Errr all popular shooters are "noob" if you think about it.

The typical fps:

• Firefights in enclosed spaces usually 20-50m at maximum up to 100m at most.
• Players never miss where they aim their first shot, recoil is always predictable.
  
• Sniping is easy, when it reality hitting a moving target is extremely hard.
• Body-shots under-rated, they still kill in one shot if you aim well in reality.

That's because all FPS games fall under the same predictable rules. Predictable being the key word.

If they weren't so consistent, it would only frustrate most players who rarely want the most "realistic" experience a computer game could hope to provide. Just as long as it projects the illusion through appearance and responsiveness, most will be satisfied.

No FPS game I've played takes into account wind, bullet drift or bullet drop, deflection, etc. Most don't even take into account the basics of bullet velocity as most games tend to have bullets impact immediately after the "shoot" animation plays.

Source engine games like Half Life 2 are notorious for this where bullets literally travel faster than the speed of light (instantaneous impact regardless of distance).

Head shots are overemphasized and rarely ever seen in real life. In reality they actually have a lower rate of fatality because the head moves more than the body, bullets are more likely to glance off the cranium (or more likely the helmet) without a good biting angle (optimal being perpendicular to the surface being fired upon).

All real training is based upon the principal of aiming center of mass, but because video game rules favor the former so heavily, most gamers are oblivious of this.

But since it's already been established in video game rules, the basics of "head shots rule over everything else" and "sniper rifle beats everything else" are virtually ubiquitous.

Can you blow down pretty much any wall you want anywhere as an escape or to expose a camper?

No? Then Battlefield Bad Company is still the greatest FPS this gen. Any FPS that doesn't copy it is stuck in the past.

That's because all FPS games fall under the same predictable rules. Predictable being the key word.

If they weren't so consistent, it would only frustrate most players who rarely want the most "realistic" experience a computer game could hope to provide. Just as long as it projects the illusion through appearance and responsiveness, most will be satisfied.

No FPS game I've played takes into account wind, bullet drift or bullet drop, deflection, etc. Most don't even take into account the basics of bullet velocity as most games tend to have bullets impact immediately after the "shoot" animation plays.

Source engine games like Half Life 2 are notorious for this where bullets literally travel faster than the speed of light (instantaneous impact regardless of distance).

Head shots are overemphasized and rarely ever seen in real life. In reality they actually have a lower rate of fatality because the head moves more than the body, bullets are more likely to glance off the cranium (or more likely the helmet) without a good biting angle (optimal being perpendicular to the surface being fired upon).

All real training is based upon the principal of aiming center of mass, but because video game rules favor the former so heavily, most gamers are oblivious of this.

But since it's already been established in video game rules, the basics of "head shots rule over everything else" and "sniper rifle beats everything else" are virtually ubiquitous.

It's not the most readily apparent thing, but even back in Halo: CE there was bullet drop.  To get headshots with the pistol from across Hang em High you had to put the very bottom curve of the reticle at the top of the head.  Also, at least in Halo 3 a grenade going off will deflect a rocket.  I know it's not a bullet, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

As for Resistance 2, it will have to wait a few years until I get a PS3.  One console is more than enough to fill my time and drain my money while I'm still in college.