Injustice 2 is a fighting game out and I was intrigued enough to purchase it new; this is substantial as I haven't spent money on a new game since 2013's GTA V. I saw Injustice as a good game to have when friends are over during those weekend nights,
That said, I found the mechanics of Injustice frustrating and the AI tended to jump quite a bit in difficulty from match to match, but this is coming from someone who played a great deal of Soul Calibur and Tekken. So as a newbie to the Injustice mechanics, I found it a steep learning curve, but the story shined.
As you may know, in the first Injustice game, Superman murdered The Joker because of villain's crimes. This pushed Superman over the edge towards authoritarianism; order under any means necessary. This is the main issue of the games; Superman's willingness to exert his will. Obviously there is the matter of choice.
I found Superman's perspective is quite realistic. Watching comic shows and movies, a common question to ask is why would the heroes keep the villains alive? At what point is someone too dangerous to be left alive? The idea of killing heinous criminals is something not new.
Let's think about this. We don't forgive rapists, pedophiles, and other perpetrators of violent crime so why would accept this from a fictional world? I found the story illuminates our own double standards. That is violence is a matter of our perception and expectation. Whether it's an inner city or rural America, if you are accustomed to domestic violence, violent crimes, and a lack of alternatives, then you may think people resolving issues through violence as the norm.
We kill people such as:
Osama bin Laden
We allow enabling of domestic espionage by:
We live facing threats and give up a portion of our liberty to see it protected.
Is this game a criticism of modern day political regimes, both democratic and authoritarian? Which perspective is correct? Is it better to have predictable order at the cost of civil rights? Or allow the random violence for a totally free society?