Among other things. I'd lay odds that his speed firing doesnt have all that great of a range compared to someone actually trained and fast.

Archery is hard to make fun, perhaps specifically because it is safe and effective. If you use it at range, you are doing it right, and it's boring. You don't have to worry as much about getting hit.

In iron heroes, the archer in that game could do some stunts like make hand holds for climbing. Wasn't too bad.

Frankly, most of Legolas' archery stunts were not actually archery that was the interesting part. Riding the shield would have been cool with a sword too. Stabbing people with arrows isn't archery. Shooting something st pouting balnk range barely counts at all.

In Mythras, I attempted to step up the cinematic archery by reducing the reload times by 1. Didn't work too bask but unless you have cover and challenge the archer, force him to moves its pretty dull.

I dunno. I've certainly enjoyed many battles where there was a tension about whether the archers could shoot down enough of the charging opponents before they reached them or not. Also battles between ranged forces. I tend to think the reason archery seems lame is that the combat systems being used or thought about don't involve interesting choices, or focus more on character abilities and power levels rather than the situation and what choices there are about what to do when using ranged attacks.

I'm interested in games that involve ranged combat if it takes involves a map and all the factors and options I expect (differences in skills & equipment, terrain rules, taking cover, posture, pop-up attacks, reload times, time spent aiming, opportunity fire, ammunition, effects of injury, etc). When a game is just "who do you attack, roll to hit, roll for damage, repeat", that tends to be pretty dull.