It's the game that, really, just kept me distracted until Civilization V came out. (As an aside, the latter is pretty much the reason I haven't posted anything.)
I really enjoyed Mafia and I was hoping for something similar with this one. Instead it really did go backwards.
Not graphically of course, graphically Empire Bay is basically scenery porn. The choice of music is good and the story is still good. And the fact that quite a few of the places are designed to be destroyed is nice too.
However it's not really a game that you can play through more then once. Maybe you'll play it through again to get the Playboy "articles" or you'll be playing it for the achievements.
That being said there is quite a lot missing. Empire Bay has a sort of GTA III feel. The city is alive but it isn't. One of the things that made Mafia work was the fact that it felt like the city was alive. You'd see trolley cars on the streets, the rail system worked, people would do things and the aforementioned public transport system actually worked. You could get on a trolley or a train and travel instead of using a car. Mafia II gets rid of that. The rail system doesn't exist, neither does the subway, and the buses don't do anything.
It's more a shell of a city then a city itself.
The other thing is that the main storyline is pretty much it. What sucks is that they basically set up side missions that never existed. In Mafia after some of the missions you could either go back to Salieri's and end the mission or you could choose to go to Luca for a "steal a car" mission. I liked those missions because they were ones where logic and cunning took precedence over superior firepower. I was hoping that this would be the same here.
I was wrong.
We're introduced to two people, Mike Bruski who works at the junkyard and Frederico Pappalardo who is the crooked union boss of the docks. They both imply that you'll do jobs for them outside of the main storyline but you don't. Go there and it's "Sorry Vito, I haven't got anything for you". They're just there to crush or export cars.
Then there is the hammerspace. Mafia worked because you didn't have hammerspace. You could hide a couple of pistols, and maybe a larger gun, but that was it. You were limited in what you could carry so you had to actually think. The other thing was that you had to be careful when you reloaded, reload too early and you'd lose the remaining ammo. No so in this game. You can keep your ammo and you can carry as many guns as you'd like. Also, why can't you shoot while driving? You could in the last game. Oh well.
The last thing that I miss is the police. Sure they're there but they are useless. Really, really, really useless. Sure Joe will tell me that I've missed a red light, but then again I never stopped at any red lights when I'd play GTA. The reason in that game is the same as this one. There is no incentive to. The police don't seem to care (unlike in Mafia), there are only three things that they care about, bar going about killing people. The first is speeding. As long as you don't kill anyone you can escape with a little fine. The second is stealing cars. The third is having weapons out in public. Very realistic there.
Oh well. It was a fun game to play the first time around. Too bad there isn't any real incentive to do it again.
Showing posts with label Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Games. Show all posts
Monday, 18 October 2010
Friday, 20 August 2010
6 Degrees of Ken Doll
It's something from RationalWiki. They're calling it Hunt the Sausage. Basically you start at a random Conservapedia page and then try to find your way to one of the pet articles of the user "conservative". So you are trying to get to either their page on Evolution, Atheism or Homosexuality.
My first try I went from "Geometric progression" to "Interest" to "Interest rate" to "Usury" to "Homosexuality". According to Conservapedia usurers would end up in the same circle of hell as homosexuals.
I did make "Evolution" in three. Dave Rosenberg -> Fiscal conservatism -> Conservative -> Evolution. The link was that conservatives reject "junk science" such as evolution.
I'm playing the Ken Trio, but there are other kinds as well.
My first try I went from "Geometric progression" to "Interest" to "Interest rate" to "Usury" to "Homosexuality". According to Conservapedia usurers would end up in the same circle of hell as homosexuals.
I did make "Evolution" in three. Dave Rosenberg -> Fiscal conservatism -> Conservative -> Evolution. The link was that conservatives reject "junk science" such as evolution.
I'm playing the Ken Trio, but there are other kinds as well.
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
More on Ubisoft's DRM
If you're reading this then you've most likely read my previous post regarding Ubisoft's DRM for Assassin's Creed II.
I want to write my own review of the game, but I don't know how many spoilers I want to include (if any) but I want to get this out there.
First off, my opinion of the DRM now that I've actually got the game is that it's not as bad as I first thought.
It doesn't use that much bandwidth, probably because I've turned off the cloud saving.
But it still sucks and I still don't like it. Right now I have to make sure that anything else that's downloading isn't, and that includes Windows updates, so no downloading pod- or vodcasts while playing single player games, or frankly, downloading anything because the game becomes a little glitchy.
At one point I wanted to play the game and had to spend some time figuring out why my internet connection wasn't working properly, which if I was playing any other single player game, even those using Steam, I could play offline without worrying.
But the most annoying thing is being interrupted in cutscenes or a fight where all of a sudden you get a message telling you that it's trying to re-connect to the server. Then I have to see what is causing the problem, if it's indeed something on my end or actually just some stupid thing out of my control.
It ruins the experience. Especially when you're at say, the pivotal moment of the reveal and then you're given the crappy gaming equivalent of the intermission in Monty Python, only with fewer colours and no organ music.
But if this Escapist article is anything to go by, other people are just as annoyed when the server happens to go down. That is something beyond their control.
Personally I believe that Ubisoft should not take the stance that those of us who bought/received legitimate copies of this game as our approval of the DRM. The reason that there are people who aren't pirating the game is because they want to acknowledge the work of the programmers, not the idiots who thought the DRM would be a good idea.
At least Steam give us an offline mode.
I want to write my own review of the game, but I don't know how many spoilers I want to include (if any) but I want to get this out there.
First off, my opinion of the DRM now that I've actually got the game is that it's not as bad as I first thought.
It doesn't use that much bandwidth, probably because I've turned off the cloud saving.
But it still sucks and I still don't like it. Right now I have to make sure that anything else that's downloading isn't, and that includes Windows updates, so no downloading pod- or vodcasts while playing single player games, or frankly, downloading anything because the game becomes a little glitchy.
At one point I wanted to play the game and had to spend some time figuring out why my internet connection wasn't working properly, which if I was playing any other single player game, even those using Steam, I could play offline without worrying.
But the most annoying thing is being interrupted in cutscenes or a fight where all of a sudden you get a message telling you that it's trying to re-connect to the server. Then I have to see what is causing the problem, if it's indeed something on my end or actually just some stupid thing out of my control.
It ruins the experience. Especially when you're at say, the pivotal moment of the reveal and then you're given the crappy gaming equivalent of the intermission in Monty Python, only with fewer colours and no organ music.
But if this Escapist article is anything to go by, other people are just as annoyed when the server happens to go down. That is something beyond their control.
Personally I believe that Ubisoft should not take the stance that those of us who bought/received legitimate copies of this game as our approval of the DRM. The reason that there are people who aren't pirating the game is because they want to acknowledge the work of the programmers, not the idiots who thought the DRM would be a good idea.
At least Steam give us an offline mode.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
I'm not happy with Ubisoft (A Rant)
Well, it's official as it's ever going to get with them.
Assassin's Creed II will have Ubisofts fancy new DRM. Now not all DRM is bad, Steam works quite well in terms of DRM, but I don't think this one will.
Why?
Well, it seems that you need an active internet connection for a single player game. It's not single player as in MMORPGs like WoW, but single player as in say, solitare. You don't need an active internet connection to play solitare, neither do you need one for single player games like Tropico 3, Supreme Commander, or even any Steam game with a single player mode.
Now I wasn't happy with Ubisoft to begin with. They were announcing a simultaneous release of the game on PS3, XBox 360 and PC, but they decided to delay it. And what kind of notice did they give PC gamers? Well, a twitter message. That was all the warning that we got.
So, hopefully this "best quality game" will be fucking amazing, or their definition of "better quality game" is one that doesn't try to take advantage of the latest Direct X (opting to use 9 instead, because it's essentially a port of the 360 game, incidentally Assassin's Creed used Direct X 10), and completely retarded DRM.
Clearly they did this because that's what PC gamers want, a reason to pirate the game.
Now, I'm going to state for, the record as it were, that I'm not going to pirate it. I was given a pre-order as a late Christmas present/early birthday present (back when it was slated for a January release) so my copy will be a proper copy so Ubisoft will get their money.
They are essentially punishing honest PC gamers with this DRM. Even some developers agree.
Why don't I like it? Well because I have a crappy connection and there is no offline play.
None whatsoever.
At all.
Right now my connction is probably as fast as a dial up one. I don't know why, the ISP doesn't know why, I suspect that Telstra (who run the exchange, but aren't my ISP) knows why but won't tell anyone, but it's really slow. It also hangs on pages.
Now ACII will have cloud saving, like Modern Warfare 2, except not on Steam. Now both games save locally, so the cloud is only really there as a backup or the off chance you'll go somewhere else to play.
What do I do if the internet is slow with MW2? I go into Steam, click 'File', click 'Go offline' and then wait for it to restart in offline mode. I can now play my game, which I bought legally in a store. Same applies with Empire: Total War.
In fact the only game where this doesn't apply is Audiosurf, and that's because while I can play it offline, I like being able to submit my scores to the server and see how good I am compared to other people. (It's been a while since I last played it, properly working internet or not.)
I suspect that ACII might sell pretty well on PC, but it will also be one of the most downloaded, because people will want to play online, and the pirates will take advantage of this. I think that it will be like Spore. People bought the game, but didn't install the proper copy because of fears of SecuROM. EA still got their money, but they also lost money because of it.
Treating honest gamers like this is only going to end badly. I my opinion Ubisofts decision is just punishing us for not having, or wanting, a console. People are already speculating on their official forum that this is the very plan. Make more people pirates so they can claim "piracy is too bad on PC, we're not making games for them".
But it's not just DRM that's annoying me. Ever since the twitter "announcement" (note: twitter is not a proper way to announce something if you are a company) Ubisoft have been virtually silent on the PC version. No real reason why they delayed the PC version, no reason why they initially promised a simultaneous release several months beforehand, not even release dates. People are still wondering about ambiguous statements regarding the Black edition, apparently Asia doesn't have an official release date yet.
They tell us essentially nothing, and yet they still expect us to buy their product.
I honestly don't think this is a sound business model that they are adopting.
Assassin's Creed II will have Ubisofts fancy new DRM. Now not all DRM is bad, Steam works quite well in terms of DRM, but I don't think this one will.
Why?
Well, it seems that you need an active internet connection for a single player game. It's not single player as in MMORPGs like WoW, but single player as in say, solitare. You don't need an active internet connection to play solitare, neither do you need one for single player games like Tropico 3, Supreme Commander, or even any Steam game with a single player mode.
Now I wasn't happy with Ubisoft to begin with. They were announcing a simultaneous release of the game on PS3, XBox 360 and PC, but they decided to delay it. And what kind of notice did they give PC gamers? Well, a twitter message. That was all the warning that we got.
So, hopefully this "best quality game" will be fucking amazing, or their definition of "better quality game" is one that doesn't try to take advantage of the latest Direct X (opting to use 9 instead, because it's essentially a port of the 360 game, incidentally Assassin's Creed used Direct X 10), and completely retarded DRM.
Clearly they did this because that's what PC gamers want, a reason to pirate the game.
Now, I'm going to state for, the record as it were, that I'm not going to pirate it. I was given a pre-order as a late Christmas present/early birthday present (back when it was slated for a January release) so my copy will be a proper copy so Ubisoft will get their money.
They are essentially punishing honest PC gamers with this DRM. Even some developers agree.
Why don't I like it? Well because I have a crappy connection and there is no offline play.
None whatsoever.
At all.
Right now my connction is probably as fast as a dial up one. I don't know why, the ISP doesn't know why, I suspect that Telstra (who run the exchange, but aren't my ISP) knows why but won't tell anyone, but it's really slow. It also hangs on pages.
Now ACII will have cloud saving, like Modern Warfare 2, except not on Steam. Now both games save locally, so the cloud is only really there as a backup or the off chance you'll go somewhere else to play.
What do I do if the internet is slow with MW2? I go into Steam, click 'File', click 'Go offline' and then wait for it to restart in offline mode. I can now play my game, which I bought legally in a store. Same applies with Empire: Total War.
In fact the only game where this doesn't apply is Audiosurf, and that's because while I can play it offline, I like being able to submit my scores to the server and see how good I am compared to other people. (It's been a while since I last played it, properly working internet or not.)
I suspect that ACII might sell pretty well on PC, but it will also be one of the most downloaded, because people will want to play online, and the pirates will take advantage of this. I think that it will be like Spore. People bought the game, but didn't install the proper copy because of fears of SecuROM. EA still got their money, but they also lost money because of it.
Treating honest gamers like this is only going to end badly. I my opinion Ubisofts decision is just punishing us for not having, or wanting, a console. People are already speculating on their official forum that this is the very plan. Make more people pirates so they can claim "piracy is too bad on PC, we're not making games for them".
But it's not just DRM that's annoying me. Ever since the twitter "announcement" (note: twitter is not a proper way to announce something if you are a company) Ubisoft have been virtually silent on the PC version. No real reason why they delayed the PC version, no reason why they initially promised a simultaneous release several months beforehand, not even release dates. People are still wondering about ambiguous statements regarding the Black edition, apparently Asia doesn't have an official release date yet.
They tell us essentially nothing, and yet they still expect us to buy their product.
I honestly don't think this is a sound business model that they are adopting.
Sunday, 23 November 2008
The Problem with Wikipedia and WWI In Games
My though process for this post is based on this xkcd comic on Wikipedia.
I remember starting my search on the film Full Metal Jacket (which was on SBS last night, it's 2am when I write this so it's valid). I then went to the article on the film Paths of Glory. That took me to an article on a board game called Paths of Glory. That was the most direct route (the indirect involves things like Blackadder Goes Forth and the 1914 Christmas truce and the 1915 football game) The flash game Dog Fight: The Great War sprang to my mind.
Now here is the interesting thing. Beyond flash games like Dog Fight that I linked to above, or Warfare 1917 the gaming world is, as Gamespot says for this review, under-represented in games. Yes, there was in Rise of Nations and Empire Earth II and I'm also assuming other games of that type, have such a concept, but it isn't really the same thing.
I guess it's a little hard to make a WWI game. Although untrue, the popular perception of WWI is summed up nicely in the last episode of Blackadder:
In the European theatre this is basically true. WWI was basically long periods of nothing followed by extreme action. I know I'm describing something else (technically the narrative of Mafia is like that, except you only play the action) but I can't remember what it is.
It would be unappealing to play a game like that.
I can already think of one exception. Paul Erich von Lettow-Vorbeck commander of the forces of German East Africa in WWI. His army was the only one of the German colonies to be undefeated. He ran a very fluid campaign, although this was essentially to tie up as many Allied forces as possible, which he did quite well.
You could make a game about that. But I'm guessing that the reason that you don't seem to find one (or that at least I haven't found one) is because a) it's German not Allied, and b) He surrendered peacefully on November 14, after a British magistrate called Hector Croad notified him that the war was over.
As I see it WWI and WWII were a turning point in conventional warfare (like Vietnam was a turning point in unconventional warfare). WWI saw the end to the traditional army. From then on people wouldn't fight on a single battlefield or a series of battlefields with set armies, but saw the "scope" of a battlefield increase exponentially. It also saw the end of traditional tactics, something that many Generals at that time did not seem to comprehend.
WWII saw the rise of very fluid warfare. In a way it was an about face when it came to taking land, but the emphasis turned towards mobility rather then strength alone.
Both wars saw a change in the use of technology and the use of different types of "unit" (I am thinking games here, remember) and tactics to win.
The question is how to translate WWI into a dedicated game. Personally I have no clue what to do for an FPS. I'm sure that you could have a Battlefield-type game, but maps would be limited since jumping out of your trench would most likely equal suicide.
I personally have a bit of an aversion to a total RTS or TBS. I don't really like the idea of having to build proper bases on the battlefield in question ("Hold your fire, I SAID HOLD YOUR FIRE, I need some men so I can build a farm right outside this trench") and I don't really like the idea of taking turns to move people around and fight.
I think that an RTS/TBS (like Aggression: Reign over Europe for example or a Total War game) would probably be the better option. Think about it. You could make your units away from the battlefields (like in real life) and send them there, and have the fighting in real time. Although I still don't know how you would get the fighting done properly. But you would have the advantages of a better overall diplomatic system (something which you would have to implement a "carry over" system for in a total RTS) and a wider variety of things that could be done.
There is one more alternative that I have thought of. Expanding on the "Home City" concept from Age of Empires III. Either have a bunch of cards that you can select to be sent to you, or you could have a "home city" in real time that you could switch to. The added advantage would be that you could ensure that the levels go to specific points of action. I suspect however that this option might be hard to implement without a really, really good system to play it on.
But I'll close with what I have said now, and I'll open the floor to anyone else who has a better clue then I would about why WWI isn't represented as well in games as other wars. Oh, and does anyone know if someone has made a game on the Korean War?
I remember starting my search on the film Full Metal Jacket (which was on SBS last night, it's 2am when I write this so it's valid). I then went to the article on the film Paths of Glory. That took me to an article on a board game called Paths of Glory. That was the most direct route (the indirect involves things like Blackadder Goes Forth and the 1914 Christmas truce and the 1915 football game) The flash game Dog Fight: The Great War sprang to my mind.
Now here is the interesting thing. Beyond flash games like Dog Fight that I linked to above, or Warfare 1917 the gaming world is, as Gamespot says for this review, under-represented in games. Yes, there was in Rise of Nations and Empire Earth II and I'm also assuming other games of that type, have such a concept, but it isn't really the same thing.
I guess it's a little hard to make a WWI game. Although untrue, the popular perception of WWI is summed up nicely in the last episode of Blackadder:
[B]oth sides advanced further during one Christmas piss-up than the next two years of war
In the European theatre this is basically true. WWI was basically long periods of nothing followed by extreme action. I know I'm describing something else (technically the narrative of Mafia is like that, except you only play the action) but I can't remember what it is.
It would be unappealing to play a game like that.
I can already think of one exception. Paul Erich von Lettow-Vorbeck commander of the forces of German East Africa in WWI. His army was the only one of the German colonies to be undefeated. He ran a very fluid campaign, although this was essentially to tie up as many Allied forces as possible, which he did quite well.
You could make a game about that. But I'm guessing that the reason that you don't seem to find one (or that at least I haven't found one) is because a) it's German not Allied, and b) He surrendered peacefully on November 14, after a British magistrate called Hector Croad notified him that the war was over.
As I see it WWI and WWII were a turning point in conventional warfare (like Vietnam was a turning point in unconventional warfare). WWI saw the end to the traditional army. From then on people wouldn't fight on a single battlefield or a series of battlefields with set armies, but saw the "scope" of a battlefield increase exponentially. It also saw the end of traditional tactics, something that many Generals at that time did not seem to comprehend.
WWII saw the rise of very fluid warfare. In a way it was an about face when it came to taking land, but the emphasis turned towards mobility rather then strength alone.
Both wars saw a change in the use of technology and the use of different types of "unit" (I am thinking games here, remember) and tactics to win.
The question is how to translate WWI into a dedicated game. Personally I have no clue what to do for an FPS. I'm sure that you could have a Battlefield-type game, but maps would be limited since jumping out of your trench would most likely equal suicide.
I personally have a bit of an aversion to a total RTS or TBS. I don't really like the idea of having to build proper bases on the battlefield in question ("Hold your fire, I SAID HOLD YOUR FIRE, I need some men so I can build a farm right outside this trench") and I don't really like the idea of taking turns to move people around and fight.
I think that an RTS/TBS (like Aggression: Reign over Europe for example or a Total War game) would probably be the better option. Think about it. You could make your units away from the battlefields (like in real life) and send them there, and have the fighting in real time. Although I still don't know how you would get the fighting done properly. But you would have the advantages of a better overall diplomatic system (something which you would have to implement a "carry over" system for in a total RTS) and a wider variety of things that could be done.
There is one more alternative that I have thought of. Expanding on the "Home City" concept from Age of Empires III. Either have a bunch of cards that you can select to be sent to you, or you could have a "home city" in real time that you could switch to. The added advantage would be that you could ensure that the levels go to specific points of action. I suspect however that this option might be hard to implement without a really, really good system to play it on.
But I'll close with what I have said now, and I'll open the floor to anyone else who has a better clue then I would about why WWI isn't represented as well in games as other wars. Oh, and does anyone know if someone has made a game on the Korean War?
Thursday, 24 July 2008
Audiosurf
I've become hooked on Audiosurf. If you download the demo be aware of two things, first you need to get Steam to play it, and second you'll only be able to play five songs.
The US$9.99 is worth it though, especially since the real dollar (Aussie) is nearly at parity.
As I said, I've become hooked.
What I have found is the following:
The US$9.99 is worth it though, especially since the real dollar (Aussie) is nearly at parity.
As I said, I've become hooked.
What I have found is the following:
- The hardest song that I have encountered is "Million Way of Drum" by Force of Nature. I guess that's how the game engine designates blocks and such because there are millions of them since the song is basically, as the name suggests, drums (there is a bass guitar in it for a little bit as well).
- The songs "Kalinka" and "Korobelniki" as sung by the Russian Red Army Choir give plenty of red blocks.
- I haven't tried it yet but I think that it would be entirely possible to listen to say Skeptoid while you play. I don't know if it recognises a difference between podcasts and songs.
- No matter how obscure you think something is, there will usually be someone who already holds the #1 spot.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
A Comparison of Some Games
Yep. That's right. It's a game related post.
It's also biased.
The games in question are Mafia (also known as Mafia: City of Lost Heaven), Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas (because it's the newest one that you can get on PC), and The Godfather: The Game.
All the games are similar in style, except that unlike the other two games Mafia's storyline is not the same sandbox style as the others. It's also got the lowest minimum (or even recommended) system requirements.
To start though, the games are set chronologically, Mafia, 1930 - 1938 (with an epilogue around the 50's), The Godfather 1945 - 50 (with a prologue in 1936), and GTA:SA in 1992.
GTA:SA would be by far the largest (by perception) of the three games, with Godfather, being set in New York and part of New Jersey (obviously) and Mafia in the fictional city of Lost Heaven and surrounds (or New Chicago, or Chicagork, it's something of a mix of the two) and GTA:SA set in the fictional state of San Andreas, which contains three major cities and 12 towns.
There was one problem with the size and layout of the map. It was somewhat annoying to go from Las Venturas to Los Santos and by crossing over a bridge go from desert to green countryside. You just didn't get the feeling that you were in such a big place.
The Godfather has the best character design, with a program called "Mobface" which allows you to make your own character. And this character is called 'X' because you can name him. Take that CJ, or Tommy Angelo (GTA:SA and Mafia respectively). The skill upgrades are a little worse then GTA:SA, because instead of you working out, or practising various skills, you select them from a "upgrade your skills" page. Mafia doesn't even give you this option for reasons to be explained later.
Moving on to vehicles. GTA:SA lets you use cars, motorcycles, planes, boats, helicopters, and a few odd and outrageous items. Mafia and The Godfather don't. It's cars or walking, or in the case of Mafia public transport. Yep, you can go onto a train, or a trolley bus and not have to worry about driving or getting a car. Although it's more of a pleasure to drive around in Mafia, because even with the "lower" graphics (actually the correct answer is "superior") the cars are rendered beautifully, and move as a car in that era would, from 1920's cars that look like Model T's to powerful V12's in the later stage of the game. GTA:SA cars are ok, but I was rather disappointed by the driving in The Godfather, the cars were not as nice as in Mafia and they drove like the cars in GTA:SA. The Car damage is the best in Mafia, with bullet holes and dents, and the other two were mediocre at best considering the requirement for better graphics cards.
The fighting systems are all over the place. Mafia and GTA:SA are very similar, aim and shoot (or lock on and shoot in the case of GTA:SA), but The Godfather, that was something. There was a lock-on system (which you could disable and aim normally) but the lock on system was called "Black Hand" (they love their mob related names) (which I believe they improved on in the Wii version) which allowed you to grab your opponent, slam them into things, use powerful punches or quick ones, and there was an execute function as well, perfect for the violence lovers.
As a side note one that I liked was the most common one I encountered, where 'X' puts his opponent in a headlock and throws the guys legs around, snapping his neck. The Godfather offers something like 22 different execution styles including a pistol execution, garrotting, choking, throwing a person off a bridge, throwing people into furnaces, the hit list missions give you more respect if you do away with the person in the specific method.
The only real plus that I can think of for Mafia was that the guns were programmed to shoot as they would in real life, the most interesting is the 1928 Thompson (Tommy Gun) which they correctly showed its major initial flaw, it would rise up as you fired it. The Godfather had a system where you could target non-major body parts (hands, feet, knees, shoulders) so you could disable opponents, or intimidate business owners.
Now we come to the most important bits, storyline and music. The music is rather easy to discuss, Mafia, had period style music playing in the city regardless of you being in a vehicle or not (no radios in cars then folks), The Godfather would have music from the film playing whenever you got into a car. GTA:SA had radio stations playing music from the late 80's early 90's on most of the stations, a talk radio station (which was my favourite) and some earlier stuff on the other ones.
The storylines are the most interesting. Mafia could have been a movie. Honestly. They wrote a script and stuck with it. It even has morals and you may even empathise with Tommy. The lack of a sandbox in story mode is because the story is basically told in flashbacks, so things like boats causing the drawbridge to go up and actions of characters are programmed into the levels, which gives you a much better feeling of being in a big city. GTA:SA centres on the return of CJ to San Andreas, and what he does to make his gang control Los Santos, while starting up business ventures in Las Venturas and San Fierro. The Godfather is about revenge and taking control of New York.
Overall, (and this is where the bias plays into it) the best game is Mafia,
the The Godfather, and the GTA:SA. The reasoning behind it is that when I played Mafia, I got a taste of something different to the GTA series. You had to think more, you didn't have the demi-god invincibility (sometimes it was one shot that would make it game over) and you had to watch out for the cops for small things like speeding or running red lights. The other games didn't have such things and made the games far easier to play.
It's also biased.
The games in question are Mafia (also known as Mafia: City of Lost Heaven), Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas (because it's the newest one that you can get on PC), and The Godfather: The Game.
All the games are similar in style, except that unlike the other two games Mafia's storyline is not the same sandbox style as the others. It's also got the lowest minimum (or even recommended) system requirements.
To start though, the games are set chronologically, Mafia, 1930 - 1938 (with an epilogue around the 50's), The Godfather 1945 - 50 (with a prologue in 1936), and GTA:SA in 1992.
GTA:SA would be by far the largest (by perception) of the three games, with Godfather, being set in New York and part of New Jersey (obviously) and Mafia in the fictional city of Lost Heaven and surrounds (or New Chicago, or Chicagork, it's something of a mix of the two) and GTA:SA set in the fictional state of San Andreas, which contains three major cities and 12 towns.
There was one problem with the size and layout of the map. It was somewhat annoying to go from Las Venturas to Los Santos and by crossing over a bridge go from desert to green countryside. You just didn't get the feeling that you were in such a big place.
The Godfather has the best character design, with a program called "Mobface" which allows you to make your own character. And this character is called 'X' because you can name him. Take that CJ, or Tommy Angelo (GTA:SA and Mafia respectively). The skill upgrades are a little worse then GTA:SA, because instead of you working out, or practising various skills, you select them from a "upgrade your skills" page. Mafia doesn't even give you this option for reasons to be explained later.
Moving on to vehicles. GTA:SA lets you use cars, motorcycles, planes, boats, helicopters, and a few odd and outrageous items. Mafia and The Godfather don't. It's cars or walking, or in the case of Mafia public transport. Yep, you can go onto a train, or a trolley bus and not have to worry about driving or getting a car. Although it's more of a pleasure to drive around in Mafia, because even with the "lower" graphics (actually the correct answer is "superior") the cars are rendered beautifully, and move as a car in that era would, from 1920's cars that look like Model T's to powerful V12's in the later stage of the game. GTA:SA cars are ok, but I was rather disappointed by the driving in The Godfather, the cars were not as nice as in Mafia and they drove like the cars in GTA:SA. The Car damage is the best in Mafia, with bullet holes and dents, and the other two were mediocre at best considering the requirement for better graphics cards.
The fighting systems are all over the place. Mafia and GTA:SA are very similar, aim and shoot (or lock on and shoot in the case of GTA:SA), but The Godfather, that was something. There was a lock-on system (which you could disable and aim normally) but the lock on system was called "Black Hand" (they love their mob related names) (which I believe they improved on in the Wii version) which allowed you to grab your opponent, slam them into things, use powerful punches or quick ones, and there was an execute function as well, perfect for the violence lovers.
As a side note one that I liked was the most common one I encountered, where 'X' puts his opponent in a headlock and throws the guys legs around, snapping his neck. The Godfather offers something like 22 different execution styles including a pistol execution, garrotting, choking, throwing a person off a bridge, throwing people into furnaces, the hit list missions give you more respect if you do away with the person in the specific method.
The only real plus that I can think of for Mafia was that the guns were programmed to shoot as they would in real life, the most interesting is the 1928 Thompson (Tommy Gun) which they correctly showed its major initial flaw, it would rise up as you fired it. The Godfather had a system where you could target non-major body parts (hands, feet, knees, shoulders) so you could disable opponents, or intimidate business owners.
Now we come to the most important bits, storyline and music. The music is rather easy to discuss, Mafia, had period style music playing in the city regardless of you being in a vehicle or not (no radios in cars then folks), The Godfather would have music from the film playing whenever you got into a car. GTA:SA had radio stations playing music from the late 80's early 90's on most of the stations, a talk radio station (which was my favourite) and some earlier stuff on the other ones.
The storylines are the most interesting. Mafia could have been a movie. Honestly. They wrote a script and stuck with it. It even has morals and you may even empathise with Tommy. The lack of a sandbox in story mode is because the story is basically told in flashbacks, so things like boats causing the drawbridge to go up and actions of characters are programmed into the levels, which gives you a much better feeling of being in a big city. GTA:SA centres on the return of CJ to San Andreas, and what he does to make his gang control Los Santos, while starting up business ventures in Las Venturas and San Fierro. The Godfather is about revenge and taking control of New York.
Overall, (and this is where the bias plays into it) the best game is Mafia,
the The Godfather, and the GTA:SA. The reasoning behind it is that when I played Mafia, I got a taste of something different to the GTA series. You had to think more, you didn't have the demi-god invincibility (sometimes it was one shot that would make it game over) and you had to watch out for the cops for small things like speeding or running red lights. The other games didn't have such things and made the games far easier to play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)