Infamous 2: How not to do moral choice. (Spoiler free.)

[Zhukov]

inFAMOUS 2, in addition to having no regard for correct capitalisation, has a moral choice system.

And it is really dumb.

For starters, it's the old black-and-white version of morality. Y'know, where it's always a choice between (a) kicking a sick kitten to death in front of some orphans or (b) nursing the kitten back to health and paying for the orphans to get an education and good jobs.

Secondly, there are never any significant story consequences. The morality basically boils down to flavoured XP, Evil Points and Good Points. Which is especially odd because the game keeps threatening you with consequences. I played as a kitten-healing-and-orphan-funding good guy and whenever I made a good choice my evil sidekick would say that doing so would make her an enemy. But it never happened, she stuck around right until the final choice.

And that's where it gets extra-special-super dumb.

See, the final choice consists of, surprise surprise, a binary decision between self-sacrifical good and selfish evil. I chose the evil option. (Which, incidentally, lead to the only scene in the entire game with any emotional impact whatsoever.)

The game responded by telling me I didn't have enough Evil Points. Or rather, I had too many Good Points. But if I wanted they could put the story on hold while I run out and accumulate some Evil XP.

No, really. That actually happens. In order to make a certain choice I had to run out and massacre random civilians to work up sufficient Red-flavoured XP. And by the end of the whole tedious affair the only noticeable difference was the colour of my character's shirt and tattoos. The entire bloody mechanic came down to punishing me with a grind because I had the cheek to make an "out of character" choice.

Because apparently only people wearing red t-shirts are allowed to think about self-preservation.

[/rant]

So... umm, thoughts? Am I missing something here? Did anyone like the moral choice system in Infamous 2?

I would honestly like to hear from someone who did.

 

[Popadoo]

I disagree. You the choices do have consequences, just not consequences that last throughout the game. For example *spoilers*, do you kill blow up a tram to wipe out your enemies but risk burning possible future allies, or do you do it the hard way and save the allies, who might help you later on in the game. The choices are USUALLY black and white, but I think Sucker Punch have pulled off the karma thing pretty well.

 

[valleyshrew]

It's mind boggling that they're so primitive. I criticise mass effect for being too black and white and not having enough thought provoking choices, and favouring 100% one or the other. But it's much better than infamous. Infamous 1 was pretty bad and a hugely over-rated game. It's basically a dumb linear super hero game with a half-assed setting. Seems like every other game with a city setting can't emulate how deep GTA is so they just go all comic book and shallow. No radio stations, no buildings, only a few characters total, generic mission structure, silly gimmick morality and so on...

 

[Woodsey]

I did like it, but only within the excuse of it being a superhero game. Honestly though, the final choice was bizarrely grey and I thought it was a bit stupid trying to assign the black/white morality to it.

Its far too primitive a system for an RPG, but for the game its in, and the experience they want to deliver, it works. Didn't think it was too ridiculous like that of the first game - Nix's suggestions do often make sense if you're more interested in taking the Magneto approach to non-conduits.

(I didn't know about you needing to have the correct alignment to choose the opposite morality choice at the end though, that is stupid.)

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I will copypasta my absurdly lengthy criticism of the moral choices in this game from another thread, which is full of spoilers for both Infamous 1 and 2. It's not so much a criticism of the mechanic (they are really obvious to everyone at this point), but a criticism of the actual "choices" they give you. Read at your own risk/leisure.

To be blunt, the moral issues in Infamous 2... aren't very good. They're arbitrary and aren't interwoven into your character, and it really really irks me. But I'm wondering your thoughts on it as well.

Now I don't take issue with the good/evil mechanic, or that you have to go one way or the other to take advantage of powers, etc. etc. etc., I take issue with the crappy kinds of choices they actually give you, and the poor way they are implemented into and affect the storyline.

For good karma, you stop muggers, kidnappers, kill militia members, etc. and that's fine. But for bad karma, you do the exact same things. Instead of killing muggers, you kill cops. instead of killing kidnappers, you kill street performers. Instead of killing militia... well, you kill militia for both.

The side missions are similar as well. Either Kuo shows up and says something like "We need to stop the V88, " and you proceed to kill them all, or Nix shows up and says "We need to intimidate the V88," and you proceed to kill them all. Sure, there is some variety here (chuck cars at buildings, or kill Corrupted, etc.), but again, most choices just boil down to "who to kill?"

Even the main story mission that involve choices are like this. Do you run a tram through a gate in order to kill militia? Or do you get some cops first... to help you kill militia? Do you supply the rebels to gain their help in killing militia? Or do you let Nix kill some people... to gain their help in killing militia?

The side and main story missions that DON'T involve moral choices are at odds with this system. You're helping local rebels, returning medical supplies, putting out fires, rescuing people... as "evil" Cole. You're stealing blast shards, sinking supply boats, and burning down rallies... as "good" Cole. The game randomly assigns "karma" to some actions and not others.

These inconsistencies are one of the main reasons the story in this game feels incredibly awkward at times. It's how you can be a complete ass to Kuo in one scene... and then rescue her in the next. It's how you can have a total bro moment with Zeke... and then kill him 10 minutes later. It's how you go from working for days and days to stop the beast... to joining him with 100% commitment after one 30 second conversation.

It's as if the game was written entirely for the "Hero" route (a more consistent story, it seems), and then they took 20 minutes to throw some evil stuff together at the end. To me, being evil in this game didn't feel all that different from being good, until the very very end. For most of the game, it just... doesn't fit.

IMO, the first game handles this much better. You had actual questions that you as the player needed to answer, and missions/story reflected those choices. Am I going to be selfish (keeping supplies for myself), or selfless (sharing with others)? Do I take the easy way out (steal shards), or do I work for them (rescue the hostage first)? Do I inflict pain upon myself (turn valves on your own) or others (force hobo to turn valves instead)? Do I care more about my own desires (rescue girlfriend) or can I put them aside (rescue doctors)?

One criticism of this system is that these choices are lame. In many cases, your choices are actually "do nothing." And yeah, admittedly this offers jack shit in terms of gameplay, but choosing to do nothing was actually a significant moral choice. By doing nothing when someone is in trouble, you are saying "It's not my problem. I have better things to do. Save yourself." By turning the sludge valve yourself, you are saying "I can take the heat. I'll do this myself. I won't put someone else in danger." You are choosing between selfishness and selflessness, which is indeed a serious character-building decision and significantly moral choice. These options actually fueled character development, and the person you become is actually a result of choices made.

Infamous 2 handles these choices poorly. Your options have very little to do with character-building, and thus feel arbitrary. You're still just killing, stealing, rescuing, and destroying, etc. either way, and you are rarely forced to make a choice that reflects your character. As such, there's very little growth over time here, and by the time any significant change occurs (at the end), it feels abrupt and awkward. Put another way, in 1, you are "evil" because you made consistently selfish choices. In 2, you are "evil" because you played red missions. You don't choose to act or not act. You hardly ever choose to save or not save, sacrifice or not sacrifice. You merely chose a different way to kill people.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

There is a reason its that way. How are you going to have a grey area if you are a superhero tasked with taking down a superhuman foe?

Its either you help people, or you don't, its not Mass Effect where you are just one of many army people that can decide whether or not to flex their power.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I dont entirely agree or disagree. I loved the game, and some of the choices did have consequences, but you're completely right about the ending being so stupid. And it was so debatable as well, in reality I would have chosen the evil option, not because I'm selfish, but because it seemed like the right choice for the character to make.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I will copypasta my absurdly lengthy criticism of the moral choices in this game from another thread, which is full of spoilers for both Infamous 1 and 2. It's not so much a criticism of the mechanic (they are really obvious to everyone at this point), but a criticism of the actual "choices" they give you. Read at your own risk/leisure.

To be blunt, the moral issues in Infamous 2... aren't very good. They're arbitrary and aren't interwoven into your character, and it really really irks me. But I'm wondering your thoughts on it as well.

Now I don't take issue with the good/evil mechanic, or that you have to go one way or the other to take advantage of powers, etc. etc. etc., I take issue with the crappy kinds of choices they actually give you, and the poor way they are implemented into and affect the storyline.

For good karma, you stop muggers, kidnappers, kill militia members, etc. and that's fine. But for bad karma, you do the exact same things. Instead of killing muggers, you kill cops. instead of killing kidnappers, you kill street performers. Instead of killing militia... well, you kill militia for both.

The side missions are similar as well. Either Kuo shows up and says something like "We need to stop the V88, " and you proceed to kill them all, or Nix shows up and says "We need to intimidate the V88," and you proceed to kill them all. Sure, there is some variety here (chuck cars at buildings, or kill Corrupted, etc.), but again, most choices just boil down to "who to kill?"

Even the main story mission that involve choices are like this. Do you run a tram through a gate in order to kill militia? Or do you get some cops first... to help you kill militia? Do you supply the rebels to gain their help in killing militia? Or do you let Nix kill some people... to gain their help in killing militia?

The side and main story missions that DON'T involve moral choices are at odds with this system. You're helping local rebels, returning medical supplies, putting out fires, rescuing people... as "evil" Cole. You're stealing blast shards, sinking supply boats, and burning down rallies... as "good" Cole. The game randomly assigns "karma" to some actions and not others.

These inconsistencies are one of the main reasons the story in this game feels incredibly awkward at times. It's how you can be a complete ass to Kuo in one scene... and then rescue her in the next. It's how you can have a total bro moment with Zeke... and then kill him 10 minutes later. It's how you go from working for days and days to stop the beast... to joining him with 100% commitment after one 30 second conversation.

It's as if the game was written entirely for the "Hero" route (a more consistent story, it seems), and then they took 20 minutes to throw some evil stuff together at the end. To me, being evil in this game didn't feel all that different from being good, until the very very end. For most of the game, it just... doesn't fit.

IMO, the first game handles this much better. You had actual questions that you as the player needed to answer, and missions/story reflected those choices. Am I going to be selfish (keeping supplies for myself), or selfless (sharing with others)? Do I take the easy way out (steal shards), or do I work for them (rescue the hostage first)? Do I inflict pain upon myself (turn valves on your own) or others (force hobo to turn valves instead)? Do I care more about my own desires (rescue girlfriend) or can I put them aside (rescue doctors)?

One criticism of this system is that these choices are lame. In many cases, your choices are actually "do nothing." And yeah, admittedly this offers jack shit in terms of gameplay, but choosing to do nothing was actually a significant moral choice. By doing nothing when someone is in trouble, you are saying "It's not my problem. I have better things to do. Save yourself." By turning the sludge valve yourself, you are saying "I can take the heat. I'll do this myself. I won't put someone else in danger." You are choosing between selfishness and selflessness, which is indeed a serious character-building decision and significantly moral choice. These options actually fueled character development, and the person you become is actually a result of choices made.

Infamous 2 handles these choices poorly. Your options have very little to do with character-building, and thus feel arbitrary. You're still just killing, stealing, rescuing, and destroying, etc. either way, and you are rarely forced to make a choice that reflects your character. As such, there's very little growth over time here, and by the time any significant change occurs (at the end), it feels abrupt and awkward. Put another way, in 1, you are "evil" because you made consistently selfish choices. In 2, you are "evil" because you played red missions. You don't choose to act or not act. You hardly ever choose to save or not save, sacrifice or not sacrifice. You merely chose a different way to kill people.

I just felt that it needed pointing out...Sucker Punch said that Hero Cole is canon.

So yes, the 'good' path is the correct one. The 'evil' path is just kind of a 'what-if' story.

 

[Zaik]

I always thought the whole morality system was pulled directly from comic books.

Like, blue cole is Superman, and red cole is the Punisher. Or something.

No normal person is ever that positive or negative to begin with, but it's not really normal people we're talking about.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I think most problems with a moral choice system could be fixed with a "Law-Chaos" axis.
In Mass Effect, your choices are Lawful-Neutral Good for paragon, and Chaotic Neutral-Evil for renagade. I saw very few truly LE choices.

I've seen cases where my options are to save a person and let them go, or let them die. Why can't I save them and then rob them for all they have? That would be a much better choice that would make sense.

There are so few games that let me play Lawful Evil. Evil is not always robbing old laides or eating the flesh of newborns. Evil is cruelty with a reason.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I just felt that it needed pointing out...Sucker Punch said that Hero Cole is canon.

So yes, the 'good' path is the correct one. The 'evil' path is just kind of a 'what-if' story.

Yeah I get it, and that's totally fine. But if they continue the series, are they just not going to give you the option to import your "evil" save? As I've mentioned elsewhere, the endings are so different, they're going to have to either retcon or ignore one half of the storyline completely. It's not like in Mass Effect where the council is either there or not; it'd be more like at the Citadel Shepard joining Saren and the Reapers and destroying the universe. How do you make a sequel to that?

And I find it somewhat strange that the name of the game is inFamous, but the "infamous" path is not the default one.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I just felt that it needed pointing out...Sucker Punch said that Hero Cole is canon.

So yes, the 'good' path is the correct one. The 'evil' path is just kind of a 'what-if' story.

Yeah I get it, and that's totally fine. But if they continue the series, are they just not going to give you the option to import your "evil" save? As I've mentioned elsewhere, the endings are so different, they're going to have to either retcon or ignore one half of the storyline completely. It's not like in Mass Effect where the council is either there or not; it'd be more like at the Citadel Shepard joining Saren and the Reapers and destroying the universe. How do you make a sequel to that?

And I find it somewhat strange that the name of the game is inFamous, but the "infamous" path is not the default one.

I found the title to be a misnomer as well...it would have made perfect sense had 'Hero' rank actually been called 'Famous', but whatever.

But it was the same in the first game. To get the 'evil' ending, you had to re-activate the Blast Sphere (Which turned the sky red and killed almost everyone in Empire City. If you go around, you'll notice that almost everyone is dead even if you've cleared that sector)

Obviously, that was completely ignored in inFamous 2, even if you do import the evil save. The ending of inFamous 2 is more dramatic than inFamous, but they'll still probably just ignore the evil ending in inFamous 3.

 

[Something Amyss]

I always thought the whole morality system was pulled directly from comic books.

Like, blue cole is Superman, and red cole is the Punisher. Or something.

No normal person is ever that positive or negative to begin with, but it's not really normal people we're talking about.

The first game was hyped as a more down-to-earth sort of look at a superpowered character. The choices were advertised as though they were deep, and Cole's abilities aren't as over-the-top as many characters. I mean, just the need to recharge takes him several notches down from comic fare. They even hyped Cole as an "ordinary guy" who gained powers.

I mean, that may have changed for inFamous 2, but even still, they advertised "freedom of choice," which seems outof step with the complaints presented here.


Not that I expect total honesty, but....

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Yeah, the moral choice system in inFamous 2 doesn't make much sense at all. To be honest, what it comes down to is what upgrades you want. What I don't understand is why it doesn't ask you which choice you want to make in the beginning and just have two separate missions. It doesn't make sense why you would be playing the entire game one way and then just decide to take a quick evil side mission for no reason and then go back to playing the good guy.

The only choice that even makes you think is the final one and all it really comes down to is which ending you haven't unlocked yet honestly.

I enjoyed both inFamous games... they're probably my favorite open world games. But I enjoyed the gameplay much more than the story which is kind of a shame. I actually went out of my way to find every single blast shard and dead drop and even get every power and do every side mission because I was enjoying the game so much. But the idea that the decisions are based on "moral choice" is almost laughable. Like I said, it's just which upgrades you want rather than what you believe is right.

 

[Oilerfan92]

One thing I noticed playing Infamous 1 is some morality choices don't make sense. Some are the "shoukd I do _______ ? even thought it will harm me, or do I force someone else to do it ?"

But at one point I was tasked with deactivating a bomb attached to a police station, and when I got there I had to choose between "deactivating the bomb and saving the station at no harm to myself" or "letting it blow up because..... It can".

If they said something about reducing cops in the area (allowing being evil to be easier) I guess it would work better.

 

[Kahunaburger]

There aren't many games I think do the morality slider thing right. Planescape:Torment does. MegaTen games that have one do (kind of). Catherine might. I much prefer the system in Devil Survivor or Witcher, where you just do things and live with the consequences.

In every other case - FO:NV and ME2 jump to mind as having a particularly bad system - it undermines any actual choice the game might possess.

 

[Joshica Huracane]

I was perfectly fine with the good or evil options presented; as both seemed like ways to get the job done in the long run, not just being good or evil for the sake of it. The thing that did bug me was the final choice. This, to me, was one of the most morally grey choices I've ever seen in a game. Had it not been labelled "good" or "evil", I would have spent quite some time debating to myself over which I thought was genuinely better. It could have offered a moment of introspection, but instead I found myself choosing the good option, because I was good Cole, or the evil option because I was Infamous.

I think this is mainly to do with the games power sets; having a karma meter ties into that, and so having big moral choice moments helps to get players along one of these diverging paths; but having big, grey moral dilemnas is so much more interesting, isn't it? Having Neutral decisions to end the game on would work (in my mind) because both choices would have the same effect on your power set/appearance. NONE. If developers are so insistant on putting these karmic rewards in, theres still no reason to miss out on a "grey" question like the one presented. It won't affect player's perception of their character. If they're playing good, they'll choose what they think is good. If they choose evil, they'll choose what they think is evil. Simple.

OK, I'm probably missing something that makes this a whole lot more complicated but screw it, It works to me. =P

 

[ultrachicken]

A lot of the choices were actually fairly gray, but the mistake was placing good/evil labels on everything, which took out any potential thought that would go into making a decision.

I would say that Mass Effect has worse moral choice, however, because the game flaunts dialogue as its main draw, but if you want to succeed in the game you're going to just be spamming the same option over and over.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

In every other case - FO:NV and ME2 jump to mind as having a particularly bad system - it undermines any actual choice the game might possess.

New Vegas? you're kidding. New Vegas had an excellent morality system. It tied all of it's morality to the Factions. The end. There is no "Good" and "Evil" as dictated by arbitrary laws, unclear to you. There is just: "Democrat", "Autocrat", "Capitalist", and "Anarchist"..... and imo that beats good and evil right out of the fucking water!

And if you're referring to the Karma system....why would you refer to it? It literally had ZERO impact on the game. It just felt like a feature from Fallout 3 that Obsidian forgot to delete. Hence I finished the job by getting myself a mod that hides all the Karma noises and pop-ups.

That's not the morality system of the game. It's a glitch.