I've got GoldenEye 007 for this generation as far as "traditional/multiplayer" FPS' go, and that's enough for me. Sure I'll play some Halo once and a while when friends are over, but other than that... really only 1-2 FPS games are all I need a generation.

Now... this doesn't include Bioshock and the upcoming "prequel" Infinite, which I cannot wait for. With their focus on Single Player and untraditional FPS elements... I'm all for it.

Don't you think it is close minded of you to completely ignore an entire genre?

in most cases I'd agree, but Naz is a rather prolific reviewer on the site, he plays a lot of games and gets a really well informed opinion of many genres, systems, and games.  He's not being closeminded, he's making a rational and conscious decision based on MANY hours of play.  

Most people don't have 2 TVs and many people have friends that don't have their own gaming console to bring over.

Well it is not perfect, but I have had up to eight TVs an only two consoles in a room playing Halo 2 not too long ago. I have not tried it on Halo 3 or Reach, but it would be surprising if it was not there. You are right of course that most games lack split screen, but that is a far cry from saying that shooters are no longer social when the reality is the are more social due to more options in how to play.

I'm not completely ignoring it, clearly, just moving away from being so active with it. It's not an off-the-cuff decision. I clearly justify my reasoning in the OP (specifically the lack of the local multiplayer features which made me such a fan in the first place). 

I'm a very social man. I like to get together with some friends a couple weekends a month, drink, and play games all night. We laugh, we insult each other good naturedly, and we have a TON of fun. With shooters constantly moving further and further from that experience and focusing more and more on online which, frankly, bores me, the genre is losing its biggest draw for me.

What this means is, I may buy that type of shooter still, but they are no longer anywhere near a $60 purchase for me. Does that make sense? It's simply not logical for me to plop down that kind of cash on a game that's going to last me 4 hours of moderately enjoyable campaign play and then another 10 of online which frankly is starting to blend together between games. I'm just crashing out of it. 

That's not more options, that's different options, and it's certainly not more social. Playing online with a headset does not make you social. The internet is not a substitute for real human interaction. Hell, we do a large amount of communication non-verbally as humans, with body language and facial expressions. You cannot substitute that with online play. I won't even CONSIDER buying a racing game without split screen, because that's literally the only way I'll play it at all. 

I'll probably get MW3, and the new Ghost Recon. Can't think of any other FPS games I'll pay full or near-full price for.

I think you read my post incorrectly or I did not make myself clear enough. I said it had two xboxes connected to 8 tvs in one room. That is more people playing than the 4 person split screen you are talking about. I also mentioned spit screen coop. I could name numerous titles this gen that do meet that description.

Using the internet for more human interaction has been thought to be a downfall to society, but it is not all bad. Your website is partially run of of interaction on the internet so you can't compleatly say it is all bad.

None of my posts have suggested I prefer talking on the headset anyways to strangers, when in reality the best times for me have been playing coop campaigns with friends of many genres in the same room. Still the genre that has the most coop is the shooter.

took the words right out of my mouth, but i disagree on the racing part, im having so much fun with NFS Hot Pursuit i didnt even notice there was no split screen, to each his own