challenge of putting what's your imagination down on this thread.

What's in your head that is a new Syphon Filter game? What would this reboot do in the year 202X to make it great? Sell me on it, make me believe...


In the meantime, you asked me to address your answers straight to the subject, so if that's what you still want, we can run this thread into the ground, but hopefully we don't have to do this much more. Here's my clarified analysis of your post point for point...

....a reboot or remake would likely resolve your issue of how a reboot or a remake would deal with the title virus for the sequels.

Not exactly. The general notion of "Reboot" or "Remake" does not provide any tangible resolution to the issue of the game name or the titular virus "Syphon Filter". It just proposes that maybe if they did something different, whatever that is, the problem would go away. But it wouldn't go away. If it's a remake, then it just reintroduces the problem that was already mothballed in canon; you'd have a new game named after this nonsensical term which, if you look up what it means, is grimdark misery. And if it's a reboot (or "reimagining" I think is more what you're proposing, where they totally rewrite everything from top to bottom,) then you're stuck trying to come up with a new reason why the storyline is named "Syphon Filter" when the term is meaningless and the name brand is of low marketing value (though it does look nice on a '90s logo in green...)

Let's imagine, say, this thread spikes interest at Sony and they actually do talk about rebooting/remaking the franchise. So they're into the pitch meeting, and it goes like this:

"So then the villain stands in his fortress, bellowing down on Gabe Logan, "Mwhaa-ha-ha! At last, the Syphon Filter is complete! Now I have the ultimate weapon to selectively kill every Ukranian on the planet..."
"Whoa, Bob, did you say 'Kill every...' "
"Yeah, that's what a Syphon Filter is. It filters out a whole race of people, while others just stand and watch them die, unaffected. Didn't you play the first game?"
"I did, but I guess I forgot that it's name is all about that. They kind of don't mention that part much in the sequels. Couldn't we change it?"
"Oh sure. So maybe instead, the villian bellows down, 'Mwhaa-ha-ha! Now I have the ultimate weapon to kill every Kenyan..."
"No! Not better!"
"But what do you want the 'Syphon Filter' virus to do if it doesn't selectively kill certain types of people?"
"I don't know... maybe it doesn't 'filter' people, so does anybody know what does a 'syphon' does? Or is it 'siphon'? Huh, are we spelling our own game's name wrong?"
"A 'siphon' is a mechanism which forces matter from one point to another and cannot be stopped unless the initial force releases or drains the source, so like siphoning out gas or siphoning off profits.'
"Urk, that word's got ugly connotations too. What if we didn't make a game about a race bomb, and what if we didn't stretch to come up with some other macguffin with that name; what if didn't use the name 'Syphon Filter' at all?"
...And then I burst into the room and shout, "THAT'S WHAT I SAID!"
The only real reason to call it Syphon Filter (unless it's a sequel, or a remake of 1, in which case, problem not solved,) is because they called it that back in '99 when the game first hit and its grim namesake was cool, but its marketing value has dissipated since then. Farty 40-year-olds who remember the old game might line up for a game with that name, but it's two science-y words that mean nothing used together to new kids thinking about buying a new game... which isn't a blocker (what is a 'Ghost Recon' or an 'Apex Legend'?) but it doesn't help and it has not been proven to be such a cool name that millions would buy it after the 2000s.
I explained a remake wouldn't actually change the storyline.

Maybe it should. The Syphon Filter storyline is convoluted and dry. Do you remember any aspect of even the first game? Like, why is Gabe going around shooting bad guys but also he can kill CDC agents willy-nilly without repercussions?

I explained how a reboot series didn't have to have a high number of sequels, and could tackle the virus differently than the original games, avoiding that problem.

A fewer number of sequels in a reboot just means they would spend less time than last time avoiding their choice of a game name. That is, unless they "tackle the virus differently", make it something totally different, but I don't know what that different thing would be from the words 'Syphon' and 'Filter', do you?
Would not a reboot or remake make the fact they killed off Gabe irrelevant?

Sure. If that's the direction they took it instead of a sequel, then yeah, his death was meaningless, they just rebooted him back to life.

What it doesn't make irrelevant is that both the game directors at Bend and the series producers at Sony were burnt out enough on this series that they just let Gabe die. Neither company wants to open this dossier up again. Nobody who has made the six original games has the drive to make more. Maybe some conceptual third-party could come in with brand new enthusiasm and original ideas and take it over, (you don't happen to work at a game design studio, by any chance?) but none has stepped up with a great pitch in the 15 years since the brand stopped.


You've mentioned outdated gameplay mechanics from the old games multiple times as a reason why either would not work as well, but the whole point of a remake or reboot is to improve and modernize the game so it's no longer using outdated mechanics. So why do you still {feel} it's mechanics would still remain outdated in a remake or reboot?

Syphon Filter, to me, is the game that perfected lock-on shooter combat. It's as central to the gameplay as jumping is to Mario or roshambo weapon-matchups are to Mega Man. I almost don't consider the PS2 or PSP games as real Syphon Filter games; they're good Gabe Logan games, but they don't have SF play control.

I wrote a post elsewhere about why Syphon Filter has IMO the greatest gunplay system invented, so please do read that (it's short) to see what my mindset is.

Problem is, dual-analog has made lock-on play unfashionable, maybe irrelevant. Why push a lock-on button when you could just aim with the second stick? Doesn't lock-on take the challenge out of aiming anyway? Syphon Filter has answers to both questions in the strategy of its gunplay, but those answers wouldn't fly once gamers take the controls and go, "Lock-on, WTF, that's so old!" So instead, it would be translated to dual-analog, and the feel would be lost. They did it with the PS2 game already (although it had some residual lock feature to it,) and the shooting was more generic. The PSP game tried to thread the needle, but partly it did so because it only has one analog stick, and ultimately it became a stop-and-pop shooter instead of the unique shooter type that Syphon Filter pioneered. Technically you could transpose some of SF's shooter logic from lock-on to second-stick aim (the narrow accuracy of shooting at different paces, the flick-switch of opponents in a swarm,) but gamers hate that shit in their TPSes. They want it so if they put a reticule over a target, it'll kill that target, and they want total command of that reticule at all time as they run through the environment. So, ok, enjoy other TPSes, but Syphon Filter was unique and fun because of what it did special with its own take on TPS control.


You claim I'm handwaving your posts but you're really handwaving mine, and when you bring up things like this for example:
(Outdated/abandoned lock-on system,)
Is this not the very thing a remake or reboot is expected to fix just like it has been done for other series?

It's not that I think the lock-on is outdated, it's the gamers and producers who have not made a new game built around lock-on gunplay in, what, a decade? Two decades? More? Has any game since PS2 (maybe even since DualShock 1?) used lock-on shooting as its primary combat system?

And it'd not me who abandoned the lock-on system, it was the game makers who invented it in the first place at Eidetic/Bend Studio who phased it out of their own products.

Like I said before, I don't think the lock-on needs fixing. But I also can't see any developer bringing that gameplay back when no other game plays that way anymore.


You've basically repeated the same concern like 4 times but never actually addressed what I said, instead you kept repeating them.

Funny, that's been my impression of all of your responses to me. Don't worry about correcting that though, because at this point though, I don't think I need you to actually respond to any of my points anymore since your response has been just "Fix it in the reboot!", which to me is not a meaningful answer. If you can actually describe the Syphon Filter reboot/remake/reimaging/sequel you have in your head which would somehow hit, then that'd be a tangible something to understand and talk about.

I understand you think the series is dead and should be abandoned to move on to other things, but it's almost sounding like you want to write everything about it off.

I know the series is dead. They stopped making it in 2007, and the makers have said they're done. Could it be resurrected? Maybe, but it's been a long time (four generations of PlayStation ago) since it sold millions of copies, so how would that work? The accumulated lore is too convoluted to ever bother with a sequel, and a remake of the first game would have a hard time actually retaining the core gunplay and simple PS1-era layout/AI that made the original/originals so good, and a reboot could just start all over again but then there's little in the name or the characters that's worth salvaging for a reboot when they could just make a new game with original characters and modernized gameplay without tying it to a franchise only old fucks like me remember. Just better graphics and 'rebooted' gameplay isn't what Syphon Filter needs to come back. It needs to be Syphon Filter to work again, and yet, it can't be.

But it's almost sounding like you assume all the reasons outlined for why SF tapered off in popularity and died out years ago can by solved by just throwing 10s of millions of dollars in a pot because maybe a great new everything-is-wonderful-again Syphon Filter would come out.


Even the Taser would be changed.

...You want to take one of the best parts of Syphon Filter out and just change it to something else? Sacrilege!
 
Last edited:
You still aren't answering anything just making longer posts for the same talking points:

So then the villain stands in his fortress, bellowing down on Gabe Logan, "Mwhaa-ha-ha! At last, the Syphon Filter is complete! Now I have the ultimate weapon to selectively kill every Ukranian on the planet..."
"Whoa, Bob, did you say 'Kill every...' "
"Yeah, that's what a Syphon Filter is. It filters out a whole race of people, while others just stand and watch them die, unaffected. Didn't you play the first game?"
"I did, but I guess I forgot that it's name is all about that. They kind of don't mention that part much in the sequels. Couldn't we change it?"

Again you're doubling down on the same exact concern while completely ignoring what a reboot is.

In a reboot nothing quoted here is a problem. Or a remake of the first couple games. Reboot will just reestablish what the virus is to the audience, and other parts of the story will be changed.

The sequels wouldn't be relevant in either case. But you still act like the reboot is going to be chained to games that would have nothing to do with a reboot. Which goes against how every successful rebooted game has worked.

So the only way you can continue to believe this, is because you think that SF has a unique problem other series in gaming doesn't have, but you have not articulated what that is one time.

the makers have said they're done. Could it be resurrected? Maybe, but it's been a long time (four generations of PlayStation ago) since it sold millions of copies, so how would that work? The accumulated lore is too convoluted to ever bother with a sequel, and a remake of the first game would have a hard time actually retaining the core gunplay and simple PS1-era layout/AI that made the original/originals so good, and a reboot could just start all over again but then there's little in the name or the characters that's worth salvaging for a reboot when they could just make a new game with original characters

You keep saying Sony and Bend were brunt out despite it already being mentioned it's inaccurate. Sony pitched the idea, but the devs didn't know at THAT time what to do with it. Days Gone is also connected to the series, which is the opposite of what you would do if wanted to wipe your hands of the franchise. Those connections were to be explored in the cancelled sequel.

You're basing your belief on ONE bad interview that was already in conflict by other interviews BEFORE, by one person at the studio based on HEARSAY that was never confirmed by the guy they claimed made the statement, then later debunked by the pitch interview referenced that occurred AFTERWARD.

But either way, Sony still could use another dev if they wanted regardless, as they did with other games before. SF isn't a special case.

The other stuff in this quote is a rerun. You bring up lore AGAIN, which has nothing to do with a remake or reboot which would and could address that problem.

You're talking about the game retaining old ui elements from the original games, which goes against the entire point of a remake or reboot.

There's no clarifying anywhere here, you're just adding a higher character count to the same concerns you don't back up before.

You can reduce my position as "just reboot it" if you want, but the real reduction is your argument that "it can't be fixed" that's the problem here.

You claim a reboot would make things "not the same" and yet we have had many game series in or outside of Sonys catalog from other companies, who changed things to the point some fans even complained.

But several of them ended up succeeding and selling well anyway. Despite some fans not being entirely happy with changes made. Same success could potentially happen with SF.

Basically you are applying special rules to SF that no other IP has had to deal with, because you can't think of a reboot without the old mechanics, story, or UI of the original games. Ironically, it seems you being stuck in the past for this series is blocking you from being open to the possibility of the series moving forward. You're stuck on things like the taser, which may or may not still exist In a different form in a reboot, and would for sure in a remake.

Not one complaint you have for SF is new that hasn't happened before with another remake or rebooted ip from any company. Not one thing. Even down to having an odd game title.

So unless you are able to clarify why SF has special rules that make a reboot impractical that other games managed to do, that's specifically holding ONLY SF back from being revived, then there's not much validity to these concerns or questions of how.

Frankly, you entered the thread just to say it should be left to rot and move on, me trying to figure out the cause is perfectly reasonable, but it looks like there wasn't much of a cause in the end.

But it's almost sounding like you assume all the reasons outlined for why SF tapered off in popularity and died out years ago can by solved by just throwing 10s of millions of dollars in a pot because maybe a great new everything-is-wonderful-again Syphon Filter would come out.

Again, nothing here is exclusive to SF.

Except the reason why it dropped in popularity from the first game, which you have coincidentally omitted so you can use a decling sales argument, which hasn't stopped reboots for other series, or remakes before. Why for SF?

Syphon Filter is a series Sony treated as a secondary title without much of a budget. Look at the first 4 SF games and the years they came out, they weren't well marketed compared to other first party software, they were not high production, but the first few still did well despite that because of the game quality. But, without a real budget or tools, you are ending up with several similar playing B-games.

SF1 was already in dev hell and was delayed. It released around the exact right time it needed to as PlayStation interest was at new heights, and there wasn't other major games releasing to take sales from its genre at the time it launched.

If it released any later the first couple games would likely not have been as successful as they were. Timing is eveything, imagine if SF released a year or two earlier? Hypothetically, they may have sold even more.

That's important context for why later games didn't do well.

I wouldn't be surprised if many SF fans who played the first 3 games didn't even know Omega, Dark Mirror, or Logan's Shadow existed.

Only SF1 could be argued to be AAA because of the tech and when it came out. Visually. But otherwise SF has never had real AAA production.

Just better graphics and 'rebooted' gameplay isn't what Syphon Filter needs to come back. It needs to be Syphon Filter to work again, and yet, it can't be.

I've seen this same or similar statement so many times over the years about remakes or reboots for other games, it's almost a meme at this point. The game almost always ends up selling well or amazingly in the end everytime

I'd also like to point out, that Days Gone, which was intended to have a connection to SF, was going to clarify those connections in the sequel. Sadly, despite having sales other companies would murder a Chevy for, Sony rejected the sequel.

But more importantly, key people left the studio due to (reported) ongoing mistreatment internally by Sony leading to the cancellation. Including some of the upper leadership that didn't know where to take the franchise.

While Sony could use another studio, Bend staff who were having vision or risk problems leaving, does help make the studio still a candidate themselves to develop a potential new game, and not long since those departures, the SF series has been brought into the spotlight by Sony.

Never say never.

(PS: The thread title is bringing to question if Sony should bring back the series and I listed my reasoning in the OP you haven't addressed once. Your initial response to the thread in general was basically to say that people should move on and let the series rot, and when I investigated that you were not able to explain why in an articulate manner.

Thread was never about what I would like to see in a hypothetical new game, it's about if whether it's an idea sony should act on and seize the current (frankly wide) open opportunity to fill in a void. Discussing and speculating what they could add or change is good, but that also involves discussion involving people who don't think it's a good idea, which includes you as you entered. Nothing about the thread is "off track" due to this.)
 
I never played these games. They looked like a Metal Gear Solid clone.

Were they actually good games and worth a reboot or is this just a few fans who want an obscure, mediocre cult franchise revived similar to how MediEvil was? There are so many games I would rather see rebooted instead from PS1/PS2.

No, it was good, also entirely different from Metal Gear and they have nothing to do with each other. Including SF actually being full third person which makes the gameplay very different.

But if you don't like pre-Gears tps games, you likely won't like this either. There's more action than stealth compared to Metal Gear Solid. You're going to be running around shooting more than hiding around corners.

I think a reboot would work best here. A remake would feel very dated because a lot of the themes and plot points in those games are so close to our world today, but just dated enough to be noticeable.

Valid point, would probably be better to just modernize the concepts.
 
Last edited:

CamHostage

Member
(PS: The thread title is bringing to question if Sony should bring back the series and I listed my reasoning in the OP you haven't addressed once. Your initial response to the thread in general was basically to say that people should move on and let the series rot, and when I investigated that you were not able to explain why in an articulate manner.

Thread was never about what I would like to see in a hypothetical new game, it's about if whether it's an idea sony should act on and seize the current (frankly wide) open opportunity to fill in a void.

Actually, I liked your initial reasoning for the OP, and I said so from the beginning. You're right, there is no good sci-fi, fast-paced, strategy/exploration game on the market at this moment, and maybe there's an opportunity there... of course, it's hard to assess if that opportunity has demand behind it since, again, there is no good sci-fi, fast-paced, strategy/exploration game on the market at this moment to do the numbers against, but eh, could be cool.

Your point is, that game should be Syphon Filter.​
My point is, that game should not be Syphon Filter (or Extermination or C12 Final Resistance or any other dormant sci-fi action PS brand,) it should be its own original game.​

Two reasons why I make my point. For one, I don't agree with you that Sony needs to respond to Xbox's release of Perfect Dark (whenever that will be...) with a game trying to compete with it. Your competitor rebooting a dormant franchise in a certain genre is not great reason to reboot your own dormant franchise in that certain genre. You need to have your own reasons besides competitive ratio, because the idea of the "XX Killer" where every company needed its own answer to its competitor's genre entries does not have the same power as it did 20-30 years ago. Trying to compete 1-on-1 tends to just make the loser fall off a cliff. Sony doesn't have its own Halo or Sea of Thieves or Starfield, and Xbox doesn't have its own Horizon or Last of Us or God of War, and that works fine for each company. There is cross-over (both have racing franchises, Indy by Bethesda will probably play something like Uncharted, each have multiple zombie franchises,) but all of their products are aligned with their own company goals. They should each make whatever game works for their company.

Second reason is, if Sony gets jazzed up to have a new developer make a fast-paced, strategy/exploration game in the sci-fi genre, they should take that enthusiasm in all the brand new directions that their ideas today lead them to. Don't tie it to the diminishing returns of a 25-year-old franchise which tapered off in sales long ago. Don't limit it to the slight-future technology of your previous semi-realistic spy series. Don't base bankability on 40-year-olds who bought some of the games in a long-running series 15, 20, 25 years ago. Don't try to recapture 1999 when you can forge a new future right now.

If you can give your reasons why you make your point that the sci-fi, fast-paced, strategy/exploration game we both would like to see Sony make should be called and tied to Syphon Filter, I for one would be interested to hear it.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I liked your initial reasoning for the OP, and I said so from the beginning. You're right, there is no good sci-fi, fast-paced, strategy/exploration game on the market at this moment, and maybe there's an opportunity there... of course, it's hard to assess if that opportunity has demand behind it since, again, there is no good sci-fi, fast-paced, strategy/exploration game on the market at this moment to do the numbers against, but eh, could be cool.

Your point is, that game should be Syphon Filter.​
My point is, that game should not be Syphon Filter (or Extermination or C12 Final Resistance or any other dormant sci-fi action PS brand,) it should be its own original game.​

Two reasons why I make my point. For one, I don't agree with you that Sony needs to respond to Xbox's release of Perfect Dark (whenever that will be...) with a game trying to compete with it. Your competitor rebooting a dormant franchise in a certain genre is not great reason to reboot your own dormant franchise in that certain genre. You need to have your own reasons besides competitive ratio, because the idea of the "XX Killer" where every company needed its own answer to its competitor's genre entries does not have the same power as it did 20-30 years ago. Trying to compete 1-on-1 tends to just make the loser fall off a cliff. Sony doesn't have its own Halo or Sea of Thieves or Starfield, and Xbox doesn't have its own Horizon or Last of Us or God of War, and that works fine for each company. There is cross-over (both have racing franchises, Indy by Bethesda will probably play something like Uncharted, each have multiple zombie franchises,) but all of their products are aligned with their own company goals. They should each make whatever game works for their company.

Second reason is, if Sony gets jazzed up to have a new developer make a fast-paced, strategy/exploration game in the sci-fi genre, they should take that enthusiasm in all the brand new directions that their ideas today lead them to. Don't tie it to the diminishing returns of a 25-year-old franchise which tapered off in sales long ago. Don't limit it to the slight-future technology of your previous semi-realistic spy series. Don't base bankability on 40-year-olds who bought some of the games in a long-running series 15, 20, 25 years ago. Don't try to recapture 1999 when you can forge a new future right now.

If you can give your reasons why you make your point that the sci-fi, fast-paced, strategy/exploration game we both would like to see Sony make should be called and tied to Syphon Filter, I for one would be interested to hear it.

Do you think God of War 2018 (which was revamped to compete with other games) should have not chained itself to the God of War brand from the PS2&PSP originals, and instead of changing the character and a lot of what identified the brand, they instead should have made a new ip with new characters instead of forcibly using the Gow of War name, limiting the direction they could take their new ideas and concepts?
 

CamHostage

Member
Do you think God of War 2018 (which was revamped to compete with other games) should have not chained itself to the God of War brand from the PS2&PSP originals, and instead of changing the character and a lot of what identified the brand, they instead should have made a new ip with new characters instead of forcibly using the Gow of War name, limiting the direction they could take their new ideas and concepts?

The God of War franchise moved 21 million copies and never dipped lower than 1mil for any one franchise entry even before the reboot (it went on to move tens of millions more.) So if I'm a game producer, heck yeah I'd look into every avenue possible to keep the God of War chain linked, whether or not I'm investing in new IP. (In SCE Santa Monica's case, they tried to do both, but unfortunately the original title didn't make it to release and instead GoW 2018 was fast-tracked.)

So okay, you want me to play my own game... how would I deal with a possible "reboot" of God of War after the series ended with GoW3/Ascension?

I'd first assess the tenants of the franchise which led to success, which I'd list as: stylish character action with complex combo mechanics, a fantastical world of myth, powerful graphic technology in a manageable design structure, an inspired development team, and an iconic lead character. If there still an open path to new success building on those tenants in a reboot?
maxresdefault.jpg
That last point is a toughie... Kratos was sort of killed off in 3, and the game itself was promoted as this big finale to his saga. So, we can't just keep going as normal. Could go a couple ways. One is, new character, so maybe a "Goddess of War", a female character who was Athena's protégé, similar to Kratos and Ares. That might work, but gamers have already met Athena (and killed her twice, I think?) and she's not really a good root for a spin-off character. Plus we've already slain pretty much every famous Greek god and titan, so not only is the character tough to spin off, but the mythical Greece setting is overall feeling spent. So, let's not do a rehash. How about exploring some of those alternate timelines Kratos saw on the throne at the end of GoW1 (which I think got retconned in GoW2, but it might still work.) In that ending, we saw what looked like the Crusades, the US Civil War, WWII... none of those really has the right feel, we should probably stay in mythological times, so like ancient China, African fables, Nordic folk tales, something like that. And back to the character issue, we'd probably find somebody new in that lore, but sales trends show a dip when a renown character is replaced, (I myself try not to care about the character so long as the game is fun, but we're rebooting to make money here,) so let's not assume too quickly that Kratos won't rise out of his grave somehow.
Stylish character action, that's as popular now as ever, so no need to reinvent the wheel there with a reboot... except, those Blades of Chaos really became too familiar and gamers seem to be tired of spamming the same moves for 6 games now (even though there Ascension and others had weapon trees to try to get away from the chains. So maybe we have to bite the bullet and take out or de-emphasize the Blades. Probably we should identify if there's a weapon in this new setting or with this new chararacter/design which could lead gameplay and combat mechanics in the reboot/followup. Also, we might want to consider this time trying a mode which didn't fit in the main series, something like multiplayer. (PAUSE THE GAME: Ascension was its own attempt at a "side-reboot" with a multiplayer system they would have built on somehow if successful, but of course that didn't go too far and dead-ended. UNPAUSE.)
Powerful graphics technology, that's a specialty of SIE Santa Monica, so I'm sure that'll be handled, especially if we try a new setting. However, the old interconnected-room level system is a holdover from the PS2, even the PS3 games were visibly stitched, so let's use this more powerful console to try and open things up if possible. That might cost more (the linear level design structure kept things manageable,) but we don't have to go open-world, just see about more space to navigate and explore in each given space. And just in general, Santa Monica, let's check in with them to see what they want to do with the franchise. They want to make brand new games, but there's also still a lot of love for God of War even after 3 -- plus we could also call RAD abd see if they might continue it since they did those great PSP games. Stig has his original-title project under a Battlestar Galactica writer's script with that team, but Barlog is interested in coming back and Santa Monica is capable of A/B structure, so let's have Cory look for inspiration with strike teams on other concepts, including future GoW possibilities. (PAUSE that Stig game got canceled and Barlog's GoW ideas became the reboot. UNPAUSE)
21 million copies worldwide is a lot to leave behind if we cannot get find a way to reboot God of War after GoW 3, but then again, our teams at Sony have let successful franchises go to start new franchises, so we'd hate to not start up the next Uncharted or Infamous or Horizon just because Jak or Sly or Killzone sold well in the past. Heck, this team would be making Kinetica 5 by now if Jaffe hadn't pitched God of War in the first place (if we were so lucky to get even one sequel out of Kinetica, which of course, we were not so lucky.) It can go either way, reboot or original IP, but after outlining the foundation and forecast here, GoW proves strong enough to build on this brand if we wanted to keep it going somehow...

Now, obviously I have the benefit of hindsight in how I played this game of "Reboot or Not Reboot", you'd have a tougher time thinking up new ways of reinvigorating or even justifying a new Syphon Filter out of thin air. However, if I was a game producer pre-2018 with 10s of millions of dollars to throw at a new project, that's probably how I'd think about the future of GoW and the Santa Monica team. (In fact, now that Ragnarok is out and that chapter may be over, they're already at the point of asking again what to do with the franchise; considering that the two "reboot GoW" games have themselves moves more than 35 million copies and are taking the franchise total towards 60m, that decision is easier than ever financially, it's just a matter of finding the creative inspiration.) Those are the tenants I'd mark as valuable, and that's how I'd add them up in thinking about the future of a franchise. Maybe even this would be the game I'd imagine:

8SuVxwX.jpg


Your turn...
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
I would like to see that the Bend new IP is a Syphon Filter x Days Gone crossover that reboots Syphon Filter.

Gabe Logan and Deacon co-star the game in a some sort of buddy movie like game.
 
Last edited:

The Stig

Member
also bring back the taser!

apparently bend studios are what became of the studio that made syphon filter.
DAYS-GONE-20230203131039.jpg
DAYS-GONE-20230203131012.jpg
 
Last edited:
The God of War franchise moved 21 million copies and never dipped lower than 1mil for any one franchise entry even before the reboot (it went on to move tens of millions more.) So if I'm a game producer, heck yeah I'd look into every avenue possible to keep the God of War chain linked, whether or not I'm investing in new IP. (In SCE Santa Monica's case, they tried to do both, but unfortunately the original title didn't make it to release and instead GoW 2018 was fast-tracked.)

So okay, you want me to play my own game... how would I deal with a possible "reboot" of God of War after the series ended with GoW3/Ascension?

I'd first assess the tenants of the franchise which led to success, which I'd list as: stylish character action with complex combo mechanics, a fantastical world of myth, powerful graphic technology in a manageable design structure, an inspired development team, and an iconic lead character. If there still an open path to new success building on those tenants in a reboot?
maxresdefault.jpg
That last point is a toughie... Kratos was sort of killed off in 3, and the game itself was promoted as this big finale to his saga. So, we can't just keep going as normal. Could go a couple ways. One is, new character, so maybe a "Goddess of War", a female character who was Athena's protégé, similar to Kratos and Ares. That might work, but gamers have already met Athena (and killed her twice, I think?) and she's not really a good root for a spin-off character. Plus we've already slain pretty much every famous Greek god and titan, so not only is the character tough to spin off, but the mythical Greece setting is overall feeling spent. So, let's not do a rehash. How about exploring some of those alternate timelines Kratos saw on the throne at the end of GoW1 (which I think got retconned in GoW2, but it might still work.) In that ending, we saw what looked like the Crusades, the US Civil War, WWII... none of those really has the right feel, we should probably stay in mythological times, so like ancient China, African fables, Nordic folk tales, something like that. And back to the character issue, we'd probably find somebody new in that lore, but sales trends show a dip when a renown character is replaced, (I myself try not to care about the character so long as the game is fun, but we're rebooting to make money here,) so let's not assume too quickly that Kratos won't rise out of his grave somehow.
Stylish character action, that's as popular now as ever, so no need to reinvent the wheel there with a reboot... except, those Blades of Chaos really became too familiar and gamers seem to be tired of spamming the same moves for 6 games now (even though there Ascension and others had weapon trees to try to get away from the chains. So maybe we have to bite the bullet and take out or de-emphasize the Blades. Probably we should identify if there's a weapon in this new setting or with this new chararacter/design which could lead gameplay and combat mechanics in the reboot/followup. Also, we might want to consider this time trying a mode which didn't fit in the main series, something like multiplayer. (PAUSE THE GAME: Ascension was its own attempt at a "side-reboot" with a multiplayer system they would have built on somehow if successful, but of course that didn't go too far and dead-ended. UNPAUSE.)
Powerful graphics technology, that's a specialty of SIE Santa Monica, so I'm sure that'll be handled, especially if we try a new setting. However, the old interconnected-room level system is a holdover from the PS2, even the PS3 games were visibly stitched, so let's use this more powerful console to try and open things up if possible. That might cost more (the linear level design structure kept things manageable,) but we don't have to go open-world, just see about more space to navigate and explore in each given space. And just in general, Santa Monica, let's check in with them to see what they want to do with the franchise. They want to make brand new games, but there's also still a lot of love for God of War even after 3 -- plus we could also call RAD abd see if they might continue it since they did those great PSP games. Stig has his original-title project under a Battlestar Galactica writer's script with that team, but Barlog is interested in coming back and Santa Monica is capable of A/B structure, so let's have Cory look for inspiration with strike teams on other concepts, including future GoW possibilities. (PAUSE that Stig game got canceled and Barlog's GoW ideas became the reboot. UNPAUSE)
21 million copies worldwide is a lot to leave behind if we cannot get find a way to reboot God of War after GoW 3, but then again, our teams at Sony have let successful franchises go to start new franchises, so we'd hate to not start up the next Uncharted or Infamous or Horizon just because Jak or Sly or Killzone sold well in the past. Heck, this team would be making Kinetica 5 by now if Jaffe hadn't pitched God of War in the first place (if we were so lucky to get even one sequel out of Kinetica, which of course, we were not so lucky.) It can go either way, reboot or original IP, but after outlining the foundation and forecast here, GoW proves strong enough to build on this brand if we wanted to keep it going somehow...

Now, obviously I have the benefit of hindsight in how I played this game of "Reboot or Not Reboot", you'd have a tougher time thinking up new ways of reinvigorating or even justifying a new Syphon Filter out of thin air. However, if I was a game producer pre-2018 with 10s of millions of dollars to throw at a new project, that's probably how I'd think about the future of GoW and the Santa Monica team. (In fact, now that Ragnarok is out and that chapter may be over, they're already at the point of asking again what to do with the franchise; considering that the two "reboot GoW" games have themselves moves more than 35 million copies and are taking the franchise total towards 60m, that decision is easier than ever financially, it's just a matter of finding the creative inspiration.) Those are the tenants I'd mark as valuable, and that's how I'd add them up in thinking about the future of a franchise. Maybe even this would be the game I'd imagine:

8SuVxwX.jpg


Your turn...

Lot of useless text walls to dodge your own argument from earlier.

God of War was a franchise with declining sales before the reboot which fits you're previous excuse, but now you're moving the goal posts to how much the franchise sold total, which is now a new metric added to your argument. But didn't stop other reboots from other series that sold lower regardless.

Any fan of SF could come up with ways for a reboot just like has been done with GoW. Throughout this whole discussion you have never elaborated on "why" SF is a special unique case where you can't do anything with it despite reboots of even niche franchises that have done well. You have never directly answered a single point taking notice in the flaws of your reasoning, and instead try to avoid answering altogether through long posts that still don't explain anything at all.

Your whole argument ironically is "it can't work" "It's the name" "You cant use old mechanics these days" the latter two which are resolved with a reboot, yet you refuse to acknowledge that and instead continue to act like it can't be rectified without explaining why despite that being the entire point of a reboot, for every other revived series by default.

It's clear you have some issue with the series, but it's not a unique game that has unique reasons why even the possibility of a reboot grinds your gears, yet you can't articulate why. Name, plot? None of this is new in the medium, so there's nothing really stopping a potential reboot if the choice was made to do so (an idea Sony has already floated around and bend is a different team then when the idea was originally brought up, but even if not then they have other studios, something Sony has also done before, again nothing new or unique for SF).

If you were able to articulate what is actually new and unique to SF that makes it clear why you're so adamant to let the franchise rot and move on (which is how you entered the thread) this conversation wouldn't have drawn out this much, but you haven't. Instead you do a lot of evading and expect me to take vague statements or broad reasons at face value, the latter of which applies to games outside of SF and nothing stopped those games from rebooting.

You're against rebooting because you see it as a vein attempt to "fix" something, but it's not clear what that is. Because so far you've only listed reasons against rebooting SF that a reboot would not have to deal with by default by being a reboot, or by mentioning problems you personally have issues with, like the plot, title name, and characters, but we've seen reboots that dealt with this with other series. You are not explaining how SF is a specific unique case, which is a problem since that's the core of your entire opposition.

At the start of your rejection you went particularly hard on story and the game title, which doesn't mean much for a reboot by default. It's not about whether a reboot would "fix" these issues, it's that by way of being a reboot those won't matter because there's no sequels dragging down a reboot by default. Therefore all the problems you have with games like Dark Mirror don't even apply.

This is also true for a remake, which would just be a modernized recreation of the first game. No different than Remake on the GC.

If the argument was about a sequel or a time skip with new characters your arguments would make a lot more sense and have more Merritt, but most of your complaints don't mean anything In a reboot. That's why they call it a reboot. It's not tied to anything it's a fresh take on the original idea. It could be a one game thing as well.

Then you have another argument about classic ui and staples like the tazer, but with all the reboots (and remakes) that did well despite fans not liking the changes, that doesn't hold much weight either. You basically want a reboot to still adopt older mechanics from the original games, and using that as an excuse to say that a reboot wouldn't work because you don't see how those old mechanics would work in modern times, again, completely missing the ENTIRE point on what a reboot is.

Then you reduce these valid points toward the flaws In your arguments with (now mod removed) post spam to "reboot fixes everything" when the problem isn't that I think a reboot fixes anything, but the problem is you not bringing forth an argument that actually makes sense, and isn't rectified by a reboot being a reboot by nature.

Much of your argument is about stuff like old mechanics or plot issues from sequels, none of those complaints are relevant in a reboot. There's no substance to such arguments, yet your whole argument hinges on ignoring what the word reboot means, and when that's pointed out instead of bringing forth a real argument or directly addressing points, you instead get antsy and condescending, and act like the other person doesn't get it, but in reality it's a mechanism to help you avoid dealing with valid criticism.

So since it seems you aren't interested in addressing these points or giving a clear reason why you don't think a reboot would work that's a unique reason we haven't seen elsewhere. I believe there's no point in continuing this back and forth.

Good day.
 
I'd agree, but I can see Sony going into acquisition mode if the ABK deal goes through. If that happens, I could see Konami being a target for their IP and if so, they'll own MGS. So there wouldn't be any point. Though I do like Syphon Filter and would like to see it return someday.
 

CamHostage

Member
Any fan of SF could come up with ways for a reboot... Good day.

...Heh, any fan except for one named Henry Panic, apparently.

But hey, since this thread got bumped, any other fans in here who have an idea on how Syphon Filter could be brought back? I've said that I'm kind of stumped on how or why it'd work after all these years, but heck, I'm an old man who grew up on this stuff in the "90s/00s. New gamers might see classic PS1 brands in a different light. Maybe somebody in here has an idea of what would elevate things and be a hit for a modern take on this franchise?

What's your idea of a good remaster or a reimaging or a restart or a reincarnation or a re-conception or a redevelopment or a reintroduction or a redo or a redux for Syphon Filter?

sPYJXue.jpg
 
Last edited:

JusticeForAll

Gold Member
I don't know if it would be a success for them. I have fond memories of Syphon Filter 1 and two (that taser :-D), but I think the games are largely forgotten.
 
Top Bottom