Poll: What is your most anticipated upcoming FPS?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

System shock

image

Metro Exodus

image

Squadron 42

image

Witchfire

image

Far cry 5

image

so my friends which upcoming FPS you are mostly looking forward to??

for me

System Shock > Metro Exodus > Squadron 42 > witchfire >>>>>>>>>>> Far cry 5.

this is how i rank my most anticipation. Metro and System Shock are only close. very close. if all those release in 2018 than it looks like great year for FPS.

Witchfire looks the most fun so that.

Haven't we already had this topic somewhere?

Anyway:

-System Shock: Could be interesting.

-Metro Exodus: No strong feelings

-Squadron 42: Does this count? I know there's FPS sections, but it's primarily a flight sim (and I'm dubious of anything SC being released).

-Witchfire: No real interest, but I'll give it kudos for how bonkers it looks.

-Far Cry 5: Meh.

-Others: Um...Metroid Prime 4...maybe? Don't know if it counts, and I don't have a Switch anyway. Quake Champions could be fun, but my computer can't run it. And while I'd love something like Halo 6, Killzone 5, or heck, even Doom 5 to be announced, I'd also love a pony. Doesn't mean I expect hoofbeats.

Guess my vote goes to System Shock.

Hawki:

-Squadron 42: Does this count? I know there's FPS sections, but it's primarily a flight sim (and I'm dubious of anything SC being released).

FPS part play major role here. if it was only space combat game it would get boring. the variety between FPS part, space combat part and also stealthy part make it more interesting because so much content is there.

star citizen on other hand is MMO space sim which i dont think will ever release.

Metro is the only one I care about.

B-Cell:

FPS part play major role here. if it was only space combat game it would get boring.

I'd like to think that space combat could stand on its own. If you try to have a bit of everything in a piece of media, it runs the risk of being unfocused.

the next call of duty, because I am part sadistic and know for certain the derived entertainment won't require any purchase from me whatsoever

I must admit i dont really care for any FPS thats coming in 2018.

Thats not to say i wouldnt buy any of them after they come out, it all just looks so uninteresting compared to non-FPS.

I'm not anticipating any of those. Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of the genre and I'm picky with the ones I play, but none of those look all that good.

Almost every time the developer shot a gun in the Witchfire trailer, he was using ADS, so I kind of don't care for it. I also didn't care for their previous game, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. I refunded it.

Watched the System Shock teaser just now. Looks slow. Plus, half the time, he wasn't even shooting, but using a melee weapon.

Metro Exodus looks like your typical cinematic shooter, complete with canned animations and ADS. Why was the dev player using ADS so much in the trailer? There's a huge bear right in front of him and he has to use ADS? Leaves a bad impression.

Is Squadron 42 even a shooter? I can't tell from that gameplay demo back in October 2015. Twelve minutes of nothing happening. Okay, I'm skimming through the one hour Gamestop vid, the one uploaded a couple of days ago. Again, a lot of nothing happening, but towards the end there is some gunplay. Doesn't look like a good shooter. The movement is slow, the player is constantly using ADS and the gun is way too close. The gunfight, like the rest of the game, also feels awkward. The music is all bombastic and exciting, but most of the time, nothing is happening. Boring looking game.

Far Cry 5 will probably be okay, but it's a Ubisoft game, so I expect the usual open world stuff and just adequate gunplay.

Ezekiel:

Watched the System Shock teaser just now. Looks slow. Plus, half the time, he wasn't even shooting, but using a melee weapon.

Metro Exodus looks like your typical cinematic shooter, complete with canned animations and ADS. Why was the dev player using ADS so much in the trailer? There's a huge bear right in front of him and he has to use ADS? Leaves a bad impression.

because Metro is inspired by Stalker which also have ADS but still one of the greatest game of all time.

metro exodus is story driven sandbox survival game. not a old school shooter.

System Shock - I dunno, maybe it'll be cool. I'd worry about adherence to the originals, because innovative in its time doesn't save it from being janky garbage by evolved standards.

Metro - Yawn. I finally got through whichever one I was playing (the second one). Its like the railway sections of Fallout 3. Endlessly. With more boring weapons. And an even stupider karma system.

Squadron 42 - I'll believe this actually exists when its actually available, not that the video was particularly enticing.

Witchfire - Is there more then a 30 seconds of info on it yet? All I really remember of that was that it uses Shadow Warrior's dash, lol.

Far Cry 5 - I assume would be the same servicable mindless sandbox entertainment as its predecessors. Though they commented that they're still using the melee/tamed animal stuff, which was awful in 4, and still awful in Primal, so thats a huge negative point. What happened to Blood Dragon 2 anyways.

I assume whatever Call of Duty will continue to be a Call of Duty game, the likely reset-button version of Destiny 2 should be questionable at best, and Battlefield will probably try and find a way to shoehorn automatic weapons into the Civil War or something so they don't have to actually change up gameplay. If Borderlands 3 pops up as is rumored, you'll probably have to buy ammo with real money or some shit, because TakeTwo/2K is bound and determined to out EA EA, if they aren't already there.

B-Cell:

Ezekiel:

Watched the System Shock teaser just now. Looks slow. Plus, half the time, he wasn't even shooting, but using a melee weapon.

Metro Exodus looks like your typical cinematic shooter, complete with canned animations and ADS. Why was the dev player using ADS so much in the trailer? There's a huge bear right in front of him and he has to use ADS? Leaves a bad impression.

because Metro is inspired by Stalker which also have ADS but still one of the greatest game of all time.

metro exodus is story driven sandbox survival game. not a old school shooter.

Doesn't matter. It looks lame. I didn't like the first Metro. I stopped playing it as I was following an NPC who wouldn't let me progress until he finally came to the ends of the areas and opened the doors for me. Generic, cinematic design.

Definitely Witchfire.

Oustanding looking atmosphere
Smooth, detailed looking gunplay
Thematically intriguing
Developers have good track record

Also, I laugh at the idea of more authentic shooters needing ADS. Medal of Honor: Frontline was one of the more authentic shooters I had played up to that point in my life, and I never had a problem with it not having ADS. It also wasn't plagued with this cinematic crap.

Ezekiel:
Also, I laugh at the idea of more authentic shooters needing ADS. Medal of Honor: Frontline was one of the more authentic shooters I had played up to that point in my life, and I never had a problem with it not having ADS. It also wasn't plagued with this cinematic crap.

I have to ask, what is ADS?

I'm trying to think of what it could mean given the context but I keep coming up short.

Of those? Uh...maybe the System Shock remake? Or Witchfire? And those are BIG maybes, the former of which because I loved NightDive's remasters of Turok 1 and 2 and kinda want to see what they've done with System Shock, and the latter because it looks at least aesthetically interesting, if nothing else.

But honestly? I'm not really 'anticipating' any of those. They haven't piqued my interest, in any meaningful way.

However, I AM greatly anticipating the following:

There are a few I'm marginally interested in, but I'm waiting to see how they turn out. One in particular is:

Abomination:
I have to ask, what is ADS?

I'm trying to think of what it could mean given the context but I keep coming up short.

Aim Down Sights.

Timesplitters 4.

Anything else is just window dressing.

B-Cell:

Hawki:

-Squadron 42: Does this count? I know there's FPS sections, but it's primarily a flight sim (and I'm dubious of anything SC being released).

FPS part play major role here. if it was only space combat game it would get boring.

For you.

Vigormortis:
Aim Down Sights.

Oh... why is this a bad thing? I mean, it's the accuracy tradeoff - less situational awareness as you're focused on one opponent.

Abomination:

Vigormortis:
Aim Down Sights.

Oh... why is this a bad thing? I mean, it's the accuracy tradeoff - less situational awareness as you're focused on one opponent.

Slowed foot movement. Smaller field of view. And, in order to validate it, the devs gimp hip-fire accuracy. Your bullet misses even though the barrel is pointed at the enemy. So it's unrealistic too. The gun also usually shakes more when firing from the hip, further reducing accuracy during rapid fire. I like fast-paced action, so I wanna see less ADS.

Ezekiel:

Abomination:

Vigormortis:
Aim Down Sights.

Oh... why is this a bad thing? I mean, it's the accuracy tradeoff - less situational awareness as you're focused on one opponent.

Slowed foot movement. Smaller field of view. And, in order to validate it, the devs gimp hip-fire accuracy. Your bullet misses even though the barrel is pointed at the enemy. So it's unrealistic too. The gun also usually shakes more when firing from the hip, further reducing accuracy during rapid fire. I like fast-paced action, so I wanna see less ADS.

So you dislike realism, in other words. If you shoot from the hip in real life you're not going to hit anything further away than five feet. And if you move around while aiming you're also not going to hit anything. The "fast paced action" you mention is utterly unrealistic and only has a place in arcade shooters.

infohippie:

Ezekiel:

Abomination:
Oh... why is this a bad thing? I mean, it's the accuracy tradeoff - less situational awareness as you're focused on one opponent.

Slowed foot movement. Smaller field of view. And, in order to validate it, the devs gimp hip-fire accuracy. Your bullet misses even though the barrel is pointed at the enemy. So it's unrealistic too. The gun also usually shakes more when firing from the hip, further reducing accuracy during rapid fire. I like fast-paced action, so I wanna see less ADS.

So you dislike realism, in other words. If you shoot from the hip in real life you're not going to hit anything further away than five feet. And if you move around while aiming you're also not going to hit anything. The "fast paced action" you mention is utterly unrealistic and only has a place in arcade shooters.

I like realism to an extent. It can be interesting or pretty boring. And I'm aware hip-fire isn't very accurate in real life. But the way it's done in video games is unrealistic. And it's not more fun.

Ezekiel:

infohippie:

Ezekiel:
Slowed foot movement. Smaller field of view. And, in order to validate it, the devs gimp hip-fire accuracy. Your bullet misses even though the barrel is pointed at the enemy. So it's unrealistic too. The gun also usually shakes more when firing from the hip, further reducing accuracy during rapid fire. I like fast-paced action, so I wanna see less ADS.

So you dislike realism, in other words. If you shoot from the hip in real life you're not going to hit anything further away than five feet. And if you move around while aiming you're also not going to hit anything. The "fast paced action" you mention is utterly unrealistic and only has a place in arcade shooters.

I like realism to an extent. It can be interesting or pretty boring. And I'm aware hip-fire isn't very accurate in real life. But the way it's done in video games is unrealistic. And it's not more fun.

Depends what you're looking for. If you want a fast moving arcade experience then sure, it's not more fun. You want a game with some degree of realism then having to aim down the sights is fun. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to prefer one type of game to the other, but it IS wrong to claim that ADS, and the difficulty of hitting anything from the hip, is "less realistic".

infohippie:

Ezekiel:

infohippie:

So you dislike realism, in other words. If you shoot from the hip in real life you're not going to hit anything further away than five feet. And if you move around while aiming you're also not going to hit anything. The "fast paced action" you mention is utterly unrealistic and only has a place in arcade shooters.

I like realism to an extent. It can be interesting or pretty boring. And I'm aware hip-fire isn't very accurate in real life. But the way it's done in video games is unrealistic. And it's not more fun.

Depends what you're looking for. If you want a fast moving arcade experience then sure, it's not more fun. You want a game with some degree of realism then having to aim down the sights is fun. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to prefer one type of game to the other, but it IS wrong to claim that ADS, and the difficulty of hitting anything from the hip, is "less realistic".

But it IS unrealistic in games. If my barrel is pointing at the enemy and my bullet misses because I'm not aiming down the dumb sights, or if the character is swaying their gun around excessively, as if they're drunk, that's not realism, that's pretension. First-person shooters aren't realistic anyway. The idea of a gun user keeping their arms raised and their eyes aligned at all times is ridiculous. I'd rather just have these games be more honest about themselves, and fun, instead of making them so sluggish and mechanical while pretending that's realistic. These five games don't look very fun.

Edit: I just noticed a similar statement in another thread.

Squilookle:
Please don't start with that realism nonsense. I could just as well point out that the very idea of keeping your eye perfectly lined up with two different sights on your gun at all times when moving even in the slightest is unrealistic. But having your ADS vanish every time you touch any control other than fire is poor game design, so leeway must be allowed. Removing the debuff from strafing is the exact same game design philosophy. Not realistic perhaps, but Gameplay is more important than realism. Every. Single. Time.

Yeah, gameplay is more important than realism.

Ezekiel:

infohippie:

Ezekiel:
I like realism to an extent. It can be interesting or pretty boring. And I'm aware hip-fire isn't very accurate in real life. But the way it's done in video games is unrealistic. And it's not more fun.

Depends what you're looking for. If you want a fast moving arcade experience then sure, it's not more fun. You want a game with some degree of realism then having to aim down the sights is fun. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to prefer one type of game to the other, but it IS wrong to claim that ADS, and the difficulty of hitting anything from the hip, is "less realistic".

But it IS unrealistic in games. If my barrel is pointing at the enemy and my bullet misses because I'm not aiming down the dumb sights, or if the character is swaying their gun around excessively, as if they're drunk, that's not realism, that's pretension. First-person shooters aren't realistic anyway. The idea of a gun user keeping their arms raised and their eyes aligned at all times is ridiculous. I'd rather just have these games be more honest about themselves, and fun, instead of making them so sluggish and mechanical while pretending that's realistic. These five games don't look very fun.

Edit: I just noticed a similar statement in another thread.

Squilookle:
Please don't start with that realism nonsense. I could just as well point out that the very idea of keeping your eye perfectly lined up with two different sights on your gun at all times when moving even in the slightest is unrealistic. But having your ADS vanish every time you touch any control other than fire is poor game design, so leeway must be allowed. Removing the debuff from strafing is the exact same game design philosophy. Not realistic perhaps, but Gameplay is more important than realism. Every. Single. Time.

Yeah, gameplay is more important than realism.

You know, I would actually LOVE an FPS that had completely realistic shooting.

Every time you aimed down the sights of your gun your target would be a little blurry and the rear sight would be a little blurry, and the only thing that would be in focus is your front sight.

Moving would have huge accuracy penalties. You'd have to stop moving and ADS all the time. Cover and leaning would be completely critical, and the cover would have realistic bullet penetration physics (meaning diving behind a couch isn't going to stop bullets worth a shit). You'd have to worry about bullet's over penetrating through targets and walls and killing people on the other side.

Guns would get less accurate the more you use them due to powder fouling in the barrel. Maybe if you shoot too much you have to quickly field strip your gun to fix a jam.

It would probably do awful and people would hate it except for a small niche crowd that would think it's the greatest thing ever.

Dirty Hipsters:

Ezekiel:

infohippie:

Depends what you're looking for. If you want a fast moving arcade experience then sure, it's not more fun. You want a game with some degree of realism then having to aim down the sights is fun. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to prefer one type of game to the other, but it IS wrong to claim that ADS, and the difficulty of hitting anything from the hip, is "less realistic".

But it IS unrealistic in games. If my barrel is pointing at the enemy and my bullet misses because I'm not aiming down the dumb sights, or if the character is swaying their gun around excessively, as if they're drunk, that's not realism, that's pretension. First-person shooters aren't realistic anyway. The idea of a gun user keeping their arms raised and their eyes aligned at all times is ridiculous. I'd rather just have these games be more honest about themselves, and fun, instead of making them so sluggish and mechanical while pretending that's realistic. These five games don't look very fun.

Edit: I just noticed a similar statement in another thread.

Squilookle:
Please don't start with that realism nonsense. I could just as well point out that the very idea of keeping your eye perfectly lined up with two different sights on your gun at all times when moving even in the slightest is unrealistic. But having your ADS vanish every time you touch any control other than fire is poor game design, so leeway must be allowed. Removing the debuff from strafing is the exact same game design philosophy. Not realistic perhaps, but Gameplay is more important than realism. Every. Single. Time.

Yeah, gameplay is more important than realism.

You know, I would actually LOVE an FPS that had completely realistic shooting.

Every time you aimed down the sights of your gun your target would be a little blurry and the rear sight would be a little blurry, and the only thing that would be in focus is your front sight.

Moving would have huge accuracy penalties. You'd have to stop moving and ADS all the time. Cover and leaning would be completely critical, and the cover would have realistic bullet penetration physics (meaning diving behind a couch isn't going to stop bullets worth a shit). You'd have to worry about bullet's over penetrating through targets and walls and killing people on the other side.

Guns would get less accurate the more you use them due to powder fouling in the barrel. Maybe if you shoot too much you have to quickly field strip your gun to fix a jam.

It would probably do awful and people would hate it except for a small niche crowd that would think it's the greatest thing ever.

You do realize controlling that game would be a lot more complicated than it is for someone to use a gun in real life.

As far as realism and playability, there's certainly a delicate balancing act to it. Some games could only have the smallest essential thread of realism and still be a blast, but I can't say the same for the flip side.

Having said that, a well-designed game should be able to have both if that's what they're going for. Nuanced car physics and handling in a driver, or gun play in a shooter where a gun actually behaves like it should when shot instead of a piece of cardboard on a swivel, etc. The problem is that no matter how you cut it, control scheme limitations are still impeding fps game design, even with kb/mouse. Concessions need to be made around how much is possible, and developers often error on the side of realism if for no other reason than "it looks cooler". What would really be cool is being able to turn your head independently of your weapon, for example. Or how about tossing a grenade towards would-be flankers on your left while looking and firing a handgun at someone on your right.

Shooters are still a very simple genre mechanics-wise. Aside from movement you point, you shoot, and the rest is pretty much peripheral window dressing. They end up relying on realism quite a bit to be interesting, and too often run into the above issue of limitations. VR may rectify something here or there, but I doubt we'll see the next major revolution in game design until we're jacked into the Matrix.

Dirty Hipsters:

Ezekiel:

infohippie:

Depends what you're looking for. If you want a fast moving arcade experience then sure, it's not more fun. You want a game with some degree of realism then having to aim down the sights is fun. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to prefer one type of game to the other, but it IS wrong to claim that ADS, and the difficulty of hitting anything from the hip, is "less realistic".

But it IS unrealistic in games. If my barrel is pointing at the enemy and my bullet misses because I'm not aiming down the dumb sights, or if the character is swaying their gun around excessively, as if they're drunk, that's not realism, that's pretension. First-person shooters aren't realistic anyway. The idea of a gun user keeping their arms raised and their eyes aligned at all times is ridiculous. I'd rather just have these games be more honest about themselves, and fun, instead of making them so sluggish and mechanical while pretending that's realistic. These five games don't look very fun.

Edit: I just noticed a similar statement in another thread.

Squilookle:
Please don't start with that realism nonsense. I could just as well point out that the very idea of keeping your eye perfectly lined up with two different sights on your gun at all times when moving even in the slightest is unrealistic. But having your ADS vanish every time you touch any control other than fire is poor game design, so leeway must be allowed. Removing the debuff from strafing is the exact same game design philosophy. Not realistic perhaps, but Gameplay is more important than realism. Every. Single. Time.

Yeah, gameplay is more important than realism.

You know, I would actually LOVE an FPS that had completely realistic shooting.

Every time you aimed down the sights of your gun your target would be a little blurry and the rear sight would be a little blurry, and the only thing that would be in focus is your front sight.

Moving would have huge accuracy penalties. You'd have to stop moving and ADS all the time. Cover and leaning would be completely critical, and the cover would have realistic bullet penetration physics (meaning diving behind a couch isn't going to stop bullets worth a shit). You'd have to worry about bullet's over penetrating through targets and walls and killing people on the other side.

Guns would get less accurate the more you use them due to powder fouling in the barrel. Maybe if you shoot too much you have to quickly field strip your gun to fix a jam.

It would probably do awful and people would hate it except for a small niche crowd that would think it's the greatest thing ever.

Your game already exists, and it's called every VR shooter ever.

Kinda weird that we've got two ADS talks in two different threads at once, but I'm firmly with Ezekiel on this one. The only reason ADS came to prominence in games in the first place is they convinced everyone that it's more realistic than a crosshair. It's not.

Crosshairs with hip fire like in the old days may not be 'realistic' either, but it made a damn lot more sense from a design standpoint. Now because ADS is so commonplace games have been forced to introduce all manner of stupid things to slow down player movement just to compensate and make them easier to hit, like forced walking while aiming, heavy kit encumberment, and stupidly wide hipfire spray. Compared to the lightning fast player movement and zero bullet spread of arena shooters like UT and Tribes, it's an utter joke.

Another thing worth mentioning is that in real life we have an almost 180 degree field of view. On a gaming monitor that is usually reduced down to a measly 70 degrees or so. We use that tiny window to view the game world through, having to swing it right around to see stuff behind us that we'd see effortlessly with a sideways glance in the real world. Nowadays it's common practice to take that already extremely small tunnel through which we view the game world, and block up to 1/6th or more of the entire screen behind a blurry shadowy gunsight. A game using ironsights is just stupid. Always has been, always will be.

Squilookle:

A game using ironsights is just stupid. Always has been, always will be.

If this were really true though, guns wouldn't even have "sights". It just wouldn't seem right being able to hip fire an enemy fifty yards out through a distance 2nd story window.

System Shock I fear they're going to stick too closely to the original. And if there's one game you can put up as a shining example of "aged poorly", it's the first System Shock.

Witchfire Not really enough information about it. Besides Painkiller, we got Bulletstorm from People Can Fly, but that was more on-rails than Microsoft Train Simulator. And you could only grab and pull people towards you. Why just that one direction? D: But yeah. It looks nice but we'll see.

Far Cry 5 the story looks kind of intriguing, but I really wonder what they're going to do with the gameplay here to freshen it up.

-

You missed Serious Sam 4 though. Admittedly, we don't have much information on it yet, but I'm almost dead certain they're gonna pile it on come this year's E3. And we've got nothing but good stuff from Croteam for a long time so I'm super psyched. If I have a complaint with them at all, it's that they're going crazy with VR right now and a lot of fans, including me, don't care about it.

Squilookle:
Timesplitters 4.

It's dead, Jim. As sad as that is to say...

We do have Timesplitters: Rewind, but until the devs of that actually put out something substantial I'll keep my hopes in check.

Vigormortis:

While Insurgency was ORIGINALLY a Source mod, it's been a standalone game for a long time now. And a very good one too. It even got a stellar WWII expansion pack.

Ezekiel:
If my barrel is pointing at the enemy and my bullet misses because I'm not aiming down the dumb sights, that's not realism, that's pretension.

The FIRST bullet should always go exactly where you aim, bullet deviation has no place in any shooter, but after that first bullet recoil is going to be bitch if you're not shooting from a proper stance. Not that every shooter has to be like that as that's why we have driving sims and arcade racers (and stuff in-between), not everyone likes the same thing and people can also like multiple different things. I prefer the competitive shooters to have lots of trade-off mechanics (like recoil increasing with more movement) while I love me some over-the-top ridiculous single player arcade shooters. Having less accuracy while moving is just the same as a baseball player choking up and shortening his swing on 2 strikes to increase contact while lowering his power potential.

come on ezekiel. i do prefer FPS without ADS but it depend of FPS.

Stalker and Crysis 1 are 2 of great FPS and one of the best of all time but they do rely on ADS. same case we can go with Metro.

hanselthecaretaker:

It just wouldn't seem right being able to hip fire an enemy fifty yards out through a distance 2nd story window.

Why not? For almost the first half of the entire history of FPSes being in existence, we were doing that and not even thinking twice about it.

B-Cell:
come on ezekiel. i do prefer FPS without ADS but it depend of FPS.

Stalker and Crysis 1 are 2 of great FPS and one of the best of all time but they do rely on ADS. same case we can go with Metro.

Don't get me wrong, Operation Flashpoint is one of my all time favourite first person shooters, and it offered both a roving, zoomable crosshair -and- Ironsights. I found myself using ADS in that game quite a lot, singe engagement distance is often 200 meters or more and you want your shot to be *just so.* But even in a game tailored for long range firefights, I still appreciated and used crosshairs a lot.

Can you imagine if something like Left 4 Dead tried putting ADS in? Just wouldn't work!

I'm not really looking forward to any upcoming fps.

Maybe System Shock. Assuming that is still upcoming for this year, which I have my doubts about. News has been sparse to non-existent ever since they announced the switch from Unity to Unreal Engine back in march 2017. History tells us engine changes are usually not a sign that a game will be released soon. The official release date is still Q2 2018, but I don't know, that's only about a year for them to build their entire game.

Squilookle:
Can you imagine if something like Left 4 Dead tried putting ADS in? Just wouldn't work!

Of course it wouldn't. Left 4 Dead features mobs of fast zombos rushing you. A mechanic that reduces your speed and viewing angle to fight would make dealing with that a whole lot harder and more frustrating.

ADS has its place, but fast and frantic gameplay is not one of them.

Chimpzy:
I'm not really looking forward to any upcoming fps.

Maybe System Shock. Assuming that is still upcoming for this year, which I have my doubts about. News has been sparse to non-existent ever since they announced the switch from Unity to Unreal Engine back in march 2017. History tells us engine changes are usually not a sign that a game will be released soon. The official release date is still Q2 2018, but I don't know, that's only about a year for them to build their entire game.

Squilookle:
Can you imagine if something like Left 4 Dead tried putting ADS in? Just wouldn't work!

Of course it wouldn't. Left 4 Dead features mobs of fast zombos rushing you. A mechanic that reduces your speed and viewing angle to fight would make dealing with that a whole lot harder and more frustrating.

ADS has its place, but fast and frantic gameplay is not one of them.

Exaplin why Left 4 Dead has Sniper Rifles than if ADS would not work?

Can't say I'm excited about any of them. Well okay, I do find the System Shock remake mildly intriguing, but that's only because it's one of those games I've always wanted to try yet never got around to it.

Dirty Hipsters:

You know, I would actually LOVE an FPS that had completely realistic shooting.

Every time you aimed down the sights of your gun your target would be a little blurry and the rear sight would be a little blurry, and the only thing that would be in focus is your front sight.

Moving would have huge accuracy penalties. You'd have to stop moving and ADS all the time. Cover and leaning would be completely critical, and the cover would have realistic bullet penetration physics (meaning diving behind a couch isn't going to stop bullets worth a shit). You'd have to worry about bullet's over penetrating through targets and walls and killing people on the other side.

Guns would get less accurate the more you use them due to powder fouling in the barrel. Maybe if you shoot too much you have to quickly field strip your gun to fix a jam.

It would probably do awful and people would hate it except for a small niche crowd that would think it's the greatest thing ever.

Have you played Red Orchestra? It doesn't go as far as some of your suggestions, but it's a damn sight more authentic than your typical run-and-gun FPS. It's the only shooter I've played where using lever action rifles requires the player to manually reset the bolt between shots rather than having an animation do it for you. The only problem is that it's multiplayer only and quite old, which can make it quite difficult to find active servers. There was a sequel, but it was generally scorned by fans of the original, as the realism factor was toned down in order to appeal to a wider demographic (at least that's what I've heard, I never got around to playing it).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here