Last night I began to play...inFAMOUS. While finding it fun, after a couple hours with the game I began questioning what the point in playing further was.
Initially I took delight in harming civilians, only to realise they were not puppets but reacted in different ways: some cower, others run, and some stay and fight. At the outset, I killed everyone in my path indiscriminately, but soon I turned my attention towards the cowards. Those that cower and run deserve to die. This is an apocalyptic survival situation and the civilians who wish to fight for their lives should be able to do so, those that run and hide, seeking pity were my targets. This was Darwinism at its finest and I was God, eliminating those too weak to survive and allowing those that could adapt to flourish. However, this only amused me for so long.
I heard this game was about moral choice. Naturally I decided to test this system. I took the evil fork in the road early on, but soon found myself healing felled civilians. Why should I be pigeon holed into an evil stereotype of a villain? I am my own person. I thought, perhaps, on occasion I should use my powers for good, if I see fit. These people be just mere mortals, not my adversaries, perhaps they should be allowed to go on with their lives.
Later I was given the option of telling a man that his wife was dead, thereby reasoning with him, or killing him to gain access to a tunnel. I was far more sinister than the game could imagine though. I planned on breaking the news to the man, filling his heart with sorrow, only to violently kill him moments later. However, the game “rewarded” me with good karma and didn’t allow me to kill the character after I broke the news to the widower. -So much for next generation videogaming. Apparently this game is black or white, or red and blue as the case may be, and I may not walk in the grey.
My roommate was watching me, and having played the game previously, criticized my actions. Apparently, I should have known the game was polar and didn’t have a full spectrum of morals. Apparently every choice in life is either good or bad and cannot have mixed outcomes. I have been informed I can choose to walk my path as I see fit, but I will only stand to gain from my actions if I stand clearly on one side of the line.
I want to be morally ambiguous. I want to show compassion for some, while being far more menacing than the game allows to others. So here I am, wondering if it is worth it to continue on with a game that has failed its purpose as I saw it. Should I return the game to my roommate’s shelf? Or should I continue on? If I do so there is a choice I will have to make, do I want to play the game the black or white manner it is set up and reap the benefits of this polarized system, or should I play how I want to play, even if that means that I will not be benefiting and thus, may have a difficult road ahead of me as the difficulty ramps up as the game progresses?
I did a little bit of this in Fable 2. Kill the slaver and get the reward, free the slaves and get the reward, kill the slaves and get whatever they had left.
I feel like if the game is going to really focus on good and evil they should keep in mind the super evil actions and punish/reward appropriately.
I don't know, man. inFamous's morality system is exactly like any other game with moral choices. Fallout, Fable, Bioshock, etc... I'm not really sure what you were expecting going in. Despite how black and white the moral choices are the game is a blast to play. Whether you're having fun with it or not should help you determine if you should continue playing it or put it on the shelf.
i think a better game with this morality choice standards is Fallout 3, it doesn't hammer you much the whole idea of being good or bad, but your own freedom lets you do some stuff that gives you sometimes very unpleasant surprises.
I think games with moral choices should not spoil you the whole idea of them, Fable II was contrasted in "YO YOU WANNA BE GOOD OR BAD NIGGUH?" the exploration itself should make YOU choose a path without having to follow certain rails.
From what I understand of inFamous, you've got to make that good vs evil choice at some point: They specifically cut out the middle road, because they though no one wanted to play neutral (says the developer).
It sounds like you want to play Fallout 3. There are a few situations that can work out pretty much exactly as you describe it. Save for children and REALLY key characters, everyone's killable.
Even with that though, it still feels like you're playing against a pretty loose sliding scale, with quantitative redemption just a couple gifted water bottles away.
With regards to giving value to a players actions, I'm a bigger fan of faction relationships instead of morality...
... like in Way of the Samurai. No, really!
VWGTI said "I don't know, man. inFamous's morality system is exactly like any other game with moral choices. Fallout, Fable, Bioshock, etc.."
morality is not a new idea in video games. it's not even close to a new idea in interactive games in general. Fable, inFamouse, and Fallout 3 are cheap, simplistic implementations of morality systems from other games. The D&D system is an elegant way of personalizing your play experience, and there was a game called PLanescape: Torment which almost perfectly implemented the D&D system into the game. It's a big mistake to identify "game morality" by the half-assed ideas being made right now.
Yeah Infamous is very cut and dry when it comes to the whole morality thing. I dunno, that kind of gameplay element doesn't really interest me in any game, but perhaps Heavy Rain when it comes out can open up the possibilities of moral judgmental in games. I still love the core gameplay of infamous, jumping across the city, shooting lightning, cable surfing, its all good fun, I also enjoyed the story alot. Maybe when Infamous 2 comes out, if it does, well see a greater spectrum of moral choices. I hope that sucker punch can learn from there mistakes and from other developers to deliver another great experience in Infamous 2 (assuming there will be one).