[Game] Mafia II - Megathread

[Grobut]

I think it is, because if Flashpoint 2 had been more realistic than Flashpoint 1 no one would have complained. And if someone had he would have been told to go play CoD or MW or whatever that series wants to be called these days.

How so? Flaspoint 1 was all about the realism, so i think we all thought it would only continue down that path, and probably get more realistic as better tech allowed it to, so i dont see that as a good comparison, a game doing what was expected of it would not come as a suprice to anyone (the fact that it ended up doing the reverse, however, did).

And it really isn't like GTA IV is such a huge departure from the older games like certain people make it seem.
It has more realistic car handling and a slightly more tactical combat system. Other than that it's just about the same.
It still has psychotic characters, wacky radio stations and satirical humor all tied up into a pseudo-serious mock-movie story.

The perceived seriousness a) isn't that much different from GTA III, where it didn't bother anyone, interestingly, and b) it just comes with the setting. And the settings have always been more or less radically different from game to game.

The increased realism isn't a demographic or genre-changing change at all. The handling of cars got more realistic from GTA 2 to GTA III, again from GTA III to VC and yet again from VC to SA! The leap to GTA IV was mainly bigger because it was the first GTA on then-next gen consoles so they had more processing power to spare for more in-depth physics.
Same for combat. GTA III was more realistic than GTA 2, VC added aiming with rifles and was slightly more realistic than GTA III (although the *pffffff* sound of the M4 or whatever it was in full-auto will be missed). San Andreas changed combat radically and was more realistic than either game before it.
Again, GTA IV made a bigger leap because it wasn't a ps2 game anymore.

Predictably, i disagree.

Whilst certainly GTA4 isen't a totally different concept (i've said this before mind, you still jack cars and listen to silly radiostations, etc etc), and on paper we could make a checklist and it would have lots and lots of features in common with GTA:SA, there is one important distinction, i never, ever, had any problems enjoying myself with all the other games, even the ones where i didn't much care about their theme (VC for instance, i never did care for the 80's or Miami Vice, i thought it was a stupid theme, nor was i the least bit interested in the "Ghetto thug 4 life" theme of SA, but that never spoiled the games for me, i enjoyed the hell out of them both despite that), but GTA4.. i really can't find anything about that game that brings a smile to my face, nothing.

I have a hard time explaining exactly why that is, but whatever it is, it is significant enough that it has made me go from "yay! lets play some GTA!" to "ohh god no, get that thing away from me!", it is definately not the same to me, and most certainly not what i thought would be the natural evolution of the series.

It's really not a case of abandoning a target demographic to appeal to a wider audience but regardless of whether we agree on this or not: that especially you make that point when a series gets ever so slightly more realistic when you generally make it a point to claim games are dumbed down and made less realistic for that 'wider audience'... that is ironic.
As much sense as it makes to you, you have to admit that much, ya old bipolar realism gamer you.

That said, VC > GTA IV.

No, see, now you're confusing what i have said in this thread with what i have said of other games in other threads (i really do think you have me labelled somewhat Murphy, that's not nice), if anything, i have spend the last many posts saying the reverse, that GTA4 did not go for any mass appeal, and that infact, it's a rather "love it or hate it" sort of game.

And yes, i have posted often about my displeasure of seeing franchises like.. Rainbow six drastically changing gears, becomming less realistic and arcade, i hate that sort of stuff for the exact reason i stated in the post above (the whole "dont fix what aint broke, make a new franchise instead if you want to make something different" thing), and now, you get to see me from another side i don't often get to show around thease parts (as the disgussion around here is usually about the more realistic stuff), the part of me that also loves arcady fun games and also hates seeing thouse beeing messed around with, for the exact same reason, dont fix what aint broke, its a fun game, and if you want to make something else, call it something else.

This shoulden't come as a suprice to you Murph, you've seen me rag on UT3 over at BUF, so you should know i don't just play simulators, and get just as cheesed off when my favorite arcady games get reamed as i do here when the realistic ones are made to drop the soap

 

[Murphy]

How so? Flaspoint 1 was all about the realism

And GTA III was all about crafting a believable city environment! That and its humor was what made it big. And that and its humor is still there in GTA IV.
If you opt out at one point and say, ok that's enough. I'll stay here, you go on without me that's fine. But to argue the series has lost its ways just doesn't strike me as particularly convincing.

i really can't find anything about that game that brings a smile to my face, nothing.

That's too bad, but it's hardly the game's fault. It still has over-the-top characters and radio stations and you can still drive like a maniac and if that doesn't hit you at all I wonder how you could even find GTA III funny!?
Surely the handful of flame-thrower-rampage pickups weren't what defined the series for you.

i have spend the last many posts saying the reverse, that GTA4 did not go for any mass appeal, and that infact, it's a rather "love it or hate it" sort of game.

But it had HUGE mass appeal! Maybe you missed it, but the game was constantly in the news for breaking sales records! And the players aren't divided on it either! A vast majority likes the game and the scores are all over the place.
The low user score on metacritic for the pc version (4.9) is almost exclusively because of technical problems (which we aren't talking about in this topic). Be it performance, allegedly bad graphics and that whole registration farce. Check out the scores for the console versions (between 7 and 8) if you want to see more opinions about the game itself rather than about how well it was ported.

 

[Shepherd]

GTA4 was a good game but a bad GTA.

The best GTA is Saint's Row 2.

 

[Grobut]

And GTA III was all about crafting a believable city environment! That and its humor was what made it big. And that and its humor is still there in GTA IV.
If you opt out at one point and say, ok that's enough. I'll stay here, you go on without me that's fine. But to argue the series has lost its ways just doesn't strike me as particularly convincing.

Your words not mine, i said i didn't like it, didn't find it fun, that i don't think its a fun sandbox, and that i wont find the next ones fun either if they are just like this one, i never said anything about it "having lost its way" or any such psudo philosophical malarky, lets keep it civil now..

That's too bad, but it's hardly the game's fault. It still has over-the-top characters and radio stations and you can still drive like a maniac and if that doesn't hit you at all I wonder how you could even find GTA III funny!?
Surely the handful of flame-thrower-rampage pickups weren't what defined the series for you.

Yes you can, but i don't find it any fun in this one like i did in the older ones, ergo, i did not have fun with it, and thats the whole difference.

Sorry, but i cannot show you a piechart of my funnybone, this is something subjective that cannot be readilly explained, you either find something fun or you don't, and despite GTA4 beeing made from similar ingrediants, i just didn't like the taste of it at all (metaphor alert!).
You may not see it, good for you, but to me, the game feels nothing like the old ones somehow, and i didn't have fun with it, what more can i say? sure i can disguss individual features i didn't care for, but thats just as subjective as anything else, and just as pointless.

But it had HUGE mass appeal! Maybe you missed it, but the game was constantly in the news for breaking sales records! And the players aren't divided on it either! A vast majority likes the game and the scores are all over the place.
The low user score on metacritic for the pc version (4.9) is almost exclusively because of technical problems (which we aren't talking about in this topic). Be it performance, allegedly bad graphics and that whole registration farce. Check out the scores for the console versions (between 7 and 8) if you want to see more opinions about the game itself rather than about how well it was ported.

So did Halo, but that doesen't mean there aren't lots of people out there who hate Halo, you get my point yes?

And there's a funny saying going round the net, you might have stumbled upon it in one form or another, that goes: "GTA4 is the game everyone rants and raves about, but Saints Row 2 is the game they are still playing".

Take it for what it is, but there's a grain of truth there

 

[Nimsky]

Here are my thoughts on GTA.

GTA1 was revolutionary and a lot of fun. GTA2 was equally fun and had better graphics. GTA3 was also revolutionary and more fun than the old GTA's in my opinion.

Vice City was equally good, but for some reason it didn't draw me in as much. I never finished that one. The setting was excellent however, what with the Scarface inspirations and 80's music etc.

San Andreas was a lot better than Vice City. Whereas previous GTA's had a silent protagonist (kinda like HL2), San Andreas was the first GTA that had a protagonist who actually talked, which is much more interesting. The story also became better. I'm not into the whole gangsta culture at all and hiphop doesn't interest me that much either but the setting didn't bother me at all (thankfully 90's hiphop was much better than the current ****).

Then came GTAIV which was better in every way (except performance). The graphics were better, the humour was funnier than ever, the city felt so much more lively and like a real city, it had much more detail, the voice acting was better, the radio stations, and of course the gameplay. It surpassed the other GTA's by a looooooooooong shot.

But isn't this the Mafia thread? The new trailer looks pretty good, even though I've never played the first game.

 

[Grobut]

But isn't this the Mafia thread? The new trailer looks pretty good, even though I've never played the first game.

Yup, but it isen't out yet, and we're bored.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

Shame on you Nimster!
Go and get Mafia 1 now, you cannot regret it!

As for me, i will stick to Mafia 1.
No matter how much attention they paid to the story and detail in the gameworld, it's all for nothing with adding health regeneration.
I just simply cannot stand health regeneration, it's like getting a pat on the head for getting shot.

 

[Amerikaner]

San Andreas was a lot better than Vice City. Whereas previous GTA's had a silent protagonist (kinda like HL2), San Andreas was the first GTA that had a protagonist who actually talked, which is much more interesting.

Hate to keep this gta discussion going but just to correct ya nimsky, VC's main character was voiced by Ray Liotta.

 

[Redwinters]

Lets get back on topic

 

[KrazyKraut]

Ray is awesome in Goodfellas. Which is the best Mafia movie there is.

See what I did there?

 

[Colt .45 killer]

you just tied the off topic back with the on topic, thus justifying our continuation of the GTA discussion if we so choose...

See what I just did there?

 

[Fedorov]

Will this game use DRM?

 

[Nenjin]

So I gave the original Mafia a whirl in anticipation of the sequel coming out...

Yeah, I can see why it didn't do so hot. Realism can be fun; crawling up a slope in a 1920's car at 4 mph because that's all it can muster at full throttle.....not fun.

It was also light on the "living city" aspects, and for me in 3rd person games today, that's an immersion killer, when I know that all of the scenery I'm driving by is basically a movie prop.

That said, with good cars, the chases are fun and gunning people down was sort of fun. Updated to 2010, this could be really good.

 

[Murphy]

You should play longer. The "living city" also means its face changes over the years as the story progresses. So you'll find much more modern cars later on. Even the music in the radio and the outfits of pedestrians change, iirc.

Also, while it has an open city, Mafia isn't as much of a sandbox game as others. You're not supposed to just hang around in the city and have fun on your own. You're supposed to go from mission to mission, more or less, and the game really shines in its missions.

 

[Ralfst3r]

New PhysX trailer:
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/nvidia-physx-mafia-ii/100588

 

[Fedorov]

Very nice physics, but I just hated the exploding cars ><

A few shots and car goes boom... in real life, they don't explode, they could start burning at best and that would be already very rare.


Nobody answered my question: will this game have DRM?

Because I read somewhere else, that it will. And I'm not preordering it until I'm sure it won't.

 

[Murphy]

Mmh, I love the mayhem shootouts can cause with this. Smoke puffs and some fading debris when you hit stuff are nice and dandy, but if you can look over a scene of combat after the fight is over and you see destruction everywhere that's really cool.

The cover system also looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm used to them now from Rogue Trooper, Gears of War, GTA IV, Mass Effect, ... but it looks good. Unless the controls for it are horrible for some reason, I think it's going to fit the game quite nicely.

I gotta say though, the little fires all over black-skinned cars they have for burning vehicles look a little cheap. When you blow up a Warthog in Halo 2, for example, it looks like a burning car from the news. Very impressive. I think it would be worth it for them to work on that some more.
And I hope the exploding cars were staged. It would be a real bummer of every car would just explode in a huge fireball as soon as you hurl some bullets its way. Speaking of the fireball, they should change how that looks too. It reminds me too much of Blast Corps for the N64, lol.

 

[Dcode]

It looks good but the the frame rates are crap in that video. Until they can actually use PhysX to add more depth to gameplay other than a bit of eye candy, its always going to be a superfluous optional extra for those with deeper pockets. Personally i think PhysX is a complete waste of time, changing gameplay to the point where PhysX becomes a requirement means adding an nVidia card, another daft requirement in an already niche corner.

I did a quick google search on the DRM and there is a thread of disgust on the official 2K forums. As 2K used Securom in Bioshock 2 i would expect something along those lines would be used in Mafia II.

Is the gaming industry the only industry in the world that actually gives their customers the things they don't want?

 

[Nimsky]

I'm definitely interested in the game but I agree, the exploding cars are silly. That's very GTA-ish.

 

[Amerikaner]

I'm definitely interested in the game but I agree, the exploding cars are silly. That's very GTA-ish.

Agreed. Maybe it was just for physics demo purposes though?

Is the gaming industry the only industry in the world that actually gives their customers the things they don't want?

Yeah and movies with the unskippable messages and trailers before you get to the menu screen. But I'd say DRM is worse. Federov, I've learned not to prepurchase and wait until the game actually comes out to see what the DRM is. They're always sneaking crap in on the full releases or giving misleading info up until the game actually comes out so just wait.