I appreciate the argument that a real RPG would just have a generalized "hit zone" where you swing your sword or w/e in the direction of an enemy, and your skill and random factors calculate whether it was actually a hit against a head/arm, etc.

Once, again, the idea of a toggle able feature, in this case "auto target" would please both sides. Also, for things like arrows, what we need is a RETICLE. Not moving, drawing the bow less or for shorter times, and having a higher skill would allow for a smaller reticle, or area where the arrow has a chance to land. Moving, holding a bow at full draw, and being of low skill would widen the reticle. However, if you wanted to always have the arrow aim for the chest or some such, you could put on Auto Target, and it would do the same calculation, just randomizing the area hit.

But the combat shouldn't be abouthow fast u can click the mouse and how long you can keep it up for. A bit of skill would be nice for a first person rpg

I don't know what game you're referring to there, if any, but in MW, holding the attack button "charged" the swing up to full power. If you just "spammed" the button, the attacks were at minimum damage. That was a semi-useful way to deliver enchantments with a light dagger, but a bad way to fight with other types of weapons. The system actually gave you more control than OB's "press to attack".

did you play OB?

I'll let you in on a secret: Ob had several attacks.. one of them is exactly as you describe it... hold down attack for more power.

if that is the only criteria by which you believe MWs combat system allows for more control than Obs, it's just erroneous.

No I wasn't talking about a game. Just about combat and what it should and shouldn't be inmy opinion in the context of it only be done char vs player skill

I can't imagine head-shots are preferable to limb shots when discussing player vs. character skill. Limb shots necessarily offer greater tactical advantages, something that will always be part of player skill, coupled with lower damage. Head-shots, however, just [censored] kill something (or do a great deal of damage, at least). The former has a trade off: strategically rewarding, but your enemy is deterred rather than stopped. There is no trade off when it comes to head-shots, you just win. If we must choose between one or the other, I would have to say keep head-shots and body-shots equal, and have limb-shots do less damage while slowing/crippling the enemy

As it is right now, I shoot a guy in the foot and do as much damage as if I shot him through the heart or in the eye. That's not character skill, that's stupid.