There is.. another option

Why was there no little sister mechanic in Infinite?

Why would you not pick harvest??

>HURR PICK AN OPTION THAT REWARDS YOU WITH SOMETHING
>OR THE OTHER OPTION THAT GIVES YOU ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

I'm still mad that they completely nullified it by lying to you and giving more rewards if you spare.

In a game that's ostensibly critical of rational egoism, they try to bait you and yet end up with an objectively good choice.

moshi moshi baito desu

Because the second option gives you more of something, just with a slight delay.

>LITERALLY MURDER CHILDREN
or
>Dont murder children
>the "dont murder children option" is supposed to make you much weaker but then they gift you tons of adam as a good boy bonus anyways
hmm yes this choice is extremely difficult in gameplay and moral implications hard genius writing

My guess is either playtesters bitched or someone higher up told them it's not okay to just let the evil players have all the rewards.

Fuck her because she's like 20 years old and just looks young due to the mutation.

I remember getting hyped that I finally got to be a big daddy and not get ganked on sight from other big daddies but it happened anyways. At least stomping around was cool

That girl downstairs looks like a nice pailoli.

Attached: 1vqild.jpg (250x250, 14.14K)

I legitimately feel that sparing the Little Sisters should reward you with little to nothing and make the game harder. Killing them should literally be the easy way out, and saving them should require more sacrifice and hardship. The fact that saving the Little Sisters is the superior option in literally every way ruins the choice.

Saving Little Sisters gives you:
>Praise from the NPCs.
>Gratification of saving the girls.
>A measurably greater material reward.
>A better ending.

Harvesting Little Sisters gives you:
>Hate from the NPCs.
>Guilt over killing children.
>A smaller reward only slightly sooner.
>A worse ending.

It's a stupid false choice. Like if you found a lost child and someone came up to you and said, "I'll give you $100 right now if you murder that child, or I'll give you $10,000 tomorrow if you return her home."

Ken Levine said he didn't want to give the players a choice in the first place but 2K required it because morality systems were popular at the time.

You fuckers are always acting as if the player on their first run of the game knows this

It doesn't matter, it becomes clear pretty quickly when the Little Sisters give you gifts. The game is telling you, "This wouldn't be here if you hadn't saved her," and thus the gameplay encourages you to keep being good. It feels like a choice the first time it's presented, I guess, but that doesn't make it any less of a false choice. It's the problem with morality systems in most games, they always present being evil as the "easy path" and then shower you with XP, money, and other rewards if you're a good boy while cucking you out of every extra reward if you're evil.

Saving them should have gave you next to jack shit, with maybe the pay off of the more you save the more passive big daddies are towards you or maybe passing by ones might help you a bit. You can do the right thing and shuffle or do the pragmatic thing for power.

There should have been an ending that was very difficult, and was basically impossible to achieve if you didn't harvest them. So the choices was
>Be a nice guy and get the bad ending
>Be evil and get the good ending
>Be a nice guy, and very good at the game, and get the good ending
Basically give a player an actual reason to be a bad person.

FTL is the only game that I think ever implemented 'morality' in a way that makes sense, that is to say, not at all
>do something good for someone, they might just fuck off or you might end up in worse condition than you started, MAYBE they give you something nice
>do an 'evil' option, almost always get a guaranteed reward or at the very least you aren't any worse off, the only penalty you pay is the natural consequence of your action (IE pissing someone off and getting in a fight or something)
>do a 'ignore' option, avoid the risk altogether
>regardless of your choices other than for a few 'questlines', the game proceeds as normal, and nobody has psychic powers that can tell if you are a 'good' or 'bad' person, so the only consequences of your actions are the ones you can expect and anticipate

It would have also been a neat way to tie into Ryan's philosophy, it's easy to be a leach but it's hard to make a stand and up lift others.

This. The rewards for saving them are just far too much. Like invisibility that breaks the fucking game since nothing besides Fontaine can even find you when it triggers and lets you opt out of any encounter in a already easy game.

He knows it five minutes after saving the first one.

>Harvest
>pull a giant straw
>stick it up the little girl's ass
>start sucking on the straw really hard until you hear a "plop"
So what's the rescue option anyway?