Why didn't people like the game?

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7241 posts) -

So I just played the demo and loved and I was just wondering why people did not like the game. Now, now, don't get me wrong I think it is fine if you didn't like it but I was just curious as to see why people disliked it. 
 
Thanks.

#2 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

As I read it people dislike it because it just has too little to do, and is basically copypaste generic open world game with generic italians with framerate issues. 
 
^Is not my personal opinion. I haven't even tried it.

#3 Posted by FritzDude (2279 posts) -

Because it's not an open world game... Ahm, correction: It IS open world, but to me it seems that people dont got the motivation to actually do stuff because it's chapter focused..  You can do a lot in this game and the attention to details is fantastic.  
#4 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -

i liked it.

#5 Posted by EpicSteve (6495 posts) -

It's really "been there done that".

#6 Posted by ascholzk (261 posts) -

i'm about half way through the game and so far, i love it. its not perfect, but i feel like the $60 i spent was worth it. it has a great story, pretty good gunplay, good voice acting, great looking city. one of the problems people had with it is that although the "open world" is detailed, there aren't any things to do other than going from chapter to chapter. for me, it serves as a reminder where i am, a sense of place. but honestly, i am enjoying this more than GTA 4, the narative just seems tighter and the gameplay is more fun, in my opinion.

#7 Posted by lizardspike (154 posts) -

I completed Mafia II. I liked it, I thought it was pretty good. Enjoyed the storyline even if it is a by the numbers mob story it's a good one. I agree like the first game, this isn't a sandbox game. It just appears to be, it's more of a third person shooter with fighting elements and a strong narrative element. The attention to detail is impeccable, as others have mentioned the squabbles that can be heard and seen just add to the whole atmosphere of the game. It's true the game is quite short and personally I didn't like the ending that much but the game is pretty good. I found eurogamer's review of it to be really harsh, I played it on PC and only experienced a few minor hitches. 

#8 Posted by PISTOLcm (126 posts) -
Because it's not a GTA IV clone
#9 Posted by androdro (75 posts) -

why is the open world thing such a big let down for people? 
it's just a different and more focused game than most of the open world games are. 
i'm at chapter 12 and i really like it 
will probably play trough mafia 1 again when i'm done with 2 
the mafia games have the best and most effective music of any game i have played. 

#10 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -

Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation (according to developer interviews). Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests. 

#11 Posted by Yummylee (22304 posts) -
@Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation. Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Because the open world is a wasted opportunity. The effort put into creating such a detailed world with zero to do could of been spent on other things such as a lengthier story tree or more clothing options.
#12 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@Abyssfull said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation. Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Because the open world is a wasted opportunity. The effort put into creating such a detailed world with zero to do could of been spent on other things such as a lengthier story tree or more clothing options. "
But how would the game proceed without the open world? The streets you travel on would only exist within missions? The open world needed to be there to set the atmosphere. 
#13 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7241 posts) -
@Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation (according to developer interviews). Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Was it really about the story etc? because I love the gameplay.
#14 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@NekuSakuraba said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation (according to developer interviews). Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Was it really about the story etc? because I love the gameplay. "
Looking at developer interviews, I would say it's their primary focus. According to them, they were essentially trying to deliver the Godfather/Goodfellas experience to a game. 
#15 Posted by Yummylee (22304 posts) -
@Geno said:
" @Abyssfull said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation. Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Because the open world is a wasted opportunity. The effort put into creating such a detailed world with zero to do could of been spent on other things such as a lengthier story tree or more clothing options. "
But how would the game proceed without the open world? The streets you travel on would only exist within missions? The open world needed to be there to set the atmosphere.  "
They should of streamlined the city. Only allowed the areas available that are necessary to the mission you're involved in. They don't need an empty city to set an atmosphere. If anything, a city to do nothing in kind of pisses over some of the potential atmosphere the game could of given. 
#16 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7241 posts) -
@Geno said:
" @NekuSakuraba said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation (according to developer interviews). Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Was it really about the story etc? because I love the gameplay. "
Looking at developer interviews, I would say it's their primary focus. According to them, they were essentially trying to deliver the Godfather/Goodfellas experience to a game.  "
So does that mean that they didn't intend for the gameplay to be as great as I think it is? xD
#17 Edited by Zimbo (875 posts) -

Most people seem to have a problem with it because they all thought it was going to be like GTAIV. Anyone that had played the original knew this wasn't going to be like that. I don't see the problem with the game not having sidequests. It is a story focused linear game that has an open world designed around it to add to the atmosphere and to complement the mission structure. It lets you feel like you are a Mafioso in a living breathing city. No one complains about Uncharted 2 not having sidequests. Mafia 2 is as much a linear game as that is.

Mafia 1 had the same type of linear experience in a open world. I don't recall so many people complaining about it in that game.

#18 Posted by Falx (347 posts) -
@scarace360 said:
" i liked it. "
#19 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@Abyssfull said:
" @Geno said:
" @Abyssfull said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation. Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Because the open world is a wasted opportunity. The effort put into creating such a detailed world with zero to do could of been spent on other things such as a lengthier story tree or more clothing options. "
But how would the game proceed without the open world? The streets you travel on would only exist within missions? The open world needed to be there to set the atmosphere.  "
They should of streamlined the city. Only allowed the areas available that are necessary to the mission you're involved in. They don't need an empty city to set an atmosphere. If anything, a city to do nothing in kind of pisses over some of the potential atmosphere the game could of given.  "
Perhaps, I haven't played the full game yet so you're probably right. I still think the reviewers blew it out of proportion; not EVERY open world game needs the ability for you to deliver pizza, or areas where you can go on a rampage.  
 
@NekuSakuraba said:
" @Geno said:
" @NekuSakuraba said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation (according to developer interviews). Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Was it really about the story etc? because I love the gameplay. "
Looking at developer interviews, I would say it's their primary focus. According to them, they were essentially trying to deliver the Godfather/Goodfellas experience to a game.  "
So does that mean that they didn't intend for the gameplay to be as great as I think it is? xD "
I wouldn't say it was their primary focus anyway. 
#20 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7241 posts) -
@Geno said:
" @Abyssfull said:
" @Geno said:
" @Abyssfull said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation. Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Because the open world is a wasted opportunity. The effort put into creating such a detailed world with zero to do could of been spent on other things such as a lengthier story tree or more clothing options. "
But how would the game proceed without the open world? The streets you travel on would only exist within missions? The open world needed to be there to set the atmosphere.  "
They should of streamlined the city. Only allowed the areas available that are necessary to the mission you're involved in. They don't need an empty city to set an atmosphere. If anything, a city to do nothing in kind of pisses over some of the potential atmosphere the game could of given.  "
Perhaps, I haven't played the full game yet so you're probably right. I still think the reviewers blew it out of proportion; not EVERY open world game needs the ability for you to deliver pizza, or areas where you can go on a rampage.  
 
@NekuSakuraba said:
" @Geno said:
" @NekuSakuraba said:
" @Geno said:
" Because people expected something out of it that was never promised, "omg it's an open world game why isn't it exactly like GTA". Mafia II was about the story, characters, and presentation (according to developer interviews). Nobody rips on Mario games for not having a story, I don't see why people rip on this game for not having useless sidequests.  "
Was it really about the story etc? because I love the gameplay. "
Looking at developer interviews, I would say it's their primary focus. According to them, they were essentially trying to deliver the Godfather/Goodfellas experience to a game.  "
So does that mean that they didn't intend for the gameplay to be as great as I think it is? xD "
I wouldn't say it was their primary focus anyway.  "
Well that for some reason put me off. xD
#21 Posted by Karkarov (3232 posts) -

I liked the game ok but yes the open world hurts it in a big way.  It is like those commercials where the guy sets a kid in front of an ice cream machine and tells him he can't have one because he is already in the room but any new kid who walks in can.  The city is there, you see it, but you can't do anything in it.  You can rob stores but have no motivation to do so.  You can buy gas at a filling station but there is no need to and you see no real change from doing it other than the loss of cash.  Upgrading cars is mostly pointless since almost 50% of the missions force a certain vehicle on you anyway.  You even get mafia capo's who give you jobs and tell you to come back later they will have more work for you but they never actually do.
 
They are trying to tell some sort of rising through the mafia life story but you don't ever actually rise through the mafia really and 60% of the game goes down in 6 months of story time.  The story feels rushed, you have very little control over how it proceeds (though you have a little bit), and it is just plain too short.  There just isn't enough to do or see in the game.  In other words, it would have benefited from one of two things.  Being more like GTA and being a real sandbox with all the side missions and other activities to do, OR ditching the open world, perhaps just making it much smaller, since it serves very little purpose anyway and extended the length of the story.  Yes it added atmosphere but after the third hour of driving around the "I am driving around 1940's New York" lost it's mystique.

#22 Posted by Daiphyer (1351 posts) -

Why do people think that if it had more side quests and stuff to do in it's open world it would be like GTA?! Is GTA the only game that let's you do so much stuff with the world?! 
I didn't like it because of the empty city, sometimes clunky gunplay and cover system, and the shortness of the story. It's an open world game that can be done in under 10 hours. Now that pisses me off. The original Mafia was a much, much better game.

#23 Posted by Karkarov (3232 posts) -
@Daiphyer said:
" Why do people think that if it had more side quests and stuff to do in it's open world it would be like GTA?! Is GTA the only game that let's you do so much stuff with the world?!  I didn't like it because of the empty city, sometimes clunky gunplay and cover system, and the shortness of the story. It's an open world game that can be done in under 10 hours. Now that pisses me off. The original Mafia was a much, much better game. "
Because GTA is the most easily recognizable example that everyone knows?  Would you prefer I say it should be more like Saint's Row, or maybe Infamous?  The fact that being like those two would basically kill the entire atmosphere of the game aside I really don't see how they make better examples than GTA.  Lastly, yes the game would be better if it had side quests, activities, or hell anything at all worth doing in the city besides the main story.  The main story is too short, gets sloppy at the end, and frankly why have a 10 square mile of open world if there is not going to be anything you can do in it?  Sure I can rob stores or piss off the cops but there is literally no real motivation or reason to do it other than like two achievements.  The things in the game are so pointless it is sad.  For example I never once actually bought anything at a gun shop, not even one time.  They serve no purpose.
#24 Posted by septim (774 posts) -

I'm not quite finished with it yet, but so far I'm really digging it.
 
It's on par with RDR, which is to say it's a tossup for my favorite open world game. I don't really give a shit about side missions or hidden shit though. The story and characters are compelling. It's also not a rehash but an homage to gangster films.

#25 Posted by I_love_Eva_Braun (481 posts) -

Boring,repetitive,too much driving,shitty ending,meh story,the game is under 10 hours long despite being in development for 8 years,no multiplayer.I finished the game today,and I realized the more i play Mafia II the worse it gets.I was just expecting so much more from this

#26 Posted by Jimbo (9938 posts) -

It isn't brilliant, but yeah it is mostly getting piled on for not being GTA 4.  That's how it works nowadays - games are reviewed as much for what they aren't as for what they are.  Somebody is seriously gonna tell me that darts and bowling mini-games would make this a better game?  That being able to mix up the order of the missions a little bit would make this a better game?  Come on.  
 
The real issue (besides the lacklustre story, which is still better than GTA 4's) isn't that the open world isn't filled with shitty optional activities, it's that the main missions just don't make enough use of the open world.  The open world is wasted, but not to the point where removing it would improve the game.  The open world is unfulfilled potential - the solution is/was to use it a whole lot better, not just ditch it entirely or fill it up with pointless mini-games.

#27 Edited by Daiphyer (1351 posts) -


 

@Jimbo

said:

The real issue (besides the lacklustre story, which is still better than GTA 4's) isn't that the open world isn't filled with shitty optional activities, it's that the main missions just don't make enough use of the open world.  The open world is wasted, but not to the point where removing it would improve the game.  The open world is unfulfilled potential - the solution is/was to use it a whole lot better, not just ditch it entirely or fill it up with pointless mini-games. "  
 



Come on man. Don't tell me that they just made this big open world just to set the "Atmosphere" they could've had done it without it being "Open World". Did Bioshock need an open world to set the atmosphere? And how much "Atmosphere" does a mobster story need aside from the characters and the story anyway? Truly, through my 10 hours playing the game, I never felt any connection with the world because there is no interaction. It's whole purpose was to set a place that we could drive through while going to the missions. They could've come up with dozens of ideas for side missions(No, no stupid mini game). Especially due to the fact that the story is about mob and all they could've had some awesome side missions.

#28 Posted by Dantekiller (206 posts) -

Read my review 

#29 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@Daiphyer: Bioshock was a corridor crawl, this takes place in 1940's New York. How would you make 1940's New York a corridor crawl?  
#30 Posted by trophyhunter (5800 posts) -

because it's boring as hell

#31 Posted by No0b0rAmA (1490 posts) -

It's because a lot of people played it on a console. Not the true experience of Mafia 2.

#32 Posted by Karkarov (3232 posts) -
@No0b0rAmA said:
"

It's because a lot of people played it on a console. Not the true experience of Mafia 2.

"
I fail to see how that makes any difference.  The story is the same, content of the game is the same, so on so forth.  Personally other than a couple frame issues I never encountered a bug with the game on the 360.  The framerate problems I saw were hardly game breaking and in my opinion were minor at worst.
#33 Posted by Dizzyhippos (1540 posts) -

its a very generic 3rd person shooter and there is 0 reason for this game to be open world

#34 Posted by EpicSteve (6495 posts) -

The game is broken. A loading screen froze on me and will never continue.

#35 Posted by Jedted (2402 posts) -

It's an open world game where the only thing to do outside of the story missions in buy new outfits and collect old Playboys.  It's like Spider-man:Wos where the "side quests" were just "kill x number of bad guys". 
 
If you don't give player stuff to do in the world aside from the story then why make an open world where you just drive between mission waypoints? 
#36 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

because people have different tastes?

#37 Posted by habster3 (3600 posts) -
@EpicSteve said:
"It's really "been there done that". "
That's what I've heard about this game.
#38 Edited by SpudBug (632 posts) -

The GTA comparisons aren't the problem, the problem is that the game is plain boring and loaded with mindless filler.
 
And the story is convoluted shit. Too many characters given too little screen time for you to care when they get betrayed or they betray someone. They did create this awesome, great looking 50s world, but it has all the interactivity of a disneyworld ride.
 
You probably spend 7 out of every 10 minutes of this game following a line on your map driving somewhere listening to the radio. A lot of wasted time, and just plain not fun. Maybe if the story took more interesting turns or set up some more interesting characters it would have fared better, but it's pretty miserable. Mediocre at best. 
 
Red Faction:Guerrilla had the same problem of long tedious drives but it's core gameplay was so much better and there was so much more of it that it kind of glossed over that flaw. Mafia 2 does not have the story, the characters, or the gameplay to excuse the amount of filler driving in the game.

#39 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4745 posts) -
@Afroman269 said:

" because people have different tastes? "

This. 
 
Spoiler alert: some people just don't think it's fun no matter what anyone else says. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'not being GTA4.'  Look at a game like Ocarina of Time. An insane amount of people just don't like that game despite the bazillion times it has ended up #1 on a best games list simply because it's different strokes for different folks.
#40 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7241 posts) -
@Jedted said:
" It's an open world game where the only thing to do outside of the story missions in buy new outfits and collect old Playboys.  It's like Spider-man:Wos where the "side quests" were just "kill x number of bad guys".  If you don't give player stuff to do in the world aside from the story then why make an open world where you just drive between mission waypoints?  "
I think it is fun to just kill random people and pimp out my ride.
#41 Edited by SpudBug (632 posts) -

okay, but the kill random people thing has been done in 100 other sandbox games, and done better.
 
And "pimping your ride" in this game involves two generic engine upgrades, choosing from about 10 different rims, and painting it a different color. Not exactly thrilling.
 
I'm just saying most everything about this game is painfully generic. If it weren't for the setting and the strong, if shallow atmosphere they've created, it would be a total lost cause. 
 
Some people think that atmosphere is enough to forgive/forget the absence of creativity in the game design, terrible driving sequences, nonsensical story and characters, and mediocre melee and cover based shooting combat. Some don't. I think it's a pretty thin point to base your $60 entertainment purchase on, especially with bigger, likely better experiences are coming in just a few short weeks.

#42 Posted by Hourai (2795 posts) -

It's a decent game. My main complaint is that it's so damn short. It's almost like they cut the story in half to leave the rest for a sequel, what with the cliffhanger ending and all. I was expecting a 20+ hour game taking place over two decades, but instead it's a 10 hour game taking place in only two different years (1945 and 1951). I just feel like the game is missing something. It never really kicked off with me. There was so much potential, so I'm kind of disappointed.

#43 Posted by owenneil (124 posts) -

I love the game, and im having a hard time putting it down. the story has been great so far.  
I don't get the hate, GTA4 has nothing to do after you beat the missions, what some stupid side quest that are the same as the missions you already played? doesn't add anything. only big thing GTA4 has over it is the multiplayer, which nobody really plays anymore. alot of the "bigger" shooter games coming out will have most likely short, and pointless singleplayer.
#44 Posted by bwmcmaste (860 posts) -
@Afroman269 said:
" because people have different tastes? "
Of the litany of comments I read through (many acrimonious, and nonconstructive): This is the one I am most inclined to agree with.  Personally: I have found the story, music, setting (and, yes, that includes the open world), and gameplay to be sublime. Although I am confounded by those who did not enjoy the experience, I feel disinclined to argue with them over their own opinion of a transcendent gaming title.  
#45 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@PISTOLcm said:
" Because it's not a GTA IV clone "
I like that this guy thinks he made a valid point. No, it lifted scenes directly out of movies, a GTA clone wouldn't be so crass.
#46 Edited by larryrules138 (142 posts) -

Why do people make such a big stink out of the fact you need to drive to missions? You had to drive to missions in GTA4 (and all previous ones), RDR.. basically any open-world game that came out within the last 8 years.
 
I liked the game for a lot of reasons, but the ending was shit and I kind of expected more. Do I regret buying it and playing it for 10 hours? Not at all. I was just left wanting
 

   
which I think speaks to the quality of the experience.
#47 Posted by Milkman (17204 posts) -

I only played the demo but I HATED it. The driving was shitty. The shooting was worse and the story was nothing but generic mob shit.

#48 Edited by fuzzyponken (694 posts) -
@larryrules138 said:

" Why do people make such a big stink out of the fact you need to drive to missions? You had to drive to missions in GTA4 (and all previous ones), RDR.. basically any open-world game that came out within the last 8 years.
 
I liked the game for a lot of reasons, but the ending was shit and I kind of expected more. Do I regret buying it and playing it for 10 hours? Not at all. I was just left wanting

The difference is that the driving in GTAIV was actually fun. I could spend hours in Liberty City just driving around without even being bound to a mission, whereas in this game; every time the game required me to drive somewhere (about 80% of the game) it was just a chore and not enjoyable whatsoever. GTAIV also offered the option of fast travelling by hailing a cab when I couldn't be arsed to drive. Mafia II, despite having loads of cabs around, did not. 
#49 Edited by SpudBug (632 posts) -

I think the closer I get to the end of this game the more I start to hate it.
 
I admit I am playing through on hard difficulty. I had no problem with this literally up until the last chapter. There's a shootout down a row of boxes and then a shootout in a warehouse. The shootout near the boxes is normal, challenging cover shooter stuff.
 
The warehouse however, was a complete clusterfuck. Of couse, when you die in the warehouse, you had to re-do the 10-15 minutes of shooting outside the warehouse. 
 
The only way I found to complete this section was to make a mad dash to a safe area inside the warehouse, because every other bit of cover was useless, as they threw firebombs that somehow killed me from the other side of a large crate.  Of course, running to this safe area only worked about 5/10 tries, because you get shot in the back and die instantly. It was a total trial and error/luck thing. No skill involved. No matter how fast you ran to that office it was a tossup if you died before the door opens and you get to cover.
 
Now I'm near the end and cover seems to be entirely fucking useless. No matter where I take cover I'm still getting hit, and dying fast. I'm not saying cover should be invincibility mode but I get hit just as readily as if I was standing out in the open. And no, it's not coming from behind, the hitmarkers are flashing directly ahead, behind the cover. Fucking stupid.
 
 In the last few hours I've been noticing lots more glitches and stupid things. People are constantly walking into walls all of a sudden, AI characters don't know how to open doors or climb objects. (I had to leave the AI character behind in the last mission because he kept running into a short obstacle to climb not knowing how to climb it)

I understand why people would love this game but I also have noticed that a lot of those who do are only a few chapters in.

#50 Posted by Bluethunder35 (337 posts) -

The game is dated compared to other games in its genre. I guess they expected a Mafia version of GTA and not some linear game where you have to drive yourself home instead of calling a taxi. I still like it a lot, maybe because I wanted something different after playing Red Dead Redemption and Episodes From Liberty City for a combined 70 hours. 

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.