Lemme Say This: InFamous 2 & Morality
Lo!
Thar be spoilers in them thar articles!
Morality systems in games are often rather lopsided: the good choices make you a saint, and the bad choices make you puppy-raping Ghengis Khan (you thought I'd say Hitler, but I'm far more original than that!). In InFamous 2, Cole Macgrath is must use his powers as a Conduit (think mutants from X Men) to decide the fate of the human race.
By the end, his best friend and a large number of the population are dying from a new plague, and he must make a choice: use his powers to activate a device called the Raysphere to possibly cure the non-Conduits and kill the Conduits in the process ("good karma"), or use a method to kill non-Conduits in order to create new ones, who are naturally immune to the plague ("bad karma").
Four characters are worth mentioning here.
Zeke

Cole's best friend, he is revealed to be dying of the plague in the latter half. He is a bit of a skirt chaser, but is also something of a moral compass for Cole. It is his plight that spurs our hero to use the Rayshpere, but also the one who stands against him should he choose to destroy it.
Zeke represents what you have to lose no matter what choice you make. Either you watch him, and the rest of the normies, die a slow death/kill them or you sacrifice yourself and all other Conduits, saving millions but condemning plenty others without them even being aware of it.
On top of that, choosing the former means going against natural selection, the method by which species develop, but I'll get into that later.
In the "good" ending, he is saved by Cole's sacrifice, and honors him as being the most human of all, Conduit or no. In the "bad" ending, he attempts to sabotage Cole and John's plan, and even shoots Cole, determined to fight to the end. Cole is forced to kill him to destroy the Raysphere, an act which rocks the Conduit to this core.
John
An agent who worked with Cole in the previous game and was seemingly killed by a malfunctioning Raysphere, only to return as a powerful Conduit. He possesses (amongst others) the power to awaken dormant Conduits by killing non-Conduits in the surrounding area, much in the same manner the Rayshpere originally did.

John in this game is the embodiment of violent change. He is the catalyst that can bring about a new age for the human race, and unlike the modified Raysphere, which is untested, John's method is proven not long before the final choice must be made. He could be compared to Magneto in the sense that he wishes to create an ideal world for his kind, but unlike Eric Magnus (good name by the way), John's actions can be seen as more morally ambiguous, as he is in fact saving lives in the long run by ending several more.
In the "bad" end, John can no longer keep himself to together and transfers his powers to Cole before exploding, awakening nearby Conduits one last time.
Kuo
Another agent who once worked with John, but is kidnapped fairly early in the game and turned into a Conduit, at which point her powers are copied on to a group of mercenaries. She acts as the "good" partner through the game, until the end where she chooses to side with John's plan.
Kuo acts as your voice of selflessness, encouraging you to help others even if you don't always benefit from it, at least immediately. The benefits come from receiving more aid from the locals at the cost of having less raw power, but the rewards are fairly balanced.

She sides with John in both endings out of a combination of cold reason and personal fear, but in the "good" one, after John is beaten, she states that using the Raysphere is the right choice, and that even Nix made the right call. Sobbing, she accepts her fate. In the "bad" one, she becomes Cole's right hand woman, helping him in his quest to awaken Conduits throughout the world, at the cost of the rest.
Kuo represents the duality of human nature; our ability to reason and rationalize against our animalistic fear and desire to do whatever it takes to ensure personal survival. In the both endings, she seeks to assist the radical change partially as means of saving herself, motivated also by the fact that the Rayshpere's ability to cure the plague is unproven, while her actions in the other ending show her initial rebellion and rejection of what she once preached, followed by her acceptance of the greater good.
Nix
What can I say about Nix? Sociopath. Orphan. Pyromaniac. Her only friends are mutants she creates. She's the "bad" companion for most of the game, until John kills her "babies" and she seeks revenge against him by any means necessary, even at the cost of her life and all other Conduits.
Nix represents selfish abandon and chaotic freedom. She cares only for her own needs and will do anything to ensure that she gets what she wants. In "bad karma" missions, she encourages Cole to destroy everything that gets in their way, ignoring the consequences of such actions. This results in Cole obtaining more raw power, but being reviled by average citizens.
Nix also has the ability to produce monstrous creatures, sometimes from other people, who she lovingly dubs her "babies." These are the only things she shows affection for other than flirting with Cole, and their loss at John's hands devastates her, pushing her to seek revenge against him, even at the loss of her own life.

Up until this point, Nix is extremely self-centered, acting as a foil to Kuo. The shift of both characters near the end is reflective of how circumstances can change people in an instant, even people who seemed to have a very firm stance one way or another.
And now for the meat of this article:
Morality
By labeling the endings as "good" and "bad," the developers seem to want the player to follow Spock's creed of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," but is this necessarily the case?
During the main game, morality is depicted as fairly black (red) and white (blue), in that helping people good, knocking people around with reckless abandon bad. That said, the first half of the game revolves around the ever-looming threat of the Beast, later revealed to be John. At the time, all we and the characters know is that a powerful Conduit is coming to make shit real, and you need to be ready for it.
Helping people is great and all, but if you're not strong enough to stop the threat once it arrives, what difference will it make?
This is a slippery slope of course, since you could use that train of thought as an excuse to abuse others, but at the same time, you have few apparent options to start with.
The endings merit extra attention, as they show Cole sacrificing himself as inherently good, and him becoming the catalyst for a new age as evil. To this I point to two examples of why this may not be the case:
The Black Death killed half the population of Asia and Europe within the span of a decade or so, and I think we can all agree that death on a grand scale is bad, m'kay?

However, look at where Europe (at least) was before the plague; regular famine due to overpopulation, huge imbalance in the distribution of wealth, and a pitiful diet range for peasants and other lower classes.
After the plague? Less people means more value for work. More room to plant new crops, meaning peasants can afford to eat fruits, vegetables, and even some meat. The failure of the Church to appear competent in a time of crisis lead to more free thought and the Renaissance that followed.
The other example is more of a question; is it better for things to remain unchanged and for any hope of change to be snuffed out in its favor, or do you seek to change the world at the risk of destroying all that people know and are comfortable with?
Wrap it up!
Like with true morality, there is no right answer here. No matter what choice is made, the price will always be too high.
It just kinda bothers me that the choices are presented in such stark contrast.
If I had to sum up this whole affair in one word it'd be this: conundrum.
» Tagged In: #Cole MacGrath, #InFAMOUS, #InFamous 2, #morality
More wicked cool stories and video from around the web. Got tips for us? Tips@ScrewAttack.com












g1 DISCUSSIONS
NickP
I really liked this article. It was really well thought-out, and I feel the allusions you made to human nature using InFamous' characters were very insightful.
I really hate morality systems though. I find them to be exceptionally flawed, because they inevitably restrict you to being either:
A) The popular, and unparalleled paragon of sunshine and sweetness
or
B) A malign master of malevolent mischief, and devious destruction
(alliterations for the win)
The problem is, morality (as you said) is not clear-cut, and black-and-white like that-- and it never should be.
A good example of a proper moral choice, I think, is in InFamous 1-- where you're given a choice to either save a group of doctors from falling off a building, or save your girlfriend (who happens to be in a similar situation). Now, imagine -- if you will-- that you found yourself in that situation, and you had to choose between the person you love, and a group of strangers who could help the sick and needy.
I know the whole "needs of many VS needs of few" thing, but would you, *could* you really let die the love of your life in order to save a complete stranger? Some of you might, but I'm willing to believe that, in most cases, it would be a damn-near impossible choice to make.
And then, you have the developers trying to effectively quantify good and evil-- which I always thought was rather silly. I mean, how can you measure an abstract, and oftentimes subjective, concept?
How many "good points" does being polite to people net me? If I, say, pull a prank on someone, how evil does that make me? Nobody knows. Hell, I know I certainly don't.
So, to sum this all up: Morality systems are way too simplistic to be compelling game/story mechanics, and you can't measure morality (I won't allow it!*)
* extra props to whoever can guess what horrible monster movie I'm referencing.
Limbo
(Troll 2) I don't see a big problem in painting morality as black/white in video games, since programing every shade of gray would be a huge undertaking. I have a bigger problem with the fact that you're often told which choice is good/bad, this really gets in the way of exploring how we personaly think about morality, since we often play games with a morality system all the way good or all the way bad. The worst thing is that games like say Infamous seems to encourage this, since you'll only unlock the best powers if your all the way good/bad.
Even thought I don't have a big problem with black/white in games, tt would be interesting if games with morality systems evolved to involve more factors than just good/bad. I think it was Extra Creditz who proposed something like a colour wheel to keep track of morality, where you have things like freedom/control, individuality/collective etc, this would reflect your characters (and perhaps your own) morality much better than a simple good/evil bar.
NickP
(That is correct)
That's what I was saying. The fact that I'm forced to either go fully good, or totally evil is needlessly restrictive and does nothing to make me further invest in the game itself. It's not compelling. It also makes it very hard to tell a good story. Making someone too good/evil is just silly because
1) you can't relate to a soulless monster/ boyscout,
and
2) everyone is the hero of their own story-- IE: no one acknowledges the fact that they are doing evil, or openly admits to being evil. And, if they do acknowledge their wrong-doing, they are able to justify it-- especially if there is a higher goal in mind.
^ (A good example of this is Link from LoZ breaking into peoples' homes, smashing their antique pottery, and stealing their life's savings. Is it wrong to steal from innocent people? Most definitely so. But, it helps Link buy health/magic items-- which he needs to defeat Ganon, rescue the princess, and save Hyrule.)
MagnumMagnus
I've never played the Mass Effect series, but I hear the morality system in those games is a bit more ambiguous than in others. I believe The Witcher is also more gray in its morality too.
If these examples are both true, I think that morality systems can work in games, so long as they take a semi-realistic approach to it. I say semi-realistic because it's a game, how realistic can you get?
NickP
I've never played The Witcher, so I wouldn't know about the morality system in place, but Mass Effect 3 took all of the choices you made throughout the series and made them completely meaningless (which I think is why everyone got so mad about it). You're stuck picking between red, blue, and green at the end. What the hell kind of choice is that?
MagnumMagnus
What about the moral choices in general?
From what I know, Paragon and Renegade aren't so much good and evil as order and chaos.
Paragons are by the book, while Renegades do whatever it takes to get the job done.
NickP
Well, the moral choices in the game are about the same as every other game with a morality system from my experience. You can either be Mr. by-the-book, who generally acts kind and courteous, and rarely ever kills anyone unless someone's life is in danger. Or, you can play a ruthless dickbag who will stop at nothing to get what they want, and don't much care who gets hurt in the process.
The game developers basically tell you that order is always good, and chaos is always bad, and bear that assumption out in the gameplay. So, sure, some of the decisions are a little more in the gray area, but from what I've played, the majority are just black-and-white, clear-cut decisions between being (subjectively) good or evil.
Now, I have only played the first game, and haven't played anything else in the series since (never really got into it). And, I didn't get all that far into the game. So, there's every chance that I'm wrong about it not being different.
Hunt3rpwns
I want to start off by saying that I love this article and that I like your perception on the given situation. Now, I consider myself to be an expert on the InFAMOUS series, and an expert on actual "morality choises" in life, so reading this I am glad I'm not the only one who believes that both endings are "good" (excluding the fact that you're slaughtering 9/10ths of the nation, including your friends). Although I thought about the game alot, I never tried to match up the caracters to the diferent parts of society, but I'm glad you did so I could take a deeper look at the series as a whole. Thanks!
MagnumMagnus
I'd actually written to Extra Credits hoping they'd pick up this subject, but eventually lost patience and decided to do it myself, even if my production values are way~ below theirs (and that's saying something).
You are quite welcome my friend.
Hunt3rpwns
Extra Credits?