Poll: What is your most anticipated upcoming FPS?

[infohippie]

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".

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Squilookle]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

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.

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.

Spoiler: Insurgency: Sandstorm

The Source mod is getting a full, standalone game

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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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 ***** 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.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

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.

 

[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!

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

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?

 

[Neverhoodian]

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.

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).

 

[Squilookle]

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?

Sure. L4D has a Sniper Rifle in it. Nobody uses it. The end.


OK, OK, the real reason is because Sniper rifle scopes are different from ADS, and existed a long time before the ironsight reared its ugly head. Whereas ADS blocks a large part of your screen (including where you're trying to aim itself if the gun has the proper recoil), scopes trade your peripheral vision for an immense advantage in zoom, with nothing obscuring anywhere near the centre of screen. This allowed sniper rifles to actually keep up with other guns even in something as fast as UT99. People still don't use it in L4D though.

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? It's certainly a lot more user friendly when (to fire) you can do it with just one button instead of having to press two.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

After playing so much Call of Duty and FarCry, I want every FPS with Iron Sights.

Or at the very least, games with realistic guns like AKs and Desert Eagles.

Just don't put sights on a gun if you can't aim a gun.

Counter Strike can work with Iron Sights they proved it with the Scoped Assault Rifles like the AUG.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

snip

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

Dammit, stupid quote notifications turned off gain.

Anyway, there are sniper rifles in L4D, but many people don't really use it like you would in most shooters, but more like a high-powered regular rifle, taking unscoped shots to take advantage of the high damage and overpenetration while still having enough of a viewing angle to spot incoming threats. Scoping is mostly reserved for situations where you can pick off a special infested with longer range shots of opportunity. Even so, opinions about it are divided, but that applies to pretty much every L4D weapon.

Unless you've got a good team. One guy hanging back with a sniper to provide cover fire and take out high priority targets while the remainder watch his back and handle the fodder with other weapons is a solid tactic, particularly in the 'last stand' finales.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

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.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

snip

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

Dammit, stupid quote notifications turned off gain.

Spoiler

Anyway, there are sniper rifles in L4D, but many people don't really use it like you would in most shooters, but more like a high-powered regular rifle, taking unscoped shots to take advantage of the high damage and overpenetration while still having enough of a viewing angle to spot incoming threats. Scoping is mostly reserved for situations where you can pick off a special infested with longer range shots of opportunity. Even so, opinions about it are divided, but that applies to pretty much every L4D weapon.

Unless you've got a good team. One guy hanging back with a sniper to provide cover fire and take out high priority targets while the remainder watch his back and handle the fodder with other weapons is a solid tactic, particularly in the 'last stand' finales.

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