I’ve seen/heard the claims of “shooter overload” on NeoGAF and podcasts. They say there are far too many shooters these days and that it makes for a flat gaming experience.
I never understood any of that nonsense. I never understood why people complain about doing the same thing over and over again when they are the ones in control over their entertainment. Shooters are front and center — they are what the big publishers push — but shooters are not the only games out there.
There are so many titles spanning so many other genres available. They may not get the big TV commercials or the mandatory ad reel on YouTube but they are available if you truly care to look. What I’m saying is: If you don’t like to play shooters all the time, then stop playing shooters all the time.
I would also like to address some of the claims that BioShock: Infinite shouldn’t be a shooter. I believe this is a ridiculous argument. Instead of seeing the shooter holding back BioShock: Infinite, I see Irrational expanding the genre’s capabilities. Would BioShock: Infinite’s narration or message been more effective as an adventure game or a role playing game? Perhaps and I may enjoy it just as much as I’m enjoying it now. But I also recognize that it wouldn’t have been the same fun and intellectually stimulating adventure that I’m enjoying now. I happen to enjoy the action that BioShock: Infinite brings and believe that Irrational does a fine job bringing both the brains and the brawn.
I haven’t finished BioShock: Infinite yet. The possibility of it being hampered by repetitive shoot outs could be a valid criticism but I won’t go as far as to change the very nature of what the game is. If we’re going to do that, where do we draw the line? If grand ideas are only permitted in genres that best fit them then all the advancements in the shooter genre over the last ten years would not have happened and that would have been a real shame.