In the past week I’ve had over an hour of discussion with my brother over the final decision — and endings — of inFamous 2. Not bad, considering that the ending itself consists of maybe a couple minutes’ worth of narration and still-shot frames, and the final divergent missions aren’t much longer.
After years of X-Men and similar stories using superpowered individuals as stand-ins for minorities, homosexuals and other victims of unjust persecution, it’s natural they get our almost unthinking sympathy. Even after the first inFamous, where literally every single Conduit onscreen aside from a Good Cole was an antagonist, all the sequel had to do was show Southern politician Bertrand and his fascist Militia raving about “freaks” to instantly be pegged as Bad People.
We know how this one will go. Which makes the eventual departure from the familiar narrative — both in the specific theme in question, and in the broader sense of a gamer’s expectations about “good” and “evil” paths — all the more noteworthy.
The Bertrand arc of inFamous 2 is well-told, but predictable. Bertrand’s use of Confederate imagery and his demagogical speeches are right out of the worst chapters of the Civil Rights movement, calling for an all-out war between Conduits and normal humans. His hatred of “freaks” stems appropriately from a fundamentalist interpretation of vaguely Christian religious doctrine. It’s not even particularly a surprise when the man’s revealed to be a secret Conduit himself seeking to prove to the world how tainted his kind are — we’re used to that sort of hypocrisy in our bigots.
And, of course, during the climactic showdown with Bertrand, we get Cole’s quiet monologue about how “powers don’t kill people. It’s the person behind the powers that kills people.” The hypocrite goes down, the day is saved, and the stage is clear for Cole to save the world from the Beast. All stirring, conventional stuff — and not particularly challenging. We all know who’s the hero and who’s the villain.
So it’s no small shock when the real moral dilemma comes up. inFamous 2’s last act establishes the player will have to choose between the two groups, that the only ways to stop a lethal radiation plague and destroy the apocalyptic Beast will require that Cole either sacrifice Conduits to save normal humans, or activate Conduits across the world at the cost of normal humans.
In other words, after spending much of the game fighting against an anti-Conduit bigot and denying the conflict between the two groups, the player is asked to save the world by committing genocide upon one of them, based on whether they intend to use the Beast-killing RFI device. Even worse, the Beast is revealed to hate the devastation he causes, and to do so only in a desperate attempt to activate as many plague-resistant Conduits as possible — raising the question of whether or not Cole should aid, not destroy, his foretold adversary.
Either way, a significant chunk of the cast is going to go with the losing party.
And the good option, in the game’s opinion, is to doom the superpowered minority, slaughtering people across the world who were unlucky enough to be unaware Conduits. Hell of a gear change.
I’m not alone in pondering the more “moral” choice. inFamous 2‘s ending is a choice of damnations and I’ve seen no few debates on which is better. And that’s an unconventional, though increasingly popular, story theme in modern narrative-heavy games. Dragon Age 2 did it with its Templars and Mages (both of whom had points and massive flaws, and were ultimately both led by maniacs). Fallout: New Vegas does it with the ultimate choice between factions- the Legion may be almost pure evil, but the choice between supporting local despot House and idealistic-but-jingoistic New California Republic is nowhere near so clear.
When we’re given “moral choice” moments in games, the dichotomy is usually one of intentions. Gameplay effects rarely matter overmuch, because any penalty imposed by the game to “punish” the player for their actions need to remain surmountable. This issue dogs Mass Effect‘s Renegade options — one never needs to make the “hard decisions” to overcome the antagonists in gameplay terms. Since gameplay advantages generally are minimal in their long-term impact, narrative effects take center stage.
When presented with moral choice scenarios, players tend to expect the results will match their intentions. That is, altruistic choices result in happier outcomes, and selfish or sadistic actions lead to unnecessary harm. It’s a natural assumption reinforced by developer caution — since games are about agency, gamers expect that they will be able to transform the game setting according to their will. This means that Evil choices tend to be more exercises in Schadenfreude than contemplations on ethical validity and philosophy.
inFamous 2 is different largely because while in the other examples the player usually had some way to struggle through and come out feeling like they did right, in this ending, the player is going to be murdering innocents either way. There is no third option, and the choice remains open to either Heroic or Infamous Coles — the game relies on missions to characterize Cole; mere karma score plays a less significant narrative role. Cole cannot magically create a way to kill the Beast and cure the radiation plague without murdering Conduits worldwide; nor do we have any indication that they might survive the RFI’s use. This flies radically in the face of the typical game narrative, and although it is undeniably tragic, it also actually creates a meaningful choice.
Not on whether to play a Good or an Evil Cole, mind you — such decisions are meta ones — but genuinely on which outcome you feel is right. While the game assigns karmic values to particular endings (save humans is Good, save Conduits and rule is Evil), there are perfectly good arguments for both, and real costs of both.
It’s both possible and in-character for a heroic Cole to nonetheless choose the “bad” option and side with the Conduits in a desperate attempt to save humanity and keep his friends alive, and the game doesn’t really condemn the player for doing so. In fact, it reinforces how murky the entire situation is by abruptly switching the Conduits normally associated with given moralities — the anarchistic, sadistic, borderline-crazed Nix demands Cole kill the Beast with the RFI, while the altruistic, selfless Kuo, always before urging Cole towards heroism, panics and tries to stop him to save her own life.
In the end, both choices end in melancholy as much as any sense of triumph, with the player unsure of precisely how costly their decision will be. And maybe, for a game like inFamous 2, that touch of ambiguity — there’s even a split-second teaser at a Good Cole’s survival — may be for the best.