Man, this "WHY IS BIOSHOCK INFINITE A SHOOTER" thing irritates me. BioShock Infinite HAS to be a shooter. That's the best way to convey the setting. Columbia is a dangerous, dark, violent place. If the entire game was just exploring the city without incident, that would not be true to the story. Comstock is a dangerous, violent man. Booker DeWitt is a dangerous, violent man who has committed horrific atrocities in his past and this is his last ditch effort to save himself. There is no other way for anybody or anywhere in the game to be.
I don't really buy that. There are ways to convey that something is a dangerous, dark and violent place or that there are dangerous, dark and violent people without just being a shooting gallery. I really loved Infinite and it was high on my GOTY list but there's really no denying that the obscene amount of murdering that Booker does throughout the story kind of flies in the face of the narrative a bit. I get that Booker is not a good dude and he's definitely a killer but the sheer body count by the end of the game just looks kind of silly in retrospect.
Same thing goes for The Last of Us, sure Joel is a killer but the body count is just absurd. Being forced to kill a ton a people very early on, almost made me quit the game, though in the end I decided to ignore it and push through.
I think the same applies to Uncharted for related though different reasons.
I feel like I have way more fun with games by never giving a shit about ludonarrative whatever.
Yeah. I'm playing a video game, not writing a dissertation about emotional complexity. Bird monsters and time vortexes, guys.