The Godfather II Comments by Kristan Reed

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.

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

It did look a bit shit, like.

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.

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

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.

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

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

When can we expect Godfather Pt 3? :o)

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!

@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.

@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!?

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.

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

I LOVE deadspace too, maybe my best game for 2008 (didn't care much for fallout3). But.. wasn't half the fun the discovering part? The buildup, the awesome opening? I dont want EA to fall back as well, but then.. asking for a sequel, whilst that is basically what EA is known for.

They should just build up another great game, but not DS 2, it will probably suck anyway, knowing EA.

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

@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? ;)

EAlol

"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.

This is nowhere as repetitive as WoW.

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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

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

I think you guys should know that yet again, Eurogamer is the odd one out on the metacritic game.

I can't comment since I haven't played it, but Eurogamer often seems to be really at odds with just about everyone else with a lot of games (except shellshock 2).

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.

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

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.

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...

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) :)

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.

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?

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

This got an 8.4 at Gametrailers. Their reviews are usually quite sound. Sad to see they've sold out. :|

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.