G33K LYFE: Gamers making tough choices?
I'm Delsin Rowe, a Native
American graffiti artist and minor
delinquent who has just discovered
that I possess superpowers, powers
that will instantly label me as a
dangerous “bio-terrorist,” destined
to be ostracized from society or
hunted down and imprisoned. The
government agency charged with
my capture has me cornered,
threatening to torture the kindly
tribe elder who had just helped me
get out of a sticky situation if I
don't admit what I am. I'm given
two choices, turn myself in, or let
this kind old woman be hurt. Good
and evil, blue or red, what is it I
do?
And so gamers are presented with the first major decision in Infamous: Second Son, Sucker Punch Studios' recent blockbuster release and what many are considering to be the first must have game on Sony's young Playstation 4 console, a choice that will set them down the path of the hero or the villain for the remainder of the story.
This isn't a review; the game's amazing overall, but when this decision flashed on the screen it became clear that one of the franchise's old issues, and an issue in gaming altogether, was set to continue.
Infamous is just one of the many games in recent years that have heavily leaned on some sort of morality system, implemented in the name of drawing players deeper into the story and the character they control, but more importantly, it can serve to truly challenge a players sense of right and wrong. Certain titles, however, beg the questions “do these choices really matter?” and “do these choices make sense?” And sometimes when it turns out that they don't, the effect can be lost and the important immersion for the player is snapped like a twig.
Using the above example, most gamers will go good and save the elder. I did, not only because it's what I would do, but because it's what I felt Delsin would have done in that situation. Sure he was a bit of a whiny kid, but certainly not cruel hearted, which is why the latter option felt unnatural and pulled me right out of the story.
The prior Infamous games fell victim to the same issue, it never felt right for that character to become a mass murderer at the drop of a hat, when the story makes so little sense on one side, it becomes all too easy to think that developers included it as a game mechanic first and a story device second.
On the other hand, you have Bioware's space epic Mass Effect, where you shape your character's morality sentence by sentence as you attempt to save the galaxy from an alien threat. While choosing what you say was nothing new, it was the ripple effect that your decisions made that truly made the morality system in this trilogy feel crucial, as split second decisions the player made would come into play two games and 40 hours later, causing one to question if the right decision was made.
I'll never forget the first time I played through that decision; the queen of an alien species that had once ravaged the galaxy has been resurrected, and was begging me to spare her so that her species may live. I put my controller down and spent 20 minutes realizing that this game was presenting me with the option to commit genocide, and it genuinely seemed like the best option.
Unfortunately such powerful moments are few and far between, as all games that employ these systems fall victim to one common problem, even one that was so nearly perfect as Mass Effect, there is always one ending that doesn't quite gel with how things have gone, leaving gamers with a sour taste in their mouth that says the choices they carefully and thoughtfully made were really of no consequence, as the developers had one ending in mind the entire time.
The reasoning is obvious, programmers simply can't design an ending that fits in perfectly with every combination of decisions that players can make, game development is extremely expensive and studios don't have the resources to spend on something that maybe 20 per cent will see, however if one could, and create a game where everything makes sense, than the addition of morality will have truly been mastered in games.
Until then, gamers can expect a lack of payoff if they don't follow what the writers have deemed to be the proper path.
And so gamers are presented with the first major decision in Infamous: Second Son, Sucker Punch Studios' recent blockbuster release and what many are considering to be the first must have game on Sony's young Playstation 4 console, a choice that will set them down the path of the hero or the villain for the remainder of the story.
This isn't a review; the game's amazing overall, but when this decision flashed on the screen it became clear that one of the franchise's old issues, and an issue in gaming altogether, was set to continue.
Infamous is just one of the many games in recent years that have heavily leaned on some sort of morality system, implemented in the name of drawing players deeper into the story and the character they control, but more importantly, it can serve to truly challenge a players sense of right and wrong. Certain titles, however, beg the questions “do these choices really matter?” and “do these choices make sense?” And sometimes when it turns out that they don't, the effect can be lost and the important immersion for the player is snapped like a twig.
Using the above example, most gamers will go good and save the elder. I did, not only because it's what I would do, but because it's what I felt Delsin would have done in that situation. Sure he was a bit of a whiny kid, but certainly not cruel hearted, which is why the latter option felt unnatural and pulled me right out of the story.
The prior Infamous games fell victim to the same issue, it never felt right for that character to become a mass murderer at the drop of a hat, when the story makes so little sense on one side, it becomes all too easy to think that developers included it as a game mechanic first and a story device second.
On the other hand, you have Bioware's space epic Mass Effect, where you shape your character's morality sentence by sentence as you attempt to save the galaxy from an alien threat. While choosing what you say was nothing new, it was the ripple effect that your decisions made that truly made the morality system in this trilogy feel crucial, as split second decisions the player made would come into play two games and 40 hours later, causing one to question if the right decision was made.
I'll never forget the first time I played through that decision; the queen of an alien species that had once ravaged the galaxy has been resurrected, and was begging me to spare her so that her species may live. I put my controller down and spent 20 minutes realizing that this game was presenting me with the option to commit genocide, and it genuinely seemed like the best option.
Unfortunately such powerful moments are few and far between, as all games that employ these systems fall victim to one common problem, even one that was so nearly perfect as Mass Effect, there is always one ending that doesn't quite gel with how things have gone, leaving gamers with a sour taste in their mouth that says the choices they carefully and thoughtfully made were really of no consequence, as the developers had one ending in mind the entire time.
The reasoning is obvious, programmers simply can't design an ending that fits in perfectly with every combination of decisions that players can make, game development is extremely expensive and studios don't have the resources to spend on something that maybe 20 per cent will see, however if one could, and create a game where everything makes sense, than the addition of morality will have truly been mastered in games.
Until then, gamers can expect a lack of payoff if they don't follow what the writers have deemed to be the proper path.
