• feature
  • WEDNESDAY JUNE 3 2009 11:00 AM

Hit Play with PixelVixen707: inFamous



I'm no expert on superhero comics. But in the pile of comics in our living room, stuck between The Boys, Walking Dead, and Air, are a few out-and-out good guy vs. bad guy books -- and the best of the bunch is Ultimate Spiderman. Never mind that it's an unusually good retelling of the story of everyone's favorite geek hero. Never mind that Mary Jane has a mean right hook, or that Gwen Stacy went punk. I like the book because it gives us a Spider-Man who's still learning right from wrong.

Spidey taught us -- and say it with me -- that with great power, comes great responsibility. But really, that's just his opinion. And if he didn't have the memory of his dead uncle nagging at him all the time, would he always play nice?

As the SG Gamers group caught on, Cole MacGrath, the star of Sucker Punch Productions's PlayStation 3 sandboxer inFamous, owes plenty to Spider-Man. As the erstwhile motorcycle messenger, you can scale buildings and fall from any height -- not to mention shoot lethal bolts of electricity from your fingertips. Like Spider-Man, when you start out everyone thinks you're a menace: accused of being a terrorist who turned the city into a free-fire zone, you're scoffed and spat upon everywhere you go. But unlike Spider-Man, you live in a city that can't stand in your way. Sometimes the cops sneak out of their hidey-holes to take potshots at the gangs, and the military mans the barricades around the island. But inside the city limits, you are the law. And everybody else looks very, very helpless.

In most games, the run-of-the-mill civilians fall into two extremes: they're either crucial, or insignificant. In a game like Grand Theft Auto, pedestrians are just moving targets. Running down a sidewalk full of people may get the cops on your tail, and a stick-up might bring you a few bucks, but your rampages have no long-term ramifications. The little people just don't matter. At the other end, a real-time strategy game will give you a population to protect or an army to deploy -- and every last one of those folks is a resource. Lose one or two and it's no big thing, but waste too many and you're going to lose the game.

In inFamous, the civilians matter -- but they don't matter much. You can help them, but the rewards are minor. And thanks to that design decision, you'll focus on the role you want to play rather than the points you need to earn.

To be clear, you're also confronted with boldface, lunkheaded moral decisions between a brave act and a craven one, such as, "Do I take a couple bruises from this giant walking trash monster -- or let a dozen people burn to death?" These shift your hero rating as well -- but they're not as interesting as the choices you aren't forced to make.

Choose to be a hero, and you can stop every five feet and heal someone who's wounded and dying on the sidewalk. You get a few experience points for every save, but that's just a "thank you"; knowing that you've saved hundreds of lives is the real reward. On the other hand, have you ever tied your ex's dog to the back of a bus? Or maybe grabbed the last beer in the fridge? If you're the villain-type, inFamous lets you wreak havoc on an already wrecked city, torturing the populace and even draining the last gasps of life from victims dying on the street. All these crimes will nudge your karma toward evil, but in the scheme of things, a few murders here and there don't add up to much -- and anyway, you'll quickly learn how hard it is to do good.

Maybe Spider-Man had time to catch baby carriages and save grandmas from falling taxis. But in inFamous, stray passers-by love to jump in the middle of a firefight, and who the hell has time to protect them? Plus, most of them are obnoxious. I talked to one gamer who tried to play nice, until he got trash-talk from one too many civilians -- so he walked up to the guy and knocked him across the street. Could Spider-Man get away with that?

Yes, he could -- if he wanted to. And nothing made me appreciate the masked webslinger like trying to follow his example, and failing in so many little ways. Don't get me wrong: this ain't Watchmen. The story crams 50 pounds of nonsense in a 5 pound bag, and the hero is just some guy with a squeaky messenger bag and a rechargeable battery for a brain. But the game puts its stubby little finger square on how it feels to be the ubermensch. Nobody can judge you, because nobody can stop you. And yes, all those little people matter -- but they only matter a little.


Rachael Webster (a.ka.a SG member PixelVixen707) is SG's Hit Play games columnist. A game lover and game blogger living in New York City, she also writes at PixelVixen707.com and tweets as PixelVixen707.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
Dr_Pwnage

Dr_Pwnage

Gainesville, FL
February 2005

JUN 03, 2009 07:09 PM

This youtube video is funny and related to this discussion:



by the way, I love this column on SG!

Kaziklu

Kaziklu

Canada
November 2004

JUN 03, 2009 08:00 PM

I bought inFamous a few days ago, and have had really mixed feelings about it. The Moral choices only effect certain things. For example, Cole is just trying to get out of the City, your choices decide if he is doing that at any cost, or trying to help people along the way. As the Game progress you go down one path or the other. But you can take the grey path. And it can be rewarding, in that you don't gain access to the higher level powers in three or four areas. Do you need these skills? no.. you can complete the game on Hard difficulty with out them, it's just a tougher experience.

I'm more worried about the over sticky and grabby behaviour, and the many bugs including falling through the world. As well as some highly repeative missions in the first two thirds of the game.

The game is really fun though, and there are some very nifty elements to it and with the exception of one mission, the way to complete everything was fairly straight forward.

The Story could have used a little work, but you get into it, and I'd love to see a sequel with more mission types and focusing on some of the lose ends. It's a good start to a new IP and I'm excited to see what is to come in this franchise.

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

JUN 03, 2009 11:06 PM

I am so frustrated that this game is a PS3 exclusive. Sucker Punch did such a marvelous job with the Sly Cooper series that I'd love to get my hands on inFamous, but I just don't have the cash or space for a PS3.

Jace

Jace

San Francisco, CA
February 2004

JUN 04, 2009 02:12 AM

motorfirebox said:

Jace said:
And if that's the case, the people in the gray area are put into a really weird position. They expected this awesome moral system, where they're supposed to feel the ramifications of their actions and the real pull between good and evil, but because they're in the middle, the impact of that system is negligible. It should be negligible, since these people are staying away from extremes. But negligible is no fun. Nobody wants to play an average Joe.


i think it's pretty unlikely that i'll ever consider any universal moral system in a game to be awesome. what would be awesome is an actually complex moral system, where different factions have different opinions of you. one group might think you're the vilest villain, another group might think you're an angel sent by the jesus--and, properly done, they can both be right. for real fun, you can give different factions different priorities, so that even when considering the same set of your actions, they rate you differently. for instance, let's say the Mole Men attack and you fight them off, but in the process there are heavy civilian casualties. the City Government faction might rate you as good, because you saved the city from invasion; meanwhile, the Citizen Defense League rates you as evil, because of the collateral damage. and of course the Mole Men, if they have a faction, think you're pretty much the devil. and on top of all that, there's your intent: how much effort did you expend towards limiting civilian casualties? did you try your hardest, but simply fail? or did you just not care?

Fallout 3 sorta has this, in that there are different factions that can have different opinions of you, but the problem is that there's still the overarching karma component, which presents itself in the game in the form of mostly good-or-evil dialogue options. the conservative/selfish options are there... but they're mostly just extra steps on the path towards choosing either good or evil.


I agree entirely. Adding a variety of different factions, each with different perspectives and goals that render your decisions in a different light, is an excellent way of adding dimension and depth to an otherwise difficult and arbitrary system. And it's important for these factions to have interests in the same things/places/events, so it's not just a simple matter of "go here and get this, and these people like you. Go elsewhere and do elsewhat, and those people like you. CHOOSE ONLY ONE!" That sucks.

EDIT: I'm in the midst of an intelligent video game discussion based on a News article. This needs to continue!

nicole_powers

nicole_powers

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JUN 04, 2009 05:41 PM

CobraR said:
I'm sick of the cheap Black/White morality mechanics in games. It's been done to death and needs to be put to an end. If there's no true advantage to being one or the other (read: a true progressive change in the enviroment and story), then what's the point?



Yeah, Penny Arcade called out inFamous for its live/die/good/evil/what's-the-fuckin'-point shit in this strip.

Twelve

Twelve

Bay City, MI
April 2007

JUN 06, 2009 11:10 PM

PixelVixen707 said:
Have you tried playing Fallout 3 neutrally? I have (obsessive) friends who have finished it as good, evil, and neutral, and enjoyed all three tracks.



Somebody actually played through that game more than once? puke

PixelVixen707 said:
When I played, I ended up saving the world, 'cause that's just what I do.



I find it really hard to be evil in most games. Not only do I feel bad about it, but even if I wanted to be evil, I'd like to maybe be a little more subtle than "Yes, I use nuclear weapons to blow up settlements full of people who are out to do nothing more than help me." It's evil, sure, but it's also stupid.

I think the obvious answer is to do away with the good/evil/neutral trinary. The "shades of gray" in real life don't exist because some people eat babies, some people deliver babies, and other people eat some babies but deliver other ones. You don't balance out good and evil by killing a few pedestrians here and then reviving a few on the next block. The whole appeal of the "shades of gray" thing is that in real life, nobody is "evil" or "good." The concept of a big scale with which we measure neutrality, with pure evil on one side and pure goodness on the other, isn't really there.

Those baby eaters are probably eating babies to whittle away at their enemies' next generation. Maybe they started doing it because they're still hunter/gatherers and the local agrarian tribe is moving in, killing off the hunt-able wildlife, and setting up shop. Baby-eating is evil, fucked up, maybe not even the best way to do it, but they have a real motivation and a workable--if flawed--morality. And then you have the farmers. They're basically doing good. They're trying to provide stability and extend the human lifespan. But in order to do so they're doing questionable things like killing off another tribe and driving local animal species to extinction. So who's really the good guys? Those are shades of gray.

In short, I need motivation in the form of story, not "if I kill 100 pedestrians, some guy won't like me very much until I heal 100 other pedestrians."

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 07, 2009 08:36 AM

Twelve said:
I find it really hard to be evil in most games. Not only do I feel bad about it, but even if I wanted to be evil, I'd like to maybe be a little more subtle than "Yes, I use nuclear weapons to blow up settlements full of people who are out to do nothing more than help me." It's evil, sure, but it's also stupid.


haha, same. i'm playing through Fallout 3 again (yes, again, on very hard mode with a bunch of mods to increase the difficulty even further), and while i can't bring myself to be a dick to most of the human questgivers, i'm trying to be anti-ghoul and anti-super mutant. even then, i couldn't bring myself to kill Uncle Lenny and take his stuff.

Twelve said:
In short, I need motivation in the form of story, not "if I kill 100 pedestrians, some guy won't like me very much until I heal 100 other pedestrians."


this, exactly.

PixelVixen707

PixelVixen707

New York, NY
April 2009

JUN 07, 2009 04:44 PM

Twelve said:
The "shades of gray" in real life don't exist because some people eat babies, some people deliver babies, and other people eat some babies but deliver other ones.



Untoppable.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next