The natural flaw in 3rd person shooters

My newest review (Wanted weapons of fate, check my amazon feed) brought me to an old revelation. Third person shooters (and to a degree 1st) have the unwelcome guest of the player interfering with what's supposed to be a climatic, intense, realistic gunfight. Instead the computed AI and the environment must interject a basic overlay in order to provide fun for the inadequate human.

That sounds harsh but the realistic nature of gun-play on consoles (won't comment for PC) is either divided into: Cover or Slow Mo. These elements have persisted for two very good reasons. So that we the gamers can survive the onslaught of advanced technology. Sure the other more boring reasons (cover being realistic) blatantly cover up the fact that the player has not the ability nor the function to control the action that is most delicate.

Take for example, any cut scene during any action oriented game where the hero does something time sensitive and flawlessly. Now try and allow a human player to do the same and you'll end up in a purgatory of endless loops that ultimately are called: Trial and Error.

Case in point: Splinter cell (pre conviction and post). Pre was solely divided into the group of loyal trial and error perfectionists. Post is an alternate, almost reacting culture that allows the players the ability to do things not humanly possible. An automated killing source offers everyone to be a bad ass as was intended.

That cannot be the future of gaming but the question remains: what is? With the new stride towards motion controls one must ask themselves. Are we forgoing the future (or at least altering/delaying it) for a gimmick or will we eventually find a new more natural benchmark where we can achieve what we and the game intend?