Mafia Comments by Gestalt
Review - the mob's answer to Grand Theft Auto falls flat on its face
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
+1
"The driving is part of the game, you drove to where the mission takes place through this huge city"
Yes, and generally speaking I found it quite dull and utterly pointless. I don't want to spend ages driving back and forth across town over and over again at 40mph whilst trying to avoid upsetting the cops, especially as it highlights problems like the poor draw distance and traffic AI. "You should review the game on its merits alone" I did, and I honestly didn't enjoy the game that much. It had its moments, but there were far too many silly little design flaws and frustrating bits for my taste. That's my opinion - feel free to disagree. But that doesn't make one of us right and one of us wrong. |
|
+1
Blimey it's like Halo all over again eh.
Having read other reviews for this, they all seem to concur that the driving sections just get in the way later on and that there are some AI issues. You can either sit and read reviews all day long or you can go out and get a game you feel you would enjoy playing. Really, are you to be dissuaded over a 4/10 score for a game you really wanted to play? Of course not. A 4/10 is a single opinion. It's subjective. You may enjoy parts the reviewer doesn't, you may be able to overlook AI issues or not be annoyed by save points. Onimusha was raved over, but it still had many issues. Borders. Savepoints, unskippable cutscenes and so on and so on, but I still managed to enjoy it. This is the advantage of the comments system, or it *should* be. Constructive comments by people that have played the game I enjoy reading. Bottom line. Get it, play it, come back and make comments. Read the review again and see if you still feel it's unfair. Cmon it's Friday. Let's not all be waking up tomorrow with a horsehead for company courtesy of EG! |
|
0
You'd think so, but there's people who've said in the comments that they won't be buying it as a result of this review, so it seems that's not the case.
The driving is the weakest part of the game, which is why the gta3 comparrisions are so daft in this review. The games a lot more like Hitman or Max Payne. Gestalt: You don't have to drive at 40 and I imagine it would be boring if you did, the police are very easy to outrun/outfox. |
|
0
You'd think so, but there's people who've said in the comments that they won't be buying it as a result of this review, so it seems that's not the case.
To base that on just one review would be rather niave I feel. Whilst I read the EG reviews, I wouldn't base all my purchasing choices based simply on one site. Jeez, some people put too much importance on reviews. Really, if you're not sure, download a demo first.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/09/02 @ 15:57
|
|
0
"I would MUCH rather have this system than the save anywhere crap used in alot of games"
On principle I agree with you - I'm not a big fan of games like Max Payne where you're quick saving every other step. The problem (as with so many things) is that the implentation in Mafia is poor - autosave positions are often in completely the wrong place. On the steamer level you have to start over from scratch if something goes wrong, and the whole thing seems to run on a timer, so however fast you get the gun you still end up waiting around for your target to emerge. In the garage level, the game autosaves just before you reach the car park, so you have to skip two cinematics and run up three flights of stairs to get back into the action. In other missions it doesn't autosave at all or not until you're half way through doing whatever it is you're doing, so if you get killed you go right back to Salieri's bar and have to drive out to the mission area again. This is just plain frustrating, especially if you lost because your sidekick ran off and got wasted or something else happened that you don't really have control over. What the game really needed was a system like Operation Flashpoint used, where you can save manually, but only (say) once per mission. That would have been a real life saver in Mafia and could have made the whole experience far less annoying.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/09/02 @ 16:32
|
|
0
I found the autosave just right for the most part, in fact the car park level was the only time it was really annoying, with the stairs, but even that didn't take long. Cut scenes didn't really mater as they're skippable. Still, a bit of replaying for a couple of the many levels seems like pretty weak justification for such a panning.
|
|
0
4 out of 10 is not a panning. It is 4 out of 10.
Thats an ok score. Just below average. It's not a panning, but 4/10 is definitely on the side of "don't buy this game" rather than "do buy it". If you read the reviews and base your purchases upon them then you would probably be dissuaded from buying Mafia by this article. Also, whilst I agree it's a good idea to read a variety of reviews rather than make your mind up based on just one or two, I find I do come to trust the opinions I read in some places more than others, and I tend to feel EG gives a pretty honest opinion that my own preferences broadly match. But equally, someone with different taste in games would disagree. On the basis of this review I wouldn't buy the game. But then, I wasn't planning to in the first place... |
|
0
Slim
The pannings in the text, errol, not the score. Perhaps if you'd unwrap yourself from whatever you're doing on gestalts leg you'd be able to post some sensible replies. See Slim, I think you're having difficulty accepting other people's point of view without coming out with snide comments. In retort, I'll sneak in a quick "off school because your teacher hasn't had their security check through, is it?" comment. |
|
0
Well, at least I'm managing to put some points relevant to the discussion in my posts, unlike your insightful "lol'ing". Oh that last post was impressive, completely proving what I said before I read it. Now, going to say anthing about the subject at hand, or are you going to carry on with the playground stuff?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/09/02 @ 17:20
|
|
0
Er .. enough of the personal abuse folks, and that goes for all of you. Read our comments system policy if you're in any doubts.
|
|
Moonbender
06/09/02 @ 16:27
0
Gotta love Gestalt's controversial reviews, and if it's only for the comments. :)
|
|
+1
I agree ...
4/10 suits it, but to complain on some other things in it Scripted missions where the NPCs do not notice you blowing up cars but do notice that you are shooting your gun. Scripted taximission. Freeride separated from the story-mode. Graphics, anonymous city, cant remember how to get somewhere without taking a map out. Physics, not good on a mediocre computer maybe better when you have more fps and updates but not on my comp anyway. Scripting and Cutscenes...... gotta hate em, give me more freeform games, more breed or gta.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/09/02 @ 17:36
|
|
0
Starry eyed love for gestalt seems to be making it a little hard for you to think clearly
If you really think I'm like this, then you obviously have not been viewing this site for very long. I've been mildly annoying gestalt with frequent references to various 'babes' etc for some time. I just think that your comments about Gestalt were a bit below the belt, frankly. A bit uncalled for. |
|
0
I don't play PC games so I'm not really interested in this game. But I would like to say something:
It's perfectly natural to disagree. I still don't agree with the score EG gave to games like GunValkyrie, Jet Set Radio Future or Halo (they deserved more) or Rallisport Challenge, Kessen II or Medal of Honor: Frontline (they're not bad games - RS is quite good in fact - but, for me, they deserved less). But the main problem lies with the text, not the score. Negative points, like bad news, tend to stand out more. And this review (unlike Halo's, also by Gestalt) seems to focus only on the negative points of the game - and to present them in a way that makes small details seem like big issues. Small details can be important and should be mentioned in a review. But, knowing almost nothing about this game, I got a very negative image from Gestalt's review. Having read other reviews in the last few hours (and Slim's comments, perfectly reasonable and mostly well put), I now think this is a game I could - maybe - enjoy. Gestalt: isn't it possible that, maybe because you were expecting a lot from this game, you were too harsh? Is this game really a clearly below average (almost bad) game or a potentially great game that fails greatness by a few points? |
|
0
Good points. I think where gestalt and I (and a lot of other posters) dissagree is that gestalt keeps saying its his honest opinion. Well, as a reviewer, I don't think its your opinion that's needed. It's not as simple as that. I've reviewed kids games for mags before, you can't pan them for being too easy and too silly, you've got to think of the target audience. Gestalt pans this for being too fustrating and for the cars not being to his liking, well someone who wants to play a game about the 1930's mafia (and would you buy it if you didn't?) would be naffed off if they were souped up 90's hot rods. You're reviewing it for your readers, not for yourself. I think this, and the fact that he always highlights the negative while missing the positive is why I get so annoyed with his reviews. Gestalt, you won't take any notice, but I urge you to read some other reviewers, such as the good ones here, and perhaps some of the better writers on gamespot and IGN. See how they balance the review, and tend to be more objective depending on how the game is targetted.
|
|
0
Interesting points Slim. Fundamentally though, I feel that the points about the bad AI and bugs etc that gestalt made were fair. Those problems alone, are enough to ensure that I never go near this game (unless it is patched thoroughly).
The review was funny, detailed and conveyed the overall problems with the game. To put it simply - very good games get good reviews. Shoddy ones like mafia do not (and they do not deserve them either).
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/09/02 @ 18:03
|
|
+1
At the end of the day a review is the opinion of the reviewer - nothing more, and certainly nothing less. If you start reviewing games based on whether you think somebody else might like them, you're kinda missing the point IMO. People can read a review and make up their own minds based on what we've said - some people might not be too bothered with the issues we raise, for others they might be a showstopper and a reason not to buy that game.
In the case of Mafia, personally I found the game frustrating, and there were far too many rough edges for me to really enjoy it most of the time. But that doesn't mean that you won't enjoy it.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 06/09/02 @ 18:05
|
|
0
There seem to be a lot of players that has an ability to adopt a hype and then savour that good feeling while playing the hyped game even if the game really isn't that good.
I can sympathise with that. When I first got Black & White I raved about it to anyone who would listen. I've never really decided I didn't like it, but more sort of realised one day I'd not played it in months because I'd just got bored on Island 3. Maybe I will finish it one day, but the novelty of building villages just kind of wore off. |
|
0
"At the end of the day a review is the opinion of the reviewer - nothing more, and certainly nothing less. If you start reviewing games based on whether you think somebody else might like them, you're kinda missing the point IMO."
I'm not surprised you disagree, but I still think you're wrong. In my example then, do we have to use kids to review kids software? Can only a housewife with four kids review family cars? No, and games are no different. I like the old cars, and I like the prohibition style and era, so I loved doddering down the roads in a car going 'put put put put' blasting my tommygun out of the window. I've certainly never played another game that captured the style of the period so accurately. Yet you completely missed that, and had no consideration for the target audiance at all. The review isn't for your benefit, its for your readers, and you're selfishness and lazy approach to writing reviews discretits this otherwise fine site in my opinion. "People can read a review and make up their own minds based on what we've said" Only if you cover the game fairly and balanced. You've barely listed any positives at all in your review, hows anyone supposed to make up their own mind from an innacurate review full of negitives? "- some people might not be too bothered with the issues we raise, for others they might be a showstopper and a reason not to buy that game. " Only true if the issues are accurate, and the plus points are also presented. "In the case of Mafia, personally I found the game frustrating, and there were far too many rough edges for me to really enjoy it most of the time. But that doesn't mean that you won't enjoy it." I did enjoy it, certainly one of the best this year, but as we've seen, people have made their mind up not to buy it based on your review. |
|
0
Quayle, or it could be the other way around? Game is massively overhyped and the reviewer expected more? Seems to me Gestalt expected this to be some kind of GTA3 killer, and it definately isn't that: it's a different game completely.
I wasn't actually aware of mafia at all until it landed on my desk, so I'm glad to say the hype didn't affect my judgement of it at all.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/09/02 @ 18:46
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
