We've had two reasonably extensive looks at Sucker Punch's inFAMOUS, one at least year's Tokyo Game Show, and one just a few weeks prior to this review. And in both instances we concluded inFAMOUS was a fence-sitting game without being able to fully test its tangible sandbox touts, or experience the raw power of electricity through the palms of the game's protagonist (and potential antagonist), Cole McGrath.
For the better part of the last few days then, I've been running the game through its paces,
literally. inFAMOUS proclaims sandbox, but you're never going to be getting into cars, on motorbikes or the like (though you do *
kind of* ride the roof of a train). In fact all of your traversing is done on foot, and for the most part, across rooftops.
The game-world then, reflects this and isn't necessarily the biggest of the open-world games out there. There's still plenty of space to explore, and the city planning (aka level design) is actually quite good; Sucker Punch serving up a veritable parkour playground for players where a speedy line across ledges, rooftops, signposts and railways can be easily strung together once you've worked out the machinations of Cole's cat (or racoon)-like motions. This might all sound hunky-dory, but it's just... well, let me explain.
inFAMOUS purports to be a superhero sandbox game, and all the incredibly well-presented comic-book inspired cut-scenes and narrative 'powers-post-explosion' elements maintain this claim. Unfortunately the game's inner workings, stemming from minor elements such as dialogue right through to enemies, counteract the claim, bringing it -
and the game's fun-factor - to a screeching halt. It takes an incredibly strong will to push through to a point where you're somewhat satisfied with what you've just put yourself through, and I doubt anyone barring the most die-hard of Sony fanboys (and there are a lot of them) will find this strength of will to see that inFAMOUS does have something enjoyable to offer.
If I could put an image to this game, it would be of me constantly scratching my head in frustration and ever-escalating angst. Not necessarily because inFAMOUS is all-round bad, but because the idea here and myriad elements are so strong, I
want them to work, it's just in the wake of all the bad things on offer, it becomes something of an exercise in tedious faith; hoping for something more, but consistently finding loopholes, misgivings and plain dead-ends in the road towards gratifying gameplay fulfilment.
Issues begin with the game's structure early on. You're given control of Cole post-massive explosion (which is the catalyst for all events that unfold from here on out), but on a very linear path. It's a narrative decision, I understand, but unless you follow the game's intended course from the outset, you can actually die within the first few minutes of gameplay - which to me, is a little silly in a sandbox title and equally depressing given you're meant to be a character who is manifesting 'amazing' power each step he takes.
Don't get me wrong, it serves its purpose, I just feel it was handled poorly given the overall goal.
This follow-the-leader formula then continues for the first few missions as we're slowly introduced to the game's mission structures and the ways in which to play and engage them. Comparing this opening to the likes of say, GTA IV (or any GTA title for that matter), where you can start running amok almost immediately is another clear indication that just because you have a sprawling metropolis populated with cars and NPCs doesn't mean you have a game with ultimate freedom.
Speaking of NPCs, the inhabitants of Empire City really aren't too bright. From the game's early moments, you're somewhat disliked amongst the denizens, which is shown through negative banter towards you, or animations of NPCs cowering or running away from you. Later on in the game, if you choose to follow a good karma path they'll start to respond more favourably to you, but what I noticed more than anything is this in itself is fleetingly glitch-ridden. One instance saw me rescuing a downed chap in a sewer. He stood up, thanked me then told his friend across the way to open a locked gate for me. As soon as this role was completed though, his AI switched back to being afraid and he cowered right next to me. Both inconsistent, and just plain rude.
This lack of dynamic AI is rampant throughout the game and extends itself in most ambient aspects. Cars just circle the block (I know because I sat on the roof of one to see), and will simply come to a miraculous stop if anything dangerous is happening in front of them. There's no organic desire to live, or avoid accidents such as those seen in GTA, which simply paints a fairly simple algorithmic pattern of background noise for all of this, which in turn negates the intended soul for Empire City – what's the point in saving a place that doesn't feel real or alive?

But the word "saving" brings me to my next major problem with the game and something I mentioned earlier. Idealistically inFAMOUS is a superhero title, but beyond Cole's amazing balance and climbing ability, there's very little here in the way of true superherodom. His electricity isn't very strong, and feels more like an eccentric gun and grenade combination than anything else. You rarely use it in the way it should be, such as electrifying surfaces to take on enemies in an outside-the-box contest. It's equally vexing the baddies, junkies-turned-super-mutants, are
crack shots with their weapons, more often than not killing you before you even know where they are (and yes, that pun was absolutely intended).
In fact there's an absolutely unbalanced system of conflict, and it happens with grunt enemies. You can take them out from afar, but even at certain distances your lightning bolt may not reach them, yet, their sniper-like abilities – from the same distance – can knock you senseless. It's also annoying because Cole can suck up power from any nearby power-source, but it's incredibly easy to have this interrupted (and you dead very quickly), meaning you're constantly running from battle to find a safe spot to recharge. And most unforgiving of all is jumping from far above with the intention of performing Cole's best move (best described as "death from above") only to have a single bullet hit you just centimetres from the ground, thus culling the ability and leaving you wide open to attack.
Cole has a few different default offensive moves that manifest early in the game. The aforementioned lightning bolt action takes no 'ammo', and can be used over and over again (sort of like a pistol with endless rounds). Eventually he'll also get grenade-like electrical charges, which really only act similarly to grenades (they don't really do much more than explode) as well as the ability to hover and perform a "Force Push" type of move that is just more like a stun gun than anything (it doesn't do much more than push people or items directly in your path about). There's also the "death from above" move, which a massive area of effect devastation action, but it only seems to be effective around 60% of the time, which just adds to all the frustration on offer already.
The karma system is also really lax in that it's just too cut and dry. Throughout the game, in narrative effect, you're offered choices of either good or bad consequence. One particular instance had me choosing whether to be sprayed in the face with a murky mutagen substance that brought on hallucinations (which actually progressed the story), or make a bystander do it. Here the choice was obvious - do it myself so I can get more of the story fleshed out. What's worse is said hallucination lasted less than 10 seconds with no negative effect. You will unlock different abilities specific to your karmic alliance, but for the most part these rarely change the shape of engagement.

Missions see you having to turn power grids back on through sewers, looking for satellites on roof-tops, collecting battery shards, saving makeshift medical centre, disrupting enemy couriers, riding (and running) trains and infiltrating enemy strongholds. Initially your hand is fairly held, but eventually you're somewhat free to roam the city, and engaging and completing side-missions (represented via yellow icons as opposed to blue ones which are narrative-specific) will create enemy-free zones, so diligent players can free up the immediate area to traverse without being annoyingly shot at or accosted by the Reapers. But ultimately, this is all just distraction to the main game.
The real crux here, is in the game's story, and for the first half of the game, you're going to disagree. Powering through to the bitter end though, will reveal some stellar story-telling in the interactive form; it's just a hard slog to get to that point.
Some of the proceeding missions are also really solid to engage, and manage to break the monotonous mould you've been curing in with gusto, but again, non-hardcore Sony types are seriously going to find it difficult to feel compelled to get to said point.
Unfortunately inFAMOUS just doesn't look the part, barely plays the part and therefore really
isn't the part.
There are moments of excellence, but they're so few and far between, they're easily forgotten in the wake of all the tedium on offer. So much of the game is formulaic and old-school in a negative sense; you'll wonder how this wound up on a next-gen powerhouse like the PS3. There are far too many moments and ideas pulled directly from the Sly Cooper series to make inFAMOUS stand on its own two feet and when it does, it really is just fleeting.
If you can make it through to the end, you deserve a trophy for perseverance, but if you've been waiting for a rock-solid PS3 exclusive to sink your teeth into, be prepared to be disappointed and just be thankful Uncharted 2 really isn't that
far away.
Posted 04:46pm 27/5/09
That platforming mechanics feel really awesome and solid too, I can jump towards the thinest ledge, or the make the most death defying leap onto a suspended cable and be pretty confident Cole is going to do what I want him to do and land where I want him to land. The AI hasn't bothered me yet, I don't mind that everyone cowers and runs screaming from me, I mean, thats probably the smart thing to do because I'm most likely going to kill them and suck the electricity out of their bodies to feed myself.
Its not the best game I've ever played, but so far, I'm having a lot of fun. Its easily as much fun as Crackdown was for me, probably more so. And just for the record, I'm not a Sony fanboy :P
Posted 04:48pm 27/5/09
Posted 04:55pm 27/5/09
But yeah, I guess the novelty of electrocuting people and tossing stuff around with emp blasts and such hasn't got old yet, those rough edges might start bugging me more when the initial shine has worn off.
I do definitely agree about the death from above move though, that kicks major amounts of arse, I didn't realise at first that the longer you fall for the harder it hits, and I jumped off a really high building into the middle of a street and basically annhilated everything in sight, quite cool :)
last edited by Khel at 16:55:27 27/May/09
Posted 04:55pm 27/5/09
ALSO, Cole has a lot more moves than you listed, the ones you unlock after doing good missions are pretty good. And you don't touch on getting the ability to grind along rails, and hover etc!
Again, 6,9? :( I like it much more than that.
Posted 05:09pm 27/5/09
The karma system is also really lax in that it's just too cut and dry. Throughout the game, in narrative effect, you're offered choices of either good or bad consequence. One particular instance had me choosing whether to be sprayed in the face with a murky mutagen substance that brought on hallucinations (which actually progressed the story), or make a bystander do it. Here the choice was obvious - do it myself so I can get more of the story fleshed out. What's worse is said hallucination lasted less than 10 seconds with no negative effect. You will unlock different abilities specific to your karmic alliance, but for the most part these rarely change the shape of engagement.
it's in the review now though
Posted 05:15pm 27/5/09
Its like that game Wet, I remember watching a dev interview with some of the guys working on it, and in the game you're an assassin and you have your own set of custom handguns, and you only ever use your own handguns. Fair enough, thats how their game mechanics are built, you don't pick up other weapons, you use your own weapons. But then they felt the need to write in a reason for it, and added a backstory to the main character about it, saying how she only ever uses her own guns because she has a phobia of touching other people's guns.
I assume they do it in an attempt to try and not break the immersion, but it just has the opposite effect on me, it just harshly reminds me of how fake and contrived the world I'm playing in is.
last edited by Khel at 17:15:03 27/May/09
Posted 05:18pm 27/5/09
Posted 05:24pm 27/5/09
Posted 05:31pm 27/5/09
Not really? You see that in most of the video and screenshots.
EDIT:
Sorry, just re-read, it was in there.
Posted 09:05am 28/5/09
But its actually a lot of fun, and I actually like the AI. I don't find the AI predictable at all. Maybe I don't game enough, but when I used to the AI always would do the same thing, if you figured out how to beat them you could just keep using the same trick. So far the AI pisses me off because it does things differently than I expect and makes it harder for me to kill them.
Sometimes the ledge stickyness can get in the way but for 90% of the time I find it really great and a lot more fun than games where you have to be so precise with your jumps you give up in frustration. Maybe its suited to the more casual gamer which I probably fit into these days.
I find the style of gameplay fun and not having to beat minibosses all the time is actually refreshing (ala Force Unleashed, a similar style in my opinion but infamous is far more enjoyable). Only once or twice have I done a mission that was repetitive, but it were some side missions anyhow.
Really enjoying it thus far, probably 70% in.
last edited by pixem at 09:05:43 28/May/09
Posted 09:04am 28/5/09
Posted 09:14am 28/5/09
Will he come back if I promise to post a photo of a kitten?
Posted 09:24am 28/5/09
Posted 09:26am 28/5/09
Posted 09:57am 28/5/09
I don't really get that statement. I guess I've never been a type of any console whatever that means, I guess if I am I'm a PC type - i like my mouse. I just find it hard to believe that someone will percervere just because they are compelled by faith in a brand. Can such a statement be applied to a Microsoft or Nintendo fan? Would a similar issue on an Xbox exclusive title garner the same quote? If it did wouldn't that make hardcore Microsoft types and hardcore Sony types the same?
Or are the types different based on their choices of brand - i.e only a certain type of person would by a PS3? If not then the statement doesn't relate to brand and would relate to a type of gamer irregardless of brand. If it is, then if the title were an Xbox exclusive the Xbox review would contain the same quote referencing hardcore Sony types.
I don't mean to start any fan war thing. I know people get protective about their choices in life. But the point they would percervere with something that you consider others would find painful and unenjoyable seems a bit unrealistic to me. I've always seen games as a source of entertainment and fun whats the point if they aren't.
Posted 10:15am 28/5/09
Posted 11:13am 28/5/09
I used to be a hardcore Nintendo nut and would do the same thing with Nintendo products... now I've seen the light and game across the board
Posted 11:16am 28/5/09
Posted 11:37am 28/5/09
Posted 12:33pm 28/5/09
Posted 01:09pm 28/5/09
Posted 01:16pm 28/5/09
Posted 01:29pm 28/5/09
What sort of scale are you using? How did you land on 6.9 after you list the pro's vs cons? Does the scale ever drop below 5? (looks like there are more bad than good features.) Is a 6.9 for one game going to mean that a 6.9 on a different game will be the same?
How the hell can anyone write an "objective" review? It's totally unfeasible in terms of gaming reviews. Even "disgruntled gamer" has based his/her own review as a comparison to a different game.
So, they are saying that, objectively, the game has flaws, but compared to a different game, it's better? What personal investment does this guy have in a video game to need to reply like that? Clearly, disgruntled gamer is a 1/12 case, IYKWIM.
Posted 01:39pm 28/5/09
Posted 03:58pm 28/5/09
My only interest is in the comment quoted, I don't know any hardcore PS3 or Xbox fans. My only experience with console gamers is for to tell me they are an Xbox fan when they know I have a PS3, but never go on to bash it or me which I would consider fairly normal. I guess I'm not in a position to have the reverse and have a PS3 owner comment on my choice if I had an Xbox. I guess in your position you are exposed to it a lot more from both sides, if there is one. I just don't understand it, I would assume the hardcore pride induced console gamers are common to both sides? They just chose differently which side to die for? Or is there one type specific to one brand, and they would only chose that brand because of who they are?
I guess its the whole I'm a Mac I'm a PC where people tie their personality into inanimate object choices. Just seems odd.
Sorry to have maybe gone OT as well. That PA comic is pretty funny too. Those fences caused me great annoyance.
last edited by pixem at 15:58:13 28/May/09
Posted 08:52pm 28/5/09
I DONT KNOW WHY, BUT EVREY TIME YOU GUYS Review A PS3 GAME,YOU PROOF TO ME THAT THIS WEBSITE IS OWNED BY 360 FANS.
Game Spot gave it 9, Game Trailers gave it 9. IGN gave it 9.2
I swear if this game was on 360 you guys would give 9.
Do me a favor stop Reviewing PS3 Games.
Shame on you FAN BOYS
Posted 08:56pm 28/5/09
Posted 08:56pm 28/5/09
Posted 12:39am 29/5/09
Posted 09:48am 29/5/09
6.9 is a pretty good score; it's almost 70%. That's way above average.
Posted 12:22am 30/5/09
360 or PS3 makes no difference this games crap
Posted 08:57am 21/6/09
Posted 10:30am 21/6/09
Posted 01:16pm 21/6/09