Well, it wasn't just the "shouldn't the visual feedback be good enough?" thing though. There were also my issues about aesthetics and artificiality, either of which is enough for me to prefer having no hitmarkers.

: but to me
: they're incredibly useful and I prefer having them. Knowing that an enemy
: is actually down

Hold on… you mean there's a special type of hitmarker for signifying that an enemy is dead?

: especially on higher difficulties when you can only
: stick your head out for a second, is pretty important; especially starting
: with Reach I usually turned campaign scoring on so I could see when an
: enemy was truly down.

I think I've only rarely been unsure if I killed the target, so I'm surprised at what you're saying here. In regard to situations where you can only stick your head out for a second, that only really brings to mind Jackal snipers on Legendary.

: It also gives you much more direct feedback on when
: your bullets are effectual, which when you're laying down fire with a
: Suppressor or an SMG helps you dial in what range you're actually
: effective at.

But with experience you get to learn good ranges to use. And small flashes (or whatever) for projectile impacts surely provide you with feedback of similar immediacy as hitmarkers.

: Finally from a lore/gameplay standpoint a significant segment of your foes
: are non-organic, and thus don't have the same types of feedback (it's easy
: to tell if a Knight or Soldier is heavily damaged, but they don't stumble
: from normal rounds, nor would you expect robots to compared to a Grunt or
: Jackal.)

I don't really get this bit. You'd see impact effects of some sort usually wouldn't you?