and why i decided to forget this idea... too many opinions.

Of course, like they say, they're like a*&holes, but everyone thinks theirs is the only one that doesn't stink.

With "one shot one kill" I mean the enemy (AIs) against the player!! Yes, you can kill enemy AIs with one shot in OFP:DR but the enemy AIs can't (or at best VERY RARELLY can) kill you with one shot and the video that you posted proved and showed that (you can see that the player gets shot several times and doesn't die).
Besides in OFP:DR the enemy AI's precision is ridiculously too low (there's plenty of videos showing that). I won't get into OFP:DR is "good or bad" but what I say is that the enemy AI is much more harder, have much better precision and it's more realistic (executes better tactics for example) in Raven Shield or Ghost Recon1 than it is in OFP:DR. Have any doubts?? Play Raven Shield or Ghost Recon1 and you'll see what I mean -> If you stand still and watch the enemy AIs shooting at you like you can do in OFP:DR (and the video shows that also) you're dead!!

Too bad, it was a good idea!

It is a good idea. Even a very simplified version of it is a good idea.

Pergaps it would be easier if the requirements for each category were specified. IE:

1. fast paced action shooters:
- Small map/environments which are condusive towards a high amount of opposing force encounters / unrealistic single "player vs everyone" scenarios

2. action shooters:
- Similar to the fast paced shooter, but set pieces and events are created hollywood style. Similar to mainstream.

3. shooters: (mainstream/franchise) - Leaders of the FPS pack with high budgets.

4. tactical shooters: Shooters which attempt to convey realism where the player is acompanied by fellow fighters. May contain a method of issueing commands to teamates. Larger maps that other shooters providing downtime between engaements to strategize.

5. battlefield tactical shooters: Similar to tactical shooters, but on a larger scale.

Just an example. Once the categories are described, makes it easier to see what game might fall where based on what they meet.

Comparing SWAT 4 to ArmA2 smacks of apples to oranges. It sounds like you need two ratings for each game: CQB vs. battlefield and arcade vs. simulation? Maybe three points for each? SWAT 4 is 1 on the first scale (all CQB) and a 3 on the second (simulation). OFP:DR is a 3 on the first (battlefield) and a 2 on the second (sim-lite or serious arcade). Maybe even a third rating for just how tactical the co-op mode allows you to be? OFP:DR, with the exception of the first mission and maybe a couple of the FTEs, is no more tactical than those two-player missions in BF3. They're like progressive shooting galleries: go to location 1, plink; move to location 2, plink. And so forth.

Re: one shot kills in OFP:DR. Yeah, I second what ricnunes said. The AI rarely hits you, and when it does, you almost never go down in one shot. After several months on Hardcore OFP:RR, I migrated to the single-player campaign in BF3, also on Hardcore (or whatever that mode is called). For a game that's arcade rather than simulation, it taught me a thing or two about cover I'd forgotten after all that OFP:RR playing. The new OFP games allow a person to get pretty sloppy. The exact opposite of the first ArmA.

Battlefield would feel more sim-like if they just slowed the pace down. Everyone running around super fast sometimes makes me feel nauseous, that is how bad it is.

I agree with this one. I have always considered there to be FPS, tactical shooter, and then sim.