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.)
