Quote: "I don’t think FPS's are a stupid genera, I think the perspective is totally stupid. If you made those games with a 3RD person view like Ratchet and Clank I wouldn’t say anything and would be the first in line to purchase them."
You mean Gears of War, Kill.Switch or Battlefront II?
the last one can be play in either 3rd Person or 1st Person allowing it to adapt to the player, although personally I prefer it in 3rd as it's easier given the sheer open terrain design.
honestly I love all shooter games, provided they give me a sense of storyline with gameplay. Games in the FPS/TPS genre I can't stand are Black, Serious Sam, Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior (potencially good game ruined by over complexity and truely horrible control sync rates)
Some of my favourite of the genre generally provide the gamer with more in terms of playability but often don't provide gamers with that "freedom" or "realism" that is often hyped. In-fact when it comes to FPS/TPS I prefer the gameplay to be much easier and simpler.
Gears of War, Perfect Dark Zero, Halo 2, Battlefront 2, Doom 3 and Kill.Switch are by far the top games in this category.
None of these games really tried to revolutionise the genre in any way. Sure Kill.Switch introduced the whole "Cover System", however once you get used to how it works you find that many other aspects (i.e. huge weapon selections, jumping, etc. have been sacrified in order to provide this system without complications)
Quote: "Well, agree to disagree then and i still think there stupid."
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion; just because you think that FPS are stupid, doesn't mean everyone else has to either. I've not really seen you put much of an argument behind why you think they're so bad either.
User-Interface Systems change dramatically between games, and having your health on-screen doesn't automatically mean that this game no longer provide realism...
Gears of War, Halo-Series and Call of Duty 2 for example have no traditional "health bar", instead you can get hit a number of times consecutively until a given damage is reached (calculated by where shots hit) over time your damage disappears meaning you can then plod on without any need for a "medic" or "medipack"
Doom 3 incorporates a system that shows your weapons ammo on the weapon itself not just on-screen, which is editable to have it turned off.
Ghost Recon Advance Warrior, uses a pin-point damage system that allows you to tell at a glance how good your body armour is doing and if you have any current gunshot wounds.
I mean often game developers choose many aspects of the games based on how they want them to feel; rather than making all of them ultra realistic. Given most of the time you're thrown in to a fantasy universe killing aliens or such.. then honestly how real do you believe they can make them.
As for the view, a number of games like Doom 3, and Battlefront 2 provide a way to swap between your prefered view style. Games are suppose to be enjoyable, however the developer chooses to do this can make a serious difference. I can't imagine what Rainbow Six would be like if it had a 3rd person view.. honestly I believe it would totally ruin the game experience.
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 512MB DDR2 667MHz, ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista Business / XP Professional SP2