> "Probably more fun that losing to someone just because he can move the mouse in response to a visual stimulus faster than you?"

If people thought that way, nobody would ever play any real world sports. There's always somebody better out there. Yet here we are...

> "If the resulting game is too simplistic, slowing limitations can be added, such as limiting the maximum speed at which the crosshair can move, or making weapon fire deal little damage relative to health so the target can move out of range if near cover before they die."

Again, doesn't sound very fun.

> Probably more fun that losing to someone just because he can move the mouse in response to a visual stimulus faster than you?

this is a very reductive view of fps gameplay. in all but the twitchiest arena-style games, anticipating the opponents position is much more important than being able to do a 45 degree flick faster than the other person.

At this point you're just arguing for removing all mechanical skill from competitive games.

Impede the gameplay however you want, in pure mechanical aspects a program will always have the benefit of perfect accuracy and near-zero reaction time (as opposed to the >200ms average of a human)

There’s a thriving market for turn-based games that do not depend on reflexes for competitiveness. I played one this weekend that was a top-down scroller shooter converted into turn-based.

It’s cheating to try and remove for yourself only that reflex-based competition from games that are built on it, and it’s draconian (and not fun) to suggest removing all reflex-based competition from all games.

That's a completely different game, then.

Those are garbage limitations that lower the skill ceiling of the game so low as to not be remotely enjoyable

Sure, but this is fundamentally incompatible with the kind of high-twitch action game many people enjoy.