When I hear first person, I automatically assume present tense. First past is the worst of all possible combinations - it's like some guy at the end of the bar telling a story for the hundredth time, you know, that same old story they've polished up over the years. How big was that fish again, pops? First past is safe and more than a little pretentious. It's like: is that what you really said when the Bugblatter Beast of Traal confronted you from behind the garbage pails, or is that just what you wished you had said?
Third past is just kind of boring. It's expected.
First present, on the other hand, is way more exciting - hard to do well - but worth it when it is. It works in all genres, and has virtually no narrative limitations, it's just much much harder to pull off. It requires work, often - even rewriting.
___
But here's the deal: writers are incredibility opinionated as readers - and, overall, completely untrustworthy. Some, apparently, prefer bodily harm to reading certain tenses. Why? Maybe it was a bad Trip? Opinionated College Professor? That tense is only used with THOSE sorts of books. *peers down nose*
I write exclusively in first present, and I cannot remember anyone mentioning it, not in reviews, not friends, not betas...or editors. And I don't mean in a bad way, I mean - at all.
___
At the end of the day, any story can be told in any tense. Writers need to check their ego and remember to serve the story. What's the best perspective? Best presentation? Who is your audience? (Serving the story means having it read.) How should it be published: fat-ass door-stopper, series, serial, web shorts? For example, slicing up a novel into pieces usually sucks because the pacing is off, while combining serials into a novel usually reads great. Step one is to figure out where you want to go with it, and then figure out how to get there - hopefully, with your eyes still intact.