Army of Two Asks: Do Mercenaries have Morals?

Sure, it takes two to tango, but it only takes one gun to kill both dancers. Add in another gun and, well, it's overkill (sorry, dancers!). But for the purpose of taking down multiple enemies (say vengeful family members of said dead dancers), having a co-op partner is definitely handy.

Army of Two: The 40th Day is all about that -- having a bud by your side during the heat of battle. But it seems like EA is trying to make killing dudes with your friend mean something more. In fact, in a game where you play as two badass mercenaries, they're trying to incorporate something seemingly ridiculous in the killing trade: morals.

It seems like ever since BioWare introduced consequences (be it good or bad) in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, developers have been trying to push the idea that your actions can actually influence the story and gameplay in significant ways. Sometimes it works well (Fallout 3) and sometimes it falls flat (BioShock). But usually this notion is touted in deep, story-rich games. Uh, not games where you primarily run around and shoot a bunch of badguys.

So during my Army of Two demo I was a wee bit skeptical when the producer pimping the game made such a big deal about certain moral choices you'll have to make during the game. Because we all know hired killers have to deal with tough choices all the time. Wait, no they don't; they're paid to kill.

But the concept of morality in a game like this does sound interesting and the example shown in my demo made me even more curious. Here's how the scenario played out: During a level, you encounter an unguarded weapons stockpile filled with tons of free goodies. Well, free until the lazy guard manning the station actually returns to find you hoarding the equipment. So now you (and your partner) are left with a choice: A) Kill the guard and take the weapons or B) Let the guy live and leave behind all the beautiful free guns.

Now if it were my choice, I would have let the guard live, but considering the folks in my demo were all assholes, they all voted to kill the poor sap. Now here's where things actually got interesting: Instead of just killing the guard, taking the weapons, and continuing on with the game, the developers added a touch of sentimentality to showcase how cruel and heartless it was to shoot an innocent man. How so? Well, they basically showed a closeup wallet photo of the guard and his family (and other still photos) to emphasize the fact that you murdered a perfectly good family man (though he really shouldn't have been lallygagging around when he's guarding a treasure trove of killing machines). It's subtle, yes, but a pretty interesting concept.

The producer claimed there will be multiple scenarios like this that will potentially alter the story and gameplay (in the aforementioned case, choosing free weapons could make your mission easier). I think this idea of moral choices has potential, but I'm still curious to see how well the rest of the game deals with it. Still pictures are neat, but I want to see more.

Not that most people will likely care, though. Because like I said, Army of Two is all about co-op stop-and-pop action, and this sequel obviously looks to add pleny of that. But sometimes I can't help but be curious about the choices developers make that aren't so expected.

(6)

Dan "Shoe" Hsu

June 09, 2009

I think that's a really interesting feature -- attempting to show how human the people you're killing are. That's been sorta missing in a lot of these "morality" games. There are gameplay consequences for being bad in KOTOR, but you don't necessarily feel that bad for doing those things. Family pictures will do it, yup.

Daniel Fecteau

The problem with moral systems in games is that the effects of your choices usually amount to mere numbers or (like in, say inFamous), color pallete swaps.

Introducing sequences like the photos you mentioned in an effort to actually make the player feel some sort of remorse is a huge leap forward, I think.

Colin Creasy

@Daniel - Although I haven't played it personally, I have heard that inFAMOUS does a better job of differentiating between the two alignments than mere palette swaps. Specifically, it relates to the types/classes of attacks you learn: if you're playing as good, your attacks are more focused and precise so that you don't harm innocent by-standers, but if you choose to be evil, your attacks will be much more widespread (because, who cares if a few civilians die?).

Now, that's a pretty good (and subtle) way to convey characterization without being overt.

Adalberto Herrera Jr

Is this another step toward what David Jaffe wanted to do with Heartland - effective, perhaps evocative, emotion-driven choices in games?

Matthew

I don't know... that "consequence" kind of sounds like that gag in Austin powers.

Brian Shirk

I think that's an interesting feature. Like you said, I'm not sure that many people will pay attention, but it may make some people carefully consider their actions.

WHAT THE HECK IS A BITMOB?