Mafia Comments by Gestalt

what an awful and downright unprofessional review.

If Gestalt had given the game a good review when he clearly didn't enjoy that game, that would be an unprofessional review.

Remember, EG has often been right when they've given average reviews to hyped games. Just because they don't give a brilliant initial score and then admit it was too high when it's been deleted off everyone's hardrive two months later (B&W springs to mind) doesn't mean they aren't a professional gaming website, it just means they're less gullible than the other professional gaming websites.

Anyone for tea? It's not really the same without otto, though, is it?

"In my example then, do we have to use kids to review kids software"

Dunno, but what I do know is that I'd rather not play 90% of kids' games, so you won't catch me reviewing them. There's no point reviewing something you don't really like and then saying "well, if you're a kid you might enjoy it" and giving it 8/10. ;) Same thing with Mafia. I didn't particularly enjoy it, so I'm not going to give it a high score and a glowing review just because someone else likes it.

Bottom line - you have your opinion, I have mine. We're both entitled to those opinions. We're not entitled to jump around screaming and shouting, accusing each other of being lazy, stupid, jaded and incompetent.

I don't trust just one review site. I look around and measure things up. EuroGamer says this game is "just below average" (journo speak for "crap") and then nine other sites say it's wonderful. Ditto for the majority of magazines.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Gestalt's opinion is indeedily-doodely one that probably shouldn't be listened to in this case. If a huge majority of professional, unbiased games journalists love this game and one doesn't - who should you trust?

Well, that explains it all really. You're not a reviewer at all, and eurogamer is your personal soapbox. I'd be interested to see the opinions of your fellow reviewers or even your employers on the subject. To take the view that a review is your personal opinion only and nothing to do with the target audiance for the product your reviewing would be fine for a personal website, not something you'd expect from a professional.

Have you ever worked for other publications? Magazines, etc? Have you ever written about things other than games?

Genome: good plan. Seen this?

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/4807.asp

Mafia gets an average score of 89%

Yes, and Black & White gets an average of 88%. LOL. qed

Can't comment on the accuracy of that, never played it, don't really do god games. Dikatana gets 50% though, and I know that's rubbish, so it works for me.

i dont think its a case of who you can trust, i think its simply a case of realising there are certain games which people either love or hate. he doesn't enjoy it, and i know a good few people who agree with him. if a game gets all-round slated reviews then its normally a put off, if there is a big difference in oppinion i'd rent the game first.

i would never slag a reviewer off just because he didnt like a game i did, after all. if you know better post what you think, isnt that the whole point of the comments system.

nobody wants a game to be bad, so i dont see why he would slate it when the PR company have sent it to him, doesn't make business sense to slate a game unless you really have to.

Errol, have you played mafia?

Yes. At a freinds.

And he didnt like it either.

How did you manage that when it's only been released today.

I'd also say that a quick go at a mates house wasn't enough to give it a fair appraisal.

"... and the fact that he always highlights the negative while missing the positive is why I get so annoyed with his reviews"
I have nothing against that myself, although there is a positive thing or two if you look hard for those :).
Anyhow, I usually read a few reviews of the game I'm on the verge of deciding to purchase or not, and when I see one done by Gestalt I know I'll get the real deal when it comes to the product's shortcomings. This is what I've come to expect from reading past entries, and do hope it won't change in the future. There is a pile of "goody don't take any chances if you don't have to" reviewers out there; it's refreshing to find others who are not afraid to speak their mind and put up a brave front against the legions of ignorant fans.

"..you've got to think of the target audience. "
This reasoning is totally flawed. The so called target audience, or the majority of the people who were looking toward the game and watching its development on the net, don't read reviews about what they have been eagerly awaiting for the past year.
They go out and buy it the first day it's out.
As a simple example, I guess I'm among the "target audience" for Biohazard games. The day the remake came out, you bet I was leaning my head against the glass in my local store, drool falling to the floor and awaiting the sound of opening lock with ever growing impatient moans.
(Needless to say, the clerk did grab a bat and was rather unsure of himself when the bastard eventually opened the door with the help of a long stick. From a record distance mind you.)
The reviews, at least as I see it, are primerly written for the people who are undecided, or for those who don't give a rat's @ss about the game and need a reason to give it a chance, a stab in the dark so to speak, or reaffirm their feelings about the particular genre they don't consider worthwhile to start with. The above main review did just that. If you're on the edge trying to decide about the game you just heard of, you don't want to read a review by a fan, since they will usually ignore some raugh cornerns which otherwise will propably bother a newcomer. You want to hear all the short comings and decide for yourself if they are relevant and to what extend can they affect your enjoyment.

"...of the better writers on gamespot and IGN"
I'm assuming this is a joke. At least in my eyes EG has alot more credibility then those two sites from my experience with their past reviews/scores.
On the last note, Gestalt, come Sept.13th, I see a review by you on that day with anything less then 8/10 (I'm a reasonable man), know that I'll be out there looking for you :)

Finally, somebody bothers to put the upstart Slim back in his box. Great post Alt F4.

That's not really what I mean by target audience. I'm not talking about specific fans of the game, like you mention with the ressie evil thing, I'm talking at the type of people the games are aimed at. I know someone who's been following mafia will have it pre-ordered months ago. But folks who quite fancy a 1930s experience will probably not, and may not even be aware of the game before it's shipped.

As to the gamespot/ign stuff, they have good and bad writers, which is why I mentioned said the good ones only :-)

Let's take gestalts reasoning, and apply it to genres, you'd have him slagging flight sims for being too fiddly, because he doesn't like flight sims. Or slagging platformers for having too many jumps because he doesn't like platformers. As a reviewer you've got to make the judgement that platforming fans like jumps! That flight sim nuts like a million controls! He doesn't like slow 1930's cars, well I'm saying that people who want to play an authentic prohibition game will want slow cars, so you have to make that point. It's not his opinion alone that matters, it's a judgement call, in my opinion.

Shame I haven't got a little fanboy like errol to say 'hell yeah' on all the posts agreeing with me, it'd double the feedback count!

"This reasoning is totally flawed. The so called target audience, or the majority of the people who were looking toward the game and watching its development on the net, don't read reviews about what they have been eagerly awaiting for the past year."

The target audience for any game that wants to make a decent profit is clearly far bigger than the rabid fanboy section of it and its that group that can be swayed one way or the other by a good or bad review.


"I'm assuming this is a joke. At least in my eyes EG has alot more credibility then those two sites from my experience with their past reviews/scores."

Surely a site could still have plenty of credibility if only one of their reviewers spent his time being deliberately controversial. ;-)

By the way altf4, I wrote both the dino crisis and the Ressie Evil CV reviews for Eurogamer. Can't we be freinds? :-)

Slim, two 9/10s for at best above average games. So you like your payoffs from games companies in cash, drink or freebies?

A good review a Slim: "I played this game for the better part of the week, I won't tell you how much I like it or not, though, since my personal feelings shouldn't be relevant to your buying decision. In conclusion, I say some people will like it and are the target audience, while other people might not like it so much."

Stunningly, this review holds true for virtually all games. Awesome!

Of course, I only say that because I'm humping Gestalt's leg.

Moonbender, if your humping Gestalt's leg and Errol is taking care of the other one .... then what am I attached to?

(you have my permission to delete this if I have crossed the line)

Sadly the only thing I get from games companies is games. Yep, I gave them both 9/10, and I recon they deserve it, and by looking at gamerankings again Dino gets 8.5/10 based on 45 different reviews, and code veronic gets 9.3/10 based on 63 reviews. Are you saying we're all wrong/corrupt? Besides, I'm with a couple of other posters here, scores are daft, it's the text that matters.

Moonbender, concetrate, and I'll explain it. Just because you're the target audience doesn't mean you'll like the game if its not good. So the reviewer, in my opinion, must rate the game for the audiance its based on. If its rubbish, then fair do's, but marking a 1930's game down on having authentic 1930's speed cars goes against what I'm saying. Got it? Marking mafia down because it isn't gta3 also fits with what I'm saying.

It's like me reveiwing the latest rugrats game and complaining its too childish, see?

A couple of points.

I used to be a games reviewer before I joined the shady world of PR.
Firstly, most magazines/websites will give a game to someone who likes that type of game. There's no point giving a strategy game to someone who only loves first person shooters for example.

Additionally, game reviews should be an objective analysis of a game, not subjective. The reason is very simple - there's a hell of a lot riding on a game and publishers are a very sensitive sort.
It's a lot easier to stick to the facts rather than give a subjective view of a title. It keeps you out of hot water. If you mention a fault with a game that can't be argued with (ie it's a fact) then the publisher may not like your statement but can't really argue with it. If you say 'oh, well I just really hate cel-shaded graphics', for example, you're being subjective and are leaving yourself open to attack.

Oh, and Slim, revealing that you used to write for EG around two years ago gives me the perception that you have a personal problem with Gestalt. Is this the case, or am I reading too much into it?

Agreed on those points, except in a small team you might not have specialists in all the areas you need.

No personal problem with gestalt, only met him once and he didn't say very much :-) I disagree with his approach to reviews, is all, I think its unfair.

p.s. Just remembered, when I met him he was trying to play UT on a laptop with no 3d using one of those awful razor boomslang mousies. I did find that quite offensive :-)

Slim, reading the text of your RE:CV review makes me question your score. You found the controls to be shit, but it's a 9.

He didn't like the game, deal with it. Difference of opinions, have a look at that some time.

Edit: delete a point already covered.

"you'd have him slagging flight sims for being too fiddly, because he doesn't like flight sims. Or slagging platformers for having too many jumps because he doesn't like platformers."

Er .. no, I don't normally cover hardcore flight sims or platform games because (in general) I'm not particularly interested in them. I do like action games though, which is what Mafia is. I also love gangster movies. As we don't have a "1930's action game with cars" specialist at EuroGamer yet, I was probably as well qualified as anyone to review it.


"He doesn't like slow 1930's cars, well I'm saying that people who want to play an authentic prohibition game will want slow cars"

Good for them. Unfortunately (IMO anyway) that authenticity gets in the way of the gameplay. It's just not as much fun driving around in some clapped out oldsmobile that (even towards the end of the game) can only do 70-80mph and needs a couple of miles of straight road to get up to that speed. And you're kinda stretching the comparison there - just how big do you think the "action game with authentic prohibition era cars" genre and its target market really is? ;)


"scores are daft, it's the text that matters"

Well at least that's something we can agree on. :)

I've finished with your leg now Gestalt. ;)

I thought it was a quite majestic review, anyhow.

Stephen, forgive me for giving a damn. Yep, the controls in most of the RE games are a bit ropey, pretty much the only thing that prevented that game from getting a ten, ok? Game was good enough to carry the flaw. Similar to what I'm saying about mafia, sure its got flaws, I was irritated with the AI too at times, but in my opinion that's not enough to knock the score down that far.

Sure we've got a difference of opinion, isn't that what a comments systems for? I've covered the personal thing I think.

Gestalt: "Good for them. Unfortunately (IMO anyway) that authenticity gets in the way of the gameplay. "

So what, we should be zooming around a 1930's city doing 0-60 in under 10 seconds?

"It's just not as much fun driving around in some clapped out oldsmobile"

For you perhaps, but those who love gangster movies and quite fancy puttering along with a tommygun out the window will love it.

"that (even towards the end of the game) can only do 70-80mph"

Many of the cars go upto a ton, and a couple go up to 140mph.

"just how big do you think the "action game with authentic prohibition era cars" genre and its target market really is? ;) "

We'll see from the sales, eh? I'd say the target was prohibition mob/mafia fans, not specifically car lovers. It's not a gta3 clone remember, even the single tagline for the review shows you've misplaced it: Mafia
"Review - the mob's answer to Grand Theft Auto"

"... but in my opinion that's not enough to knock the score down that far."

We are agreed that scores don't matter one bit though.

Sure someone giving a game 10/10 after saying it was crap isn't right, but then I just read the text and make up my own mind. Athough your score should be a reflection of your review of a game, like 4/10 appears to be for Gestalt.

But scores don't matter, it's the text of the review.

Christ, I just realised something.

This is going to be one of those games. You know, one of those that critics either love or hate and that splits the gaming world in two. Oh, I just love those games.

"So what, we should be zooming around a 1930's city doing 0-60 in under 10 seconds?"

Of course not - it might be more fun if they'd made the cars more powerful, but it would probably ruin the 1930s atmosphere, which is one thing Illusion have done well. But saying "well, it'd look stupid if the cars had decent acceleration" is kinda missing the point. Illusion decided to set the game in the 1930s, and then they made a big chunk of the game involve driving around the city, often unnecessarily. Given that the cars aren't particular fast or (IMO) fun to drive, that's not really a good idea. The driving to and from missions is often pointless, and just means wasting a few minutes crawling across town stopping at every traffic light and avoiding any accidents, or else you go for the GTA approach and drive as fast as you can and run everyone over and then hope you can shake the police by the time you get to the mission area (which I found to be easier said than done, given that the police cars seem to have much better acceleration than yours, especially early in the game, and even the slightest nudge can spin you round).

Or look at the second mission, for example, which is an exercise in tediousness. It's like Crazy Taxi but without any of the fun. Or the race mission, which is a major pain in the ass and has no connection to the rest of the game. Sure, it fits the story nicely, and the handling of the cars might well be realistic, but is it really any fun, does it add to the game, and does it work with the keyboard and mouse controls that most players are going to be using?

Christ this is getting so childish - bickering befits us not eh? However, I do think EG does need some consistency in its scoring system. For example, Mugwum awards Enclave for x-box 7/10 - a game plagued by lack of mid-level saves, ropey ai and the odd level chock full of frustrating gameplay idiosyncracies, yet Gestalt awards Mafia 4/10 for some of the exact same faults. What's that about then?

Well, I've read through the entire list of discussions (took some time) and I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with various arguments presented. I won't bore you with my own individual opinion, suffice to say I came to the conclusion that I won't be buying this game.

Then again I wasn't going to buy it anyway :P

We're clearly just not going to agree on the car thing.

"Or look at the second mission, for example, which is an exercise in tediousness. It's like Crazy Taxi but without any of the fun."

I saw that as the entire point, he starts life as a taxi driver, it is tedious, but he then becomes a ganster, that isn't.

"Or the race mission, which is a major pain in the ass and has no connection to the rest of the game. "

I enjoyed it. It was tough, but fealt good when it was done. Just make sure you're first into that initial corner, then keep em blocked the rest of the way.

Scripted games should be tortured and banished to the lowest limbo.

Roll on games like Operation Flashpoint, Deus Ex, Morrowind, GTA3 etc. which truly present interactive entertainment, not just gimmicks scripted by designers who want to show how smart they are.

Minerva nice review, you can type stuff into your word processor and paste it into this little box.

I haven't had any crashes at all, but I have seen bugs. Most annoying was the airport mission where frank just refused to talk to me at all, but it was quite a small sectin to replay. A positive point is that the game not only autosaves for you, but keeps a history of all the saves throughout, so it's no problem at all to replay from any past save. I've redone a few bits even after finishing them successfully, just so I can either have fun with them again, or finish up with more hitpoints.

Victor: What's so evil about a script? Entertainment often needs a script to be interesting, free form can get dull.

"Roll on games like Operation Flashpoint, Deus Ex, Morrowind, GTA3 etc"

Op flash was very scripted, you hit waypoints that triggered events on the battlefield. Dues Ex, highly scripted! Morrowind is a bit more open, but still heavily scripted, especially in the main plotline. GTA3's a good example though of having a script and a freeplay mode, but then so has Mafia.

"I saw that as the entire point, he starts life as a taxi driver, it is tedious, but he then becomes a ganster, that isn't"

Well that's great from a narrative point of view, but when it comes to gameplay it's bloody stupid to make the second mission in the game utterly tedious just to hammer home the fact that being a ganster is more exciting than being a taxi driver. Well, duh - I could have figured that one out for myself without spending several minutes driving around the city while trying to avoid hitting anyone or running the lights.


"It was tough, but fealt good when it was done. Just make sure you're first into that initial corner, then keep em blocked the rest of the way"

That's easier said than done. It took me several attempts to get it perfect, and if I'd bought the game I would probably have given up and returned it by then. It just doesn't work well with a mouse and keyboard, which is what most people will probably be playing the game with, because the handling is very unforgiving, you spin and roll really easily, other cars can nudge you off the road (and frequently do) if you let them get too close, and a single slip in any of the five laps can cost you the race.

But when I finally did win the race I romped home 15 seconds ahead of anyone else, and none of the other drivers even managed to beat my slowest lap of the race. *sighs*


"Cinematics, cars, characters, voices, music, story, pov, and motion capture are definatly things it's got going for it"

I'll give you the story and characters. The cinematics are good, but the animations during them are generally very subdued. Ditto the voices - most of the actors are fairly monotonous, and they could be talking about the weather rather than knocking off someone who just tried to kill them for all the emotion that goes into some of those cutscenes.

The cars are nicely detailed, but they're way too shiny and the faked reflections looked kinda dumb to me. I also found most of them (particularly earlier on in the game) boring to drive, but YMMV.


"There is no life in it whatsoever except the shallow citizens and dumb cars"

Yup, the city is fairly empty and lifeless and it just doesn't react to you very well. You can beat the crap out of somebody and everyone else completely ignores you. Maybe that's the idea - they know you're a mobster and they just walk by rather than run off screaming and call the police or something. But either way, it looks pretty goofy.

For example, the second time I tried the steamer mission I beat the guy with the key to a pulp right in front of a bunch of other people (including two of his crewmates) and nobody batted an eyelid. Then when I got to the other end of the boat and two decks up, the guards outside the councillor's shot me the second they saw me. Nice...


"Clipping, midmapping and texture placement need (in some cases) a lot of work and they should have had a better eye for details"

For me the draw distance was the big issue. Coming over a bridge and only seeing clear blue sky in front of you until you get half way across, at which point several blocks of buildings appear out of thin air, looks bloody stupid. They should have included an option to let us increase the draw distance at the expense of resolution or detail or something, because I'd rather have a few more jaggies than buildings that materialise a couple of hundred yards in front of me.


"The Cars ARE slow at first, especially when going up a hill, but this only ads to the excitement in the chases"

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I found the slow cars a real pain, and trying to drive up a hill in one is bloody awful - I swear I could get out and run faster. It doesn't help that the cars chasing you often seem to accelerate faster than you, so you've constantly got them ramming into the back of you and spinning you around, and pretty much all you can do is shoot them or drive down the wrong side of the road and hope they hit something.


"Its buggy, really really buggy"

Actually that's one problem I didn't have - it never crashed on me and the only bugs were problems with clipping (I got my car stuck in a wall a few times, most notably in the race mission), one junction where cars often seem to drive across the pavement or down the wrong side of the road for some reason, and some other little things like that.


"Maybe try to duck behind cars a little more often"

I did this, but the main problem I had was one of my sidekicks running off and getting killed. They seem to have a death wish. I got killed a few times, but mostly it was Sam or Paulie doing a kamikaze run that forced me to replay the mission.

As for difficulty, the balance seemed to be off - some missions were really easy and I finished them first time through, others took a dozen tries to get right. They could really have done with tweaking the missions a bit more, and maybe even adding a difficulty option.


"English isn't my native tongue and have to type in this stupid little box without a preview option"

Don't worry - your English is better than a lot of our British and American readers can manage. ;)


"what's the alternative? Saving every 10 seconds"

Like I said in an earlier comment, the alternative is something like the system used in Operation Flashpoint where you can save manually, but only (say) once per mission. This would make the game's harder missions a lot less tedious without ending up as Max Payne style quick save city. It would also help if some of the autosave positions were .. well, repositioned.

I don't think Operation: Flashpoint's approach to saving is that cool. Mostly because you don't have a clue how far into the mission you are when you're saving, or whether there are any near-to-impossible battles ahead. I often found myself saving at 25% of the mission thinking I had basically done everything or saving just a few steps before I had reached the end of the mission, never really using the save.
In fact, I personally like the save anywhere approach, but then, I'm a wimp, and generally I'd say Mafia's savegame style works rather well. That is, if it was done appropriately: it should (IMO) rather save too often than too rarely, I'd much rather have the game a bit easier than having to replay large parts a dozen times.
Also, I liked Freespace 2's system of autosaving in-between missions and offering you to skip a mission when you failed for three times, in order to spare you frustration (while the hardcore masochist players could opt to play the mission until the end of days). I like that idea, not being frustrated by games. Novel!

Yup, being able to skip missions that you kept failing would have helped a lot. As it is I just got frustrated playing the same mission over and over again, and this happened a few times - the race, the church and the car park being the worst. Anything that stops me from playing the game is a bad thing.

"That's easier said than done. It took me several attempts to get it perfect, and if I'd bought the game I would probably have given up and returned it by then."

I think you are underestimating the expectations of people who actually buy their games, most of them don't expect to race through a whole game without having to retry any of it.

"Well that's great from a narrative point of view, but when it comes to gameplay it's bloody stupid to make the second mission in the game utterly tedious just to hammer home the fact that being a ganster is more exciting than being a taxi driver."

It's a slow start, it helps you learn the city, it's hardly a crushing blow is it? I mean, 4/10, that's a point lower than britneys dance beat got on here! This is really a worse buy than britneys dance beat?

"Well, duh - I could have figured that one out for myself without spending several minutes driving around the city while trying to avoid hitting anyone or running the lights. "

Good for you. I however would rather experience it as intended.

"That's easier said than done. It took me several attempts to get it perfect, and if I'd bought the game I would probably have given up and returned it by then."

Yes, because you're lazy, and you don't like games, I've pointed this out already thanks for backing me up. It's a tough challenge but not impossible. People who like a tough challenge will enjoy it, but you don't seem to be able to grasp anyone elses point of view.

"It just doesn't work well with a mouse and keyboard, which is what most people will probably be playing the game with"

I finished the race using the keyboard, took a few goes but did it in the end.

Can we get to 200 posts ?

If you keep posting your pointless rubbish, perhaps. You never did answer my question about how you played the game round a mates before it was actually released, so how about it?

Well I pre-ordered it (should get it next week) for £20, so I'm assuming I'm no not getting too ripped off even if I don't like it too much. I'm not worried about the linear structure. If there was one fault I'd put on GTA3 it was that it lacked a storyline. Don't get me wrong, I do love non-linear play, but there was only so much driving and random killing you can do. Yeah its fun to go back every now and then but what it really needed was some sort of goal outside the missions (i.e. spend the money on weapons, outfits, chewing gum... anything really).

I also hear multiplayer will be in the works through a patch, although BF does seem to have the FPS MP genre sown up for now. I do like my 1930s genre so I might not be too pissed off with some of the features. There have been very few games covering the era/topic. How I wish Gangsters 2 had actually been an improvement on the great original.

MTW is good though. I love beating the crap out of Scots with my Vikings.

Op flash was very scripted, you hit waypoints that triggered events on the battlefield. Dues Ex, highly scripted! Morrowind is a bit more open, but still heavily scripted, especially in the main plotline. GTA3's a good example though of having a script and a freeplay mode, but then so has Mafia.

Mafia is throughly scripted. Lets start with the enemies: they appear at completely scripted locations and show no intiative whatsoever. Then all goals can be completed basically in only one way, and failing that, it's game over. For example the ending of the motel shootout is one of the worst: if you fail to stop the car from escaping, it's game over. Come on! Lazy design. There is never the sense of surprise of "how did that happen!?" or "wasn't I clever", only the feeling of "nice idea, developers, but I'd like to do this MY WAY".

In GTA3, Mafia, Morrowind, Deus Ex etc. there is EMERGENT gameplay, which means that the sheer complexity of possibilities of action amount to a situation where completely different solutions, events and even storylines emerge out of the gameplay structure.

Old entertainment needs a script, but interactive doesn't. It has to let the player tell his own story, by providing a rich backdrop, a good simulation of a world (which can have hard-coded events like Operation Flashpoint has) but in the end the key to making a good next-gen game is not forcing the player to use only one solution to pass a certain scene.

Mafia is a dinosaur, and an enjoyable one at that, but still something doomed to extinction.

Op flash was very scripted, you hit waypoints that triggered events on the battlefield.

Yes it was, but I must say it wasn't very obvious, or at least you could forget about it. The AI, I think, was pretty good and a mission wouldn't follow the same path if you replayed it. Many times I found the enemy doing something different - that kind of took me by surprise at first.

Most of the triggers in OFP just moved the storyline along (cutscenes) or just released the computer, after which it would go and do things by itself. If you take a look at the editor you can appreciate that the system actually works pretty well. Triggers are very easy to put in and you can lay down numerous events at the click of the mouse and thus expand your options.

"Mafia is throughly scripted. Lets start with the enemies: they appear at completely scripted locations and show no intiative whatsoever."

I didn't find that to be the case. I replayed the missions quite a few times, and found that the enemies would approach me differently. Sometimes they'd charge, sometimes crouch behind stuff, sometimes try to sneak around cars.

"Then all goals can be completed basically in only one way, and failing that, it's game over."

There's only one objective sure, but there's different way's to go about it.

"For example the ending of the motel shootout is one of the worst: if you fail to stop the car from escaping, it's game over."

Well sure, its a linear game, that's the way it is. You expect them to produce an alternative route through the game? That would require a huge number of missions.

"Come on! Lazy design. There is never the sense of surprise of "how did that happen!?" or "wasn't I clever", only the feeling of "nice idea, developers, but I'd like to do this MY WAY". "

I got that by completing the missions different ways. Like putting the cars on the ramps in the car park. Or the mission where you nuke the car over the cliff, i rammed it off with another stolen car :-)

"In GTA3, Mafia, Morrowind, Deus Ex etc. there is EMERGENT gameplay, which means that the sheer complexity of possibilities of action amount to a situation where completely different solutions, events and even storylines emerge out of the gameplay structure. "

GTA3 yes, but there fairly simple missions, and there's a plotline that has only one outcome afaik. Morrowind has only one solution to the plot, you complete the quests within their rigid guidelines, if you fail in a plot you get a message to say the world is now buggered, you can carry on if you like but you'll never complete the game, hows that innovative or free? It's just another way of saying game over. Deus ex had a linear structure, not sure why you're saying its a free game. Sure, I like open ended gaming, but I think you need a linear thread though the game to provide a coherant plot, objective and complete bit of entertainment.

"Old entertainment needs a script, but interactive doesn't. It has to let the player tell his own story, by providing a rich backdrop, a good simulation of a world"

I think you're living in fantasy land to be honest. It's a nice idea, but it rarely works out.

"Mafia is a dinosaur, and an enjoyable one at that, but still something doomed to extinction."

Disagree. I think we've seen companies try open ended gaming and its been a bit of a failure in most cases. We're coming back to realise that a good old fashioned story is what a lot of people really want.

I'm begining to think that Slim works for the Mafia dev. team or something. I have not seen a 'vendetta' pursued with so much enthusiasm for ages.

"I mean, 4/10, that's a point lower than britneys dance beat got on here"

I thought we'd agreed that scores are pointless? Certainly comparing the scores of two completely different games from completely different genres reviewed by different writers on different systems is pretty much the dictionary definition of pointless. :)


"People who like a tough challenge will enjoy it, but you don't seem to be able to grasp anyone elses point of view"

Challenging is one thing, having to replay the same level over and over again is crossing the line into frustrating territory for me, and I'm sure for many other people. Especially when you're being forced to replay the mission because your car spins at the slightest opportunity, or because your AI sidekick wandered off and got killed, or because you have to take on a dozen or more Tommy Gun toting mobsters with nothing but a pea shooter, or because melee combat is virtually random, or because my car got embedded in a wall and won't budge, or...

Sorry, but having to play the same level several times isn't my idea of fun. You might enjoy that, but I'm willing to bet most people would get fed up of it eventually.


"I also hear multiplayer will be in the works through a patch"

Allegedly. I'll believe it when I see it, although the game was originally intended to have multiplayer support, so I guess it might be feasible.


"I replayed the missions quite a few times, and found that the enemies would approach me differently"

Some of the enemies are certainly prescripted. Take the car park level, for example. When the third car comes up the ramp, one of the guys gets out and runs into the corner behind the boxes next to the stairs. He does this every time, without fail, even if you're standing there waiting for him, and IIRC he won't even fire until he reaches that waypoint. A couple of levels down there's a guy who always runs across opposite the ramp you're coming down, and again he seems to invariably end up at exactly the same spot.


"Deus ex had a linear structure, not sure why you're saying its a free game"

I don't think he's talking about non-linear plots, he's talking about having multiple approaches to the problems within the levels that make up the game or being free to approach them in your own order. Something that GTA3, Morrowind and Deus Ex all did really well.

"I thought we'd agreed that scores are pointless? Certainly comparing the scores of two completely different games from completely different genres reviewed by different writers on different systems is pretty much the dictionary definition of pointless."

Well, you're the editor for a games review site that scores games out of ten, well at least until the bleating causes you to backtrack and remove the scores. How does genre affect the scores? Are you saying dance beat games naturally score higher than action games for some reason? Different reviewer? Same site. Are you saying I shouldn't compare reviews on this site to find which are the better games?

"Sorry, but having to play the same level several times isn't my idea of fun. You might enjoy that, but I'm willing to bet most people would get fed up of it eventually. "

We'll just have to wait till more people have played it I guess, but I've seen the initial reactions and they seem pretty good.


"Some of the enemies are certainly prescripted. Take the car park level, for example. When the third car comes up the ramp, one of the guys gets out and runs into the corner behind the boxes next to the stairs. "

As I said, he doesn't make it if you block his car.

"I don't think he's talking about non-linear plots, he's talking about having multiple approaches to the problems within the levels that make up the game or being free to approach them in your own order. Something that GTA3, Morrowind and Deus Ex all did really well."

And I've pointed out how this is in Mafia too. Not sure it applies to morrowind. How far did you get with that? The plot in that is very rigid, and there's only one way to complete each mission, give object x to person y in the main, and that's it.