|
 What is InFamous? InFamous is a series of superhero games made by Sucker Punch studios. If they sound familiar, it's because they also made the good Sly Cooper games. The first InFamous came out in 2009 and was pretty much the first good original superhero game ever. You played as Cole McGrath, who accidentally explodes a sizable portion of Empire City (legally-distinct-from-but-similar-to New York City) and not only survived but got electricity powers. Your goal was to go around the city, restore power to it to collect new powers, and ultimately fight a dude named Kessler. In 2011 InFamous 2 came out, and you did the same thing but in a new city because another guy with powers destroys Empire City in the beginning of the game. You beat him in the end of it too, but canonically Cole dies while doing so. Wait, those are seriously your synopses of the other two games? Basically, yeah. Second Son is really good at making sure people who are picking up the series aren't totally lost while playing it. The game provides all the information you need to know right at the beginning and, aside from bonus DLC missions, you don't need any knowledge of the first two games to know what's going on in this one. As a result, I'm getting two people who's exposure to the series has been minimal so far, Skippy Granola and Bobbin Threadbare. Okay so what's this game's deal then? InFamous is well-known for being a superhero series done right. In it you become a Conduit, which is what they call people with powers in this universe. This is because their powers are all about absorbing a kind of physical matter or energy and controlling it. You have to constantly refill your source because using your powers drains it out of you. There's also M O R A L C H O I C E S in the games. Your character can either use your powers to help other people, or you can use them to essentially drown puppies and eat children. This third game is a tiny bit better with the evil choices, but not much. To show the full extent of this game, I'm actually going to be playing both the good and evil paths, with Skippy Granola chatting it up as we use our great powers responsibly, and Bobbin Threadbare plotting with me how to get the most out of our powers for ourselves. Wasn't there DLC to this game? Yup! I'll be covering that too. Not until after the game is done though, and there's no M O R A L C H O I C E S in it either, so both will be joining me for that. What's the LP going to be like? Story missions will be shown off in their entirety. All side content wil be done as well, but since most of it is the same stuff but slightly different, I won't be showing most of it off. The two side missions I will show all the content for are the dead drop missions, which provide some nice backstory and such for the game, and the tagging missions, which show off just how loving good an artist our main character is. Also as a fair warning: I will likely be repeating myself a lot during these videos. I won't blame anyone for not watching both versions. However, I'm hoping that by having different co-commentators I will get different reactions, so it might be worth it for big updates. GOOD VIDEOS Episode 1: If Art Is A Crime... ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 2: Best Two Out Of Three? ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 3: Kickass Tag ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 4: Flesh Eating Death Gaze ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 5: Fetch Walker ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 6: Firework Sandwich ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 7: North Island Roundup Episode 8: Hell On Bridges ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 9: He Who Dwells ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 10: A Couple of My Bullets ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 11: Eugene Sims ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 12: Something In Your Size ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 13: Hank Daughtry ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 14: Brooke Augustine ... Uncut ... Cut EVIL VIDEOS Episode 1: If Art Is A Crime... ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 2: Best Two Out Of Three? ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 3: Kickass Tag ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 4: Flesh Eating Death Gaze ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 5: Fetch Walker ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 6: Firework Sandwich ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 7: North Island Roundup Episode 8: Hell On Bridges ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 9: He Who Dwells ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 10: A Couple of My Bullets ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 11: Eugene Sims ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 12: Something In Your Size ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 13: Hank Daughtry ... Uncut ... Cut Episode 14: Brooke Augustine ... Uncut ... Cut kalonZombie fucked around with this message at 15:45 on May 28, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
kalonZombie posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Oh man, he looks like Keanu Reeves
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Why replace it? I love the guy's dopey expression. I'll keep the picture but the color direction is absolute garbo and I don't quite remember how to make it not garbo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
What would you like it to look like? Maybe I can help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
kalon I think you might have confused Crash Bandicoot with Sly Cooper
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Great Joe posted:kalon I think you might have confused Crash Bandicoot with Sly Cooper That's possibly the case. Sucker Punch did Sly Cooper too, Kalon mentioned that at the start, and there were no PS1 Sly games (started with the PS2), whereas Crash Bandicoot was primarily a PS1 series (1, 2, 3, Crash Team Racing, and Crash Bash were on the PS1, and it kind of petered out afterwards, with the games not being quite as good as the PS1 ones)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Except Naughty Dog did Crash Bandicoot, not Sucker Punch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
I'm curious to see how this game's execution of the morality system fairs compared to that of Knights of the Old Republic. I say that because I watched SF Debris' LP/Review of both KotOR and Dragon Age Origins and one of his biggest criticisms of the former was how black & white its morality system was whereas the latter had a more nuanced choice system that at some points presented two choices that could both be considered bad for different reasons such as backing the Dwarven king.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
I'm one of those weirdoes that played Infamous 1, 2, and First Light; and am just wondering how spoiled I am for this game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
I really enjoy the inFamous series. Though this game has some bad points--it is, or at least feels, much shorter than the other two--I think it is still a strong entry.Chimera-gui posted:I'm curious to see how this game's execution of the morality system fairs compared to that of Knights of the Old Republic. I say that because I watched SF Debris' LP/Review of both KotOR and Dragon Age Origins and one of his biggest criticisms of the former was how black & white its morality system was whereas the latter had a more nuanced choice system that at some points presented two choices that could both be considered bad for different reasons such as backing the Dwarven king. With the exception of some choices in 2, the morality in these games are more selfish/selfless instead of good/bad. The choices are still highly demarcated, but it's nice that the character isn't either the greatest person or the worst person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:With the exception of some choices in 2, the morality in these games are more selfish/selfless instead of good/bad. The choices are still highly demarcated, but it's nice that the character isn't either the greatest person or the worst person. That sounds a little more realistic than KotOR's morality system though since it's more believable someone to be a self-interested rear end in a top hat than just plain objectively evil. Hell, the aforementioned Dwarven King choice in Dragon Age Origins is a your needs vs needs of the Dwarves dilemma in that one of the candidates is a forward thinker who's intent on bringing Dwarves into the modern age (relatively speaking given the game's setting) but also highly questionable morally and untrustworthy while the other is an old fashioned Dwarf who'd keep numerous traditions that are holding Dwarven society back but has a sense of honor and will keep his promise of supplying you troops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
The big problem with the morality system in the entire inFAMOUS series is that you've already seen the single choice that's actually a choice. From this point, in game mechanics terms, the choice is "Do you want to choose the same option you chose before and get stronger, or do you want to choose the other option and get weaker?" That's why there's a good path and an evil path, rather than any suggestion of nuance or a series of meaningful choices. There is absolutely no advantage to doing anything other than the same thing all the time, and making the opposite choice, when it's possible, is actively detrimental to your strength. They might as well ask you to choose between apple or cherry pie at the start of the game for all the weight any of these choices will ever actually have. The story's still pretty neat, but when you understand how it works well enough to know how little your "choices" matter to anything other than what abilities you get, it seems like a shell of what it could have been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
That is a problem with the morality system in this game, and most games with a morality system. Even games that have a more complicated system, such as Catherine's "are you a cat person or a dog person" or the non-choices in Life is Strange, the player's choice is inspired by what is best for the game rather than knee-jerk, on-the-spot ethics. The player asks "what will be advantageous?" rather than "what would I really do?" inFamous might benefit from an option when you start the game that asks you if you want to be good or bad. Both sides of the story are fine, but it is silly to think that maybe, in this one choice, Evil Delsin will decide to do good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
That seems like one thing BioWare's handled well in both the Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises. While the choices you make in those games have long term consequences both good and bad, there is a greater nuance to those choices and you aren't bound to one morality path as a result of your choices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:That is a problem with the morality system in this game, and most games with a morality system. Even games that have a more complicated system, such as Catherine's "are you a cat person or a dog person" or the non-choices in Life is Strange, the player's choice is inspired by what is best for the game rather than knee-jerk, on-the-spot ethics. The player asks "what will be advantageous?" rather than "what would I really do?" Yeah, the superior variation I've found is the one where actions carry long-lasting consequences but the game doesn't keep track of a morality meter. So something like the Witcher series as opposed to inFamous or KOTOR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Fallout New Vegas was interesting: it had a Karma system but the actual ethics of good and evil almost never had any effect on your character and instead people judged you on your factional/regional reputation. How good or evil you were did have an effect on the flavor of dialogue, though, that people used to describe you, if you were a wanderer who went around helping people, hurting them, or randomly doing whatever you felt like. Second Son splits the difference in a good way because Delsin is a rogueish character who could very easily be interpreted as a selfish rear end in a top hat or a guy trying to joke his way past the pain and which he is is in all the details.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Never was a fan of morality systems, or multiple endings in most games cases. The idea is cool but most games have that looming best/true ending crap that defeats the purpose of having it aside from to piss me off because I didn't steal the super "optional" bosses panties or whatever before fighting the final boss so I get a poo poo ending.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Yeah the "pick a path and stick with it' makes your choices meaningless and they become just an exercise in maxing out the bar in one direction. Its a very forced kind of binary morality. But now that gets me thinking how else it would be done. Dole out powers/morality perks depending on major storyline choices? Give good/evil points to buy the powers from seperate skill trees? Or mostly seperate it from gameplay and make it heavily affect story progression, and that determines your powerset. The problem I think is balancing it so that each style is as viable as the other, and pure good/pure evil arent clearly the best gameplay option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Morality aside, this game looks pretty drat fun. Shame it's not on the PC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Is Reggie voiced by the same va as knuckles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:Is Reggie voiced by the same va as knuckles? Reggie is Travis Willingham, aka Roy Mustang. And yes, he is the current knuckles va. It's more obvious in a quest just past the halfway mark where he really hams it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Fabulousvillain posted:Never was a fan of morality systems, or multiple endings in most games cases. The idea is cool but most games have that looming best/true ending crap that defeats the purpose of having it aside from to piss me off because I didn't steal the super "optional" bosses panties or whatever before fighting the final boss so I get a poo poo ending. Only morality system worth a drat in games has to be the one in Undertale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
I've funnily enough just started playing this myself, having only played First Light beforehand, and it's pretty fun. Although not having the sweet rear end laser missile barrage, black hole, ability to make guys implode with headshots, bullet time, boost pads and force push from First Light is a pain. rear end in a top hat Path is actually incredibly assholish right from the start, it's not some kind of slow decline into depravity it's just straight out self-interest and that's pretty neat. I don't really mind how it's done mechanically but the writing is solid, if unremarkable, in how it handles your guy's choices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Bob Smith posted:ability to make guys implode with headshots What? No, this still happens. Even better is it can chain. I "accidentally" took out an entire sidewalks worth of people that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
This has got me thinking about how to best do a morality system in a game, because I don't think the concept itself is bad (in that the idea is to give more freedom to players in how they play the game), but thus far the execution has missed the mark. So there's two sides to your standard morality system: Story and Gameplay. Players want their choices to affect the story, and they also want to see some kind of change, whether to the character or the environment, based on those decisions. In general, I feel like these can typically be tracked on two separate axis, and most games tend to focus on one or the other. Here's a few examples: In Planescape, you can be a good guy or an rear end in a top hat (and the rear end in a top hat path can get really, really uncomfortable if you go whole hog on it, while the good path is REGRET), and the people you work with change, how they talk to you changes, you can make minor choices that have a small effect (Ignis burn the trees) to a large effect (slide an entire plane into one of the Hells), but in general you go to the same places, and do the same things, and have the same fights. I'm not saying the story is bad (it's one of the greatest CRPG's ever made, hands down) or that there isn't depth to the morality system (you play very different characters), but the major points of the story remain roughly the same. Mass Effect is another example; You get to make choices, but for the most part they only change whether or not you punch a guy in a cut-scene or (in 2) how hosed up you look. There's really no mechanical difference between Paragon and Renegade either. So what do we actually want from a morality system? I'm not sure what the answer is for someone else, but here's what I would like to see, broken down between Story and Gameplay. Story: - Characters and organizations remember what you do and respond appropriately. This is a big one for me, and one of the few games I've seen do it basically used it as an illusion (Telltales The Walking Dead's "So-and-So will remember that" followed immediately by so-and-so eating a bullet is a good example), but I really want to see a game actually use that. Let's say you've been a nice guy for most of the game, but early on made a choice to place your own safety above that of, let's call him Jim. Jim managed to survive that event, and he's been amiable for the rest of the game, but later on he's placed in the same position to pick saving his own skin or yours, remembers your earlier choice, and tells you to go gently caress yourself. Or the other side, where you chose to save his life, been an rear end in a top hat to him for the rest of the game, but he takes a bullet for you later because he owed you his life. Reactions of that sort, but spread across the entire game. - MAKE CHOICES MATTER. Choice between A and B? How about we make that A or B, but did or did you not also do C, D, E, and F? Oh, you just did B? That sucks, Jim is going to do Y in response, unless you did G earlier in the game in which case he's going to do Z. Unless you also did Q, in which case he does F. AND EVERYONE RESPONDS APPROPRIATELY FOR THEIR CHARACTER. Gameplay: - I really dislike "you've earned X number of Evil Points, have a spell that make people explode in a shower of blood" mechanics, gating certain abilities behind sticking to one series of decisions. The first Infamous did this, and it suffered for it. But it also did some stuff that I liked, such as his look changing, and how the basic powers changed whether you did nice stuff or mean stuff. So why not just unlock it all? Let the player modify the effects of their powers. As an example, let's say Cole had the ability to decide whether his bolts where lower voltage (meaning they used less power, so he could shoot more/over a wider area) and would stun or incapacitate enemies, or were higher voltage (using more power but could leapfrog between targets) but was decidedly lethal, and the color changed depending on whether you were safeguarding life or annihilating it. And then, going back to story for a moment, people react to both your body count and who specifically you are killing. And incapacitating a target gives you the same amount of XP or Power Points or whatever the hell as just killing them, which can be spent freely to change and adjust or unlock your powers irregardless of whether you got the points through murder or not. Note: I spent a bunch of time after writing this trying to find a clip on Youtube of a scene from Stargate SG1, Window of Opportunity, where Daniel says "Anyway that's how I feel about it, what do you think?". I failed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
RickVoid posted:Story and Gameplay: Story changes would probably be the hardest to make good because game stories are always heavily scripted. It seems the most that comes from a story change is some different incidental dialogue down the line. The choices can be subtle or they can be overt, but it'll just change dialogue and not the actual story. Even something like The Stanley Parable where every story "segment" is based on the character's actions, the illusion fades when you realize that the story doesn't actually matter, and that the story was compiled before hand. Your not actually creating the story, you are just choosing which piece comes next. The hypothetical you give is complicated and would sound good, but it would still fall victim to the fact that the circumstances surrounding the situation need to be scripted. As for gameplay: I always thought it would good, especially in a game like inFamous, to tie difficulty into morality. By being good, by choosing not to take the easy route and just leveling a block with superpowers, the citizens treat you nicely and feel less inclined to join the bad guys. Meanwhile, by taking it easy and destroying without discretion, the bad guys get more volunteers or find funding for better equipment. The morality system would not just be better, but would also allow for better replay value, if the two opposites changed how the game played.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
As I understand it, Alpha Protocol did the 'story morality' thing very very well. Things like a character who will, 99% of the time, act in his own self interest instead trying to kill you if you have done nothing but poo poo on him the entire game, or getting called out on being manipulative if you try every conversational approach on someone, or having a conversation option's sincerity judged, not by whether it has '(lie)' attached, but on how you've treated that person before. Even the ending you get depends on your choices throughout the game, not one 'be evil/good' button. (Heck, there is no 'good-evil' axis; as Yahtzee said, you're choosing what flavor of ponce to be.) The gameplay gets big influences too; let the weapons runner go, and foes are going to be better equipped later, but you'll get access to his goods as well. And just about however you're playing, you're earning perks that make you better in various ways. Pity about the game itself being clunky as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
I came up with an idea for a morality system a long time ago, and I've brought it up a few times, so apologies if this sounds familiar to anyone. I think it works best in a more open-ended kind of story, where there's an overall goal and a large number of discrete events that may or may not happen along the way, depending on which characters are available and their individual dispositions toward the main character, and possibly each other. I use Dante's Inferno as an example of how decisions can be beneficial individually and provide incentives to stick with a particular moral stance or to make each decision in isolation (you gain some sort of karma regardless of whether you choose the good or evil option, and the bonuses available mesh well - keeping a good balance is just as viable from a gameplay stance as tending to either extreme, if not more so). The most important thing, to me, is that if the player tends too much to one side or the other, the decisions have to increase in consequence, actively making it more difficult to choose to retain that stance. If the player chooses the Good option all the time, it needs to require some sacrifice. I love the mission in the first inFAMOUS where Cole has to choose between blowing up the poison tanks and poisoning the water supply or knocking them down and getting poisoned himself, decreasing his available health and electricity each time. A choice like that, where being good requires a tangible gameplay sacrifice while being evil hurts the people who have grown to trust you, and either one makes your character stronger in some way, would be a really strong story element. As for being evil, it shouldn't be too hard for the game to confront you with the consequences of your actions and ask "Is this really what you want to do? How far are you willing to go?" The rewards for sticking with it are tangible, but you're not penalized for changing your mind. I came up with a specific scenario where I think this could work really well, but that's probably off topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Pillars of Eternity had a pretty good morality system, in that you were judged on a five or six axis system that didn't actually have any opposing each other. And people would react to things you said based on your reputation. E.g. If you're a liar or go back on your word people are less likely to trust you in life or death situations. And there are a lot of decisions where doing the "right" thing pisses someone off and locks you out of something, or makes your life harder. The entire second act is spent navigating the political machinations of a city where there is no clear "good" faction, but you need to ally yourself to one of them to advance your personal ambitions and prove your case before the king. That's not to say it's the perfect game in that regard, there are a few points where it gets super railroady, and at one point near the end of the game it starts telling you how your character feels about certain events. Kurieg fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:What? No, this still happens. Even better is it can chain. I "accidentally" took out an entire sidewalks worth of people that way. I guess you get it much later than in First Light then, I've only just finished the tutorial here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Infamous's morality system always struck me as a thinly-veiled excuse to encourage the player to play through the game twice with somewhat different powersets and playstyles each time. And I think it worked well, I rarely play games twice but I did for all three of them. (The best was 1 because you got ridiculous black lightning at the end for being evil.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
On the level of "two takes on the story, two playthroughs" it works just fine, but if you look at it that way, the constant choices become nothing but tedious. It's like having a book that offers two stories in one, but at every other page, it stops to ask "Are you SURE you want to keep reading this story? Maybe you'd like to switch to the other story now. It won't make any sense in the context of what you've read, and this may well be the second read-through, in which case you'd be re-reading old content instead of the new content you clearly came here for, but I just want to make ABSOLUTELY sure you want to do this the sensible way." I don't think it would be that difficult to make it viable from a gameplay perspective to make different choices for each situation. Story-wise, it would be rough to adapt, but it's never affected the story that much in this series - it changes how normal people react to the main character, and few if any of the quests are affected by your moral alignment until you've chosen how to complete them. (There was the set of 15 pairs of mutually-exclusive quests in the first game, and even those had no effect at all unless you completed the ones that matched your alignment.) Heck, the second game even let you use both sets of powers if you completed it twice. I don't think Second Son gates any of the powers on any basis other than morality, aside from there being a limited capacity for certain upgrades. Throw in some really slow grinding and make it tedious but possible to max out both sides, have the character gain morality points for both natures rather than losing points and simply compare the two to see which is dominant at any time, and I think you'd get at least three playthroughs from most players - one where they make independent decisions based on the actual choices being presented, one each for straight good and straight evil, and either a fourth or a return to the first to max everything out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
You're saying there should be some sort of neutral option? That reminds me of the Shin Megami Tensei games. Do they follow a similar design when it comes to moral choices?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Bob Smith posted:I guess you get it much later than in First Light then, I've only just finished the tutorial here. For reasons I can't elaborate on due to spoilers, yes it happens later in this game. Just keep playing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Well, in the previous game, Infamous 2, the first "good" choice gives you the ability to blow the hell out of entire areas without actually killing anyone. "Good" powers focused on precision, while evil ones focused on scattershot collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Oh hell yes. This is probably one of my top games of all time. Never played the other 2, never will this one is just that good. I have 100%ed this game 3 times and recently started it up again. So glad to see it LP'd and hopefully introduced to more people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:You're saying there should be some sort of neutral option? That reminds me of the Shin Megami Tensei games. Do they follow a similar design when it comes to moral choices? Not "a neutral option" as such, but an upgrade system in which making a Good or Evil choice at any particular juncture doesn't equate to making the character either stronger or weaker. If, say, halfway through this game, you decide that you've been too Evil and you should really mend your ways, you'll steadily lose powers as you do more Good things, until you finally make up for all your misdeeds, pass the point of neutral karma, and start earning Good abilities - and even then, I think you might permanently be weaker because you've spent some upgrade stuff on abilities that you can no longer use. The game actively disincentivizes you from actually thinking about any of the moral choices it forces you to make. Imagine a game where, every time your character gains a level, you can choose whether you want to make the character Stronger (raise all your stats) or Weaker (lower all your stats), with no ultimate impact on anything else in the game regardless of which choice you make each time. Yes, some players would pick Weaker just for the challenge, but there's no reward for it and no reason to do it other than gimmick challenge runs. Same with inFAMOUS in every incarnation, except the game pretends that your choice has other impacts to the story. Nobody will ever pick Weaker unless they're actively trying to challenge themselves. Offering a similar reward, or even just a lack of penalty, for making either choice, by making it Stronger In One Fashion or Stronger In Another Fashion, would make the story impact the main deciding factor, and thus make it a system of morality that runs throughout the game rather than two very similar stories and a Why Would You Choose The Weaker Option that keeps popping up just to annoy you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
I'd say that being good in this game in no way gimps you. Mechanics spoilers: Your primary attack is tossing a little smoke in some guy's eyes for damage, but if you're good, you get an upgrade that makes smoke headshots instantly stun enemies and make them really easy to nonlethally subdue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Speedball posted:I'd say that being good in this game in no way gimps you. It does if you've spent most of the game being evil and built yourself up to a high tier of eviltude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 22:30
|
|