As far as the visuals go, Syndicate Wars may have made for ugly screenshots, but in action, it was damned impressive in a way that the original game couldn't even dream of. A typical level included FUCK-YOU-sized spider tanks shooting huge lasers all over the place until I called in a freakin' mini-nuclear strike that obliterated them (and all builings in a three-block radius) with bodies and now-very-destroyed hovercars flying everywhere from the blast... I mean come on, there was a definite appeal to that sort of thing back in 1995.
Not to mention the freely rotatable camera, and decent reflections and highlights, all done without the aid of a 3D accelerator.
You could argue that Syndicates 1's detailed 2d sprites was better over Syndicate Wars crappy 90's 3d engine any day.
However, this might be a case of ones memory making things better than they were...
I loved both games, but they were too different for them to really bill Syndicate Wars as a sequel. Still, a lot of the effects in Syndicate Wars really sold the game for me. The look and sound of the lasers. The voiceovers. Hell, I even enjoyed the gameplay, though it was definitely simplified from the original. The only exception being the way the only way to pull the camera out enough was to use the sniper rifle, and then the sniper rifle would end up having a range far longer than your field of view.
I remember the original being more challenging, but not in a gratifying way. Some of the final levels of the expansion pack had me wanting to shove my keyboard... THROUGH MY fucking EYE, they were so frustrating. But for some reason I remember thinking they executed the concept of you being an evil CEO using secret agents to conquer the market much better than in the sequel. The sequel went for some kind of "technology vs luddite cultists" thing that struck me as boring and out of place.
Its true that the gameplay was more fast paced than the original, but imo the larger and more complex maps made for much more interesting and involved gameplay. Most of the missions had scripted surprises and twists inside the level itself, and there was MUCH more to actually do in each mission, as compared with the original's maps who - while graphically detailed - didn't have banks you could rob, buildings to break, or as many interesting weapons and devices to find.
But yeah, I was disappointed that the drug use system had been simplified
The 3D, for its time, was superb.
The explosions and wreckability of the landscape was great.
The weapons, overpowered as they may have been, were awesome to utilize against your opponents and gut-wretching terrifying if used against you; what more could be expected from warefare in a sci-fi dystopian future world?
The tactical element was there, although it may have been bit obscured by the fast pace of the action for certain slower players (no offense meant, some like it slower pace), if anything it made the planning and execution of tactics count more as you had to think things through fast and on the fly at times or revise and adapt to the unfolding situation quickly (them Bullfrog devs sure loved dropping surprises in your lap, then again, when does ever a mission goes exactly according to briefing intel. and your plans?).
But yea.. The gameplay itself was pretty linear and not sandbox - to those who expect overly freedom, it would bog the game down.
The agents were quite powerful, but you needed to know how to tinker with their psycho drug and shield settings. With the correct setting in the right environment (and the right armament) a single agent is a rampaging Schwarzenegger.
I like all the little "hidden" bonuses, such as robbing banks or hitting science labs or other super-agents that happen to be nearby (or carry a new awesome weapon) that aren't in the mission briefing at all and you have no knowledge of them or zero motivation to go to where they're at for but are just happen to be found in the area and if you explore a bit you can piggybank on them for quite a bit of an edge leap.
Some of the end-game items are complete failure, such as the stasis field and displacertron, this made me very sad because those are the exact gizmos you expect to give you that winning edge.
I would say they were wronged by a combination of glitches (such as the bug that makes AI npcs shoot at displaced persons, but you couldn't aim at them, so this made it fail both for offense as well as defense purposes) and bad settings (balance is good dear devs, but so is making something actully be effective is equally important).
The jibe people have with SW by and large is that they played Syndicate and expected Syndicate - agreed, this is a major hammer to throw on the head of bullfrog, even though it wasn't titled Syndicate 2 (or as an expansion ala Syndicate: The Syndicate Wars), it was clearly lauded as much as such and banked on the brand name to sell it.
However, barring betrayal of players expectations, as its own game I liked SW very much overall and enjoyed it thoroughly..
I think Satellite Reign will be amazing
Not to mention the freely rotatable camera, and decent reflections and highlights, all done without the aid of a 3D accelerator.
You could argue that Syndicates 1's detailed 2d sprites was better over Syndicate Wars crappy 90's 3d engine any day.
However, this might be a case of ones memory making things better than they were...
I loved both games, but they were too different for them to really bill Syndicate Wars as a sequel. Still, a lot of the effects in Syndicate Wars really sold the game for me. The look and sound of the lasers. The voiceovers. Hell, I even enjoyed the gameplay, though it was definitely simplified from the original. The only exception being the way the only way to pull the camera out enough was to use the sniper rifle, and then the sniper rifle would end up having a range far longer than your field of view.
I remember the original being more challenging, but not in a gratifying way. Some of the final levels of the expansion pack had me wanting to shove my keyboard... THROUGH MY fucking EYE, they were so frustrating. But for some reason I remember thinking they executed the concept of you being an evil CEO using secret agents to conquer the market much better than in the sequel. The sequel went for some kind of "technology vs luddite cultists" thing that struck me as boring and out of place.
Its true that the gameplay was more fast paced than the original, but imo the larger and more complex maps made for much more interesting and involved gameplay. Most of the missions had scripted surprises and twists inside the level itself, and there was MUCH more to actually do in each mission, as compared with the original's maps who - while graphically detailed - didn't have banks you could rob, buildings to break, or as many interesting weapons and devices to find.
But yeah, I was disappointed that the drug use system had been simplified
The 3D, for its time, was superb.
The explosions and wreckability of the landscape was great.
The weapons, overpowered as they may have been, were awesome to utilize against your opponents and gut-wretching terrifying if used against you; what more could be expected from warefare in a sci-fi dystopian future world?
The tactical element was there, although it may have been bit obscured by the fast pace of the action for certain slower players (no offense meant, some like it slower pace), if anything it made the planning and execution of tactics count more as you had to think things through fast and on the fly at times or revise and adapt to the unfolding situation quickly (them Bullfrog devs sure loved dropping surprises in your lap, then again, when does ever a mission goes exactly according to briefing intel. and your plans?).
But yea.. The gameplay itself was pretty linear and not sandbox - to those who expect overly freedom, it would bog the game down.
The agents were quite powerful, but you needed to know how to tinker with their psycho drug and shield settings. With the correct setting in the right environment (and the right armament) a single agent is a rampaging Schwarzenegger.
I like all the little "hidden" bonuses, such as robbing banks or hitting science labs or other super-agents that happen to be nearby (or carry a new awesome weapon) that aren't in the mission briefing at all and you have no knowledge of them or zero motivation to go to where they're at for but are just happen to be found in the area and if you explore a bit you can piggybank on them for quite a bit of an edge leap.
Some of the end-game items are complete failure, such as the stasis field and displacertron, this made me very sad because those are the exact gizmos you expect to give you that winning edge.
I would say they were wronged by a combination of glitches (such as the bug that makes AI npcs shoot at displaced persons, but you couldn't aim at them, so this made it fail both for offense as well as defense purposes) and bad settings (balance is good dear devs, but so is making something actully be effective is equally important).
The jibe people have with SW by and large is that they played Syndicate and expected Syndicate - agreed, this is a major hammer to throw on the head of bullfrog, even though it wasn't titled Syndicate 2 (or as an expansion ala Syndicate: The Syndicate Wars), it was clearly lauded as much as such and banked on the brand name to sell it.
However, barring betrayal of players expectations, as its own game I liked SW very much overall and enjoyed it thoroughly..
I think Satellite Reign will be amazing
I approve this message.
