Poll: What is your most anticipated upcoming FPS?

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Dammit, stupid quote notifications turned off gain.

Glad I?m not the only one. Guessing the mods are aware?

Yeah, they're aware, but since it's a tech-related problem, they can't do anything about it.

I check every few days whether they're still on in the Forum and Notifications Options of my profile. Still catches me unaware regardless.

 

[laggyteabag]

System Shock - Looks pretty, but unproven developers. Keep an eye out for it.

Metro Exodus - Loved the last two.

Squardon 42 - Game might come out at some point, maybe.

Witchfire - The fuck is this? Oh, thats pretty.

Far Cry 5 - The biggest meh.

Personally, I am looking forward to Halo 6 the most. I wouldn't say that I am excited to play it, mind you, but it is more a case of just wanting to see how it will turn out, after 4, the MCC, and 5. Call it morbid curiosity.

 

[kasperbbs]

Farcry 5. I don't know enough about the rest to get excited, but i have seen gameplay of Farcry and it looks pretty much the same as before, which isn't such a bad thing.

 

[Souplex]

Your poll has failed. It does not include the only worthwhile FPS coming in 2018: Metroid Prime 4.

 

[Zydrate]

I wish I could get excited about Far Cry 5 but the environment looks so goddamn bland to me. It might be because I'm in Virginia and could pretty much drive ten minutes to find areas that look exactly like any of that.

 

[Squilookle]

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.

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!

So you admit to using ADS from long distance. Regardless though it sounds like you prefer arcade shooters. I still don?t understand why ADS automatically means unplayable. Both a cross hair and ADS have their place in a shooter that?s trying to be at least somewhat authentic.

I play all kinds of shooters, both arcade, realistic, PC and console. I like them all, and they all worked just fine before ADS.

That said, if you could point out the spot where I said ADS automatically means unplayable, I'd be very grateful. I'm having a hard time finding where I said anything of the kind.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Spoiler

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.

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.

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.

One could easily get the impression that ADS is unplayable to you from the above comments; at least in the same way 30fps is unplayable to a lot of people.

What I just don?t get is why ADS automatically has to be bad. Is it that hard for devs to design appropriate movements sets and speed for such a function? Sure it?s not going to be run n gun speed, but again it seems you want crosshairs to be accepted as the be-all, end-all of shooter game design when it?s really only one facet to it. A big reason there wasn?t ADS in early shooters aside from arcade focus is because it was a lot simpler to just put a cross hair icon on screen than to create a whole new viewpoint and smooth animation transitions for ADS.

The downsides you mention don?t have to be so pronounced that it hampers gameplay, view, speed, etc. Shooter gameplay is already as simple as hell with mere pointing and shooting, and ADS when done well only adds a tactical, immersive layer onto it. It should be there as a tool when hip fire isn?t accurate enough past a certain range. Guns have sights for a reason, and shooters are largely considered the most immersive genre for the same one. Some people enjoy the act of firing a virtual weapon, how it behaves according to style, caliber, the ballistics of how the enemies and objects react to getting shot, how it sounds, etc. ADS is simply an authentic part of that, regardless of the fact we?re limited to a screen. A weapon?s aiming functionality shouldn?t always have to be limited to an icon even if it is just a game.

 

[Squilookle]

One could easily get the impression that ADS is unplayable to you from the above comments; at least in the same way 30fps is unplayable to a lot of people.

Right, I can see you're really struggling with this so I'll do you a solid and spell it out in no uncertain terms:

ADS- not unplayable. I use it myself on occasion. As I explained here:

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, since 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.

What I just don't get is why ADS automatically has to be bad.

My beef with ADS is that it has grown to replace a system that worked better without it. Crosshairs allowed better visibility, more information about how your bullet spread was expected to perform, sometimes even changed colour depending on whether your target was friend or foe. They also got to show off the guns doing what they do best- blasting off rounds through an impressive gunflash as the slide whips back, while spitting those empty shell casings dramatically out to the side. You see barely any of that in ironsights.

it seems you want crosshairs to be accepted as the be-all, end-all of shooter game design

Nope. Never said that. I said that crosshairs just do the job better, as illustrated here:

If a multiplayer shooter came out with both ADS and crosshair hip firing and gave them both the same accuracy, all the ADS players would cry about the crosshair players having an advantage in multiplayer. Perhaps that shows that crosshairs are just... better

A big reason there wasn't ADS in early shooters aside from arcade focus is because it was a lot simpler to just put a cross hair icon on screen than to create a whole new viewpoint and smooth animation transitions for ADS.

No, they just hadn't thought of it yet, and ironsights started out as simple as it gets- a black image with a blurred edge, that jerks bigger and smaller with each shot fired. Peanuts compared to the older way of polishing up all your gun firing animations knowing they'd always be on full display, and working out an alternative spot for the 3D gun model to sit and fire from when you right click to do your mini-zoom in. With early ADS they could get away with removing the whole gun model entirely and you wouldn't even know thanks to the bottom of the screen being blocked off

The downsides you mention don't have to be so pronounced that it hampers gameplay, view, speed, etc.

And yet, if they're in the game, then they are hampering the gameplay. You can't dive into the pool, without also getting wet.

Shooter gameplay is already as simple as hell with mere pointing and shooting, and ADS when done well only adds a tactical, immersive layer onto it. It should be there as a tool when hip fire isn't accurate enough past a certain range.

You're forgetting that literally everything in a game is there by design. The mere existence of a 'certain range' hipfire is ineffective beyond, is only there because someone made it that way. And in general, it's done to force you into using the ironsights: the tool there specifically to solve a problem that's only there to make you use the tool. You could just as well get rid of the problem so that you don't need the tool in the first place. Also you personally might find a giant black blurry chunk of dead space on your monitor immersive, but as someone who has two eyes, one of which I can open at any time to see what's going on below the target I'm aiming down the sights of my weapon at in real life, I can't really say I share your enthusiasm for an aiming system that blocks visibility from the edge of the screen right up to my target pixel, often from 3 sides.

[sub]See how this guy has two eyes? With ADS, one of those eyes doesn't even exist. Yep, real immersive...[/sub]​

Guns have sights for a reason, and shooters are largely considered the most immersive genre for the same one.

Have you got a citation for that one? Or did you just mean first person perspective games in general? Bit of a difference there. Also guns have safety catches and hold bullets in the chamber, but you don't see that pop up in these 'realistic' games too often.

Some people enjoy the act of firing a virtual weapon, how it behaves according to style, caliber, the ballistics of how the enemies and objects react to getting shot, how it sounds, etc.

So what? It's been that way ever since Wolfenstein first appeared. Games addressed all of that for years without ADS having anything remotely to do with it. Ironsights are a gimmick that pretend to make the gameplay more realistic, when they don't at all. Hell if they really wanted to make it realistic they'd start by rotating your whole view by about 30 degrees as you tilted your head over the gun to line your right eye up with the sights, while keeping your movement controls parallel with the ground.

And if you think that's a bit counter-intuitive and limits the player's ability to get on with the task at hand of finding, lining up and picking off targets efficiently, then hey- now you're beginning to see what I'm getting at with ironsights in general.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

A big reason there wasn?t ADS in early shooters aside from arcade focus is because it was a lot simpler to just put a cross hair icon on screen than to create a whole new viewpoint and smooth animation transitions for ADS.

One of the earliest examples of ADS, or at least something similar to it, I know of was in the old Rainbox Six games. Similar because it wasn't the ADS we know today, but it functioned more or less the same. Hipfire, especially while moving, carried some pretty hefty penalties. To get any kind of reliable accuracy, you had to stand still and aim down sights, which was represented by slightly zooming in and the aiming reticule shrinking.

I'm mostly just mentioning it as an interesting sort of 'ancestor' to ADS as we know it now. Notably, early Rainbow Six (and the first Ghost Recon iirc) had no weapon viewmodels at all, let alone a transition animation between viewpoints. Possibly due to technical limitations and it may explain the more abstract approach to ADS[footnote]Although it could be argued that no obstructions on-screen had benefits when gunfire was a lethal as in those games[/footnote]. Later games did have modern style ADS.

 

[Zombie Proof]

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.

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?

Sniper rifles in l4d are kinda different animals though. Sure they're used to pick off specials at a distance and are best at it second only to the desert rifle. The real purpose for l4d snipers though is how they work in terms of penetration. They rip through 6-8 zombies at a time, taking the lot out with one shot. So while there are certain precision purposes for em, they're mostly used to rip through huge swaths of infected with the least amount of bullets.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Games addressed all of that for years without ADS having anything remotely to do with it. Ironsights are a gimmick that pretend to make the gameplay more realistic, when they don't at all. Hell if they really wanted to make it realistic they'd start by rotating your whole view by about 30 degrees as you tilted your head over the gun to line your right eye up with the sights, while keeping your movement controls parallel with the ground.

And if you think that's a bit counter-intuitive and limits the player's ability to get on with the task at hand of finding, lining up and picking off targets efficiently, then hey- now you're beginning to see what I'm getting at with ironsights in general.

ADS (or the TPS equivalent that is OTS) serves mainly as a sensitivity switch, which is needed for playing on a controller. Most players wanting realism merely want it because certain realistic elements translate well to making a better game. Beyond the sensitivity switch aspect, it makes basic game sense that focusing on one target and gaining greater accuracy would require equal downsides in other areas (vision, movement, etc.). I'm guessing almost nobody would actually want a completely realistic shooter because a real gunfight isn't much fun. Not to mention guns and weapons aren't designed to be balanced, they are designed to be OPed. Real shotguns or sniper rifles wouldn't work in any shooter for completely opposite reasons. Not even realistic bullet damage works in a game because of the fact that aiming in a video game even on an inferior controller is so much easier than in real life that you'd never be able to recreate the flow of a real gunfight unless you put a shitload of RNG into a shooter, which nobody wants.

 

[Squilookle]

Games addressed all of that for years without ADS having anything remotely to do with it. Ironsights are a gimmick that pretend to make the gameplay more realistic, when they don't at all. Hell if they really wanted to make it realistic they'd start by rotating your whole view by about 30 degrees as you tilted your head over the gun to line your right eye up with the sights, while keeping your movement controls parallel with the ground.

And if you think that's a bit counter-intuitive and limits the player's ability to get on with the task at hand of finding, lining up and picking off targets efficiently, then hey- now you're beginning to see what I'm getting at with ironsights in general.

ADS (or the TPS equivalent that is OTS) serves mainly as a sensitivity switch, which is needed for playing on a controller. Most players wanting realism merely want it because certain realistic elements translate well to making a better game. Beyond the sensitivity switch aspect, it makes basic game sense that focusing on one target and gaining greater accuracy would require equal downsides in other areas (vision, movement, etc.). I'm guessing almost nobody would actually want a completely realistic shooter because a real gunfight isn't much fun. Not to mention guns and weapons aren't designed to be balanced, they are designed to be OPed. Real shotguns or sniper rifles wouldn't work in any shooter for completely opposite reasons. Not even realistic bullet damage works in a game because of the fact that aiming in a video game even on an inferior controller is so much easier than in real life that you'd never be able to recreate the flow of a real gunfight unless you put a shitload of RNG into a shooter, which nobody wants.

Once again- shooters performed all that just fine before ADS arrived. Sensitivity switches were pretty much standard already, and no, you don't need them on a controller either. Pretty sure Halo, for example, didn't bother with them.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Sensitivity switches were pretty much standard already, and no, you don't need them on a controller either. Pretty sure Halo, for example, didn't bother with them.

I want my camera sensitivity to be pretty high/maxed depending on the game and how extreme its spectrum is. Then, I want my other sensitivities much lower for fine tuning aim but still high enough to be able to drag-scope. If I have the camera sensitivity maxed out and there's no way/mechanic to switch the sensitivity, then it'll be more so luck than anything if I have to correct my aim at all after my initial camera aim.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Spoiler

One could easily get the impression that ADS is unplayable to you from the above comments; at least in the same way 30fps is unplayable to a lot of people.

Right, I can see you're really struggling with this so I'll do you a solid and spell it out in no uncertain terms:

ADS- not unplayable. I use it myself on occasion. As I explained here:

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, since 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.

What I just don't get is why ADS automatically has to be bad.

My beef with ADS is that it has grown to replace a system that worked better without it. Crosshairs allowed better visibility, more information about how your bullet spread was expected to perform, sometimes even changed colour depending on whether your target was friend or foe. They also got to show off the guns doing what they do best- blasting off rounds through an impressive gunflash as the slide whips back, while spitting those empty shell casings dramatically out to the side. You see barely any of that in ironsights.

it seems you want crosshairs to be accepted as the be-all, end-all of shooter game design

Nope. Never said that. I said that crosshairs just do the job better, as illustrated here:

If a multiplayer shooter came out with both ADS and crosshair hip firing and gave them both the same accuracy, all the ADS players would cry about the crosshair players having an advantage in multiplayer. Perhaps that shows that crosshairs are just... better

A big reason there wasn't ADS in early shooters aside from arcade focus is because it was a lot simpler to just put a cross hair icon on screen than to create a whole new viewpoint and smooth animation transitions for ADS.

No, they just hadn't thought of it yet, and ironsights started out as simple as it gets- a black image with a blurred edge, that jerks bigger and smaller with each shot fired. Peanuts compared to the older way of polishing up all your gun firing animations knowing they'd always be on full display, and working out an alternative spot for the 3D gun model to sit and fire from when you right click to do your mini-zoom in. With early ADS they could get away with removing the whole gun model entirely and you wouldn't even know thanks to the bottom of the screen being blocked off

The downsides you mention don't have to be so pronounced that it hampers gameplay, view, speed, etc.

And yet, if they're in the game, then they are hampering the gameplay. You can't dive into the pool, without also getting wet.

Shooter gameplay is already as simple as hell with mere pointing and shooting, and ADS when done well only adds a tactical, immersive layer onto it. It should be there as a tool when hip fire isn't accurate enough past a certain range.

You're forgetting that literally everything in a game is there by design. The mere existence of a 'certain range' hipfire is ineffective beyond, is only there because someone made it that way. And in general, it's done to force you into using the ironsights: the tool there specifically to solve a problem that's only there to make you use the tool. You could just as well get rid of the problem so that you don't need the tool in the first place. Also you personally might find a giant black blurry chunk of dead space on your monitor immersive, but as someone who has two eyes, one of which I can open at any time to see what's going on below the target I'm aiming down the sights of my weapon at in real life, I can't really say I share your enthusiasm for an aiming system that blocks visibility from the edge of the screen right up to my target pixel, often from 3 sides.

[sub]See how this guy has two eyes? With ADS, one of those eyes doesn't even exist. Yep, real immersive...[/sub]​

Guns have sights for a reason, and shooters are largely considered the most immersive genre for the same one.

Have you got a citation for that one? Or did you just mean first person perspective games in general? Bit of a difference there. Also guns have safety catches and hold bullets in the chamber, but you don't see that pop up in these 'realistic' games too often.

Some people enjoy the act of firing a virtual weapon, how it behaves according to style, caliber, the ballistics of how the enemies and objects react to getting shot, how it sounds, etc.

So what? It's been that way ever since Wolfenstein first appeared. Games addressed all of that for years without ADS having anything remotely to do with it. Ironsights are a gimmick that pretend to make the gameplay more realistic, when they don't at all. Hell if they really wanted to make it realistic they'd start by rotating your whole view by about 30 degrees as you tilted your head over the gun to line your right eye up with the sights, while keeping your movement controls parallel with the ground.

And if you think that's a bit counter-intuitive and limits the player's ability to get on with the task at hand of finding, lining up and picking off targets efficiently, then hey- now you're beginning to see what I'm getting at with ironsights in general

.

Not sure what that picture or the person in it is attempting to accomplish, considering A. He?s using a scope, and B. Unless he?s superhuman or Igor his non-dominant eye won?t be good for much peripheral vision. Why would it matter on a screen anyways where there?s next to no spatial awareness? Besides, it?s impossible to focus on two things at once; it?s not how vision works. [https://www.thoughtco.com/dominant-eye-definition-1927100]


I can understand the ADS effect can be detrimental to certain aspects of gameplay like you mentioned, but it?s still only a temporary, voluntary function depending on the situation. As long as accuracy stats are well represented, you should only need to use ADS beyond a certain distance depending on the weapon. At that point you?re likely not going to be swarmed by nearby enemies because if so you?d be hip firing anyways, unless using a handgun which is never really hip fired outside of an old western standoff.


The lack of spatial awareness on a monitor throws a kink in the works for sure, but to me it still just doesn?t look or feel right being able to accurately hit long distance targets using this view -

In a fast paced arcade/arena shooter or TPS by all means a crosshair is the way to go, but for more tactical FPS gameplay it would feel almost as bad as auto aim if you could just run around cross hair?ing everything near and far. As long as it?s implemented well, ADS shouldn?t really be any different than having to tap the breaks or downshift in a driving game for a more controlled approach, and not like the equivalent of stalling the car.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Nice list! I'll have to say, witchfire really grabbed my attention, and seems to be the first medieval fantasy FPS since Painkiller or the Hexen/Heretic days. The fact that it looks so detailed and smooth makes it look even more promising, I hope it runs well optimized for that pace too. So that gets my vote.

I'm actually pretty hype for Far Cry 5, but still remains to be seen what they do with the setting. I hope that 3-4-5 don't all turn out to be carbon copies of each other with different location, but they're still fun to play regardless (for me of course).

System Shock 2 was a great experience, but it wasn't really the gameplay but the design and atmosphere that got me. It looks like they're trying to stay true to it, but I'll wait to see what it turns out like. Same as Metro, except the gameplay in Metro is pretty damn near top notch.

Squadron 42 I never even considered an FPS, so that's not really on the list for me. Might be a great game though.

So my ranking would be:
-Witchfire
-Metro
-Far Cry 5
-System Shock

 

[TheFinish]

I'm most excited for Witchfire and System Shock (particularly since the latter one's devs did a bang up job on the Turok remasters. But where's Turok 3, dammit!?)

I'm also excited, in a sense, for FC5. I know I'll probably enjoy it since I've enjoyed every Far Cry to date, warts and all, and the idea of one taking place in the rural US means that no matter wether they play it straight or not, it's gonna be a goldmine.

 

[fix-the-spade]

If it works then System Shock, if it's no good then Metro.

I loved both Metro games so far, although I worry a little about this one moving towards open world. My hope is that it will be the new STALKER in all but name.

System Shock, well SS2 is one of the best (and most infuriating) games of it's time. If this remake of the first can recapture that depth but be a little more user friendly that will be grand.

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

Red Orchestra and Red Orchestra 2 would probably be your bag. Red Orchestra goes so far as having you manually cycle the bolt, which puts the US players at a huge advantage with their self loading M1 Garands against the Germans mostly having K98s with a few G43s kicking about. Let's not get started on the Russians and their Mosin clunk cannons (although on maps set later in the war they get a lot of Tokarevs). It has a Vietnam era expansion too.

ARMA 3 has pretty good bullet physics and properly rendering sights too, although it's a bit less simulator than it's predecessors.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I'm most excited for Witchfire and System Shock (particularly since the latter one's devs did a bang up job on the Turok remasters. But where's Turok 3, dammit!?).

It's probably still climbing out of the pit they threw it in with Rage Wars, Evolution and Turok 2007. Although looking back, none of those really deserve to be in the pit of forgotten games, maybe they got thrown in to keep the dinosaurs fed.

 

[TheFinish]

I'm most excited for Witchfire and System Shock (particularly since the latter one's devs did a bang up job on the Turok remasters. But where's Turok 3, dammit!?).

It's probably still climbing out of the pit they threw it in with Rage Wars, Evolution and Turok 2007. Although looking back, none of those really deserve to be in the pit of forgotten games, maybe they got thrown in to keep the dinosaurs fed.

Goddam notifications bug...

At any rate, it's more for the sake of completeness than anything. And frankly, you can leave Evolution in the pit, it was complete garbage. 2007 is just generic space soldier man, but it was ok for what it was. You don't really need Rage Wars, you could just use multiplayer in the other games.

But, let them finish SysShock first. That's a game I'd love to replay but can't due to how dated and bad the interface is.