Tuesday 4 October 2011

The InFamous 2 Question




The inFamous 2 Question

*Warning! This article contains some big spoilers for the end of inFamous 2! Do not read if you have yet to finish the game. Thank you*

I have to say that the inFamous video game series has to be one of my favourite of all time. Not just because of the fluid action and sandbox game play, but because of the great lengths the developers went to make such a compelling and deep storyline which borders on the possible.

So to those who are unaware about the inFamous games, you play as Cole MacGrath who after a massive explosion finds himself with the power of electricity. It turns out that Cole is a Conduit, basically a superhuman and that it was a genetic thing. So for all we knew, we could be a Conduit and never know it.
Cole’s main mission throughout the length of both games was to fight this approaching threat called “The Beast” yet as the second game draws closer to the end, you soon realise that things are more complicated then they appear.



A fatal plague sweeps across the world, it soon comes to light that Ray Field radiation is the cause of the plague which kills humans but spares Conduits. (A Ray Field Machine is a device that sucks human energy inside, creating a large explosion and activating any Conduits who were caught up in the blast radius)



And at the end of the game, you have two final choices.
Use a device called the RFI and eradicate all of the Ray Field Radiation in the world...but kill every single Conduit as the side effect...Or destroy the RFI and use your powers to doom mankind and convert as many of them to Conduits before the plague kills them all.


Given the sheer amount of pressure Cole is under from the beginning of the game series to be strong enough to take down the beast, I found this decision almost impossible to decide upon...I did not want to die, but I did not want to doom all of mankind...But then I would be killing every single Conduit as well, yet saving millions more.

My thought process was long and stretched and in the end, I decided on one choice...

As the person I am...I believe in the usage of sacrifice for the greater good...The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and so I sacrificed all of those Conduits and myself to save mankind...

Now tell me, as I’m extremely curious to YOUR answer...What would you have done? Doomed yourself and saved the world, or doom the world and rebuild it in your own image...?



3 comments:

  1. It's a tougher question than most realize.

    I would like to think, much like yourself, that I too believe in sacrificing for a greater good. And that saving millions of lives is a good thing.

    But MILLIONS is such a vast number, you can't guarantee that every single person you saved is worth being saved. For every good person and average working man that has survived death there are murderers, rapists, and molestors that will be saved because of my selfless deed.

    I would rather not my life be wasted for such horrible people.

    So as twisted as it is for me to say it, and as much as it goes against me as a person. I would kill them all, and build the world a new. I think I could be a capable leader and perhaps the world will be a better and safer place.

    ...If I don't get corrupted by the absolute power that would bring.

    On a funnier note; coincidental captcha for this post: SURGEOR

    ReplyDelete
  2. I certainly see your point to that argument Hicks! If I had an idea of the valve of good people I would be saving as opposed to bad people then I wouldn't have a problem.

    However, I am a person who believes that humans have the basic concept for good inside them, so dying for them would help reinforce their rites to live.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I mean the overall kicker is the fact that I have to die in order to save the world. As arrogant as it sounds I have a little more worth to the world than so many others, especially those who are bad.

    If I could somehow save the world and still be around to protect those who deserve the right to live, then it's a no brainer. But the fact that I won't be around to save the world the next time a crisis like this happens... then what really is the point of saving it in the first place?

    Like I said... interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete