Yeah I get that. I can see how a game would be like 1 shot to the head to kill and 2-4 to the chest, but I don't get why in like Halo or Gears you can take a whole clip to the chest and be good to go. I still think you should be able to kill to the chest, but it should just take a couple more shots. 

Like if we meet at a corner and i shoot you in the chest and you hit me in the head...I'm happy to accept my death with grace....but if I sneak up behind you and put 17 shots in your back, and you can turn and headshot me a couple times and I'm dead (either with luck or still) then I'm going to be an unhappy camper. 

MAG had it perfect. I remember running around, getting shot at, diving, healing, and returning fire. BEST GAME EVER.

You can camp, but after you put 17 shots in my back, I will turn and headshot you.

Yeah that's the one problem with quick death shooters...camping.  But I was talking about flanking you and getting the jump on you, not about camping and having you run past me so I can shoot you in the back. 

I like how in Call of Duty I could flank your team and spray down like 4 of you and get a multi-kill...but if I flank a whole team in Halo I'm fucked because it takes like half your clip to kill someone, even if you had amazing accuracy and were laying down headshots you still couldn't kill 4 guys if you totally flanked the shit out of them. 

Haha. Well there is the difference between games and life. In a game I am happy for larger targets to be worth less to make it into more of a game. I mean if FPS progress towards realism then ultimately it will end up depending on luck. It's possible to get shot in the chest and the bullet to miss anything important... but you could get shot in the leg and hit a major artery, in which case you would hardly be able to walk and could bleed to death in a few minutes. If the hit-zones in games progress to that level of complexity though it will suck all the fun out of the game as I am sure you would agree. (at least for competitive multiplayer... I think for a single player adventure details like that may be able to add to the game)

I think it would be neat if hit-zones could be made a little more complex though... i'm sure some of these may have been trialed in certain games, but they don't seem commonplace yet:
shooting in the leg causes slowed movement but low health loss
shooting the arm/shoulder causes a more shaky aim and low health loss
shooting in the gut causes low-medium health loss
shooting around the heart causes medium health loss
shooting the neck causes medium-high health loss
shooting the heart (to make it simple it would be an area about 1/3rd the size of the head in the centre of the chest) causes high health loss
shooting the head causes high health loss also.

This would mean that the largest high health loss hit-zone is still the head, but if you aim true then you can get similar results with a shot to the chest (assuming the opponent is facing towards or away from you... because side on the arms would be in the way)

I guess other factors could be added too, for example hitting a limb is just a set amount of health loss, but hitting the gut will cause an initial loss, plus a slow health drain until they pick up a medkit... and hitting the chest or neck will cause a slightly faster health drain.

That would be a pretty sweet system! I like the idea of injuries like getting shot in the leg making you walk slow and the other ones you named. And yeah I do agree 100% complexity would be less fun, I would hate to put 3 shots in a guys chest (but miss vital organs and have him live) and he gets a lucky ass shot in one of the large arteries in my leg, lol. So yeah it makes sense they just make headshots worth a lot now. 

I'll go with low TTK games anyday everyday. I really loved the premise of Halo but could never get into it because of how horrendously slow paced the game is. And its not the player movement thats slow, its the fact that you have to unleash an entire clip and then some to actually take a guy down. I get headshots can be helpful in that regard, but I find accuracy in shots being a very dubious matter in online shooters where there always tends to be some kind of lag involved.

For me I enjoy the fast paced multiple confrontation butter smooth 60 FPS gun on gun action of COD for my shooter needs and will be sticking to it until something better manages to catch my attention.

Personally i don't like games where you have to empty an entire round of bullets at the person's balls or chest to get a kill. Doesn't have to more like cod but somewhere close to it is preferred.

While I understand there are advantages for high stakes, but the result is simply everyone being over cautious and slow and clogged gameplay. And this only get compounded by bad map design (like Battlefield 3 and Killzone 3).

When you flank a group you should first throw a grenade, and then fire on them to confuse them, and hopefully you should be able to take the majority of them out.

high ttk. as longer the fight lasts as more you have the chance to win against a hiding puss. that's what i love in halo, fights are real fights and not only "oh a shot...dead..." in halo it's like "oh a shot...jump...shot...jump..shot...run...jump...shot...won"

it makes no sense that it would take so long in a game without that armors so i think it's good that you die fast in cod but i don't like it as much as halo.