Satellite Reign And Syndicate’s Simulation Legacy

By Jim Rossignol on July 2nd, 2013 at 9:00 pm.


Perhaps it’s my insomnia, but I’m feeling rather emotional. There was something that made me want to well up in my interview with Satellite Reign lead, Mike Diskett. Even with the fall of Mucky Foot on his CV, it seems unfair to say that Diskett has had a tough time of it – he’s a talented programmer working on numerous successful (and not so successful) projects over many years – now living in Brisbane. But there’s something else simultaneously tragic and beautiful going on here, which is bound up with the two empty decades since Syndicate Wars. It’s something about the dreams of what games could be. Diskett believes and lives that simulation dream. He is one of the pioneers at the heart of the idea of open worlds and living systems.

“Behaviour,” he told me, “not scripting.” I could have wept.


Satellite Reign is a new open world cyberpunk city RTS from the lead progammer of Syndicate Wars, yes, but it also another chance for man who has been embittered by the worst aspects of our industry’s commercial ferocity. In picking up a gauntlet forged in the 1990s, he found the grit to fight back. Help him. Do it now.

Then read on for the rest of what he had to say, and the reason why I have become a believer.

RPS: Last year when the Kickstarter stuff was starting to really heat up, I said to Gillen that we should go and find Mike Diskett and tell him to do a Syndicate-like Kickstarter. With so many American classics getting spiritual successors, it seems like a time to bring back some of those visions from the Amiga days that really made us who we are. But it turns out we didn’t have to go on that peculiar quest, because you were already on that same path?

Diskett: When Kickstarter really started being successful, I suppose about eighteen months ago, I began thinking about whether there would be any interest in a game that followed Syndicate and Syndicate Wars, and I wasn’t totally sure that there would be enough interest out there. Especially given that the original Syndicate games didn’t sell well. Despite that, I suppose, everyone I meet has played them. At least in the games industry. They’re well-known games, even if they were not commercially great. I’ve moved around between a lot of different companies, across England, Scotland, Australia; Rockstar, THQ, Pandemic – most places I went I expected people to ask about working on GTA at Rockstar North, but actually they asked about Syndicate Wars. It was that project that interested people, not GTA!

RPS: But isn’t that people of a certain age? Gillen and myself are getting on a bit now, and that’s why we are old men playing at running the world constantly banging on Amiga stuff, and isn’t that true of a maturing game development community?

Diskett: It’s odd because the people I work with are often quite young, and I’ve met fans of Syndicate who were barely born when the original game came out. These are people who have played the game and won’t even know what an Amiga was. They’ve played it on the PC when they were young, maybe they didn’t have a good PC, but had one that could play some old Bullfrog classics, something like that. The point is: there are all these 20-somethings that remember it, because of being able to play older games on the PC. So I knew there was some audience there. But there was another thing that really brought home what a fanbase there was for this sort of game, which was… well, I really like Starcraft II. I used to play constantly and I used to watch the Day9 ‘casts. He does all these videos, and he did a “lifetime in Stacraft” video, which I watched, and one of the things he said was about how he used to play Syndicate Wars with his brother. So there was this moment where I thought: One of my heroes played and loved this old game I worked on! So that was a revelation.


RPS: And makes you realise how incredible the reach of a single game can be…

Diskett: Of course these days there’s no kind of city sci-fi RTS type games at all. There are a lot of collect-resources and WW2 type RTS games, but there’s nothing that is a city simulation. There are also only a few games which focus on a small team. You seem to get a lot of games where there are hundreds of individual units, or stuff like League Of Legends where you’re microing one unit and really focused on that. But there’s nothing where you have this strange handful of units, four agents which you can use independently. There’s been nothing remotely like it for twenty years. Twenty years in which the people who loved this kind of play had nothing!

RPS: At what point did you throw your arms up and say “Doing it!”?

Diskett: Well, it’s been like that for years, for me. But how do you fund it? Do you have enough savings to live for a year, or more, while you work? We have a team of five here to do this and so do they all have enough savings to live and work for a year? It’s very hard to do. Without Kickstarter, this would not be possible. You can go to publishers and try and sell them on the idea, but it’s a nightmare. When I owned Mucky Foot Productions we went through that process time and time again, trying to sell original games to publishers. You couldn’t even really begin to talk to them about Syndicate-like games without owning the IP. It was just the end of the conversation, right there. I don’t really want to head back to that business model, ever, really. The problem that people do not talk about is that publishers pay you on a monthly basis, based on milestones that you have to deliver and present to them. In the end you spend as much time jumping through their hoops as you do working on a game.

RPS: So your years of bitter experience in that regard will feed back not just into development, but making the most of a Kickstarter-modelled funding?

Diskett: Definitely. It’s made me realise that I don’t want to get big, ever again. At Mucky Foot we started with about five and got up to thirty-eight at our max. This time I want to remain independent for finance, and stay tiny. I don’t want to have to please publishers, I just want to make the game I am working on.

RPS: I’ve been having a lot of related conversations actually. There was a chap telling me on Twitter last night that any funding of indies would have to be “managed” if they were to make money, but then I look at the army of indies who are experienced veterans, capable business people, and where indie means “not funded or owned by a third-party” and also “small team” and I realise that’s not true. In your case, you’ve learned all the lessons over several decades, and have a team of veterans to help you?

Diskett: I suppose it’s kind of a double-edged sword. I am jaded and cynical, now. There’s a certain aspect of being optimistic about your relationship with a publisher that might see some people through and allow them to be victorious at the end… I like to think that my experience at Mucky Foot will smooth the road for us, though. We went in blind at that time, we had no idea how much work we were taking on with running the business and managing the studio, hiring cleaners and lawyers. I’ve been through all that, so I know what it all means, which I suppose some people who say “I’m going to make videogames!” will not.


RPS: I think it’s clear that people were much quicker to attack Syndicate Wars than they were Syndicate. When the Satellite Reign Kickstarter appeared a fair number of people were eager to voice their dislike over Wars vs Syndicate. Is that fair? I liked Wars less, but played it more, due to the PC I had at University – oh I am one of those guys you were talking about!

Diskett: One of the problems with Syndicate Wars was that we rushed into making it 3D. The hardware wasn’t really ready for it. When the first Syndicate came out it was one of the first games to appear in 640×480 hi res. It was all sprite and tile based, and looked good as a result. When we went to 3D for Syndicate Wars that was actually a step back, because although it was 3D and lit and you could rotate the world, it was low-res, 320×240. And yeah. And it had niggly design issues in there that I now regret not changing. One of those, which I think was critical, was that how zoomed out you were was based on the gun you had selected. Since you started with Uzi you were zoomed in quite close at the beginning. Even the minigun was only mid-level zoom. So it wasn’t until later in the game that you could zoom out and get a sense of the city that you got immediately in the first game. All that said, we had a lot of time to work on the level design tools, and the levels in Syndicate Wars are much better, with much more going on than in the original game. Unfortunately you ended up fighting with the interface because had to rotate the map occasionally, and that meant it was a confusing thing rather than a feature. It was just there because it was 3D.

RPS: And that’s reflected in your design for Satellite Reign?

Diskett: Even though we’re completely rendered in 3D, we’re not going to be letting you fully rotate the map. It’ll be a fixed isometric view on the camera, with a little bit of tilt and rotation, which means you are scrolling around the city from a particular direction. That helps you orientate yourself, and means you can build your mental map of the city much faster. It’ll be a little like Starcraft II in the sense that they took the original game, made it 3D, and then just allowed a very limited amount of tilt and rotation.

RPS: Another departure is a class-based system for the agents. Can you tell me about that?

Diskett: One weakness of design in both Syndicate and Syndicate Wars was that people tended to band all four agents together and use them as one single awesome tank-like gun-toting super agent. You didn’t get the strategic splitting up and independent control of agents that we wanted in the games. Having a class system means you have to use them in different ways. The classes in Satellite Reign are the assassin, the soldier, the hacker, and the support class. The soldier is the traditional agent, who will take people on in the streets. The hacker can hack into and take over mechs, and augmentation of civilians – he’s an agent which takes the role of the persuadatron in the original Syndicate games. The assassin is more stealthy, and able to go in close for cloaked melee attacks – and all these mean you can use them independently. The assassin will be infiltrating over rooftops while the hacker is breaking into the city’s grid, disabling CCTV. A class-based system will make the game more tactical, and less of a shooter, than the original. It’s an improvement.

RPS: You also have a persistence of agent characters? How does that work?

Diskett: You will be able to upload and download the history and knowledge of your agents and put them in new clones. All the augmentations you’ve stuck into an agent, if he dies and you can’t retrieve the body, that’s what is lost. The levelling up of the agents is where we have this concept of downloading and uploading minds into new agents. An agent can die, but a cloned version will have his talents uploaded to it. The penalty will be that you’ve lost money because you need to redo the augmentation. You will also need to keep the clone bank updated, because you need a high level clone for a high level mind.


RPS: I think the thing people are most thrilled about, at least if they are anything like me, is the idea of another city simulation. Just watching a Syndicate city functioning was always a grand thing. Can you tell me about your plans for that?

Diskett: We’ve got all the standard stuff – a vehicle system, a traffic system, a police force. But, okay: one of the classic sort of things is /behaviours/ being implemented, not scripting. I’ve been doing a lot of AI in the past few years, and I was an AI specialist at THQ. Consequently I am into implementing behaviours as you would expect, rather than scripting them. You think about how a person would react, and make the game character act like that. You make them react to what they perceive, and you make their perception work correctly, with vision cones and true line of sight. That means they act without having 100% information about something. One of my pet hates is AI like in Borderlands, which is where if you shoot them from half a kilometer away they instantly start shooting back. I prefer AI that says: What do they know about it? What’s the reaction time for them? How long do they take to look around before they decide whether to shoot or run for cover? Does it need more gunfire before they make a decision? So that’s the approach for individual AI entities in the game. But you’re asking about another aspect, which is the wider simulation of the city itself, and I want to simulate that down to the powergrid. That’s one of the things I’m really interested in for hacker class is to have power nodes all through the city that are correctly modelled, so that you can trace where power lines are, and see them with EMP perception. So if you place explosives here, you can shut down a gun emplacement there.

RPS: That’s the stuff! Tactical demolition.

Diskett: We’ve already got repair drones in as part of the simulation, so if you attack something they will come and repair it before flying off again. So there’s that. Then there’s the third aspect of the simulation, which is the political aspect. We have a sort of regional system where civilians will be against, neutral, or in favour of your new group of agents. You can play the game not caring about civilians and use them as a meat shields. But if you do that, then they realise that the government propaganda about you is true, and that you are evil. This can go as far as them fleeing from you or attacking you, rather than ignoring you. If you’ve been good to them, however, and you’ve stopped them being strongarmed by corporations, you will see a reward. They might even help you of their own accord in a gunfight situation. That plays into the simulation in an area by area basis, where we track everyone’s political allegiance.

RPS: So how is all this presented in the metagame? How do you oversee what’s going on?

Diskett: We’re going to be open world, or open city. It’s not as big as GTA, but imagine if we took all the Syndicate maps and we put them into one giant map? That’s the sort of size we’re talking about, perhaps slightly bigger. The city is gridded up with checkpoints between, which is a part of oppressive government regime. You’re be circumventing those ID checks, and travel with all your weapons between areas – finding secret tunnels, that kind of thing. With the open world, though, you don’t drop in and out between missions, there’s no dropping back to the overview screen. Instead, you stay in that world and head back to the safehouse. In there you’ll do what would be typically out of world metagame stuff, but you do it using the computer systems that actually exist in that safehouse. You are the fifth agent, and the game is basically you issuing orders from your viewpoint from drones as your agents move about across the city.

RPS: So how do you find missions to do and so on?

Diskett: I hate being spoon-fed missions, so I wanted to do something different. You get given the standard mission of “go assassinate someone” or “get the briefcase” or “follow this person”, and we have all these missions available in the city, but in Satellite Reign the player has to spend some time uncovering the missions as he plays in the city. This part of the game is about the needs of a group of agents. They need money, they need access to weaponry, they need meat for their clone banks. As well as you wanting high-level power in the city, you have this basic need of gathering resources to do it, and uncovering missions to get to it all. Initially you are doing things to get weapons, to gain influence with civilians, or killing them and stealing their money, or killing corporations and cops to get their weapons. That’s all down you. Your choices. That said, we do need to be able to guide the player, because if we just give them the world they could be lost, so there is a story fed to you by your mysterious benefactor. There are twists there, like the start of the Matrix. Follow the white rabbit! As the fifth agent you have access to this feed of information, some of which is true, some of which is false, some of which is a test to see if you goals match up with that mysterious person’s goals. Players are, of course, used to “go here, do that” instructions in games, so we do need to help them on their way, and that’s how we’ll do that.


RPS: I’ve pretty much lost all pretense of objectivity or neutrality at this stage. I want this game, and if you don’t make it I will have to do it myself. I’m a bit busy with another sort of open world Kickstarted game, of course. [Brief explanation of Sir.]

Diskett: Aha, what you are doing there is so similar to what we are doing, except we have a static city where we’re placing all the things for people to find. What a parallel! But yeah, we want people to find their own way through it, using the tools we give them, to see things happen because of how they play.

RPS: I think once you really engage with games which are about the systems rather than scripts, it’s difficult not to find them more rewarding. Games that are basically the interaction of player with independent systems, like your living city, have an incredible level of reward inherent in them, and that’s the sort of game design I am increasingly interested in, as much as I enjoy a good scripted shooting gallery.

Diskett: When I play games now all I see is the scripting behind the scenes. “Oh, I’ve stepped into the trigger box which has caused that guy to come out from behind a box.” It just ruins it for me now.

RPS: Systems based games don’t have that same “seeing the Matrix” problem, though, because they’re more toylike. Systemic stuff can surprise you, still, precisely because of its lack of scriptedness.

Diskett: I have a classic example of that that I like to go back to, which was in our early cop game, Urban Chaos?

RPS: A classic!

Diskett: In the very first mission you are a rookie cop without even a gun, and there’s a drunk driver who’s crashed a car. He’s standing next to some cops and a flaming car. Anyway, there’s also a mugger on the level, and if you arrest him and take his gun, and then run over to the drunk driver to escort him back, with the gun in your hand, the drunk would try to run away. Even though he was stood between two cops. This was because he was set up with a behaviour to flee from armed police. And because he was the owner of the flaming car, he leapt into the car. He’d start driving around the city in this car, on fire. The QA guys were saying “uh, is this a bug?” It was, but what a really good bug! And I want Satellite Reign to be almost 100% that sort of thing. I want to be able to say “I didn’t tell someone to run away and climb into a burning car!” as they do it anyway.

RPS: Thanks for your time.

Satellite Reign is on Kickstarter.

, , , .

43 Comments »

Top comments

  1. jonahcutter says:

    I backed this the first day, and after reading this I don’t regret it.

    That said, one caveat. I’m not sure I like the idea of a fixed (or evern semi-fixed) camera angle. Between the real-time, open-world setting and his stated desire to having to utilize the agents individually, it could create a real challenge to control the game. And not challenge as in fun, but challenge as in PITA head-ache.

  2. King Eternity says:

    I’m, like, totally on board and backing the fuck out of this, but… has anyone else noticed that the name of the game is absolutely terrible?

  1. Farsearcher says:

    I already backed this. Reading this article makes me think about raising my pledge. Might have to “persuade” some friends to do the same.

    • Premium User Badge

      Scandalon says:

      Farsearcher, I would upvote your comment if I could. I feel this…strange compulsion.

      :P

    • Emeraude says:

      This Kickstarter ends on July 28, Shadowrun Returns will be released on the 25… leaves me a three days window to back this while keeping to my word of not backing anymore projects till some of those I did back delivered something…

      I must say that – apart from backer exclusive content – everything I read and see about this game so far hits all the right notes.

      • The Random One says:

        Mwahahahaha! I backed Word Realms and Dominique Pamplemousse, which are already out!

        • Emeraude says:

          Felt compelled to check – Dominique Pamplemousse is clearly not my thing, but you’ve made two happy persons.

          I thank you on their behalf..

  2. Premium User Badge

    AlwaysRight says:

    I’ve got to say I’m not convinced at all

    …hee hee hee

  3. Dog Pants says:

    The more I hear about this, the more my opinions polarise. The simulated world will make or break it, and it was that world which would go about its own business until you broke all hell loose on it that was a huge part of the appeal of the original. The class thing still eats at me though. Mike says that one of the weaknesses of the original was that people would band their agents together, and I agree this happened, but I don’t think it was a weakness. That’s how I played the game. That’s how all my friends played the game. To control them any other way required too much micro-management and it divided both your attention and your firepower. By trying to drive us to use the agents separately they could force an aspect of the original game that everyone ignored because they didn’t enjoy it, and instead of a spiritual successor to Syndicate you get a hybrid of Syndicate and Commandos or Hidden and Dangerous. Which some would undoubtedly love, but it wouldn’t be Syndicate as we remember it.

    • Emeraude says:

      Fair point. I guess the best possible game design would be to use the various systems in place to nudge you in the direction of specialized agents while giving you the leeway to ignore the possibility if so you wished.

      I do think one problem with Syndicate (Wars especially) wasn’t so much that playing specialized agents was a micro-management bore (I did it and enjoyed i) so much as it was so much more efficient to just brute force everything using the four agents as one homogeneous unit.

      At least that’s how I remember it, should really replay it to see if it lives up to my memories.

    • Lemming says:

      I agree, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, that’s really going to come down to the UI. The one in ‘Wars was simple but bloody awful for the type of play they mention. You have to assume that to encourage that type of play, the UI will allow for that. No more losing your agents across the map, for a start.

    • Jimbo says:

      I agree this doesn’t really sound a lot like Syndicate. That’s not to say it sounds bad, but what’s being described isn’t Syndicate.

      Syndicate was never particularly strategic or tactical. It was an action game. The upgrade tree went Good > Better > Best. It was compelling and the atmosphere was stellar, but there wasn’t a whole lot to the gameplay. I loved Syndicate, but it is probably for the best that they follow it thematically rather than mechanically. If they can keep the atmosphere while attaching a better game to it, I’d be happy enough.

    • rapchee says:

      also, expressing himself as “the players played our game wrong” was really off-putting

  4. The_Hunter says:

    That interview gave me an erection. I’m backing this asap.

    • WrenBoy says:

      Hmmm, the persuadatron has a monetizable side effect. Corporate glory will be mine!

  5. ran93r says:

    Backed without hesitation a few days ago, early signs are it should hit the target.
    I played the originals in a number of ways, both as the tank and splitting up but having to roll with a class set up isn’t a negative for me, it sounds quite intriguing.

  6. NotToBeLiked says:

    Call me old fashioned, but I’m not really a fan of some of the “improvements” they are adding. A class based system *can* be cool, but can also be very, very restrictive (like in the latest XCOM). It’s cool if you split up a team with one guy hacking, one guy sniping, one guy drawing aggro,….. But if that’s the only way to complete a mission it’s worse than the original. You still need to have the option to just put 4 maniacal heavily armed agents in the field who just destroy half the city, or use persuadertrons to get a civvie army to follow you around or …..

    • Lemming says:

      Your concerns are valid, but remember that unlike XCOM, this is a persistent sandbox city, which implies multiple ways to skin the same cat. Otherwise…why bother with that kind of environment? They’ve specifically mentioned emergent gameplay.

  7. Lemming says:

    I’m certainly no less excited for this game, but from the sound of the class-system is sounds very much like the Commandos games. As in, identical, but cyberpunk.

  8. Guvornator says:

    “You can play the game not caring about civilians and use them as a meat shields. But if you do that, then they realise that the government propaganda about you is true, and that you are evil. This can go as far as them fleeing from you or attacking you, rather than ignoring you. If you’ve been good to them, however, and you’ve stopped them being strongarmed by corporations, you will see a reward. They might even help you of their own accord in a gunfight situation. That plays into the simulation in an area by area basis, where we track everyone’s political allegiance.”

    I have a bit of a problem with this. I do rather think you can’t have a Syndicate-alike which rewards “Good” morality systems. I’d like to base my decisions based on what i believe is the correct course, not because of rewards and easier gameplay. I’d prefer a blank morality system whereby, say, you can pal-up to the civvies causing them to defend you but also causing weaker enemies to be confident about attacking you. If you went down an “Evil” path you’d cause civvies to flee (so less likely to be “persuaded”) but your basic cop might also run away.

    • Grygus says:

      Interesting point, but there is more than one way to balance rewards; for example, it is possible that Evil, in the scenario you describe, gets more experience per mission, since there are more people to kill and the civilians aren’t taking a slice. I just totally made that up, but my point is that the rewards don’t have be mirrored.

    • The Random One says:

      It might be a bit more nuanced than “good” and “evil” and closer to “if you openly murder civilians then civilians won’t like you ver much”. We’ll have to see if you can still be loved if you murder civilians, but not openly.

  9. Jimbo says:

    Why fixed classes? Why not have abilities and proficiency based on host / physical augs / installed software / equipment and then tailor your agents as you see fit? Have two or three varieties of aug available in each body slot (Deus Ex style, so you are forced to make trade-offs) and limit the software (special abilities) each agent can have installed at any given time, to prevent you ending up with with ‘master of everything’ agents.

    You’d still naturally end up with specialists, it just seems like a more flexible & empowering way of handling it than having fixed classes. ‘Here’s the mission: set your group up for it as you see fit.’ A little more Hidden & Dangerous and a little less Commandos.

    • Premium User Badge

      Jonfon says:

      This is how I’d like to see it go as well. Allowing people to define their own classes via special Augmentations would be far more interesting to me personally than “here’s one of each type, use them”.

      I suppose one of each type is easier to balance though

  10. Syra says:

    Okay so I really want this now. This sounds like my dream game. Don’t mess it up!

  11. BenAttenborough says:

    Yeah I really want this game to be good, a real antidote to all the dumb FPS games out there. A lot could go wrong with it, but even if it fails (and I really hope it doesn’t) I have to admire the ambition and spirit of the team. I remember playing Syndicate back in the early 90s on an Amiga. I actually brought my copy. Unfortunately I believe the game was heavily pirated – although most games were back then so I don’t know why it suffered more than other games. Perhaps its dark themes made people less guilty about ripping off, or maybe kids and teenagers weren’t allowed to buy it by their parents so they pirated it instead??

  12. jonahcutter says:

    I backed this the first day, and after reading this I don’t regret it.

    That said, one caveat. I’m not sure I like the idea of a fixed (or evern semi-fixed) camera angle. Between the real-time, open-world setting and his stated desire to having to utilize the agents individually, it could create a real challenge to control the game. And not challenge as in fun, but challenge as in PITA head-ache.

  13. pilouuuu says:

    It’s incredible and depressing how this industry feels aversion to risk-taking and innovation. Thankfully these projects bring us some hope…

  14. Crosmando says:

    Good to see RPS supporting a truly worthy Kickstarter. And one by an Aussie studio too

  15. King Eternity says:

    I’m, like, totally on board and backing the fuck out of this, but… has anyone else noticed that the name of the game is absolutely terrible?

  16. Premium User Badge

    Rufust Firefly says:

    One of the reasons that you had to use all 4 agents as a single meta-agent was survival. The enemy corporate gangs outnumbered you and unless you focused fire on them, you were toast. If the Satellite Reign agents are bit more durable that might make the class system work a bit better.

    The only other thing that concerns me is that they’ve lost some of the menace of the original game. One of the missions briefings was something like, “This guy betrayed us, so we’re going to kill his good lady wife.” You were not nice people, and that transgression was part of the fun.

    Still, super-excited about this project and this interview makes me glad I’ve already become a backer.

  17. Premium User Badge

    c-Row says:

    Especially given that the original Syndicate games didn’t sell well.

    And then Molyneux cried.

  18. Iskariot says:

    What a great interview. This has completely convinced me. I already was a believer, but now I am a fanatic. I must have this game.

  19. Robslap says:

    Urgh two decades ago! Where’s my damn pipe and slippers.

    Also satelite ‘rain’ was the name of a weapon in wars right? They are being clever those crafty monkeys.

  20. Premium User Badge

    Schmudley says:

    “The city is gridded up with checkpoints between, which is a part of oppressive government regime. You’re be circumventing those ID checks, and travel with all your weapons between areas – finding secret tunnels, that kind of thing.”

    Ok, I didn’t realise that this is a thing I wanted in an RTS, and now I really, really want it.

    Seriously, this looks amazing. I’ve now been persuaded to join the kick-starting, actually the first one I’ve supported.

  21. Nallen says:

    The talk of classes scares the life out of me.

  22. LordMidas says:

    I’ve just slapped down £20 on this (kickstarter #3 for me).
    I never completed Syndicate, but I do remember tooling up my Agents with Flamethrowers and finding the nearest cinema/club queue. Needless to say it didn’t end well for the civvies.

  23. Aesop says:

    My one slight concern is, of course, the classes. I’m really hoping that they don’t enforce a rigid team composition, but instead offer a class pool, from which one can assemble a custom ensemble, for example 3 soldiers and 1 hacker.

  24. Rephlexx says:

    just tossed 25 in. syndicate syndicate syndicate. the gaming world is burning for a real syndicate for decades now : ]