What would you want out of the next Ghost Recon game?

TLDR: A large environment yet level structured (as opposed to open world), story/character-focused 15 - 20-hour campaign that makes you care about the place you're in, your squad, the people you meet and things you're doing. No more ad nauseam gameplay of killing a bunch of dudes mainly to level up.

---

I am going through Ghost Recon Future Soldier again now that it's backward compatible on the One (especially since I didn't go through it on hard), and having finally bought and played Wildlands late last year it all got me thinking of what I would love to see in a new Ghost Recon, and I thought I'd pose the question to you all too. Again, like the Halo thread I made recently, I am in it for the campaign portion only, not the co-op/multiplayer portion, so I'll only say what I'd like from that portion of the game, assuming it has a storied campaign. I'd like them to bring back the more linear structure with levels, but make the levels larger and perhaps more vertical and encourage players to explore the environment.

I like the levels in Future Soldier, but they are pretty linear. I want a focus on an open yet still linear setting that pushes you through a story. My issue with Wildlands is that it gets repetitive in almost every respect, from side missions to even the music. They also reused the same exact buildings in different town areas which was disappointing. I thought it played really well though which made me go through every little thing the game offered. My favorite Ghost Recon games are the Advanced Warfighter games, and the only thing they lack is a really intriguing overarching story in my opinion. They are pretty basic: this country has a bomb, stop them before they do something bad kind of thing.

I really just don't want another co-op focused game that has you wandering around the world that, while can show beauty, largely consists of repetitive tasks with a pretty uninteresting story that has you doing... well, uninteresting things. Ghost Recon is a squad-based shooter, so co-op can definitely be in it. A nice 15 to 20-hour storied campaign (compared to the ten or so hours of the previous linear GR games) that has you exploring interesting locals while learning about your group of characters and their cause for doing what they're doing is what I want. I want to care about the place you're in and how the events affect the people that live/lived there rather than it just be about having the level be a playground for you to shoot enemies in.

I would like the player to really feel like Ghosts too (moving them around is just fine at doing that, but not necessarily from a story perspective). Maybe delve deeper into what it really means to be part of the Ghosts. It often just feels like they're standard soldiers and the only thing that separates them is them often saying something along the lines of 'we were never here' and some dialogue mentioning that they're the best the U.S. has to offer. I mean, what makes them Ghosts. Honestly, Wildlands kind of had a template for a lot these aspects, but aside from gameplay it pretty much failed in every respect due to its repetitive, and uninteresting way of doing things.

It's hard to explain in detail what I'd really like and not make it sound like it's something we've already seen, but maybe originality overall isn't what I'm asking. It's also hard for me to give details as to how these aspects could be made appealing, I think it's more about having it be about that, and the developers creating something unexpected and exceptional with it. I'd just like to see a more storied yet expanded structure compared to the Advanced Warfighter/Future Soldier style of game while not going fully open world, and giving the player something to care about with its story and characters rather than just shooting, driving and leveling up or putting different cosmetics on your character. It'd also be nice not to have the player doing repetitive side content.

It'd be cool if it was a game that had something to say, and when the credits rolled, it made you want to dive back into it again for one reason or another. They could use downtime moments as flashbacks, where it shows the past of the squad you play, doing normal day things that molded them into who they were and what led them to become a Ghost. Maybe I was done with it before it even started (despite enjoying it fine), but I don't really want them to focus so much on the playground aspect of the many recent Ubisoft titles where 'you create your own story' or have fun with the ludicrous things that can happen with or without a buddy. That sounds stern, but maybe a little more seriousness than they typically go for but still keeping the fun obviously. Now I'll be done with reiterating what I want. What about you guys?

I want more Shadow Wars.

I'd like for Ghost Recon to got back to its roots as a squad-based shooter about small unit, direct action raids. Though Wildlands had the setup to be an open-world counter-insurgency game, it obviously had zero ambitions to be anything more than a slightly tactical bent on the Ubisoft open world formula. As for what it means to be a Ghost, well...... here's the thing:

The Ghosts are basically "just" Delta Force. Same missions set (direct action, advance force operations, special reconnaissance, etc.), though minus the original counter terrorism remit that Delta was started for. But yeah, they could be better characterized. Military games as a whole do a poor job of this, largely because you spend little time with your fellow soldiers outside of a combat context. There should be more "downtime" doing non-combat military tasks, like planning or training, or just hanging out between missions on a Forward Operating Base. I found the diagloue for your squads to be pretty over the top, trying way,way too hard to seem "gritty." SOF operators have hobbies too, y'all.

@dutchelvis92: I know what they are, but I was thinking there had to be more than them just being another covert team the U.S. had. And something that made them perhaps more worthy of being a Ghost than just part of any other special forces team (that sounds derogatory, sorry). Maybe that's too fictional. That said, it would be cool if they delved deeper into the characters aside from that, like what home life is like and how their past (childhood, teenage years, and the time leading up to them going into the military or what have you) made them into who they became as a person and as a Ghost you play as. Something about Scott Mitchell in the previous Ghost games was that he didn't have much to say so you can more or less imagine (aside from what can be read in the novels if you want to go that route), and I liked him despite being so mission focused. With the characters in Wildlands and even Future they weren't that great. There's one scene in Future where the Ghost Leader is talking to his son on the phone, or in Wildlands where one team member talks and jokes about him getting a divorce but that's about as far as it goes when it comes to anything personal. I'm just kind of sick of the snarky character, the chill character, and the mostly mission focused guy that likes to tell everyone else to be quiet and stay focused. There could be more than that. I just finished Future Soldier again. I liked it a lot... again.

So, Cocain Mountain (or Wildlands, I guess), is the first Ghost Recon game I’ve liked since...the Island Thunder expansion?

Maybe I chalked the franchise up as dead starting with Lone Wolf mode and I’ve stopped caring to the point where the name means nothing.

If Ubisoft were to make a real-ass Ghost Recon game, I bet I’d be too old and caual for it.

Anyhow, I’d want the game to be a gorgeous wilderness-based game where the sights and sounds of the outdoors are first class. I’d want you to be dropped in to open areas (it doesn’t need to be open world) with distinct missions.

Stealth would be key to survival. One-to-two shots will almost certainly kill. Even a single shot will injure and cause mobility issues.

No healing, no health packs, just fairly realistic field medicine (stop the bleeding....maybe some sort of splinting).

Shotguns and SMGs would be rarely useful. It’d be a long range game. Getting seen would lead to a world of hurt and a huge loss of supplies from the fire fight.

I’d want some Ghost Recon-ass Ghost Recon.

More so, though, I’d want some SWAT-ass Rainbow Six. Siege actually comes kinda close, and games like Payday check certain boxes, too...

As fun as Wildlands was, it wasn't really a Ghost Recon game for me. Way too silly and over-the-top.

I'd like to see them completely return to the original format. Squad-based strategy with a high difficulty level, separate missions that are set in small, open maps. Tom Clancy games used to have a faux-realistic style with a lot of political drama and serious attempts at handling the subject of war. I'm definitely giving them way too much credit here, but you know what I mean.

They will never make that game though, as it just doesn't sell to today's kids. These days it's either ridiculous action or boring simulation, with nothing much in between.

Yeah I would totally be down for a back to roots approach. Specifically the two GRAW games. I wish Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six would go back to basics too but RS at least DEFINITELY won't happen now with their 10 year plan for Siege.

Would be cool if they added a supernatural twist and you commanded a team of actual ghosts.

@the_greg: I can get behind the challenge part, but I'm not really for the mission briefing, mission planning and then onto the small 'boxed' stages that the original had (actually, I've never played the original Xbox/PC Ghost Recon games, so I'm referring to Rainbow Six I guess). I mean, I liked them fine, but to me, they're a bit... simplistic, in a way. They'd really have to cram a lot of detail into all of it for me to appreciate more today. I feel like that aspect is very gamey and has less cohesion from one level to the next. I wouldn't mind them getting Bill Brown back as the composer; I love the original Rainbow Six - RS3 music. I agree though that I would like it to be more akin to original Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six than yet another Call of Duty clone. I like Call of Duty fine, but going back to old games like Turok it makes me wish developers started implementing some aspects of old games into new.

@ntm: Yeah, the early Ghost Recons were very simplistic with no real detail or fuss in their graphical design and mission structure. The planning in Rainbox Six and Ghost Recon were very similar, but both suffered from the same issue in that they weren't actually that exciting when you got into the game. Both had a tense, slow-burn sort of feel.

Rainbow Six 3 was a decent mix of modern gameplay and the planning detail of the originals. I played a little bit of the PC version recently and it still holds up once you've tailored a few of the keymappings.

I think a mixture of the modern flow of gameplay with the classic 'realism' and difficulty would go a long way for a section of audience, but not everyone.

Ubisoft will never go back to that format because business is business. Maybe an indie studio will have a go.

For them to make a proper Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six game again instead?

Ambush tactics: like XCOM 2; a sort of overwatch-style moveset. It could be tied with an optional skill: a mode of vision that lets you see enemy patrol routes, plus a higher view from your drone, relaying that info in the form of holograms. The drone would show predictions of how your currently set "reaction moves" would unfold upon enemy engagement, simulating it on the battlefield when you're all in position (which gives you shot efficacy percentages, among other stats based on your cover and set reaction moves).

You could set up your guys around a certain patrol point -- where a convoy will pass, that kind of thing -- and have them in overwatch/reaction-shot states, or other abilities unique to their class. You would prepare those reaction moves in advance, and it would only dictate how the initial part of the encounter would unfold. So let's say your drone shows you a Humvee with a mounted gun's patrol route, and it's rolling up, and all your guys are waiting in elevated positions set to "react" (except for one demolition guy on the ground), you could see the gunner aiming high to take them out in the holographic prediction, which would highlight a blind spot in red for your demolition guy to get all up in there and plant a charge. This would obviously differ depending on what you've set up, and not be applicable in every single random scenario. Maybe just the more linear missions, otherwise it's probably impossible(?). Sort of like the hammer of dawn. A voice can say, "Holovision online," when you're in a zone designed for it, I dunno...

You could also set up "kill sequences", picking who attacks who/what first, second, etc. It would all be totally optional. You could switch off the holovision and just have the tactical options left up to luck or your own predictions.

Nemesis system: outside of the hierarchical butterfly effect shit we know and love it for, it would be cool if, when you take out an enemy squad leader, the lower-ranking soldiers react in a varied number of ways. One might freak out and kill a hostage, go into a frenzied state, run off the map, accidentally blow himself up, etc. All kinds of stuff.

Dynamic team loyalty: your guys have standards. If you make a decision that goes against one of their views of what good leadership is, it will affect their trust level. So if your mission ends with too many civilian losses, one of your guys can say screw this, I'm gone, and be replaced with a rookie or something. It could go another way and make them think you're willing to make sacrifices, which gives them a unique passive ability.

Feel free to tell me if that is all dumb, but I would dig it.

Fine, I’ll be the one who says it: political awareness.

Next gen S.W.A.T. 4. Executing synchronized door breaches, timing flashbangs, etc. Don't make Online Co-op the main focus of the game. As far as story, I couldn't really care less. I think a domestic (inside the U.S.) would be interesting, depending on how they did it.

Let me preface this by saying I played all of Wildlands cooperatively with a friend. We had an absolute blast with that game. Playing together felt like some sort of weird callback to the old Socom single players to a certain extent.

I just want to see more tactical gameplay from both Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six. Honestly though, I'm starting to think that ship has sailed. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both Siege and Wildlands, but I feel like they're sort of something different altogether.

I'm also still waiting for another Splinter Cell!

@blackout62: That's fine. I wouldn't mind seeing that. Have anything, in particular, you'd like to see tackled?

@mightyduck: Yep yep yep. I'm definitely waiting for another Splinter Cell too! I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter if it's like the old or new style Splinter Cell. At this point, they might just go somewhere new with it again though.

---

They should make a third person WWIII game (not Endwar) and mix all the Clancy games together, minus The Division since I feel like that's its own thing, where you play as Ghosts, the Rainbow Six team, and even Fourth Echelon. Somehow intertwining those together and making stakes high and interesting would be cool to me.

Off the top of my head, Wildlands is a US interventionist fantasy glamorizing some of the worst imperialist action the country has taken; it's built off willful misunderstanding of the political climate of Bolivia, disregard by the developers of any of the political statements implied or otherwise by the game, terrible sociopathic characters spouting terribly accented Spanish from nearly all angles, and all in all furthers my theory that Ubisoft just doesn't like Latinos.

That all said, damn could I go for a new Splinter Cell game. In a perfect world it's a Splinter Cell game more focused on nuanced enjoyable characters than trying to wow the audience with spectacle and also is inspired by Riley MacLeod's The Queer Masculinity of Stealth Games, but that's pretty much impossible so I'll settle for any attempt to reignite the stealth action genre.

minus The Division since I feel like that's its own thing

My headcanon is that every Ubisoft property ends with The Division. Watch_Dogs? Far Cry? Assassin's Creed? All the Clanc? All gone in a global wave of smallpox.

It doesn't need to be open world, just a well designed and thoughtful co-op campaign. I liked Future Soldier and think it can be expanded upon... also not a technical nightmare on PC.

@blackout62: Yeah, I've read that about them responding to Bolivia wanting to take legal action against the game. Jaurez also banned Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2. So, when you say you want to see something political, you just mean you want it to deal more with the actual place than stereotyping, generalizing and what have you? Something I did as I was going through Wildlands actually was read up on Bolivia some. Well, I'm not sure how accurate the site is, but I read the stuff on Wikitravel.

@ntm: agreed!

I’ve been meaning to replay Blacklist. I rememeber really enjoying that game when it came out.

I didn't give a shit about Wildlands upon its release but for w/e reason, I'm kinda curious about it atm.

As for what I want out of a Ghost Recon game, I barely know the series to give a good answer. The pre-Advanced Warfighter games looked like a good brutal tactical shooter but I never tried any of those. When I think about the series, I remember the ridiculous next-gen visuals of Advanced Warfighter around the 360 release but I never played more than the demo of that either. Maybe pull back on the scale and provide something like Rainbow Six Siege but as a single player experience. That probably makes zero economic sense but that'd be what I'd be into.

Wow, this did not age well. I remember being blown away by this reveal. Apparently it was called Ghost Recon 3 at that E3.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter E3 2005:

I want more interesting scenarios or settings first and foremost, the gameplay itself has never been an issue for me in the previous games, not even in Future Soldier.

However I want a more unique environment to play around in, and a more unique story-base. Something completely new, that we haven't seen in a dozen other "military shooters" already.

Adding more personality to your squad-mates would be a big improvement as well.

wildlands on the highest difficulty was pretty tactical still, Id like more urban environments though, as the jungle setting isn't fun to navigate without just cause esque movement options I was frequently frustrated by the driving and pathfinding on the hills. Maybe a more lethal opfor in a russian city or something could be cool

a super serious spec ops game... co-op/multiplayer i Modern Warfare 2 Spec Ops fashion... WIERD TAKE

@liquiddragon: Hmm. I've never seen that video before, but that's probably because when the 360 came out Ghost Recon was exactly on my radar. Advanced Warfighter might have been my favorite around launch title, but it wasn't the game I wanted the 360 for. It was just something I thought looked like it could be good once I got the system. I would love the G.R.A.W. games to be remastered, I think they hold up somewhat well even visually. The video looks like a mix of the 360 version and the original Xbox or PC version. I love to play all their third and first-person shooter Tom Clancy games, but since Siege is merely focused on the multiplayer always online aspect, I never played it. It could be good and so I don't want to bash it, but I am personally disappointed that they ditched the Patriots idea (despite having reservations about that itself since it felt like it was perhaps too 'ooh-rah America' attitude and had some moral issues it looked like'.

Remember this? This neither has aged well.

I would definitely like to see a wildlands 2 but better AI and some combat controls tweaking and better flight controls and lastly the driving is so wonky. It feels so stiff. I did love it the open world was awesome.

A new Rainbow Six New Vegas on console with co-op.

I loved the customization of your dude and the option to choose a build, working together to save hostages and breach buildings and stuff.

Basically Ghost Recon 1 and Island Thunder.

Big, beautiful wilderness, no GUI, maps are manually marked and broken up into cells...no real healing, realistic weapons and bullet drop, co-op focus for campaign stuff. Emphasis on stealth, planning, and communication.

Hear me out: wilder. lands.

The scooby-doo licence and a Vincent Price soundalike.

Oh, yeah I totally forgot I made this. It's kind of a weird bump (well, I suppose it's not, but whatever, I don't know). That said, I was actually thinking about getting it on the One X...

@nutter: Just a heads up, this is a six-month-old thread and you had already posted on here, ha ha. I'm not saying it's an issue, I just thought you'd like to know. Rereading your original post, do your feelings still stand the same? Just curious. I'd always find it interesting and sometimes a bit cringe-worthy reading my old comments.

@ntm: Ha! At least my answers were pretty consistent!

More dudes with skull face paint.

-Fix the AI. This is probably the most glaring issue with the gameplay of Wildlands at the moment. Ubisoft Paris, go take a look at MGS V's enemy AI and how it handles stealth detection. That is how it should be, or at least a lot closer to it. None of this bogus and ridiculous "Enemy detects dead body, now leads entire base contingent directly for my hidden position 600 meters away." And of course, the other instances when the game just spawns squads of enemies out of thin air right next to you. When tuned for a campaign set on Normal, this isn't such a big deal, since the game plays like Gears of War at that setting, but on higher difficulties where players want to have realistic levels of bullet damage, these instances feels very unfair and unfun. The amount of enemies in encounters, in general, feels very high, but the actual AI behind them feels shoddy and lackluster. Lower the enemy numbers, but give them realistic tactics and behaviors, along the lines of MGS V, and it'll be a much more satisfying gameplay experience.

-And of course, a big issue with all of these tactical shooters in wilderness environments... the AI's ability to see through foliage better than the player can. This was a noticeable issue with the original Ghost Recon game, in fact. Wildlands continues that tradition. It's just not a good feeling when the AI somehow sees through dense jungle foliage to spot you while you're hiding in the foliage looking to ambush him. Stuff like the orange tags and abusing thermal vision can sorta kinda help to even the field a bit, but it all feels like bandaids on the central issue of the AI being way too good at spotting you.

-Semi auto sniper rifles should have more ammo than the heavy bolt action sniper rifles. A battle rifle (or DMR) like the G28 or MK14 should not have the same ammo load as a .50 cal BMG anti-materiel rifle. Right now, these battle rifles like the G28 feel incredibly weak and can take something like 5-6 rounds to kill an alerted enemy. In a firefight, where you're engaged and missing shots as well, the ammo capacity of 20+68 rounds is just not enough. For something like a .50 cal HTI, sure that'll be enough. But the battle rifles need an ammo capacity that is somewhere between the heavy sniper rifles and the assault rifles.

-Reduce the stealth bonus for shooting enemies that are unalerted. This is one of the most unrealistic aspects of Wildlands. Sneak up on an unsuspecting guard and shoot him in the foot with a 9mm and he'll be knocked backwards dead like he just got hit by a rocket. On the other hand, once enemies are alerted, they can take something like 5 or 6 7.62mm shots from a MK14. This huge damage disparity between alert states feels incredibly silly and unrealistic. I feel like a damage bonus of 25-50% would be fine and still reward players for their stealth gameplay, instead of what feels like 400-500% in the current game.

-Too often, enemy bases and outposts are located right by the side of the road. As the player is trying to survey the base and snipe from the outer edges of the location, they're basically forced to position right near the roads. This means that often the whole thing will be ruined by a random cartel or Unidad patrol driving down the road, detecting you, and shooting you in the back. Unbelievably frustrating. I suggest moving bases further away from roads to help solve this issue.

-Real ballistics models for individual guns. I think everybody knows by now that every single sniper rifle, with the exception of the Dragunov, has the exact same ballistic trajectory (bullet drop). There's no difference in bullet drop between a .50 cal HTI and a 7.62mm G28. It just feels lame. The ballistics data is out there. The real guns are out there. Please just get the modeling into the game so the guns can feel unique and realistic.

-Tagging enemies. Tags are a gameplay mechanic that are appropriate for this kind of game and should remain. They reward recon scouting and preparation and this should be encouraged. However, I feel like right now they're just too powerful. Perhaps when you lose LOS, tags should freeze in place, much like how "Last Known Position" works for the player in Splinter Cell games. This would fix the issue of me diving behind cover but somehow still being able to see the orange circles running around through the terrain, like I have X-ray vision. Of course, this may have some issues that need to be worked out and adjusted, like any new mechanic.

-Gun stats should make sense and actually convey the real under-the-hood information. For example, on the loadout screen, you can compare the rate of fire stat for the HTI and the MSR and conclude that the MSR must fire way faster than the HTI. That's what I noticed when I first played through the game in 2017. I mean, the MSR's bar is so much longer. But ingame, there's basically no difference in their ROFs. And of course, the same goes for noise reduction. Different guns have different stats for it, but ingame there's no difference at all. Every SMG with a suppressor will be silent to enemy AI at 23 meters, and cause suspicion at 22 meters. Every sniper rifle with a suppressor will be silent to enemy AI at 48 meters, and cause suspicion at 47 meters. Why give us different stats on the loadout menu when it's all completely meaningless?

-Fix the over the shoulder view for shooting. Right now, I pretty much always use ADS for shooting. The over the shoulder view is disastrous in this game and completely inadequate for actual gameplay use. The problem is that the bullet doesn't go where the reticle is. It can be blocked by walls, and this makes the reticle turn into a red X. From a gameplay standpoint, it's awful because you'll often be turning a corner to shoot the enemy and trying to figure out exactly when the red X will clear and turn into a red dot. That kind of uncertainty in a tactical Tom Clancy game is just unbelievably frustrating and converted me to only using ADS. Other shooters prioritize gameplay and allow you to shoot the target when you place the reticle over it. This needs to be changed for Wildlands 2, or else the over the shoulder perspective for shooting should be removed entirely.

-Gun sights and scopes should convey the correct zoom. If you test it out, you can see that the Digital Scope, which advertises a 2.5-3.5x adjustable zoom, actually does no such thing. Its 2.5x zoom actually provides slightly less zoom than "normal" 1x sights like the Panoramic Sight and EXPS3. It really functions as more of a 0.9x zoom, compared to those sights.

-There's been a lot of discussion about the amount of weapons you can carry. Ghost Mode brought the limit down to one primary and a pistol. I feel like it'd be fine if you just split the difference between normal and Ghost Mode's restrictions. My idea: the player loadout should allow for a primary weapon slot, a secondary weapon slot, and a pistol slot. The secondary weapon slot would only carry half or a third of the ammo capacity of the primary. This allows for a nice bit of flexibility in one's loadout, while still giving importance to the primary slot and emphasizing it as the biggest tool in the toolkit.

-Upgrade the thermal vision to the black and white version. See "Sicario" for the black and white thermal vision. Or maybe have the Wildlands version as the default thermal vision, with a skill upgrade later on to be able to upgrade it to black and white.

-Ability to blouse the boots. Cmon, you knew it was gonna be on here. I can't stress this enough.

-More useable shirt options. Right now, I find the "Crye Combat Shirt" and "Fleece" to be the only useable shirt options for the vast majority of outfit ideas. Everything else has incredible problems that prevent them from being useable shirts. For one thing, most of the shirts don't even have camo available to pick from, only basic colors and flannel patterns. And Crye and Fleece are the only ones that have somewhat high collars to come up to the neck to match the "one-hole balaclava" that I'll often choose for my head covering. Otherwise, you end up with an unsightly gap between the top of the collar and the bottom of the balaclava.

-Gun paint camo should correspond to uniform camo. Why is it that I can give myself AOR1 camo for my outfit, but then can't use the same camo scheme for my gun? And conversely, why are there so many gun paint camos that don't exist for my outfit camo options? This doesn't make any sense. I'm not going to use the crazy amount of gun paint camos that don't correspond to uniform camos.

-Iris changing effect when entering and exiting buildings. This is where the realism went a bit overboard and gameplay suffered. Yes, in real life it would be hard to see into an interior room when entering from a bright sunny outdoors. Yes, your eyes will have to take a second to adjust to the interior lighting. But the amount of darkness and light bloom when going from outdoors to indoors to outdoors again is just really unpleasant when playing the game for hours and hours. For the sake of gameplay, please tone down this iris effect. It just becomes really annoying to have to suffer through over the length of the campaign.

-Add the ability to timeskip and change the time of day. I believe MGS V had an option for this. Since the darkness of night provides additional cover and stealth for the player, it'd be nice to be able to manually control the time of day to allow players to start missions at night. Currently, you can only somewhat alter the time by fast traveling to outposts, which consumes some variable amount of time. It'd be nice to add in this option and give players control.

I really liked Future Soldier, so something along the lines of that.

I would like a return to form tbh. The open world concept was nice bit i feel like every game is doing that now. I'd like more focused, one off missions and no regenerating health. The limb specific damage was nice too (i.e. you get shot in the leg your movement is compromised, shot in the arm shooting is off, shot in the head you're dead etc.) I miss the old actually tactical Tom Clancy games like Rogue Spear and og Ghost Recon.

If I could get one thing and one thing only, it would be to have better vehicle handling. das it...

I was a big RavenShield guy but selling police intervention/ SWAT sims. Isn't gonna sell a lot of copies these days. A lot of Police Corpses used Raven Shield as a more "fun" way to try out new strategies.