I mean that’s just not true, because my brother and I were able to consistently hit moving and non-moving targets with rifles and shotguns literally from when we were given them (at ranges longer than 50ft too). You absolutely should not be missing human-size targets less than 30ft away. If you are, either there’s something wrong with you, or something wrong with the gun. Bottles/cans or other small objects? Maybe you might miss those, especially with a pistol or a poorly maintained rifle. I imagine you were shooting at something this small? But a human-size one? At 30ft or less? No.
In the game you miss wildly and unpredictably, even whilst standing still, aiming at an unsuspecting (and in some cases unmoving) target. It’s ludicrous.
(At longer ranges than 30ft shooting gets harder, but it’s still not that hard - I mean, yes, hitting something man or deer sized at say, 90ft, or 200ft requires an accurate weapon and a steady aim - though idiots manage it routinely - but again we’re talking wild missing at below 15ft and the like.)
Nope. It would be totally different, and you wouldn’t miss in remotely the same way. In “detailed simulations” you’re inevitably more accurate because it’s really not that hard to fire a gun (that’s kind of the entire point - guns were objectively inferior to bows/crossbows for centuries in terms of rate-of-fire, accurate range, weight, and so on, but they steadily took over because any idiot could use them, unlike a bow, which is bloody hard, or a crossbow, which still requires a lot more skill, especially at moderate ranges), and when you miss, it’s for predictable, repeatable reasons. It isn’t random (I mean, with smoothbore flintlocks it is maybe a bit, but even then it’s questionable - and we’re talking about precision-machined rifled firearms).
The bullet spread isn’t “simulating” anything. That’s the issue. It’s just random and totally irrational missing. You can be standing still, crouched, aiming at a target who is also standing still and/or doesn’t know you’re there, from 20ft away (this is literally a situation that routinely occurs in Alpha Protocol - indeed you’re rarely shooting from more than 30-40ft away, and usually less), and your bullet will randomly ping off in a direction that is physically impossible like no amount of “sway” or “bad aim” or “poorly adjusted sights” or even all of them combined could cause you to miss that badly - you’d have to literally be pointing the gun in a different direction to what is shown on screen (and thus, in an FPS, you’d have to be looking in a different direction).
It’s not like other games haven’t shown other approaches you can take. Indeed, having a “gun” skill at all makes limited sense and is mostly unnecessary CRPG nonsense (games from System Shock to ME2/3 have all realized this - ME2/3 give small - and I do mean small, max is 15% - bonuses to weapon damage to some classes, which feels rewarding whilst not causing other classes with no bonus to feel bad).
Anyway, the point is, no, it wouldn’t end up remotely the same. It would end up in a way that was much more predictable and felt vastly better. Even if you had skill control sway and aim to some extent it would make sense.
To be fair, this wasn’t the only skill that felt absolutely crap in Alpha Protocol. They also went with a very “magic”-style stealth, where it wasn’t a matter of playing well, it was a matter of having a lot of points in the ability, and you could literally go magically invisible. All the methods of hacking felt pretty awful too - one of them, I forget which, you were just better off always buying/taking the bypass item when they were available, rather than messing with it (on PC - I believe this was inverted on console, you wanted to bypass the other method).
All in all, it was a great game hiding under a giant pile of bugs (initially) and skills that felt absolutely terrible. Admittedly once you get a certain number of points in a weapon skill it felt okay - but it took like 30-40% of the game.