Infamous 1 or Infamous 2?

[Blue_vision]

What with the recent Infamous 1 for free deal on PSN and Infamous 2 being released, the series has come into my sights as something I should actually play. No, I didn't get Infamous 1 when it was released and lit the world on fire, and no, somehow I didn't have PSN before the whole attack thing. So I'm at an impasse.

For the people that have played both games, what are the pros and cons of both of them? I understand that there's not much to be missed in the story between the two games, but what about in terms of gameplay, or the novelty of a self-contained storyline? From what I understand, Infamous 2 does nothing but add to the gameplay of the first game, but is there anything that's different which would make someone buy Infamous 1 instead of 2? I figure that if I like whichever game I get, I'll be getting the 3rd instalment regardless (coming to that logical conclusion on my own,) so in that thread, would it be better for me to get 2, which may have a more complete story arc into the 3rd game?

Basically, should I get Infamous 1, or Infamous 2? Help appreciated!

 

[Porecomesis]

Play the games in sequence first, because the second one picks up where the first one left off.

Okay, let's get moving. For inFAMOUS, I recommend watching Yahtzee's review, as it's a fairly accurate portrayal of the game. In inFAMOUS 2, unfortunately, the flaws haven't really been fixed. The morality system is as two dimensional as ever, the enemies still have ridiculous amounts of health and there's some other third flaw.

However, the game does have some strengths. The melee combat system has been vastly improved, wobbly camera aside. I do wonder why the triangle button had to function as a super attack rather than a heavy attack that you can mix with square to make all sorts of combos, but oh well. In addition, the cutscenes and general graphical quality have been vastly improved.

That being said, the game has managed to trip over itself. The side missions have been reduced to variations of go-here-and-kill-everyone repeated ad nauseum and the upgrade system has been changed to skills being assigned to different tiers that you can switch between. Your mileage may vary on this, but I felt that the upgrade system of the first game truly gave the sense of getting stronger. In what may be a massive insult, however, some of your newly acquired powers are just powers you got at the first game. Your super move- the one you got at the end of the first game- is the second 'new' power you get and it no longer consumes your electricity gauge, but rather it takes one from a set number of 'charges', maximum number 3, that can be picked up from fallen enemies.

Sucker Punch definitely watched Yahtzee's review, so I wonder why they didn't take it to heart.

 

[OriginZero]

Get them both! I really enjoyed the game and the story, so I suggest playing the first one before you play the second one if you care about story at least, so you know the characters and where they came from. Sure, you could get a recap, but you could just live it!

 

[JakBandit2208]

I couldn't get into Infamous 1 for some reason , but I loved Infamous 2. The game is pretty deep as far as combat goes but as another poster said the morality choices in the game are really two dimensional (until you get towards the end).

 

[Blue_vision]

Okay, let's get moving. For inFAMOUS, I recommend watching Yahtzee's review, as it's a fairly accurate portrayal of the game. In inFAMOUS 2, unfortunately, the flaws haven't really been fixed. The morality system is as two dimensional as ever, the enemies still have ridiculous amounts of health and there's some other third flaw.

So would you say that it'd be safer for me to start with the first game and see how I get into the series?

 

[Morgan Howe]

get the first, i personally liked the upgrade system and the story and Cole better in the first one, and it tell the whole story that you don't get in 2, just snippets of stuff and not even the really good parts.
besides it cheaper and squeals are always worse then originals in this industry

 

[Biosophilogical]

I think that the two games are both great, in their own ways. For example, in the first game, you had a select group of powers, and you purchased upgrades for them (damage, range, anti-gravity, bigger radius, etc). It meant that every power had its own mapped controls, end of story. It also felt longer than the second game. So the combat had a morality-feel to it within the parameters of a power (if you are evil, your grenades split on contact, so iut was more about AoE damage, and good rockets could be redirected with a bolt, so you could do large amounts of damage to one enemy by firing into the air and using a precision shot for huge damage). So overall it felt like a much tighter game.

The second game, on the other hand, hasn't got the upgrades, but it has melee combat, you aren't as resistant to damage, so the melee combat gets balanced out by needing to be tactical, there are a wider variety of powers, you get ice/fire, the environment is more varied and overall it felt like a smoother and more versatile gaming experience, meaning you aren't as limited in your options, so you can find your own style.

I think both are excellent, and they feel like variations on teh same game, rather than consecutive games, because the controls are almost identical, the abilities are similar, but the way they come together makes them feel like a "If the game had been done this way instead ..." kind of thing. I'd recommend starting with the first game; it has a more progressive feel to it, as you get your powers gradually yet comfortably. If you like the first game, you'll like the second, and if you play the first thinking "Wow, melee isn't used enough" or "I wish my abilities were more varied", then you'll absolutely love the second game. Also, people saying that the morality system is too dichotomous are being silly, I mean, just because the morality system isn't some perfect recreation of the human psyche, doesn't mean it is bad. It does exactly what it sets out to do, and it does it well.

 

[Zeema]

get Infamous 1 beat it [twice if you like just to see the difference in Karma Choices worth seeing]

its important to play the 1st one because you won't understand what's happening or who 'Cole' is

then buy Infamous 2 Its Awesome the Ending [for evil] made me Jizz Loudly

 

[Harbinger_]

What with the recent Infamous 1 for free deal on PSN and Infamous 2 being released, the series has come into my sights as something I should actually play. No, I didn't get Infamous 1 when it was released and lit the world on fire, and no, somehow I didn't have PSN before the whole attack thing. So I'm at an impasse.

For the people that have played both games, what are the pros and cons of both of them? I understand that there's not much to be missed in the story between the two games, but what about in terms of gameplay, or the novelty of a self-contained storyline? From what I understand, Infamous 2 does nothing but add to the gameplay of the first game, but is there anything that's different which would make someone buy Infamous 1 instead of 2? I figure that if I like whichever game I get, I'll be getting the 3rd instalment regardless (coming to that logical conclusion on my own,) so in that thread, would it be better for me to get 2, which may have a more complete story arc into the 3rd game?

Basically, should I get Infamous 1, or Infamous 2? Help appreciated!

Get them both, you'll enjoy both of them. I never quite understood the desire to buy a series halfway through and ignore the roots.

 

[Porecomesis]

So would you say that it'd be safer for me to start with the first game and see how I get into the series?

Indeed. To each his own, after all. I'd actually say it's a necessity to start with the first game, because the sequel is direct and won't make much sense otherwise.