The Duality Of Morality: Second Son’s Tricky Choices

Nothing is ever black and white where morality is concerned. Beyond the grand generalities imposed by our evolution and lent further credence by our religions and cultures, morality is such a very personal concept. What’s right for you is not always necessarily right for me. Even our generally-accepted societal rights and wrongs are often easily called into question. So it’s not an easy concept to deal with in the, often binary, world of videogames. In a world created entirely of ones and zeros, it’s not always easy to represent the many shades of grey.

inFamous has always come with a kind of simple branching morality system and Second Son embraces that hard branching once again. There is no incentive to make your own judgement of situations and select an option accordingly. You’re told which is good and which is bad and you’re better to lean hard into whichever path you choose at the very beginning – otherwise you won’t upgrade as swiftly and you’ll always be lacking the more interesting abilities.

The player’s own moral shades of grey don’t matter – the game has its own clearly defined rights and wrongs and we simply select the next option on the path we have chosen to follow. That makes the progression of powers a much simpler set of systems to control and it gives the player some degree of agency in the protagonist’s development throughout the game.

It creates this illusion of being directly involved in the hero’s journey that is central to the game’s narrative progression. But it also clearly defines what the game – and, by extension, its creative team – sees as right and wrong and that can throw up some peculiar anomalies for anyone who doesn’t entirely sympathise with the exact moral framework of the game.

Playing inFamous as a good guy, you only have to fight for as long as you’re resisted – when your enemies give up a heroic player will stop hitting them and pin them to the ground. Playing as a villain allows you to kill rather than restrain, so there is an extra little leap of detachment that the player must take, and perhaps that’s played out by the current trend towards playing games with moral choices as the good guy – currently Second Son’s completion ratio is 2:1 in favour of those with good karmic choices.

This is also born out in comments made by Second Son’s creative director, Nate Fox, who said that he would have liked the “bad” ending from inFamous 2 to become canon but that the overwhelming majority of players had experienced the “good” ending and this forced their hand. The whole series is named for the player to push the protagonist towards selfishness and yet most of us still try to be the hero, albeit a terribly violent one.

It’s reasonable to assume that, as people who regularly enjoy console games, we’re relatively comfortable with the position of simulated violence as a force to assert our moral choices within that simulation. We can accept that, at least in this virtual world, violence is sometimes necessary and we can take that as a wholly necessary moral leap needed to enjoy this game – and most others, for that matter.

Videogames don’t leave much room for the avowed pacifist so let’s take the leap over that particular moral quandary together so that we might better explore the more unique and interesting issues presented by Second Son.

Let’s talk about drugs, vandalism, terrorism and tyrannical abuse of power. Let’s talk about erosion of civil liberty, collective fear of change and persecution.

While playing Second Son, I was struck by the dichotomy that’s presented by the drug bust incidental missions. For those who are unaware: the game awards you good karma for violently breaking up gangs of thugs around a supposed drug deal. The game tells us that this is a good thing to do. No spoilers here, but there are some other occurrences of drugs and drug culture dotted around the game too, none of them are ambiguous in their message at all.

It’s a binary generalisation that throws a blanket definition over a range of substances. Are they medicinal drugs, smuggled in from Canada and being traded on the black market because of the USA’s expensive and prohibitive healthcare system? Is it something like marijuana, which is at least questionable in its continuing status as a harmful, prohibited substance, or are these drugs one of the highly addictive, life-destroying kind that are the bane of many an addict’s life? Do the people selling them deserve to be subjected to our protagonist’s super-powered violence? The game’s stance is clear: drugs are bad.

And yet vandalism is regularly depicted as a good thing. The protagonist’s stencilled street art aside, the player is regularly encouraged to destroy property that has been publicly funded and commissioned by a democratically elected government. We’re encouraged to violently attack people who, it can reasonably be assumed, are simply doing a job they believe to be morally acceptable in order to provide a quality of life for themselves and their families. And we beat them, burn them, restrain or execute them.

The game makes the assertion that drugs are bad but that casual acts of extreme violence and destruction of property are perfectly acceptable.

We’re encouraged to think of our protagonist as the spearhead of a struggle against an abuse of power that has corrupted those in charge, manipulated public concerns and enthusiastically eroded civil liberties in an attempt to persecute differences. But what if our protagonist is really just a terrorist, violently opposing the will of a free people and the actions of the government they elected? What if he is simply a violent thug, using his newfound abilities to selfishly pursue his own campaign of vengeance against those who have done him wrong?

Perhaps those specific questions of perspective are better explored more comprehensively in a future column but it’s always worth remembering that we’re only hearing one story here, and one experience is not necessarily the universal experience. Much more pertinent to the point at this time is the arbitrary decision that the game makes about the morality it portrays. Would we be better served with more ambiguity or are the broad strokes that inFamous has always dealt with suffice for the experience it delivers?

I’ve always been a fan of the series and I’m finding Second Son just as enjoyable to play as ever but I can’t help wondering if a little more subtlety and nuance in its messages might deliver much more impact for its narrative. Perhaps a few more shades of grey might make for a significantly more interesting exploration of the characters and questions of morality of the situations being portrayed. In turn, that would make the metaphors and allusions of their world much more meaningful in our world.

33 Comments

  1. I feel that second son, as good as it is, the choices don’t affect anything what so ever just the pedestrian views of you that’s it but for the game wise, being good or evil plays no part which sucks to be honest.

    • I felt the same. It’s a great game don’t get me wrong but if the choices affected the game more it would have been a 10/10 game easy.

    • From what I’ve seen so far, with a few hours under my belt of a second play, there’s some nice changes to the main cast dialogue. That, the handful of different missions and the need for precision vs. a frenzy of carnage seem to be the main differences.

      • Yeh I agree with that, as I am also playing second play through but my point is the opposite choices doesn’t really change the story. I think they should have written 2 stories, different outcome. The only thing affected by good or evil is the ending. It was a good idea infamous but they failed to excute the good & evil for all 3 of them

      • Whilst the major events go unchanged (ie the way you meet other conduits and obtain new powers) I am impressed by the subtle changes in dialogue and attitude. There are also changes to missions further into the story that reflect which karmic path you happen to be walking. I’m enjoying the differences.

  2. They should have a series of bars. One for how you act towards civilians and another to police as an example. Then you could have multiple endings.

  3. The key word here is “binary”. The technology this game is built on is based on the very same thing. The more we split that up into subtle shades, the more programming there’ll be. This is the really sad bit… but with what Return On Investment (for the devs)? I hope, a wonderful one, but the games industry has a long way to go still.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you all of the way. Subtle and not-so subtle choices about legal or illegal activities and where your moral compass points depending on any given situation. Same with NPCs (Non Playable Characters). The moment you work out the routines of an AI character is the moment you’re reminded of it being “just a game” which is usually fine but gutting at times. Especially when we see visual fidelity coming along in leaps and bounds as oppose to the tiny refinements in NPC behaviour. Tef and I have been playing Splinter Cell: Blacklist recently. Now, ignoring our utter titting about, I can’t help feel that it would be so much more believable (and exciting) if an NPC guard, walking away from checking something out, turned and mumbled (to himself), “hmm… I’m not happy about this, I really don’t remember leaving the window open” and back he goes. Catching us off-guard and causing us to utterly wing it!

    It’s the one thing that I truly wish to see a push for this generation but it won’t happen. It’ll just ebb, like rolling glue, a smidge closer to not looking so daft or robotic.

    Subtle moral choices? Bring it on! Don’t hold your breath, though. I’m still playing games where one character has left (or been killed) and the other chap is still talking to the fu**er!

    *sigh* :-)

    • Yep, totally agree. In I:SS the other night I found one part of the city where there was two bollards, each with an NPC leaning against them. Whilst they were at least using different textures they were both at exactly the same step in the same animation cycle, which made it look like some kind of comical dance routine!

      That totally blew the immersion for me, wouldn’t have been so bad if they’d at least have been at different steps of the same animation cycle. I mean it’s not super expensive either to do a proximity check with other NPCs to ensure they either are using different animations, or different offsets (or heck just have a random delay before starting).

      I wonder how much effort is really put into these subtle but important areas. So many of the NPC behaviours are instantly recognisable from Infamous 1, and I recall being saddened when in GTA4 I recognised no end of animations and behaviours from Vice City.

      • Thief is a good game but if you need NPC accidental comedy, play that. The number of times I’ve heard the same dialogue, often repeated so frequently that it hasn’t actually finished from the first time an NPC said something, it’s unbelievable. If I hear about some prostitute’s perfume clinging to the clothes of some NPC one more time I’m going to go mad!

        Ooo… yesterday, in AC: Black Flag, I just made it out of range before the red marker filled up and the guard came over. What was very kind of him was that he completely ignored MASSIVE FU**ING SHIP that turned up to collect me, what with it being in restricted waters. Should’ve flipped him a coin.

      • I had the tandem dance routine too!

  4. I am more surprised at how many people played the game as good. I always go for the bad side of things given the choice. I think I will play this twice round to get the best of both worlds though.

    • Ha! Me too, I choose to be evil given the option, even if I had super powers in real life, I would be the bad guy

      • I always play the good campaign first, it’s more challenging and you have to restrain yourself. That way I feel the incentive to plat through again as evil, because it will be more fun to play with the cooler powers.

      • Yeh I didn’t think it through playing for the plat on good, having already done evil but all I need to do is play good till level 5 then after that I can be evil as long as I choose good choices

      • Apart from the fact you lose loads of powers if you’re not level 5 good/bad.

  5. Looked at in a different way the good/evil mechanics in the game are simply that – game mechanics. It’s a reasonable and fun way to give the game replayability. I quite like the way the big powers like Orbital drop are charged by “good deeds” and reset by bad ones too.

    It can be over analysed too much though, when what they are really trying to do is make a fun game.

    • The last bit being incredibly important. They could take it to the Nth degree and the game would be bogged down in its own moral mess. However, a few more shades would work well… I think. :-)

  6. The thing that annoys me is that the original choice in the second game dictating canon. I preferred the evil storyline to the good, but naturally play through on good first on all games like this.

    The power you got at the end of the first game for using the Ray Sphere instead of destroying it was also better.

    I did contemplate playing second son evil due to the Canon issue but still couldn’t bring myself from playing as good first.

  7. Unusually for me i decided to go with the good path and last night i reached the second island with Paragon status. I’m finding it easy to stay on the good side so far and i know i’ll have the protestors and “sign” guys to deal with next time, along with a bit more mayhem in general! :)

    • Sorry, just to tidy up my comment – the good/bad paths might not be hugely different or carry any remarkable weight but for me it means replayability none the less and as i’ll probably wait at least six months before my second playthrough that’s good enough for me. :)

  8. This is one thing I hoped they would improve in Second Son but I don’t think there was even one difficult choice to make in the whole game. Not like the previous games where you had to choose to save your girlfriend from plummeting to her death or save a bunch of doctors who could go on to save lives? Save humanity from an agonising death or save the conduits? There was nothing on that scale in Second Son. It was more like what do you want for tea tonight Delsin… steak or chicken? If you choose steak you’re evil and if you choose chicken you’re good. It’s a great game but the good/evil choices were lacking.

    As for the ratio of good vs evil playthroughs. How many players choose to play through the good storyline first and then can’t be bothered playing through it again for the evil story? I imagine there are quite a few. Look at how many people don’t even finish a game these days. I was a bit disappointed when they chose the good ending from inFamous 2 to continue the inFamous story based on this analysis. The evil endings are always so much better.

  9. Finished my good play through, and just starting my bad one. Gotta say, this game is distinctly average. A 7/10 tops. Yeah, the graphics/special effects are very impressive, but the gameplay itself is nothing special at all, and the story/characters I found beyond cheesy. Much preferred Cole and the previous games’ cartoony style. The main story is short, the city isn’t very big and the side missions add next to nothing. It’s worth a play through, but I’d say it’s a definite bargain bin game. I found it shallow and certainly not a ‘truly next gen adventure’ as the TSA review said.

    • Good to know I’m not the only one slightly disappointed by it! Mind you it’s always been the same story at the start of a generation, mostly just flash and little new substance. The end of next year we should be seeing more widespread, truly “next gen experiences” which go beyond prettier versions of last gen gameplay. I hope at any rate!

    • I was disappointed too. It’s still a great game and the best looking open world game I’ve ever played but it’s not a patch on the first two. Feels a bit inFAMOUS-lite.

    • “distinctly average”, “A 7/10 tops”.

      Urgh.

    • Also “It’s worth a play through, but I’d say it’s a definite bargain bin game” says the one who’s already starting their second playthrough…

      • What’s your point bruv? I paid fifty quid for it, so I’m obviously gonna play through the evil route too to get the most out of my money. In fact if Sucker Punch had done a better job at making the two routes significantly different, you wouldn’t even be able to call it a second play through. I’m saying for those who are sitting on the fence to wait until it’s cheap and that I’d give it 7/10 max, rather than the 9/10 it got on here. Or are you being funny because average should technically be 5/10?!

      • My point is it’s good enough for you to play through more than once, yet you’re calling it a “bargin bin game”.

        And I’m hardly trying to be funny, just highlighting the oddness of some of your words.

      • It IS a bargain bin game. I just made the mistake of buying it full price. I also have fuck all else to play on PS4. If the majority of games score 7/10, then 7/10 is average.

  10. Well, inFamous is just another example of how player choice must be somewhat restricted in order for developers to produce a game that will meet the high standards of gameplay required in the modern market.

    Think of all the games over the years that tried to give players unprecedented freedom, then remember all the problems that freedom caused: Black and white. Knights of the old republic, Fable, Crackdown, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, even the bru-ha-ha at the end of mass effect is a direct result of the developers simply being unable to cover all the individual choices made by each player at every stage of the 3 games. The combinations possible there must be a large number indeed!

    Until someone figures out a way of separating core gameplay mechanics from the morality system, whilst being able to balance the consequences of each on the other, the binary nature of moral choices in games will have to stay. Otherwise the development times for games, or the cost, will be prohibitively large.

    • Just a further point: I guess you can get around the problem by keeping the moral choices purely in the players head. Elite being a surprising example considering its age. Does trading slaves justify getting those military lasers that much sooner? I guess papers please is a more modern take on it, though really the core gameplay mechanic was the moral choices in that game. Still, I suppose it shows you don’t need a hugely complex game to challenge a players morality.

Comments are now closed for this post.