I really liked inFamous, but I had a real problem with its karma system.
The story was great and the gameplay was awesome. Roaming the streets looking for fights in the areas with downed electricity was absolutely addictive. And the powers--while not as numerous as I had hoped--Were pretty varied.
However, from the very beginning, I had a reigning concern about exactly what they would cla ssify as "evil" vs. what they'd cla ssify as "good." And apparently my worries were well placed.
Since this game sought to immitate superhero comics as much as possible, there are a number of philosophical cliches such as, "With great power comes great responsibility," or "My capacity not to kill is what separates me from you." i.e. Having powers obligates you to save lives and abstain from killing people. Consequently, as Cole, if you simply decide to do nothing to save people or if you end up killing anyone (even enemies you bio-leech), you're punished with bad karma. While apathy isn't exactly a good characteristic, it's not something to judge a person's morality by. The idea that one should be dedicated towards "selflessness" or "the common good" simply because you have abilities beyond those of most people isn't just Marxist; it's stupid. And it totally ignores the deeper complexities of a "selfish" philosophy. Take Batman for example: he risks his neck every night to make sure Gotham doesn't fall apart, but he doesn't operate based on feelings of responsibility or work towards a greater good. He does what he does simply because he has the drive to. In other words, he's operating based on purely selfish motivations. so it's rather insensistive to categorize all instances of selfish behavior as bad or "unheroic." I personally have no problem distinguishing heroism from selfishness since the idea of selflessness is established as heroism's cornerstone, but unfortunately that won't keep people from designating characters like Batman as heroes even though it's technically improper nomenclature.
In which case, if a person with extraordinary powers is characterized with a selfish disposition, he or she will be immediately labeled as villainous and his or her behavior will involve walking all over other people to get what they want. The problem with this "selfish" stereotype is the qualities it ignores when you consider what it means to be totally consumed with one's self, desires, and well being as opposed to sacrificing one's happiness for the sake of an alleged "common good" thats existance is proposed by and innocuous moral edict. To be truly selfish, one can't simply be concerned with his or her own happiness, but also make sure they involve no one else as a conduit. Since "evil" Cole involved other people in his pursuit for domination, he isn't technically selfish.
As far as the "common good" is concerned, if I were to suppose such a thing existed, I would associate its conception with the most practical means of selfishness, which is Capitalism. To quote Ayn Rand: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good." It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."
Suppose this definition of "common good" were to be reversed and extraneous elements--persons other than yourself--actually told you what was good and bad depending upon what other people expected of you rather than what served your individual interests.
Moving along...To be fair, throughout most of the game, almost all the moral decisions were fine even if they were a little lukewarm. There was a decent amount of moral conflict. But the quotes between days were terrible--the only ones I personally approved of were Churchill's and Kafka's. I knew that, eventually, they'd lead up to something disastrous--and they did. It was a mission dubbed, "The Price."
Apparently choosing to save the person you love rather than six strangers is designated as an evil act because it's "selfish." I admit that throughout the game, I was predominantly evil, but for the sake of character consistency, I chose to save the girlfriend over six doctors (even though she's a prima donna). This was apparently a big nono because Sucker Punch believes that people should sacrifice their happiness for some sort of "greater good."
The way I see it, coercing people to believe that they should subordinate their loved ones and things you care about for extraneous elements and strangers simply for the sake of being "selfless" is the true evil.
I'm aware that this segment was meant to complement Kessler's point about being too predisposed with his family's safety to take care of the threat before it killed everyone, but the execution was flawed. Keeping his family safe and caring about them above all else was not wrong. He just went about it the wrong way. If he had decided to fight the mysterious evil when he had the chance, he would have saved his family and everyone else in the process thereby maintaining this spurious "common good" that he mentioned. And Evil Cole's 'strong v. weak' speech at the end just exacerbated the point.
With regards to moral choices, Sucker Punch should have taken lessons from The Suffering, which is an excellent example of an open ended game based on player choices (although it did have a questionable euthanasia apsect).
Log in to comment