I am thinking on writing a game that would highly resemble syndicate / syndicate wars. What did you miss most, or what would you like to see if there would be a sequel? Or let me put it this way, what made the syndicate games great? I for one *hated* the fact that your weapons would reload themselves with energy, it was more fun to check a body for weapons after a gunfight!

syndicate:

what i liked: The equipment and agent modification part.. trés cool. Shall we buy the heart or the lungs? Then there were the remorseless gunfights, totally ignoring civillian casualties... there´s nothing like opening up with four smgs at the hostile agents in a crowded shopping mall... it had some of the appeal which GTA3 has.
And it had cool graphics. And a cool intro.

The level design wasn´t always ideal, a more persistant playing field would have been great too. The weapons recharging was not too realistic, but it would have hindered the gameflow if you´d have to check for ammo every time.

I don´t know that much about syndicate wars, i played it for a few minutes and instantly disliked it. The graphics didn´t really fit anymore, the viewport showed to little of the town to be useful...

Well the best thing about the syndicate series is the blade runner type environment and feel to the game. And also that you can interact with almost everything on a good decent sized map like robbing a bank, level a whole block of buildings, and persuade other people to take up arms for you. However, the weapons, bio/cybernatic enchancements, and r&r could all definately use a much better design and system.

Just think of this, a Deus Ex type of game that incorperate a team of say 4 agents. But it would concentrate more on team tactics rather than solo sneaking/sniping things.

quote: Original post by Hase
... about syndicate wars ... the viewport showed too little of the town to be useful.

I agree whole heartedly with this comment. I have often considered the possibility of making such a game, but never come true. I think that actual weapon customization would be cool. Look at: Weapon Customization Method for my ideas (I'm not sure it's available yet, I'm still readying the site). This goes hand in hand with the ability to customize the agents with cybernetics. Add to this the research methods used in XCOM (much better than those in syndicate).

More thoughts...

Vehicles: I very much enjoyed to freedom offered by the flying cars in SWARS , I would like to see more of the same. My thought for ground-cars was that when giving a target location, a simple left-click would travel on roads to the nearest road edge, a ctrl+left-click would travel off roads along the shortest path to the exact location specified. Also, vehicle with on-board weapon systems would be preferable to using agent weapons 'out the window'.

Ammunition: Important, I did like looting corpses for weapons in the first game. Different types of ammo should exist for some weapons (there are some fifty different types of grenades that can be loaded into an M60 grenade launcher). This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that for some weapons, you're only buying the ammo, e.g. Missile Launchers.

Unit specialization: Agents should be able to specialize, such that a Weapons Specialist gets a 5% bonus to damage and accuracy, a Tactical Espionage Expert can disguise him/herself at will, and pass through security systems if given a chance to loot a corpse that has clearance to do so.

Other examples may be: Vehicle Specialist, Medic, Hacker* (see Cyberspace ), Demolition Expert.

Going inside: A major disappointment for me in SWARS was discovering that Bullfrog did not listen to my e-mail about fighting inside buildings. It may add a tremendous level of interest to have to sneak around a building Metal-Gear style.

Fog of War???: I understand that according to game terms (in syndicate), you're watching the city from an airship and that ship is equipped with a host of scanning equipment, but it may add something to gameplay if you can only see what your agents see. I do not condone the limited sight range, but I like the idea of exploring a city to find out what's around. This may still be unfeasible using today's technology though.

Cyberspace: Getting far-fetched here : your agents should be able to log into computer terminals to find out information. A general public Info-Booth on the street may give a comprehensive street map. Or a guarded terminal inside a corporate sky-scraper may contain special weapon technology. What's more, an agent who can hack computers, should be able to log onto other computers in a level, given a super-imposed map of terminals available.

Psionics (I'm not a supporter of this department, but it seems to be popular these days): A Psionic agent should reveal the moods of people around him/her, what's more, an enemy espionage unit should be detectable, unless a shielding method is used. Psionic attacks should have at least these three types:
Mind Blow - Target is stunned and unable to perform any action, high chance of success.
Berserk - Target goes berserk, will attempt to kill anything in sight. Within reason, the target will eventually collapse, and when (s)he returns to consciousness (s)he will no longer be berserk. Medium chance of success.
Mind Control - Agent must remain stationary, but the target can be controlled as if it were the agent itself. Low chance of success.

Experience: My final suggestion is that agents abilities are also affected by their in-the-field experience, not just their cybernetics and specializations. I suggest that numbers should be kept low however, 3 XP per mission completed successfully, 1 XP per enemy killed. XP may be spent on improving general combat skills, and on a specialization of choice.

As you may guess I'd be interested in working on such a project. e-mail me if you would like more information about my ideas.

Sorry about the long post.

Edit: Link error

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

Edited by - Symphonic on December 26, 2001 4:57:54 AM

Hase summed up my experience,

"I don´t know that much about syndicate wars, i played
it for a few minutes and instantly disliked it."

Create.
Liv Tyler makes a really great elf.

I, for one, was a fan of SWARS, could you please explain to me the basis of your position? By this I mean, what exactly was it that you did not like about the game?

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

I`ve not played S/Wars, but in syndicate the thing I most wanted was some form of formation control. I wanted the team to stay in the formation they were in when I "grouped" them so I could spread them out a bit.

Okay, I''m coming to the rescue! It appears that some of you didn''t play both games.

Fist, the weapon recharge issue, if I remember correctly, was with Syndicate Wars, not Syndicate. Otherwise, I remember loading some agents on later missions with a lot of laser wepons. Why would I do that if the weapon recharged itself? I don''t remember if shields recharged themselves, though.

The view in Syndicate was better than SW(farther from the screen).

In both games, fighting inside buildings was a pain(in SW you could blow them up, so it was less of a problem).

The missile launchers in Syndicate left big flames at the point of impact. I remember once firing a rocket and missing, hitting a corner. While the fire was still burning, enemy agents walked by, toasting themselves. They were faster, thus a lot more fun And you had a limited amount of rockets, and they were far more powerful.

The flying cars in SW were very cool.

Persuadertron totally rocks in Syndicate

It was pretty easy to blow yourself while firing inside a car in Syndicate. Too easy for my taste.

Self-destruction in both games was cool.


I wish eye upgrades would give more information about enemy agents(something like Terminator). Range, equipped weapon(if any) and so on.

Air strikes in Syndicate: American Revolt were far too powerful(and expensive).

Sattelite Rain in SW was very cool, and impressive!

The sounds in SW were cool, and the voices, even that "A new mail is awaiting your attention".


I really think we should be able to fight inside buildings. Those assassination missions would have been far more interesting

Gaiomard Dragon
-===(UDIC)===-

Dang, I never got a chance to play either game. Where could I pick up a copy of either one? Anyways I have Shadowrun which sounds similar in a few aspects.

I''m sorry to say that the link I gave previously is not going to be ready for a long time. But when it is, it will probably be under SPForge.com, I''ll let you all know.

More to the point, what I want to get into this discussion is the actual interface mechanics. I know we all loved the little laser projector that drew stuff on your screen, but that''s not what I''m talking about.

Pertaining to the actual in-game nitty-gritty, what did people like and dislike.

I for one, considered the left-click=move right-click=shoot system to be an elegant and simple way to control things, but I often thought that it would be nice to have a little bit more control over my agents. For example, I often thought that beyond using the number keys from 1 to 4 to choose agents, nearby keys (q, w, e, r) should be useable to control things like agent attitude, or perhaps selection and deselection into and out of groups.

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!