People reacted very positively to The Last of Us: Left Behind; in fact the most common criticism leveled against it was that its bloody climactic shoot-out felt paradoxical to the very human story it had told to that point. This is one instance of the aforementioned ludonarrative dissonance, a term coined by game developer Clint Hocking when describing the tension between two different ways the game encourages the player to act in the 2007 shooter BioShock.
Realism is a trend in the current mainstream space, felt most keenly in ‘gritty’ shooters and action games, so it’s no surprise that dissonance can be felt when guns are wielded by protagonists who are painted as realistically vulnerable or empathetic. The recent Watch Dogs 2, for example, gives players the option to mow down people by the dozen with 3D-printed assault weapons, yet its protagonist is presented as easygoing and kind-hearted.
Even when guns make sense within the narrative, there are many instances where the central objective of ‘blast your way through’ dulls its storytelling impact. The Uncharted series has long been mocked - albeit gently - for presenting us with a charismatic, knockabout lead who is also a mass murderer, while nice guy John Marston from Red Dead Redemption seems indifferent to leaving thousands of bodies in his wake in his pursuit to take revenge on just a handful of men.
“I don't like to kill a man on his knees,” says Marston, when you’re given a rare choice to actually save an NPC, “even if he deserves it.” His honor is just a facade of course, an illusion that’s immediately broken as he rides off into the sunset among the severed limbs of his fallen enemies.
It’s here that we come to the crux of the issue. As developers try to tell stories beyond the theme of ‘survival’, they’re bucking up against an increasingly archaic central mechanic that has long since lost its ‘one-size-fits-all’ shape. This status quo islimiting the stories we can tell in our games, and as the likelihood of success in the AAA space gets smaller and smaller, it doesn’t look like it’s going to change any time soon. Recently, Watch Dogs 2, Dishonored 2 and Titanfall 2 all performed significantly lower in sales than their predecessors, which only encourages a more risk averse climate in the blockbuster space.
“AAA games can't afford to take all that many creative risks,” says Cifaldi. “If you've got to sell a game in the millions to break even, then you're going to have to play it safe and stick to genres people immediately recognize.”
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/12/01/are-guns-in-video-games-holding-the-medium-back
Games have guns because they need to sell to a huge audience to make a profit. You can see that as games in series that do not have guns are not nearly as popular in general as ones that do especially on PS, Xbox and PC. You don't see hack and slash games selling more than God of War 3 that sold 5 million units while shooting games easily sell over 10 and 20 million and GTA V sold over 70 million. It wouldn't have sold as much without guns.
Games have guns to sell to kids which are the majority gamers who think it makes them cool and mature. The only games that do not have that are games that have nostalgic fanbases like Mario, Pokemon and Final Fantasy. New IP's can't sell like that. Even Assassin's Creed games have guns.
This is something I dislike about Uncharted. The protagonist is intended to be likeable and charismatic and harmless in his intentions but kills hundreds of enemies without contempt. In that way he is not very different from Kratos but Kratos is shown to be a relentless killer while Nathan Drake is shown as a handsom witty guy who is very humane yet that only lasts till the cutscenes are playing and gameplay Nathan Drake is a totally different character.
Also having guns in every game makes them feel very similar to each other. What about variety? Where is it? I just don't see a lot of variety in games as most of them are shooters.
