In order to accomplish their goals, both the protagonist and the player have to perform questionable and sometimes outright awful actions. Furthermore, there aren't any meters that decide whether or not Abigail is a superhero or a supervillain. InFamous: First Light doesn't offer any decisions or moral choices.

The point is that while the game might tell the player that they're a 'hero,' it never quite grasps the methods they employed to reach that noble goal. In an open-world game, if the player is willing to murder an old lady for a few dollars, would saving two people afterwards to 'cancel out' that previous act of cruelty actually matter? Shouldn't it just make them more evil? This isn't to try to play the role of an ignorant senator who wants to ban violent videogames, here. Karma can't be measured with numbers or meters. If anything, the difference between good and evil should be subtle. At one point in the story, Cole MacGrath has to decide on whether he should give food to a group of starving people, or kill them so he can take all of the food for himself. inFamous perfectly illustrates this issue. Other times, the moral decision is so binary that it becomes absurd. Sure, the protagonist could harvest all of the little sisters for a little extra ADAM, but freeing them earns comparable rewards, and the player receives the good ending as a bonus. When it comes time to make difficult choices, the player will often go with the one that offers the biggest reward. Morality in videogames tends to be a silly concept.

Infamous first light dup fetch