#1 Edited by Irvandus (2878 posts) -

I just gone done watching their video from gamescom and just noticed that the previous Infamous games took place in fictional cities. For some reason it just strikes me as odd and makes me wonder if they will even refer to the fake cities in the previous games as straight up New York and New Orleans. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

#2 Posted by Yummylee (21615 posts) -

It is a little inconsistent, but eh, whatever.

#3 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -

In Second Son, it's spelled "Seeaddle".

#4 Posted by Hailinel (24707 posts) -

As a Seattle resident, I'm really curious to see how well they'll actually represent the city. Hopefully it's more than just some weird video game version of downtown and Seattle Center.

#5 Posted by Doskias (305 posts) -

It doesn't strike me as that odd, since Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row both acknowledge that other, real-world cities exist. So there's a precedent for that sort of thing.

I imagine if the events of Infamous or Infamous 2 are important to this game's story, they'll be referred to by their in-game names. Otherwise, maybe not?

Also, while we're here, a spoilery question: Since both conduits and regular humans exist side-by-side in this game, does that imply that Cole chose the "bad" ending in Infamous 2?

#6 Edited by ShaggE (6451 posts) -

There's always a man, a lighthouse, and a Seattle.

#7 Posted by selfconfessedcynic (2561 posts) -

I could have sworn that previous Infamous games called states by their real names and referenced Washington at least. It continues in the tradition of fictional cities being used to create bubbles for characters to exist in an otherwise realistic world (eg. Gotham). Considering Infamous has always been highly inspired by comic books, I'm fine with it and don't think it'll break immersion.

#8 Edited by ThunderSlash (1720 posts) -

@doskias said:

It doesn't strike me as that odd, since Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row both acknowledge that other, real-world cities exist. So there's a precedent for that sort of thing.

I imagine if the events of Infamous or Infamous 2 are important to this game's story, they'll be referred to by their in-game names. Otherwise, maybe not?

Also, while we're here, a spoilery question: Since both conduits and regular humans exist side-by-side in this game, does that imply that Cole chose the "bad" ending in Infamous 2?

I heard somewhere that they chose that ending due to there being more unlocked trophies for that than the other ending.

Edit: It was the good ending in which Cole sacrifices himself as stated here.

#9 Posted by Doskias (305 posts) -

@doskias said:

It doesn't strike me as that odd, since Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row both acknowledge that other, real-world cities exist. So there's a precedent for that sort of thing.

I imagine if the events of Infamous or Infamous 2 are important to this game's story, they'll be referred to by their in-game names. Otherwise, maybe not?

Also, while we're here, a spoilery question: Since both conduits and regular humans exist side-by-side in this game, does that imply that Cole chose the "bad" ending in Infamous 2?

I heard somewhere that they chose that ending due to there being more unlocked trophies for that than the other ending.

Ah, cool, cool. That makes sense in its way.

#10 Posted by csl316 (8646 posts) -

@doskias: Good ending is canon, based on trophy data.

#11 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

It's probably like almost any other super hero universe.

In marvel and DC they reference major cities but they usually dont base superheroes in them, but sometimes they do! It's weird, but who cares?