TVGB: "Sucker Punch's inFamous certainly isn't the first videogame to present players with moral choices, but it is one of the first to be blunt about the complete lack of a moral middle ground."
uh there was no middle ground to being a jedi or a sith in star wars... just like in so many other games.. actually, so many other games don't even give you a choice to decide which side you're on.. so quit b*tchin' and start playin! lol the author completely contradicted himself with his last sentence. he probably knew that 90% of what he wrote was flamebait but was too afraid of getting burnt...
Yeah, I mean the fact that you can't choose to be neutral (i.e boring and without the extra powers you get for the different stages of good and evil) really is not worth writing even a sentence about, let alone a whole article. And anyway, the whole point of this Good-Evil system (apart from the different powers) is that the people of the city will have differing opinions of you. I don't think it would be very realistic if you could just be neutral and indifferent because the reflected opinion of you would just be a "meh". And I don't think people would be "meh"ing someone with super powers, whatever moral decisions they make.
This would be the neutral path choice: Don't do anything and walk away from the situation. lol, sounds exciting huh? on a logical note though... you do start out neutral...
And that was the best RPG of last year.
but im not...wow what a fun game to be neutral, good, nor evil, i just don't do anything.....WOW 360 fanboys, how low are you, very lame article... Thats like playing oblivion and just walking around not saving/killing anyone/anything... Or playing GTA4 following the rules, no speeding, stop at red lights, obey traffic rules.... If you enjoy that, i suggest some other games, like russian roulette..
The filter ain't working. but seriously why was this approved it flamebait with an argument that holds no ground
None of you understood the point. None. I even doubt you have a clear concept of what neutrality means. The point of the article is not to say that players should be able to act like Switzerland, doing nothing or whatever, but rather that there should be a middle way because not everything is black or white. Reality is composed of various shades of gray. The game forces you to be either all good, or all bad, there's no middle way, which the author thought might have been a good idea. It's not flamebait, it's a valid point. You morons make it into a flamewar when you comment not even thinking about what the author meant. IF you even read it, which I doubt.
Then why was infamoused mentioned why couldn't he direct it at games in general. TBH why should you be reward for being netural you are essentially doing nothing.
Milo, perhaps you missed the concept of "sarcasm" in our posts... Is it such sacrilege that this "great" game doesn't have a neutral path?
@Milo Garret "The game forces you to be either all good, or all bad, there's no middle way," Erm, you haven't played the demo have you... There are 3 'shades' of good and 3 of evil. That's a total of 6 options, which means you are wrong.
The game doesn't FORCE you to be super good or super evil. The game just has less rewards for you if you're neutral. If you're so intent on being as neutral as you can, sure go ahead. You just won't receive specialized powers that only specialized people can get. Btw, there are shades of gray no matter what moral path you choose in life. For example, even if you choose to be super righteous, you're still gonna have to kill the enemies. You committed a crime to bring peace to the city. Or you may choose to be "evil". You don't care if civilians die during your fights with the bad guys. But you still end up bringing peace to the city. If you look at the Yin and Yang symbol, it is made up of one white side and one black side. But look closer and you'll notice that there's a black spot within the white side, and a white spot within the black side. http://tbn3.google.com/imag... http://z.about.com/d/taoism... Beyond good and evil.
This whole good versus evil shtick winds up being pointless in any game.
I want neutral. We've had this discussion already about morality in video games that give you a choice some time again and I'm usually one of those neutral people. I usually play within int gray zone on my first run through. Not being a complete d**k but not being a saint either. Or in games like Infamous where it's either or, I choose to be evil.
Bioware games almost always have a neutral option. This isn't something no other game does. I like to have the choice when the good and evil choices are too extreme. G: Give him all your cash. E: Let him drown in his own tears. Some games actually force you into that type of idiotic situation when neither choice is that great. They say neutrality isn't exciting when in truth devs haven't taken the time to make neutrality an exciting option. Many seem to think neutrality should mean 'not getting involved' which is backwards if you're trying to excite your audience. In fact, it can be very exciting if it's all about balancing out your good and evil choices. I mean, I come to N4G and I could pick a side in liking the 360 or PS3 or Wii more. But I choose to walk a middle path appreciating and criticising all three consoles on their merits. That is neutral but not 'on the sidelines'.
Nails it on the head, perfect reasoning. Also the city itself supposedly deteriorates if you're bad and improves if you're good so where would that stand in a shade of gray?
Look at some of the iterations of batman. Or the movie boondock saints or death wish. Some people will view you as doing something good and others as something bad. While others remain in the middle of how they respond towards your actions. If you play "evil" why wouldn't more shadier npc's and groups be attracted to you? Maybe even try to incorporate you into their fold. Or the denizens that enjoy the chaos of the city would herald your efforts to keep things as they are. When you play as good the cops would look up to you. You'd boost the communities morale and might even cause a mini civil war in the area. People trying to better the neighborhoods against the people who wants chaos. Then there's the neutral ground where you work more towards only surviving. Doing mostly things that only work in your favor. Weather it be for the bad or good side it wouldn't directly matter to you. Think of it almost like a "gun for hire", when stripped of their morality or rather tossing it aside for the sake of your own survival things become interesting. In the "cities" eyes you could be looked at but nothing more than another inhabitant. To some that you did good for you could be looked to as a quasi hero and to the others you fought against as a enemy. While in reality you tow the line in the middle.
Well, lol, several replies coming up: Chuk_chuk: I think it has to do with the fact that InFamous just released and that it is the most recent example of the issue. theWhoopimen: If any of you were being sarcastic I apologize, I do have a problem detecting sarcasm on the interwebs. Milky Joe: Yes I did play the demo, I really like action games so I downloaded it as soon as it was available. Not a huge fan of InFamous as of now, but I might get it anyways because I think it showed potential nonetheless. The fact that there are many options still doesn't detract from the fact that you are in effect forced to choose a specific path to maximize your powers. rockleex: Seeing it from a different perspective, you could say that the game punishes you for not choosing to be completely good/evil, taking the "middle path" will cause you to be inferior than you would have been had you chosen a specific "side". Which is the point I'm trying to make. So there, that's how I see it. Sorry for the foul language and insults, I was in a bad mood and happened to visit n4g, bad combo! And I want to clarify, I don't necessarily think the absence of a middle path is wrong, I just wanted to defend the author's point of view, which I consider to be valid though I don't actually agree with it.
Reveleation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
How does that prove there is not middle?
Way to discount your own point.
The game's just as much - more - about how people see you as you choose to interact with the world. Depending on your actions people are either going to say "Here's that guy who shoots lighting, we're saved!" or "Here's that guy who shoots lightning, we're f*cked!" or "Why doesn't he do something!?" They're never going to say "There's that guy who shoots lightning, 'meh.'"
"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
but just wanted to comment on the topic of morality. A gray moral middle ground is just an excuse so people can get away with themselves being an ass and not feel bad about themselves. A heroic act is understood in every country, culture, color, or race, no matter where you go. Meaning of being a hero is simple: doing something that helps others just for the fact to help others and not for the goal of benefiting yourself. Everybody's heard stories, read in books, or seen in movies how a hero acts and we all admire it, but I just don't get sometimes why people can't take that extra step and BE the hero. We all know the concept, and most of the time it's not even hard. People won't even take the time to open the door for somebody, even things like using the turn signal when you drive, let along letting somebody else into the lane when they turn on their signal. Feeling lazy or whatever reason, being an ass is being an ass, there's no gray neutrality in that. Who is to judge who's the hero though? Certainly not yourselves, but other people gets to. Every action you take that will interact with at least one other person, there is no neutrality on that because it will affect another person. So back into the game. Of course you can be neutral in this game, just like real life; walk around and not interact with anything and anyone, then you can be neutral. What's the point in that though?
Excellent points. But games aren't just like real life. People you could have pissed off one day you might be helping the next day. Things are in a constant flux, so are relationships. Patching things up or creating feuds or just settling on a middle ground with someone. Perception others have of you goes to more than just a good guy/bad guy. Some people you just might have a neutral opinion about not exactly loathing or liking you. As far as a video game example having to fight a guy and then maybe working with him in a side mission later on in the game could make you have a neutral relationship with him. He'd know that with you it was a sort of "just business" thing.
Guys, life's all about shades of gray. Only fools and despots deal in ultimates. We try to be ultimately good and do what's right, but unfortunately life doesn't make things so easy for us. That's why I want games to allow you to make real decisions, ones that aren't so black and white, as ultimately this would create characters far more interesting than you can imagine.
whether or not life is shades of grey or all black and white is irrelevant; inFAMOUS is entertainment, and as such, must reduce life to ultimates and absolutes. When a game can truly deal with, and transform our perceptions of 'grey' life, it will no longer be a game. it will be art. or, i could be too pretentious for my own good. yeah, go with that.
We try to live life in shades but ultimately we are one-sided. We try to consider everyone's point of view, but ultimately we have our own opinion. I think the game is trying to get us to be real with ourselves...you can't be good AND bad, you have to make a decision.
In this game i like the fact they only do good or evil. But in another game thas more grittier i would like to see 'bad decisions' done for the right reasons, for example say if your wife or kids were held hostage by some evil person and you had to make a decision to save them which would end in innocent people dying, would you make the sacrafice.Just things that force the player to feel real emotion These are just general bullsh!t ideas. I want to play infamous dammit!
I Think Gears 1 and 2 FanBoTs will have somting to say about that
Does the patch will add European language (Spanish, French, German, etc...) to the UK version ? THANK YOU VERY MUCH
Anyone who was important enough to be a major character in a history book has either been a hero or villain. So why should a game give you points for being neutral?
World War II, there was a little neutral country right smack dab in the middle of it all and they did alright for themselves...
They did allright, sidenote mentioned, as in no major character
There are 2 levels of good before you become a "Hero" and 2 levels of bad before you become "Infamous." "Shades of grey," no?
Technically, but your actions will always take you towards good or evil, you'll never complete a mission or kill someone that will add to your neutrality. All the experience and powers are very much linked to being good or bad.
I neither agree or disagree, I am neutral on the subject...
Why else would you make the option to be neutral? If you decide to do + karma missions, that makes you good, but then you can go on a bystander killing spree, either plummeting you into - or neutral. The games, or at least the author, should have acknowledged that fact. Not the real world standard of neutral that some people are posting here (doing nothing = neutral.) Why would a dev waste time on that? The author should have made it more along the lines of asking "what kind of powers could you possibly get for neutrality?"
I'd be a hero, but I didn't trust that chamber, figured out I might aswell have been the Hero, cause I couldn't get back out anyways. But for that one decision I was neutral, yet the story made me believe I was a hero, which I had been till then. But it was a 2 min clip for the neutral, if thats all that Infamous is lacking, fine, I'm neutral enough in real life, let me be a Hero or Villain in my games. If you want points for being neutral, I guess your actually on a quest for being a Hero or Villain anyways
All I can say is I loved the demo...and cannot wait for my copy to come in the mail.
The author just wanted a purpose to nag on and create some kind of flamebait article: "Buh buh teh game doesn't let me be a 'regular' guy. I don't want to be a good or a bad guy. I just want to be a regular guy'
We do shades of grey though. I mean, we play Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2....
I didn't know this article would generate a philosophical debate about morals. This can't be n4g, quick someone mention something about sales.
What the hell is neutral in a game? You see a bank getting robbed. You A. Kill the bad guys. Good B. Kileveryone, take the money. Evil C. Walk past and go to Micky D's for a 1/4 pounder? Neutral?
Well the author imo had a great point but then he seemed not to stand behind his own statement at the end when said F-ambiguity. Truthfully Sucker Punch's approach of good vs bad has been done plenty before, in that aspect one of my favorite games Bioshock comes to mind and just like that game the "black or white" approach fits infamous although Bioshock was much more story driven I don't think this is a game that relies heavily on the story. Based on the reviews and my brief experience with the demo I don't think this game has the deeper type story like say MGS4, ME, or GTA4 has. The story like most "moral choice" games is very simplistic good guy or bad guy choices but clearly the focus is on the gameplay and cool ways Cole can use his electrical powers, which thankfully Sucker Punch delivered. Its almost a case of pick your poison many games imo like GTA4 tell a great story to tell while the repetitive gameplay of "go here pick up this", "drive here", "chase this guy" -wash, rinse, repeat the same stuff really ruins the experience somewhat. I do wish devs would explore more moral based games that dramatically effect the way the game plays out and of course nail the fun factor in the gameplay department.
So it makes perfect sense to polarize the powers into good/evil. What fun would it be to play through a 3rd time and get worse powers and less feedback playing it neutral? This is a game and the producer said gamers testing the game wanted to play either good or bad, the middle ground is just pointless/boring in a game like this...
"What fun would it be to play through a 3rd time and get worse powers and less feedback playing it neutral?" Thats a very shortsighted point of view, if the dev really wanted to challenge you with moral decisions that were not simply good or bad then he could also reward you with powers that were much different than the current good/evil abilities and also make them just as powerful in their own right. "the middle ground is just pointless/boring in a game like this..." Again that sounds awfully closed-minded, of course there would be a point, imagine a game where some genetics company secretly develops a transformation virus, and decides to test it on you, your brother and sister because of course they kidnapped your family from some poor tribe in the middle of no where, both you and your brother develop super-human transformation powers, your brother goes off the deep end and is hellbent on revenge, your sister is infected but only in the 1st stages of tests, during the game you can either choose to help your brother go on a rampage through the city killing anybody who gets in your way to destroy the company however this path also prevents the company from finishing research that would cure your sister OR you can help the company stop your EVIL brother so they can finish the research to cure your sister, which also results in the company ultimately being shutdown however this path leads to you being the murderer of your brother OR you can choose to fight against your both your brother and the company so at times you fight against your brother to prevent the death of innocent people at the hands of your brother who doesn't care how many people have to die while he's looking for "the guy responsible", at other the times some missions involve you taking action against the company while discovering the research needed to cure your sister if you choose this path in the end its too late ultimately your sister and brother both die but the company is destroyed and exposed which prevents the experiments from ever happening to another family or anyone again= the world is safe, for now. I'm not saying infamous should have been made in a similiar way as the above scenario. lol No Sucker Punch made the game how they intended to and its fun, I'm just saying that its possible make a comic book hero/anti hero type game where they give the player morally ambiguous choices and make it possibly more interesting and fun.
And that's what we are talking about here. It's not about morality, but two different ways of playing this game. The devs. tried it, but test players wanted the two opposites and that's what works for this game. I agree that some more varied and diverse moral options would be great in games. I just don't see what it could add to inFamous, since it' more about the extremes...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.