My pleasure.wgreer25 said:
Fair enough, I suppose. I can't say that I agree with you, as there haven't really been any other games that have done anything remotely like this, but I do see your point. However, in some respects, I think that doing anything other than just allowing Cole to use his raw power to attack individuals would've seemed gimmicky.
For instance: earlier you mentioned that it would've been neat to make you grab a can or some other sort of object, charge that with electricity, and then throw it to make use of the grenade option. Does that mean that you would have to have some sort of inventory system? You can only use as many grenades as you have cans in your inventory? And, when you run out of cans, you have to spend ten minutes going about, collecting more? That would've detracted from the action of the game ten-fold, and made it more an exercise in frustration (not to mention some sort of social commentary on recycling). I see your point, I do, and I will concede that more intellectual ways to utilize his powers would've been interesting, but I think the game stands combat system stands solidly as is.
I'm just focusing on the powers complaint that has been raised, as I haven't seen any wholly clarified arguments about the other parts of the game. If that's not all you're talking about, please clarify, and I would be more than willing to discuss those with you too.
I found the italicized part kind of funny, because there totally are moments in the game where you have a "Press X to commit a good act, Press Triangle to commit an evil act".
I have to agree with you that the game doesn't give you much choice beyond good or evil, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, there isn't much else that interests people in games. They either want to play to stoic, self-sacrificing hero who everyone looks up to, or the evil, homicidal maniac who everybody is afraid of. There generally isn't any middle-ground. In that regard, this sort of system caters to the greater mass of individuals, and therefore, the greater mass of consumers who purchase the game. I fully admit, whenever I play a game that gives me "choices", I always go with the good side, no matter what. I can't stand being an evil character, and so I never have to even think twice about what I would choose while playing a game.
In that regard, I guess I couldn't care less about the so-called "karma system". If you only ever play one side of the fence, so to speak, you won't ever even consider the other side, even as an intellectual experiment.
However, this is a common complaint that people have been having about games for longer than I can remember. A lack of choice. Something that gets marketed as having "choices", but really just boils down to Jesus versus Satan. That's just the way games are. Really, the karma gimmick is long past it's prime, I think. It was tried, tested, and has failed almost every time it's been used. It's only now, with upcoming games like Heavy Rain and Alpha Protocol that people are starting to realize that gamers say that they want "choices", it's not that they want to choose to be good or evil, it's that they want to choose how the story develops. I hope that these two games end up delivering, because they seem like the last hope that we have for true choices in gameplay.
In any event, I will concede that the karma system in inFAMOUS is flawed, but I counter by saying that it's not any worse than some of the other systems out there. Which isn't really a defense, because they all suck.
Fair enough. As a sandbox game, I will admit it's a bit short. Honestly, though, I can't see this as a game that can be compared to the likes of Saint's Row or GTA; the feel is completely different, and the focus is much different as well. I would say that it is better compared to, say, Assassin's Creed, a quasi-sandbox game that allowed you roam at your own pace, but didn't have a million things for you to do, and was roughly the same time length to completion. When it comes to sandbox-ery, games like GTA are in a league of their own, because they solely focus on the ability to go anywhere and do anything you want. Yes, inFAMOUS allows you to do this, but not on such a level. It's much more linear than those sorts of games, much like Assassin's Creed, which is a game that was critically acclaimed.
Basically, I just would say that you should take a game for what it is, and not continually compare it to other games which come from much different focuses. It's again the whole "format vs. genre" thing that I keep talking about. Just because it's a third-person shooter in a sandbox environment doesn't mean that it has to be the same as every third-person shooter in a sandbox environment.
I completely agree.
