So one of the themes I'm noticing in the criticism of this game, among the critical community especially, is that there is a disconnect between the combat and the flow, pacing, and (depending on who you ask) themes of the story. And while, like Alex, I'm not in the camp that says the game shouldn't be violent, I agree with a lot of this criticism.
I think a game which had exploration as more of the focus would have been better. I think if Booker and Elizabeth had spent more time trying to accomplish goals incognito, that would be better. I think if they alerted an entire police station somehow, would have been cooler and more fitting if running and evasion was the proper response. I think if that happened, then the moments where you have to kill a few people would be less out of place, and the moments where a whole swarm of guys pin you down would have been suitably exciting and epic.
The reality is that the game needs to sell, and those of us who care (one way or the other) are a small minority of people who bought the game. This was a AAA game, with a large budget, developed over a large period of time. So that leads me to my questions.
1. Could a less traditional FPS have found enough success in the general market to be worth the expense of the game?
2. Even if you think it could, do you think it's reasonable to expect a publisher take such a risk on a AAA game? Not that its okay to never take risks, but it could easily be argued that its good business sense to at least try something with a less expensive game, first.
3. If they did make a less traditional game, what do you think the marketing would have to look like to reach out the people who don't spend time on gaming sites?