That sentence doesn't make any sense. How were you limited by the isometric view in controlling your mind-controlled agents wreaking havoc across the cities and installations? Oh yeah, I forgot, how could one ever feel "immersion" before we got first person view. I wonder if people playing text adventures were some kind of mutants with super powers called immagination. But oh my, that is sooo last generation...

--------------------------------------------

But yeah, name recognition means free advertisment. So the big publishers plunder their old IPs to increase their profits. Computer gaming has officially reached Hollywood status now. Big blockbusters made with tons of money for the lowest common denominator. At least, as in film, there's a vibrant indy scene doing other stuff besides the latest fad.

You're being sarcastic, but in this case that is exactly what I'm saying. In a game like syndicate, I'd much rather be standing amongst the ruins of a blown-up building, or in the crowd of people about to be butchered, than seeing it all from above. For syndicate, the top-down was limiting because all these awesome things were happening and all I saw was a few clouds of dust.

Speaking only about the graphics, I consider a fps perspective to be a 100% pure upgrade to the franchise. Now we'll see what they do with the other parts.

To me, Fallout 3 and Vampire: the Masquerade Bloodlines change into First person was a major improvement.  Shadowrun on the other hand was a terrible disappointment.  It can go either way.

Starhawk, the successor to Warhawk, while definitely not city management, looks extremely promising.

In my opinion, Syndicate was more shooter than tactical. That's a big reason why I think going to fps won't hurt one bit.

The metagame in Syndicate was fun but mostly pointless. The best parts were equipping your soldiers and having quite a few missions to choose from - but not quite openworld. But the tactical part of the game, in my opinion, was a pure shooter and very little tactics were needed other than "walk, shoot, repeat". Occasionally something would require you to spread out ever so slightly, and the requirement for actually thinking up a solution was probably less than that I saw in FPS games with map puzzles like Doom.

Edit: Just to be in the clear, we don't know how many strategic options the new Syndicate will have.

Typical EA.

In the good ole days, developers they were perfectly capable of making a strategic and tactical game but with plenty of action and immersive views. Hidden & Dangerous is an example, that game is basically just a WW2 version of Syndicate. You have a squad, they have a selection of gear which you can specify, it's played in a large area and you can move your squad together or split them up and make chokepoints etc, and you have an objective you have to accomplish. Replace their Springfield rifles with Gauss Guns, the trucks with hover cars, and the countryside with a Blade Runner setting and you basically have a modern remake of Syndicate with first person (and third person) views.

If it was still the 90's, I would have high hopes for something like that. But that just wont happen now. Gaming is a different animal now. They are insistent that the average modern gamer is a drooling idiot moron, and although mostly true, they sure aren't going to take it upon themselves to try to improve matters. They are happy to just exploit this situation which suits them perfectly. The Baldur's Gate era of games were deep and complex and expensive and difficult and time consuming to make, so they are glad that they don't need to make complex games like that anymore. You can replace all that with blood boobs 'n bullets and it will popular.

The modern remake will just butcher the game and take only the name and a few bits like the setting and weapon names etc. It will just be Call of Syndicate. A sterile looking city and you have a professor in a building somewhere, and your squad just runs to the building and clicks FOLLOW ME! on him, and then you rush back to the LZ while enemy syndicates attack you and you unload your weapons of mass destruction at them. Like Call of Duty but weapons that can cause gigantic explosions and destruction. The locations will all be smaller than even recent games like Stalker, the AI will be dumber than even recent games (like Stalker), and there will be no ambushes or deception or cleverness to it. It will be just in and out, guns blazing, with flashy graphics huge explosions and lots of blood. Modern gamers will think it's the most Oooorsum thing they have ever seen.

I think i would buy the sim city fps... that part of me that likes lame jokes would force me to play it even it if was very painful.

They're doing to this game exactly what's been done to X-com. Trying to rewrite it and dry-humping the memory of the old one for as much coverage as they can get.

Syndicate, at its core, was a tactical RTS. It may be have been a poor one, but that's what the foundation of the game and I suspect the setting was built on.

Feeding us another futuristic FPS with a brand logo doesn't endear me to the project at all. At least Deus Ex was remotely close to its origins, the new fad is to strip 90% of the original game out, keeping the barest essentials of the setting and the name, and replacing everything else.

I'm not that bitter though. I saw this coming when I heard the rumors. I only mourn the fact that we won't get to know what the real Syndicate, updated and rethought for 2012, would be like.

Even the premise, from the being the controlling hand of the Syndicate to now being one of their schloobs so they can weave an "epic tale of something because Mass Effect and Deus Ex seem to do well with it."

Bleh. No thanks. I can wait for whatever this will be, to end up as a $10 title over Christmas one day.

I reckon Arma 3 is going to make 99.9999% of other FPS's obsolete anyway. Some RTS's too.

Is Syndicate that old old old top down super-vga game from like the mid-late 90s?

Is this going to be a sequel to Syndicate or Syndicate wars? (I only played wars)