The Godfather II Review

By Kristan Reed Published 7 April, 2009

Don go breaking my heart.

Version tested:

Back in the dark days when every other publisher was frantically jumping on the openworld bandwagon, we ended up with the core of a sometimes-quite-good Godfather game. You could rough up the working class, have fun smashing people's heads into inanimate objects and throw crooks off rooftops. Imagine The Punisher in a classic Mafioso setting with kill.switch cover mechanics. It had potential.

But this being mid-decade, it was inevitably ruined by some of the worst excesses of cut-and-paste sandbox design: incessant, brain-numbing repetition, needless padding and tedious map-spanning driving. Just to make the feeling of missed-opportunity all the more intense, EA also committed the cardinal sin of completely wasting the contributions of Hollywood legends like Marlon Brando and Robert Duval. As mindlessly enjoyable as certain elements of the game were, 6/10 was charitable given how good it could have been.

Making a better sequel shouldn't have been that difficult for a studio with the resources and experience of EA Redwood Shores. All it really needed was a tighter structure and more memorable and more challenging missions. But while the follow-up undoubtedly has a far better structure, the feeling that you're essentially playing a series of disconnected side-quests persists. It's a game strangely lacking in soul, and consistently fails to make you care about what you're doing and why. From start to finish you'll play on autopilot, shooting all the nasty men unquestioningly in what amounts to the ultimate pissing contest.

'The Godfather II' Screenshot 1

"How was I to know all the cars were going to be stolen?"

EA does at least try to make mobster genocide a slightly less tedious process than last time around. Whereas before you were basically a ludicrous one-man war machine with a penchant for extortion and torture, the sequel builds on the idea of having henchmen that can accompany you on your travels. This time you can recruit and train up to seven 'family members', whom you meet every time you take over a new business. Each has a specialist skill, such as medic, arson, engineer, safecrack and so on, and after a quick 'interview' you can decide whether to add them to your ranks or (in my case) pass on the basis of their rubbish hair.

As you wander around New York, you can simply allow them to trail after you providing backup, or send them to take over rival businesses on your behalf. Doing so involves diving periodically into the new Don's-eye-view map, flicking through a few menus and commanding troops to do your bidding. By simply clicking on a business, you have the option of bombing it (and therefore taking it out of commission) or taking it over completely and earning money from it. It's risky if your men aren't quite up to the job, but as you earn money you can spend your winnings on beefing up their health and abilities. Fortunately, your crewmembers never actually die in the traditional sense, but stay out of commission for a few minutes.

'The Godfather II' Screenshot 2

Groovy, improbable hairstyles are the best thing about the game.

It's a neat idea, because it ensures that you can get on with other things if you so choose, such as performing 'favours' for corrupt officials and vengeful members of the public, such as smashing up a nominated business, or providing a 'beat down' (or even a contract kill) on a specific person. The favours system is a decent concept in theory, but the way the game presents them to you is utterly comic, and symptomatic of some of the lazy design compromises. Most hilarious is the way that a gaggle of revenge-crazed individuals appear from nowhere and, one after the other, casually ask you to brutalise their cheating partner, while the guy next to them wants the landlord dead for daring to want to modernise their pad. It's like the game's very own mob market, and so wonderfully broken.

But living with such quirks is sadly necessary. To make real progress, it's not simply a case of taking over all your rival's businesses, but going to the trouble of finding out exactly where each of their corresponding family members hang out, and then executing them in a precise way. Drawing inspiration from the previous game's Contract Kill sub-missions, wiping out your foes for good requires precise execution instructions, such as the use of a specific weapon aimed at the kneecaps, or utilising the environment in a grisly fashion. Once these 'soldiers' are out of commission, enemy retaliation is correspondingly weaker, and eventually their compound unlocks, allowing you to steam in and wipe everyone out (including their Don) before setting your demolition expert to work and blowing the place to kingdom come.

And so it goes on. With five families to take out across three locations (New York, Florida and Cuba) the formula is rinsed, repeated and recycled, with occasional story elements woven into the game every now and then. Similar to last time around, the narrative is something of a sideshow to the main event of 'owning' the map, and as such doesn't provide the focal point like most narrative-driven action games. During the early portion of the game, it's a little disorientating to find yourself lacking any specific 'missions' to perform. With no green cross to chase on the mini-map, you can find yourself getting caught up in a cycle of doing needless favours for people simply because it makes you feel like you're doing something. But once you accept and understand that real progress comes from taking over businesses, finding out the location of rival soldiers and then wiping them out, there's mild satisfaction to be gleaned out of this somewhat clunky procedure.

That said, there's a lingering feeling that the game's 3D map system and accompanying menus amount to little more than a shortcut to getting your hands dirty. While the original Godfather forced players into OCD-heavy repetition, at least it was you actually pulling the trigger and getting to see the whites of your enemy's eyes. In the sequel, if you use the map a lot you can end up being essentially the commander of operations with only a peripheral involvement in a large portion of the action.

Worse still, it's not even as if you can play it like a strategy game, because you never get to see how the battle plays out, and only get updates on the progress when your men get taken out. So as much as giving players the chance to send their family members off to do battle is welcome in some respects, it reduces the action to little more than a protracted dice roll. The in-game advisor even tells you what your chances of winning are - not once was there any feeling of tension. I won practically every single time, and even when I lost I could send more soldiers in to recapture whatever I was after before the enemy had a chance to repopulate it.

'The Godfather II' Screenshot 3

Hi! We're here to provide the illusion of enemy AI!

To diminish the tension even further, the decision to give everyone recharging health means there's rarely any requirement to play the game skillfully. You just charge in all-guns-blazing, snap between targets with the hugely generous auto-aim facility and blitz one obliging enemy after another. At the core there remains an enjoyably precise combat system, but EA has predictably pandered to the mysterious demands of the audience of players who want games to be played for them and want zero challenge, and for death to be the exception rather than the rule.

Frankly, the sight of you and your AI buddies charging around getting raked with gunfire and sprinting away unharmed is a pathetic sight, and smacks of game designers not even bothering to try anymore. You're almost invincible for the large majority of the game, and there's practically no need to make any effort. The game aims for you, and then rapidly recharges your health when you screw up - and with three AI players now fighting on your side, you can often just let them get on with most of the hard work anyway - or just start the battle from the world map and avoid getting your hands dirty altogether. It's one thing giving the player a less frustrating experience, but another entirely to make it feel as if victory is a foregone conclusion.

'The Godfather II' Screenshot 4

The Don's view map system takes an awful lot of the faff out of taking over the city, but ends up being too much of an easy shortcut to commend.

To compound matters rather tragically, the game features some technical howlers that make no sense. Towards the latter third of the game the traffic completely disappeared for me, leaving an eerily empty world, also devoid of pedestrians. As well as making the game feel horribly empty, it meant that I had no choice but to travel across the city on foot, running for miles before coming across a rare parked car. And what of the game's PlayStation Home-esque art and animation style? There can't be too many people willing to stick up for that clinical, soulless style with its lurid colour balance. Seen in the context of a full game, it's even less appealing. Far from evoking a Mafioso style, its horribly dated-looking mannequins do the subject matter zero justice.

Having had such a great run of form with new IP, this is a stark return to the EA of old, where a treasured licence is butchered irredeemably. Lacking both a challenge and soul, and failing to even engage on a narrative level, what you're left with is an overly forgiving shooter with weak strategy elements, which only serve to make it even easier for you. Having played right to the end, I wish there was something I could point to in its defence, but all I'm left with is the empty realisation that they've managed to somehow make this even less entertaining than the flawed original.

4 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (85) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • swede #1 3 years ago

    What have they done to my Santino?

    /Right off to read the review now

  • Kill_Crazy #2 3 years ago

    I hope Mafia 2 is better then.

  • Petulant_Radish #3 3 years ago

    Va funcuolo Dio and tutte e santi

  • menage #4 3 years ago

    Argh, EA, don't fall back. I need Dead Space 2 to be awesome.

  • metalangel #5 3 years ago

    As I feared, another travesty and will be forgotten when Mafia 2 comes out. Still, I suppose it could be funny to send all your guys to attack something and then just cruise by in your car to see how it's going.

  • roz123 #6 3 years ago

    If anything in life is certain. if history has taught us anything, it is that ea can fuck anything up

  • Benno #7 3 years ago

    damn

  • Darren #8 3 years ago

    Haha... after seeing those early screenshots and more recent video footage I just knew this game was going to be baaaaaaaad. Shame really because despite the flaws, the original was quite fun on the 360 but, as I said in the forum, it didn't have much competition back then when it was released. This game sounds like another lazy, soulless EA cash-in me.

    Is it just me or is anyone else relishing this recent run of mediocre or worst games? It's certainly keeping my wallet happy? :)

  • Ceatlan #9 3 years ago

    I bet this sells more than either Dead Space or Mirrors Edge though, and provides ammo for the accountants inside EA to go back to the old ways.

    Even though I personally didn't like either Dead Space or Mirrors Edge I could definitely see the quality improvements that EA had made and applauded them for it and the risk associated with trying to create new franchises.
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/09 @ 10:24

  • Benno #10 3 years ago

    oh and lol @ roz hehe

  • AphoticCosmos #11 3 years ago

    So which EA exec gets a horse head in his bed tomorrow?

  • RedSparrows #12 3 years ago

    But there's adverts for GFII on the EG homepage! That means EG are being paid to give games...shit scores!

    OH NOES!

    anyway

    Oh well. Won't be mildly tempted by this when it's £10, as I might (not) have been done anyway.

  • Paleface #13 3 years ago

    I'm still reeling from Tom Chick's commentary on the game:

    The first Godfather game had a stealth mission in which you sneaked into the Hollywood producer's house and put the horse's head under his covers. You might expect that in The Godfather II, you have to sneak out onto Lake Tahoe to assassinate Fredo. Close. Instead, you have to sneak into Cuba to garrote a bunch of soldiers whose backs are conveniently turned and then you assassinate Fidel Castro. I did not make that up.

    (Spoilered for the fact it is, but it's hilarious/ludicrous all at once).

  • Benno #14 3 years ago

    wow thats insane

  • Thirith #15 3 years ago

    How well (or not) is this embedded in the Godfather story and universe? From the review, it sounds like it might just as well not be a Godfather game and that the title is pretty much there only to make more people buy the game.

  • figaro7 #16 3 years ago

    Hang on, i remember reading a glowing hands on from this game a few months on here? what happened?

  • DUFFMAN5 #17 3 years ago

    Bollox!
    Play are already "packing" mine. Oh well I loved Two Worlds and I think that got a 3.

  • Benno #18 3 years ago

    all of EG previews are glowing, even when the games are shit

    I dont really understand it

  • PlugMonkey #19 3 years ago

    But this being mid-decade, it was inevitably ruined by some of the worst excesses of cut-and-paste sandbox design: incessant, brain-numbing repetition, needless padding and tedious map-spanning driving.

    I'm confused. Given the Far Cry 2 score EG doled out, I assumed you guys were all about incessant, brain-numbing repetition, needless padding and tedious map-spanning driving.

  • ChthonicEcho #20 3 years ago

    As good as the first Mafia game, then? I'll definitely pick this up!

  • muscleblade #21 3 years ago

    "all of EG previews are glowing, even when the games are shit
    I dont really understand it "

    All previews is positive as a general rule. The developers dont want to give out previews if the magazines and internet sites give negative previews. IGNs previews are the worst. They are always very postive even if the game later on gets butchered in the review. This is why i stopped taking previews seriously. One of the most negative previews i can remember on this site was for Fallout 3 actually. The game got 10/10 LOL.

  • Santino #22 3 years ago

    i still can't get over the fact they have made the godfather into a 3rd person action type game series, as others have said, bring on Mafia 2.

  • fcpthebest #23 3 years ago

    The previews alert your interest for the game, it is so obvious.
    What I find strange on the review is that it says that the game is repetitive, but far cry2 was too and received a 8.

    Don´t you think that they were giving some money?

  • henza #24 3 years ago

    And what about the bizarro mission to kill Fidel Castro?! The real Fidel Castro! And the fact that you have to smash up YOUR OWN businesses to do favours for people. It's a terrible game.

  • krudster #25 3 years ago

    Yes, quite. The Castro mission was comedy gold, and you're right, smashing up your own businesses to win favours with people is beyond retarded.

  • MyPointIs #26 3 years ago

    The problem is that in big companies like EA, there's so much noise that they don't even trust their own designers. Leaving instead the game direction to the fucktards user testing the game.

  • zisssou #27 3 years ago

    i dont know about the rest of you but this game actually looks quite fun.

  • menage #28 3 years ago

    Farcry 2 at least played a decent game when it got it right.

  • George-Roper #29 3 years ago

    This had fail written all over it, from an early point.

  • NeoVDR #30 3 years ago

    Guys don't be too quick to dismiss this game. I managed to get a copy Friday and I have just completed the game. I can tell you that I found the game quite good. If you want to experience the life of a mobster, that is as close as you can get until Mafia 2 comes out. I can't understand the negativity of this reviewer. Mafia works by taking over rackets and killing your opposition so it's bad that you get to do that in the game? Also most of the ways you kill the rival wiseguys are really fun and gory, quite fitting for a guy that has just taken from you a couple of rackets. Rent it first and if you get hooked, there you have it.
    Edited by 2 at 07/04/09 @ 11:50

  • Monkey_Puncher #31 3 years ago

    Sounds great!

  • muscleblade #32 3 years ago

    With a metacritic average of 77% including the 40% from Eurogamer dragging it down quite a bit i would say this review might be way too harsh.

  • konnsky #33 3 years ago

    ZOINKS!

  • NeoVDR #34 3 years ago

    I am starting to think that EG is so desperate to show integrity and objectivity that it ends up being harsh

  • hiddenranbir #35 3 years ago

    Waiting for Mafia 2, obv. ;)

    Don't attract the law(speeding) when you go commit murder!

  • skillian #36 3 years ago

    As good as Mafia then (4/10)?

    ;)

    But seriously, this sounds like a horrible game even before you consider the license. With the name "The Godfather" attached, it's a game that would be better had it never been made at all.

  • Rirekon #37 3 years ago

    Spot the developers in this thread heh

  • BBIAJ #38 3 years ago

    You know, it's really starting to grind my gears how EG big something up in their hands-ons and previews, then absolutely slaughter the game come review time.

    You're not making the decisions as to what's actually worth pre-ordering any easier you know EG!

  • jim1975 #39 3 years ago

    now. when do we get a goodfella's game. i mean they made a fuckin goodfella's pizza but no fuckin game.

  • krudster #40 3 years ago

    Preview showings always show the game in its best light - you can't blame journos for reporting what's shown. The game DOES have some neat ideas; they just don't particularly work in the long term.

  • WoodyBE #41 3 years ago

    Ouch, that doesn't sound good. Was going to get it for a friend of mine but I'll have to look for something else now... Good marketing on this game though, loved the videos and the previews, had me completely sold!

    And GamePro gave it 100/100, how do you explain that EG ! ;-)

  • baalzek #42 3 years ago

    Playing it and loving, just like the first game with more features. another failure review EG.

  • Vin #43 3 years ago

    The franchise was doomed from the moment Coppola shit on the idea.

  • the_dudefather #44 3 years ago

    Fallout 3 got a pretty harsh preview from what I remember, put me off the game for a while

  • bad09 #45 3 years ago

    Hmmm, I though this looked quite fun on Plyr, it convinced me to give it a go....

  • samk #46 3 years ago

    "Spot the developers in this thread heh"

    Indeed. But given how bad their game evidently is judging by the review, it's no real surprise that the devs would do something as retarded as register new accounts to post in this one thread, and think nobody would notice...

  • drxym #47 3 years ago

    The first Godfather game was repetitive, mindless and just an insult to its source. A simple example of how cretinous the game is - in the movie Paulie is shot in the back of the head but in the game you must chase him through a maze as he throws bombs at you. It's just that dumb and not even redeemed by the game world which is huge and completely devoid of anything to do. You can't even climb, or step over a 1 foot lawn fence.

    I would have hoped EA would lose their licence or at least try better this time. Seems like they couldn't even be bothered with that. I hope Mafia II makes up for this travesty. The first Mafia was a great game and it didn't need to piss on the reputation of a movie to be awesome either. EA you suck.

  • Darren #48 3 years ago

    @muscleblade - "With a metacritic average of 77% including the 40% from Eurogamer dragging it down quite a bit i would say this review might be way too harsh."

    Edge UK magazine gave the game 6/10 if that's any help and if I was a betting man I'd say that the average score will probably hover around that mark once all the reviews are out. Early reviews are always a bit suspicious anyway, I'm never really sure whether they get a higher score because the site or magazine got to review it early as an exclusive or whatever.

  • NeoVDR #49 3 years ago

    Yo samk would you like me to give you my ip adress so you would see where I am from and actually shut your mouth. I just signed up because I am new to the site.

  • local_celebrity #50 3 years ago

    Can't say I fell off my chair when I saw the score.

    It did look a bit shit, like.

  • samk #51 3 years ago

    So, it's merely a total coincidence that you turned up just after the 4/10 review and have only ever posted to defend the game and belittle the review. Gotcha.

  • NeoVDR #52 3 years ago

    Samk you didn't get anything. You can't prove that I am a dev at EA (although I would really want to be one) while I can prove that I am not

  • samk #53 3 years ago

    As for the game itself, I played through half of GF1 before it became clear I'd be doing the same tasks throughout the remainder so packed it in. I was kinda interested in GF2 since I love the movies and hoped EA would make a better job of it, but this review has knocked sense into me and I won't be opening my wallet.

  • samk #54 3 years ago

    Whatever dude, but it's interesting you defended yourself against accusations of the devs posting here, when nobody had mentioned any names.

  • NeoVDR #55 3 years ago

    Well since I have just registered here I knew you were referring to me. What's you point dude?

  • samk #56 3 years ago

    When can we expect Godfather Pt 3? :o)

  • henza #57 3 years ago

    The review isn't harsh, the game is awful. I've played it and completed it, luckily I get paid to do so. It looks like it should be on the PS2. There's nothing next gen about it! The Cuba and New York maps are so tiny that you don't even need to drive a car to get anywhere, the animation takes so long you might as well walk. There's also only one chase mission in the entire game and that's right at the end. Right I'll stop ranting now...sorry about that!

  • muscleblade #58 3 years ago

    @Darren

    "I'm never really sure whether they get a higher score because the site or magazine got to review it early as an exclusive or whatever. "

    Thats the reason no doubth. Every magazine or website do this. Its part of the deal.

    Even so i dont think many reviewers will go as low as 4/10. Kudos for using the whole scale Eurogamer. 4 actually means just below average, not awful.
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/09 @ 14:17

  • Pastici #59 3 years ago

    @muscleblade

    +1

    I was going to spout the whole "good to see they're using the whole scale" line but you got there first dammit! But really, whats the point of a scale is most sites aren't going to use it all!?

  • krudster #60 3 years ago

    Even 5 seemed too high. This is not, by any means, an average game. In so many key areas it's just crushingly mediocre. Factor in the stupid world clearing bug that makes the whole thing a ghost town and how brainlessly easy the whole thing is, and 4 seems fair.

  • coomber #61 3 years ago

    Can you dickheads get it out of your heads that critics are paid by developers to give good review scores. Nobody does this.

  • Darren #62 3 years ago

    @coomber - "Can you dickheads get it out of your heads that critics are paid by developers to give good review scores. Nobody does this."

    Are you absolutely sure? ;)

    I remember DRIV3R getting a 9/10 score from two exclusive reviews from the same magazine publisher yet the scores were sub-5/10 once the proper reviews rolled in a few days later. I've come across across numerous other examples of games getting oddly high scores in exclusive magazine reviews too, far too many for it to be a coincidence.

    I'm not saying that all magazines do it, there's probably a lot less of it now then there was back when DRIV3R was released and Eurogamer obviously don't do this but I'm pretty sure some of the lesser magazines and sites do do it because (a) they rely heavily on advertising; and (b) they're hardly going to berate a game that they've been given to review as an exclusive, are they? ;)

  • ronuds #63 3 years ago

    EAlol

  • ronuds #64 3 years ago

    "Can you dickheads get it out of your heads that critics are paid by developers to give good review scores. Nobody does this."

    While I agree with you that every review people see they claim it's biased for one reason or another, publishers absolutely try and bribe sites into giving their games good scores. It may not be necessarily a hunk of cash, but they provide other incentives.

    I don't understand people's issue with this review, though. It's EA, it's another franchise -of course it's shit. Just how about every other site has seen it as well.

  • Spekingur #65 3 years ago

    This is nowhere as repetitive as WoW.

  • drxym #66 3 years ago

    Can you dickheads get it out of your heads that critics are paid by developers to give good review scores. Nobody does this.

    You're right, it's not the devs, its the marketing department. And yes of course it happens. It blatantly happens because millions of dollars are on the line for a game launch.

    Sites that play ball with the launch marketing can benefit from exclusive previews, all-expenses paid jollies to the game company's hq, advertising revenue. See the GTAIV and MGS4 launches for examples of the most ludicrous babbling hype and nonsense emanating from some blogs and magazines who got freebies. Sites that don't play ball along get blackballed, losing exclusive access and their advertising accounts yanked. See the Kane & Lynch and Alone in the Dark debacles for examples of that happening.

    The only way for sites to keep clean so to speak, is to refuse incentives for a good review and fight to maintain that reputation. Generally Eurogamer seems quite good about it but others are not so good. If you don't think it happens, you are being naive beyond belief.
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/09 @ 16:12

  • darc #67 3 years ago

    DUFFMAN: "Oh well I loved Two Worlds"

    Wow. I bought Two Worlds for $7 and still feel like I got taken. (Amazingly, it retailed for$70!)
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/09 @ 16:25

  • Silvervein #68 3 years ago

    So, it's worse than several year old Chaos Overlords? Which also fits on about six 5 1/4 inch disks.
    Good to know that EA does its best not to surprise anyone. We can write off mirror's edge as an accident.

  • TravisTouchdown #69 3 years ago

    I get frustrated when people say things like, "the EA of old." Are 'EA' really accountable? Obviously they are to some extent, but largely be virtue of there being little in the way of transparency around their inner workings.

    What I mean is, when talking of Fable, Lionhead are accountable, good or bad - not Microsoft. Yet internally EA's teams have what's verging on the same level of autonomy as those belonging to other publishers, they just never get the exposure.

    So slag off one of the EALA teams - or whoever was responsible - even that whole studio, but don't necessarily tar EA in its entirety with that brush. It's just plain weird.

  • clean515 #70 3 years ago

    A little harsh maybe but it's no more than a 7 at the very best that is for sure.

  • alpha-0ne #71 3 years ago

    Hmm i dont get it how can agames reviews range from 4 to 10 out of 10 something is badly broken with games journalism

    I know someone who has the game early they said its OK not bad ill try it out EG reviews have been way off the mark compared to my experiences of the games

  • 3william56 #72 3 years ago

    Oh come on. Is no-one going to say it?

    "An offer you can refuse".
    (which with a devastating lack of quality, originality or interest seems to sum this one right up).

    Saw it on GoodGame TV this week, and boy, did it look 10 years ago. PCs may be able to chuck out some pretty spectacular eye candy sometimes, but not always.

  • lmephisto #73 3 years ago

    Nice EA ruined another game....is it any game they dint ruined?????

  • nocutius #74 3 years ago

    I'm not really a fan of the movies, they were ok. So obviously i don't care about the story side of the game.

    I enyojed taking over the rackets and killing enemy capos. Yes the AI is not great, it doesnt counterattack enough, so the overall game is too easy. Sometimes your soldiers go running in the opposite directions, or sit next to the bomb, you just have to wistle again :), simple solution.

    The game is not great, but it's deffinitely not crap. I'd give it a 7.

  • DerAlte #75 3 years ago

    Interestingly, this review disappeared from the front page and applies to "no system" at the moment...

    I see more discussions about freedom of press coming up...

  • mikeck #76 3 years ago

    I've played the first hour and am quite enjoying it...I'll spend more time with it over the weekend and hopefully I'll have as much fun as I did in the first game (which was flawed, but still worth a play) :)

  • SAH1977 #77 3 years ago

    Heard nothing but decent things about this game, I'm also of the opinion podcast reviews are more revealing than the written word. If you have time to discuss a game fully, with differing views, you get a better impression of whether a game appeals, often average games can appeal if your a fan of the genre.

  • ExplodingClown #78 3 years ago

    These Godfather games seem inherently wrongheaded, just in concept. The movies are about sliding into a moral abyss whereas the games are about becoming top dog. It seems to be a close second in the missing-the-point league, only behind that terrible 'Fight Club' game.

    Next from EALA: 'Schindlers List'. Stealth sections and escort missions await - can YOU get your jews out of Auschwitz?

  • BillyBrush #79 3 years ago

    samk
    07-Apr-09 13:29:33

    "Spot the developers in this thread heh"

    Indeed. But given how bad their game evidently is judging by the review, it's no real surprise that the devs would do something as retarded as register new accounts to post in this one thread, and think nobody would notice...


    I think you're being a little bit hopeful there, the developers are probably off on a nice holiday

  • krudster #80 3 years ago

    This has been getting 4s and 5s all over the place, so if you think this review is a bit of an anomaly, maybe check out what other people are saying. Even the reviews in the 70s seem to be full of the same criticism, which suggests many have overscored it if they really think it's that flawed.

  • abject_rage #81 3 years ago

    IMO, this review is unfairly harsh and levels criticisms that it doesn't apply to other games in this genre. And what's the problem with regenerating health bars? It'd be better to 'properly' die each time, would it? Far more entertaining. But GTA's missions were much more repetitive and uninspired,the draw in was almost as bad and the multiplayer dire in the extreme. Maybe it's just a symptom of there being fewer 'open world' games on the market, but every reviewer seems to take what they liked about GTA (and blithely ignore everything they didn't) and use that as a measure for all other competing games. They don't do this with other genres nearly as much. And, unless the reviewer here is a gaming god, I'm pretty sure he died a fair few times with the 'run and gun' approach or he's playing a different game to me.

  • macmurphy #82 3 years ago

    I sometimes do work linked to EA and I find it laughable that everyone slags them off because they do big licenses.
    They don't inspire any fan love because they don't make quirky games that do not sell; instead they just make entertaining games for the masses that do good numbers (or did; they've had a bit of a shed collapse lately). If you check the average metacritic scores for their games they were second behind Nintendo not long ago and they consistently produce some of the best games out there. I have Tiger, Fifa 09, Left for Dead and Burnout on my shelf and they are some of the highlights of last year. If I had the money and time I would also happily add Dead Space, Red Alert, Mirror's Edge and Battlefield: Bad Company (the latter pssibly not last year, dates fail me). I know EA is just a publisher for some of these but it still has its name on the box.

    They've made mistakes in the past and with a company that big there will always be mistakes. But on the whole they make a lot of great games. Talk about the EA of old is bollocks; check their metacritic scores over time and they've been consistently high. I also didn't have a lot of love for the company; I remember a lot of the big licenses that just seemed MEH and I never had many of their games. Now as my tastes get a bit simpler I realise what a lot of great titles they make. All I can say is look on your shelf; you probably have a fair few EA games that might not be your loyalty inspiring favourites but will have given you a lot of entertainment over the years.

    I'll also add the disclaimer that I'm not including their DS stuff on the metacritic scores as it mostly looks like utter shovelware bollocks. But it probably makes them money and please a lot of kids, so hey ho. I do think their DS wing wants a beating though.

  • Byzanite #83 3 years ago

    I liked it! Its entertaining. I say "Go read a book" to all the people that think too much about a game. :)

  • spookyzombie #84 3 years ago

    Better than Saints Row 2 and Worse that GTA 4. The score is very, very harsh.

  • Mongoose #85 3 years ago

    Like the guys talking about Two Worlds in these comments show, some people can love a game that others hate - if everyone gave a game the same score then there definitely would be something wrong. That's why metacritic exists, so you get the average. The reason I read reviews here and elsewhere is so I can see why a certain reviewer likes/dislikes a game, and see if those issues are sticking points for me (but I liked Driv3r and the first Killzone, so there we go!). Of course scoring policy plays a massive part too as 7 is average on most sites so this would get 6s rather than Eurogamer's 4.