Playfire displays some interesting statistics about the prevalence of each game's trophy. For example, did you know that to date only 24% of players[2] have seen all the endings of Heavy Rain? Or that a massive 46% of players have the Platinum Trophy for Assassin's Creed II, meaning that they have bought all the upgrades, paintings and collected all of the stray feathers around Renaissance Italy?
Screencapture of Playfire Trophy statisticsI recently finished inFamous - a very good and often underrated 3rd person action game. It succeeds as a genuinely original superhero origin story where other games based on established comic book heros have failed. Cole's abilities are based around what makes a videogame fun, rather than trying to work out how to make a given hero's powers work. It's something that I hope the upcoming inFamous 2 delivers as well as this game.
One interesting aspect of inFamous is the once-ubiquitous moral choice system; which, in this case, translates into whether you play as a Hero, healing the sick and restraining criminals to face justice or a Villain, destroying baddies and citizen alike, destroying at will and sucking fallen victims' life forces to fuel your abilities. The only way to achieve the Platinum trophy in this game requires two play throughs. Once as a hero and once as a villain.
The first time I played this I made a choice: I really wanted to be the anti-hero. I'm a Live Role-Player and the idea of playing a character totally different to myself is always highly appealing. It occurs to me that in most games, even ones like GTA where you fill the shoes of a sort of anti-hero, you still end up taking mostly moral actions. I decided that, in playing inFamous, I wanted to be a proper villain. None of this "basically good at heart but makes wrong choices nonsense" - I decided that in my mind my character had been hurt, felt used and considered himself a victim and therefore lashes out at the world around him in order to inspire fear, if he can't win respect.
Evil Cole from inFAMOUS
I bore no conscience about civilians caught in the crossfire. If I ran low on energy I would grab a passer-by to drain them of their vital energy. If there was the chance to rob somebody for rewards, rather than help them and hope for reward, I'd do it. Outside of the game's own mechanic was space for some personal expression through role-playing: fallen enemies (particiularly if they'd put up a tough fight and annoyed me) would be drained of their energy regardless of whether I needed it - it became an expression of vengeance. Being the villain was empowering, but ultimately lonely; People throw stones at you in the street, forcing you to have to live your life on the rooftops of the city, and your loved ones turn further away from you. But, as a game-play experience it was genuinely liberating and different to how most games feel.
Playing as a Hero totally changed the experience of the game. I had to modify my battle technique to avoid hurting civilians. More than that, there were similar role-playing experiences to what I had enjoyed as a villain. If I saw a sick pedestrian in the street I simply couldn't pass them by, even if I was in the middle of a chase. If I saw an injured criminals, my instinct was to use Arc Restraint (kinda like handcuffs) to hold them down to prevent them hurting anyone else. The civilians of the city rallied to my cause and even joined in the fight, assisting me by hurling rocks at the enemy, rather than me.
All in all it gives a compelling insight into the psychology of a driven humanitarian/broken vigilante or, as we more commonly name them: superhero.
What's interesting about Playfire stats, is that the majority of players choose to be a good guy. 26% of Playfire players have the platinum trophy and have therefore played both sides of the coin, so we'll discount them from our analysis. 35% of the remaining players finished the game as a Hero, while only 18% chose to finish the journey as a Villain.
Good Cole healing a civilian in inFAMOUS
The most helpful stat is for the Karma Powers upgrades. There are 15 good or evil missions that must be completed to fully upgrade a power on either side; this is an exclusive arrangement - it's not possible to fully upgrade one particular "good" power if any opposing karma mission has been completed and vice-vera. 20% of players fully upgraded their Good powers, with only 8% of the players fully upgrading their evil powers.
So, less than a third of players who chose a full single path through the game chose to play as the bad guy. I'd like to believe that in real life, most people strive to do what they think is the right thing. People make mistakes, sure or are selfish or have misguided aims which cause what it right in one person's eyes to be wrong to others; but few people specifically aim to do the villainous thing. So, given the choice within a non-threatening environment like a game, why do so few gamers choose to explore boundaries by playing a proper anti-hero?
In "Why Dark Games are Good", Andy Robertson talks about "safe spaces for dark stories" in which he addresses the issue that there is nothing wrong with exploring darkness in an environment where it has no real impact. My own experience of playing as a villain in inFamous allowed me to explore some curiosity in my mind and feel liberated from game- and role-playing habits - but, more importantly I learned that ultimately the effect of seeking to improve, rather than destroy was far more rewarding. Playing violent or dark videogames doesn't turn you to violence - but it does and should provide a environment without real consequences to explore violence and bad choices and the impact that they have.
Perhaps it would do players some good to spend a little less time trying to be the hero and take the chance to learn why they don't want to be a villain.
1. Trophies and achievements, but I'm going to stick to the one term for this (back)
2. Based on users of playfire only - therefore probably tipped toward the more "hardcore" gamer (back)
One interesting aspect of inFamous is the once-ubiquitous moral choice system; which, in this case, translates into whether you play as a Hero, healing the sick and restraining criminals to face justice or a Villain, destroying baddies and citizen alike, destroying at will and sucking fallen victims' life forces to fuel your abilities. The only way to achieve the Platinum trophy in this game requires two play throughs. Once as a hero and once as a villain.
The first time I played this I made a choice: I really wanted to be the anti-hero. I'm a Live Role-Player and the idea of playing a character totally different to myself is always highly appealing. It occurs to me that in most games, even ones like GTA where you fill the shoes of a sort of anti-hero, you still end up taking mostly moral actions. I decided that, in playing inFamous, I wanted to be a proper villain. None of this "basically good at heart but makes wrong choices nonsense" - I decided that in my mind my character had been hurt, felt used and considered himself a victim and therefore lashes out at the world around him in order to inspire fear, if he can't win respect.
Evil Cole from inFAMOUSI bore no conscience about civilians caught in the crossfire. If I ran low on energy I would grab a passer-by to drain them of their vital energy. If there was the chance to rob somebody for rewards, rather than help them and hope for reward, I'd do it. Outside of the game's own mechanic was space for some personal expression through role-playing: fallen enemies (particiularly if they'd put up a tough fight and annoyed me) would be drained of their energy regardless of whether I needed it - it became an expression of vengeance. Being the villain was empowering, but ultimately lonely; People throw stones at you in the street, forcing you to have to live your life on the rooftops of the city, and your loved ones turn further away from you. But, as a game-play experience it was genuinely liberating and different to how most games feel.
Playing as a Hero totally changed the experience of the game. I had to modify my battle technique to avoid hurting civilians. More than that, there were similar role-playing experiences to what I had enjoyed as a villain. If I saw a sick pedestrian in the street I simply couldn't pass them by, even if I was in the middle of a chase. If I saw an injured criminals, my instinct was to use Arc Restraint (kinda like handcuffs) to hold them down to prevent them hurting anyone else. The civilians of the city rallied to my cause and even joined in the fight, assisting me by hurling rocks at the enemy, rather than me.
All in all it gives a compelling insight into the psychology of a driven humanitarian/broken vigilante or, as we more commonly name them: superhero.
What's interesting about Playfire stats, is that the majority of players choose to be a good guy. 26% of Playfire players have the platinum trophy and have therefore played both sides of the coin, so we'll discount them from our analysis. 35% of the remaining players finished the game as a Hero, while only 18% chose to finish the journey as a Villain.
Good Cole healing a civilian in inFAMOUSThe most helpful stat is for the Karma Powers upgrades. There are 15 good or evil missions that must be completed to fully upgrade a power on either side; this is an exclusive arrangement - it's not possible to fully upgrade one particular "good" power if any opposing karma mission has been completed and vice-vera. 20% of players fully upgraded their Good powers, with only 8% of the players fully upgrading their evil powers.
So, less than a third of players who chose a full single path through the game chose to play as the bad guy. I'd like to believe that in real life, most people strive to do what they think is the right thing. People make mistakes, sure or are selfish or have misguided aims which cause what it right in one person's eyes to be wrong to others; but few people specifically aim to do the villainous thing. So, given the choice within a non-threatening environment like a game, why do so few gamers choose to explore boundaries by playing a proper anti-hero?
In "Why Dark Games are Good", Andy Robertson talks about "safe spaces for dark stories" in which he addresses the issue that there is nothing wrong with exploring darkness in an environment where it has no real impact. My own experience of playing as a villain in inFamous allowed me to explore some curiosity in my mind and feel liberated from game- and role-playing habits - but, more importantly I learned that ultimately the effect of seeking to improve, rather than destroy was far more rewarding. Playing violent or dark videogames doesn't turn you to violence - but it does and should provide a environment without real consequences to explore violence and bad choices and the impact that they have.
Perhaps it would do players some good to spend a little less time trying to be the hero and take the chance to learn why they don't want to be a villain.
1. Trophies and achievements, but I'm going to stick to the one term for this (back)
2. Based on users of playfire only - therefore probably tipped toward the more "hardcore" gamer (back)
