New Syndicate details

[TheChosen]

First, I'd like to ask all those who didn't like the direction new X-Com is going to go read something else, because you wont be pleased about this one.

http://www.destructoid.com/details-on-starbreeze-s-syndicate-leak-have-some-screens-211096.phtml

And remember

Truth be told, my first reaction to all of this was a "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" in the voice of a dozen movie characters. But after sleeping on it and going through it piece by piece, it actually sounds like it could be a neat game. Sure, you don't click your squad around anymore, but everything else still has the potential for a revamped approach that takes the old game to the current era.

Starbreeze doesn't mess around with PG-13 violence to appease the masses either -- Riddick and The Darkness were unapologetically violent and dark games. Whether or not we'll be able to Persuadertron 30 innocent civilians to pick up an arsenal of weapons, use them to shoot down police officers who are just trying to feed their families, tell them to stand outside a church or bank, and then blow up the building with suitcase nukes as glass and debris flies everywhere, we'll have to see.

Sadly such a scenario would not be very politically correct in this day and age, even though it was fine 18 years ago. We have to think of the children who are not allowed to buy M-rated games, after all. If Starbreeze can pull off translating the dark behavior that the original games' mechanics elicited, while trading the top-down perspective for a first-person one with 4-player online co-op, I'm willing to give it a try -- even if it's not exactly the same as the games I grew up with.

It looks a bit like the new Deus Ex. Not necessarily bad thing, taking cues from the latest hit game. Funnily enough, I just read a post recently where this one guy said that Deus Ex and Syndicate could belong in the same timeline, along with Metal Gear Solid games.

[Eagle of Fire]

I don't see the fuss. Syndicate is one of the few title on which it make perfect sense to turn into a FPS since the original game was pretty much the same.

You would really need to explain me the part about X-com though. I really don't get it.

[jonh_sabugs]

Dunno, I feel both these games (and some of their sequels) were great for specific reasons, their own format being one of them. Really, I can't see what bringing Syndicate into a FPS would contribute to this genre of gaming which, frankly, has tons of exemplars. There's already enough space to try all sorts of innovative gameplay anyway. In the end, I think it's all about what have been said so many times: plugging a famous franchise in a random FPS to draw attention to it. So sad (and so many franchises destroyed this way).

[TotalAnarchy]

Well it's sci-fi and from Starbreeze, which is already great in my books. I must agree with the above poster though. I don't think the strategy genre has reached its zenith - I believe there is still much to be done with it.

In any case, if we leave the genre discussion aside, the new Syndicate looks like my kind of sci-fi. I'm looking forward to it.

[The Fifth Horseman]

I think they're completely missing the point here. There was something very fitting about the Agents in the first two games being faceless and all but nameless tools of the corporations. take that out and it doesn't really feel like Syndicate anymore.

[Eagle of Fire]

Well, maybe I'm missing the point too because what I remember from Syndicate is an action game in which you had to do research and cyborize your agents to win. The fact that they were faceless never even appeared in my mind.

In fact, as far as I am concerned they were not faceless... They were M. Everybody you can meet on the street, brainwashed to work for you and do your evil deeds. That's what I believed was the appeal of the game in any case.

Me? I only played it for the strategy part of the game. Which was pretty much only in the research... And there was very little of it. The action part of the game always been very frustrating for me since there was no way to efficiently control 4 agents at the same time, so I simply kept my agents bunched together and used brute force in every level in which there was no need for a very specific different approach.

[The Fifth Horseman]

The point is that this "sequel" is giving the player a lot of reasons to identify with the central character. Having a named protagonist with some apparent backstory, the first-person perspective, and the cliche of the character being a prototype (read: unique goddamn snowflake).

Now let's remember what was there in the original: These are your agents. They have no individuality. No faces. Their single, non-meaningful "names" (or just designates given by the corp?) are the only way you can tell them apart. There's nothing for you to form an attachment over. They're a means to an end.

[RRS]

I hate that everything has to be FPS these days. Despite being FPS fan since Wolfenstein3D (when I managed to run Doom on my PC for the first time I even did that "hyperactive American teen" thing).

Syndicate was isometric tactical action. Why can't we have games like this today? I'm not following the news, so please point me to titles which play just as Jagged Alliance or X-Com, but use modern graphics. It is possible. Have you seen the demo for real Fallout 3 (I mean Van Buren) ? It perfectly blended 3D environment and rotating isometric camera view.
Isometric doesn't mean the game had to be backwarded technically. If you've added destroyable level geometry (think "Red Faction") and good particle effects it would look great on screenies and sell well too.

...unless they all want to brainwash us into console crowd?

[RRS]

Now let's remember what was there in the original: These are your agents. They have no individuality. No faces. Their single, non-meaningful "names" (or just designates given by the corp?) are the only way you can tell them apart. There's nothing for you to form an attachment over. They're a means to an end.
...and remember those sliders next to them? Yup, they were constantly on drugs.

Let's count, guys: somebody gets kidnapped, gets control chip in a head, runs on psychoactive drugs, his augumented body is a killing machine commanded from the blimp you sit in... They were expendable cyborgs, no longer human individuals.

[Eagle of Fire]

so please point me to titles which play just as Jagged Alliance or X-Com, but use modern graphics.
Well, the first title is Ufo: Aftermath. It was supposed to be the spiritual successor of Xcom but failed more than miserably. I didn't bother trying the other games of that franchise.

I think many titles tried to revive the Xcom genre but failed mainly because they bumped their heads too hard at several things. One of those things is limit the recruitment pool. That got to be the highest problem, since limiting the recruitment pool make it so you either have to make things way too easy so your soldiers survive (you can do very little with no soldiers...), or make it too high and have the soldiers die anyways but without a way to replace them. That's also the biggest problem in UFO: Aftermath... You simply cannot afford to lose a single soldier because they level up and once you face advanced enemies you can't simply send fresh recruits and expect them to do the same job than your dead veteran.

Another big problem is trying to add things like realistic gravity simulators, mainly for when you need to throw grenades around or jump down a few levels with a squaddie. in Xcom it was simply: simply target a square and the game tell you if you can do it. And if you can't, you can simply hold the grenade indefinitely until you finally throw it, like a real life grenade. That's simple, and that's the way it should be. I've seen demos of games which tried to be yet another Xcom successor with stupidly complicated grenade throwing patterns. In short, you throw something and it bounce off anything... And you don't have an unlimited guess shadow to help you out. You can guess how "fun" it gets when you need to throw a grenade several stories down for a critical life or death shot...

And of course, there is also the obvious problem of graphics don't make a game. Some genre don't benefit much from modern graphics, if at all. An isometric game which rely heavily on strategy only need a display which is efficient, not jaw dropping. Adding modern graphics would simply not make a game as far as the strategy genre is concerned, and that alone put off a lot of gamers which simply can't play something without jaw dropping graphics...

[Fuzzyfireball]

Why does EVERYTHING have to be an FPS now?

[hunvagy]

Because games played in the first person perspective are marketable. By the way, seeing all these ranting, by your logic, the Thief games are FPSes too? All we saw is that it is developed by a company whose two games were shooters, and that the premise is akin to Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Which by the way is an awesome game. Yes, it is not a tactical shooter shown from birds eye view, but who knows, they might deliver. Make it gritty, make it feel like Syndicate. It's not like other games didn't have spinoffs, especially X-Com, which is what everyone is whining about. It had a space sim, a 3rd person action game, and a scrapped FPS. It's not fair to condemn a project just because it's not like "that other game bearing the same name 18 years ago". The gaming industry is not like it was during the 90ies, and things changed. Let's just sit tight and see what they whip up, there will be enough time to throw around blame and turd when it comes out and bombs.

[DarthHelmet86]

^ That and then that again.

[Eagle of Fire]

By the way, seeing all these ranting, by your logic, the Thief games are FPSes too?
I played the first Thief game. Yes, it is a FPS. A FPS don't actually require guns to make it a FPS. Rune was a FPS too, a damn good one too!

It's not fair to condemn a project just because it's not like "that other game bearing the same name 18 years ago".
I'm sorry, but that's exactly why I'm so disgruntled by so many "modern" games. When I play a game (let's say the first one in the serie) and I see a second installment of that game, I expect the same gameplay. Otherwise why name it by the same name? The answer is obvious: because it would sell well by surfing the wave of the success of the first game.

That's easily in the top 3 of the things which annoy me the most in modern gaming. And that's also why I think it is exactly why it is a good reason to condemn new games in development.

As it was said above: why does every new game have to be a FPS these days? Or, if you take that question in another way: why do they have to destroy so many franchise by turning them into an FPS?

I still maintain what I said though: I think the Syndicate franchise would actually fit well in a FPS. Which is usually not the case for most franchise. In the end if all depends of the gameplay of the original game. But then again that's exactly what is lacking and the most overlooked in modern FPS gaming too. :rolleyes:

[jonh_sabugs]

It's not like other games didn't have spinoffs, especially X-Com, which is what everyone is whining about. It had a space sim, a 3rd person action game, and a scrapped FPS.

It's not like they lived up to their prequels either. Yes, I agree they could actually pull out something good with syndicate in a FPS, it's just that recent experience with other franchises haven't provided any ground for such optimism. All in all, I still feel what I have said earlier, they are trying to use the famous name of the older games to promote even another generic FPS. One evidence is the fact that they could always come up with something original instead, that would fit neatly into the genre and revitalize it.

[TheChosen]

So which old franchises have been ruined by being turned into FPS's?

[jonh_sabugs]

I would say X-Com, Fallout, Metroid and others I don't remember right now. Of couse, this is my opinion, what I consider ruined could be great news for other people. It seems to be a trend also, I think we will see more FPS reboots in the future.

Of course it could me much worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv73Bj5CLsA&feature=player_embedded#!

[TheChosen]

Are you kidding me? X-Com isn't even out yet, the 3D Metroids turned out to be fantastic (and popular enough to get all 3 games re-released in one disc, and its not even a pure FPS!) and as a long time Fallout fan, I loved Fallout 3! (And even that game wasn't a pure FPS!) Heck, Tim Cain loved it too.

C'mon. Where is this trend of "Taking old franchises and turning them into FPS's"?

[jonh_sabugs]

Fine, like I said, your opinion differs from mine, which is no big deal. I found all of these games hideous. About X-Com, I had Alliance in mind.

X-Com has a new FPS coming soon, now Syndicate, sounds like a trend for me. And with the success FPSs have been enjoying in the market, I see no reason to believe this won't become a norm.

[Eagle of Fire]

Xcom already had a space fighter game which got out and failed spectacularly in all aspects, and the Xcom FPS is planned and in development since what? 10 years at the very least? Maybe even 15? I remember reading about it in very old PC magazines.

It is just as bad a joke than Duke Nukem Forever in fact. Except that nobody cared about the Xcom FPS because nobody were interested back then. And I really wonder if anybody still care today. Maybe they'll even get a better start since nobody remember Xcom at all.

[The Fifth Horseman]

Xcom already had a space fighter game which got out and failed spectacularly in all aspects, and the Xcom FPS is planned and in development since what? 10 years at the very least? Maybe even 15? I remember reading about it in very old PC magazines.
You're thinking about Alliance. That one's dead, buried and exorcised. :no:
The "new" XCOM game doesn't have any direct connection with Alliance.
the 3D Metroids turned out to be fantastic Yes, but fundamentally they simply transplanted the original gameplay model into a 3D environment without major mucking around. Not a particularly radical change if you think of it. What you're thinking of is They Changed It, Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks). What's getting people riled up here is that this is Syndicate In Name Only (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InNameOnly), appearing to be effectively Deus Ex with Serial Numbers Filed Off (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SerialNumbersFiledOff).

[Panthro]

No! Not TV Tropes! Must not click...

[Eagle of Fire]

You're thinking about Alliance. That one's dead, buried and exorcised.
The "new" XCOM game doesn't have any direct connection with Alliance.
I know that very well. But there cannot be a difference from one or the other in my mind. I don't see why there should even be one.

FPS games are not the kind of games which have much difference in their gameplay. It didn't really evolve much if at all since Doom. Okay, you can strafe now and you can use your mouse to aim. And except that? You still see your gun in your hands in front of you, you aim, you shoot, you kill. That's a generic FPS for ya.

I guess the same can be said from most genres, but no other genres have been nailed as often than FPSes.

If and when that Xcom FPS get out I'll expect exactly what I saw in that magazine over 10 years ago. Because that's what it will be anyways.

[hunvagy]

What Fifth mentioned is more likely a throw off then the "get off my lawn" approach. I know we love the old games, and I wasn't very happy about X-Com, Ultima, Wing Commander and now Syndicate, the IPs that the publisher after a decade of a hiatus just gets out of its portfolio and applies it ot the XXI. century. Yet my main problem with the new Syndicate is that the timing is too convenient. It has been outsourced as Project Redlime for years now, but I think EA management didn't know whether creating a cyberpunk shooter was feasible in this day and age. (And lets face it, Shadowrun was a disaster). So when Eidos Montréal dropped Human Revolution on us, and it got a positive feedback, tons of sold copies, they probably green lighted the project for good.

As I said before, the market has changed. No one save indie developers will invest in a genre that is no surefire hit. Companies aren't run by the creators of the games, but by business man, and they will have profit in sight, not the game itself. I'm not even trying to deny that. So the new Syndicate will be a FPP game. Yes, it'll have guns (actually, would be kinda awkward to see the all powerful cyborg beating Rentacops with a trash can lid). And yes, FPP games don't really evolve outside their comfort zones, aside from a few interesting sidebranches, like Zeno Clash. That doesn't mean it can't be a good game though. None of us is required to like the new game, none of us is required to even acknowledge it's existence. A handful of gamers hung up on old games aren't the target audience that can decide whether this game is made or not. All I'm saying is that dismissing it just because it's an FPS is faulty logic. As for the argument that the fps iterations have driven the franchises into the ground.. Microprose certainly didn't go bankrupt over X-Com Interceptor. They were bought up. And Interplay's (and the Fallout IPs) demise had nothing to do with Fallout 3. I even dare say that Fallout as a franchise survived into 2011 because of Bethesda giving it a facelift. It is now accessible to the "console kiddies" as well, and though our opinions differ, it is a good game. I salute Beth for including the V.A.T.S, which was a bold move. And I love it, I rarely play it as a glorified Doom.

[DarthHelmet86]

^What Hun said...again. Are you reading my mind Hun?

[yoga]

What Fifth mentioned is more likely a throw off then the "get off my lawn" approach. I know we love the old games, and I wasn't very happy about X-Com, Ultima, Wing Commander and now Syndicate, the IPs that the publisher after a decade of a hiatus just gets out of its portfolio and applies it ot the XXI. century. Yet my main problem with the new Syndicate is that the timing is too convenient. It has been outsourced as Project Redlime for years now, but I think EA management didn't know whether creating a cyberpunk shooter was feasible in this day and age. (And lets face it, Shadowrun was a disaster). So when Eidos Montréal dropped Human Revolution on us, and it got a positive feedback, tons of sold copies, they probably green lighted the project for good.

As I said before, the market has changed. No one save indie developers will invest in a genre that is no surefire hit. Companies aren't run by the creators of the games, but by business man, and they will have profit in sight, not the game itself. I'm not even trying to deny that. So the new Syndicate will be a FPP game. Yes, it'll have guns (actually, would be kinda awkward to see the all powerful cyborg beating Rentacops with a trash can lid). And yes, FPP games don't really evolve outside their comfort zones, aside from a few interesting sidebranches, like Zeno Clash. That doesn't mean it can't be a good game though. None of us is required to like the new game, none of us is required to even acknowledge it's existence. A handful of gamers hung up on old games aren't the target audience that can decide whether this game is made or not. All I'm saying is that dismissing it just because it's an FPS is faulty logic. As for the argument that the fps iterations have driven the franchises into the ground.. Microprose certainly didn't go bankrupt over X-Com Interceptor. They were bought up. And Interplay's (and the Fallout IPs) demise had nothing to do with Fallout 3. I even dare say that Fallout as a franchise survived into 2011 because of Bethesda giving it a facelift. It is now accessible to the "console kiddies" as well, and though our opinions differ, it is a good game. I salute Beth for including the V.A.T.S, which was a bold move. And I love it, I rarely play it as a glorified Doom.

:hihihi:
.powerful cyborg beating Rentacops with a trash can lid).

Ha ha ha

Perfect analysis and humor as usually.

I like yr posts, Hunvagy..

:3:

[TotalAnarchy]

Actually Starbreeze is one of the developers that went experimental with the FPS genre. Their debut game Enclave, is also a weird one.

[RRS]

It's not fair to condemn a project just because it's not like "that other game bearing the same name 18 years ago".
It's not fair either to ride on the old franchise name and stick it to some modern crap, fooling people - us, clients - to buy it "for the old times sake".
The whole thing about brand loyalty seen from the client standpoint is that we expect products of constant quality and good post-purchase service. That's why we're willing to pay more for products of a given brand, because we expect them to meet our standards as it was before. If we feel cheated (be it "Duke Nukem Forever is meh" or "George Lucas raped my childhood"), we no longer trust that brand, period.

It you say these are decent products, why can't they defend on their own, without the need of well established brand? Oh, but they're too scared to come up with something new... My claim is that they'd be unable to sell well some of the mediocre products if they weren't labelled with popular brand name.

It's not just about games. Think "Star Wars". If the new trilogy was just a series of new sci-fi movies, I'd say they're watchable, at least once. In few spots the special f/x were decent.
It is only because they're supposed to be in line with the old "Star Wars" why many people (like me) whine about.

[Eagle of Fire]

That's interesting to see that Eidos Montréal is actually branded as such.

Even more interesting is the fact that I live 30 minutes away from Montréal and I never heard of "Human Revolution" up to now...

[DarthHelmet86]

If a brand name tricks you into buying a game without looking at it first or finding out what they have done with it I think the fault lies with you. DN:F was a lot of fun for me I had a great time playing it compared to some of the older console versions I think it is a much better Duke Nukem then them.

And to be fair they might just be slapping the name on it to get some nostalgia reactions from some fans and hope they will buy into it. Or they might actually be out to expand upon a game series they loved, I can't tell I don't know the people. Not everyone thinks that every game with the same brand name needs to be the same game in the same format over and over.

But this is all a matter of opinion no one is right or wrong and no one is going to flip sides over a clever post on a forum. Gamers have become an Unpleasable Fanbase (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnpleasableFanbase) nothing a game maker can ever do will satisfy everyone. You are free to hate this game, rage about it, call it names and pick out every fault but I am going to be over here playing some games and having a good time.

[RRS]

You are free to hate this game, rage about it, call it names and pick out every fault but I am going to be over here playing some games and having a good time.
I find more and more reactions like this all over the internet. Makes me wonder how critics were able to find jobs all these years. When I read a movie or stage play review there's usually plenty of bitching involved. And here I am, with so many people saying "STFU, it's OK, leave Britney alone!".

No wonder creators are too lazy to aim for quality, if there are masses of slaphappy, easy-to-please people who buy everything that's fed to them, and anyone caught at pointing faults would be named unhappy fanboi.

Now I realized that this stage play reviewer, a journalist, writer and poet, was just a crazed fanboi, because that's who you are if you dare to complain.

[DarthHelmet86]

pWdd6_ZxX8c

Never told you not to complain in fact I told you could. I just said that I was going to be over here having a good time playing some games. If you knew me you would know that I too whine and point out faults in games, I just wait for them to come out first and for me to play them.

So once again say whatever you like about this game I will be over here having a good time playing some games.

[hunvagy]

It's not fair either to ride on the old franchise name and stick it to some modern crap, fooling people - us, clients - to buy it "for the old times sake".

They don't want you to buy it. There will be plenty others who do, and not because it's Syndicate from 1993 turned into a shooter. There will be a lot of pissed people, and a lot of people who are okay with the game, as always. In the end, EA makes money and that means they will put out more titles. Also if a company owns 50-60 IPs in the backlog, why take the risk of making a new one? This is not the same landscape when there were 4 rivals who you had to beat and you had to have serious innovations to stay in the market. Especially with digital distribution everyone can choose what and from where to buy, so of course they saturate the market with the genres that sell best. If you think that is wrong, then go ahead, bash games without seeing them or trying them, and stick with the games from the golden age. Nobody will try and stop you.


It you say these are decent products, why can't they defend on their own, without the need of well established brand? Oh, but they're too scared to come up with something new... My claim is that they'd be unable to sell well some of the mediocre products if they weren't labelled with popular brand name.


With the amount of titles big companies put out, they only need mediocre sales for mediocre products. And they get that.


It's not just about games. Think "Star Wars". If the new trilogy was just a series of new sci-fi movies, I'd say they're watchable, at least once. In few spots the special f/x were decent.
It is only because they're supposed to be in line with the old "Star Wars" why many people (like me) whine about.

Umm, no. The "new" trilogy is a cinematographic nightmare. No coherent plot, even if you would distance yourself from SW lore, the first one doesn't even have a real main protagonist, just a bunch of people thrown in front of the camera. It's a Lucas(tm) CG fest for children. And if we talk movies, take the "new" Indiana Jones. Everybody whines but at the end of the day, it is an Indiana Jones movie, even with that fucktard Shia LeBeouf (or whatever his name is). And even with all the naysayers, you don't see angry mobs storming Lucas Ranch lynching George for raping their childhoods.

But this is getting really tiring, so I stop derailing the thread. If you think it's okay to put your head in the sand and deny the existence of the new games, that's your choice. There will be no Tactical Shooters, they will be no games like Theme Hospital, or even Dungeon Keeper. There will be no more games of the caliber of Gabriel Knight. There is no market for them. And since companies prefer staying alive then going bankrupt with the diehard nieche gamers patting them on their shoulders at their graves, they will produce what the majority wants.

[Eagle of Fire]

If a brand name tricks you into buying a game without looking at it first or finding out what they have done with it I think the fault lies with you.
Well, that single line is the worst BS I've read in this thread yet. Unless you mean I should torrent every new game I might be even remotely interested in to try them in full before even considering purchasing the game itself if it please me, with no guarantee that I'll even bother purchasing it at all.

And don't come to me stating that I have to waste my entire life reading meaningless and biased reviews or play demos which usually don't even turn out like the shipped game... That would frankly be adding another layer of BS. :sick:

[DarthHelmet86]

lol Wut EoF...But hey if you don't want to take the time to see if a game is going to be the kind of game you like before you spend money on it well that's your problem.

Just so you know I brought Deus Ex: Human Revolution before it came out but close enough to the release date that I had seen good reviews (from sites and people I trust) for it and seen enough of the game-play to know I would like it. On the other hand something like Space Marine I would not buy before if has come out and I could look up people playing the real game, I need more info before I spend my money (And I am a big fan of WH40K games).

Syndicate is more then likely going to fall into the second set, I will wait for it to come out, listen to any friends who have gotten it (and since I know reviewers for some smaller online review sites I know some will be getting it) check out some early game LPs and then see if I like it. If all you are basing buying a game on is a name or title you are going to be let down sooner or later but if you don't have the time to check around about games don't just don't complain when you don't get what you wanted.

[brianjn]

NEW Syndicate class a wet dream come true :hihihi: just hope they have customisation like the first one different arms legs etc hate when they dumb games down to a simple upgrade button and weapon mods a must. I know the first one wasn’t like eve thank god im hear for a fun time not a long time lol. I think the game would work well in 3rd person or is it deffo in 1st? that game was well ahead of its time was there any games similar apart from synd wars?

[jonh_sabugs]

Well, I wish we all had access to these reviewers we can trust (i.e. share the same gaming tastes as us), or friends who will risk wasting their money on crap titles, so we can be spared such fate. This is not the case for most people, and yes, many will buy the game based on the title. Trying to blame the consumer in this situation sounds a bit arrogant to me, since the brand name was placed there to deliberately mislead people.

[RRS]

There will be no Tactical Shooters, they will be no games like Theme Hospital, or even Dungeon Keeper. There will be no more games of the caliber of Gabriel Knight.
Why? Because:
With the amount of titles big companies put out, they only need mediocre sales for mediocre products. And they get that.

They don't want you to buy it. There will be plenty others who do, and not because it's Syndicate from 1993 turned into a shooter. There will be a lot of pissed people, and a lot of people who are okay with the game, as always. In the end, EA makes money and that means they will put out more titles.
As I said before, with most of the people displaying "meh, whatever, I will be over here having a good time playing some games" attitude, nothing will force the companies to improve quality.

One movie reviever in the past said that people accept lousy movies/TV production because most of them weren't exposed to anything of high quality, so they can't feel the difference.

Therefore, to speak in your language and attitude:
go on guys, enjoy that crap you're being mass-fed today,
while I will be over here having a good time tasting some finer, hand-picked quality stuff, even if it can be found only in the past.
(this applies also for books, movies, music etc.)

[TheChosen]

http://thegamersthumb.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/WineSnob.jpg

[Lulu_Jane]

Literally nothing that is created now has any value ever.