So, what was the deal with the really low scores for Mafia 3?

[stroopwafel]

So, to begin Mafia 3 does a lot of things really good. The shooting is tight with quick and responsive controls and enemies properly reacting to bullet fire giving the action weight and impact. There is a lot of little nuance and detail in both the animations and the environment. It helps for both the action to feel really smooth and for the environment to have this genuine vintage '60s style. Not just that but the game is almost a period piece when you also consider the NPC and radio chatter. And with the insanely good soundtrack it's like you're in the '60s. You can really notice the developers glossed over the entire game and added a distinct flavor wherever they could. The driving, again, is excellent. GTA5 still has the best driving in a sandbox game but I think Mafia 3's driving can easily rival that of Sleeping Dogs(my second favorite).

Now, where the game falls drastically short is keeping the entire sandbox fun and satisfying through variety in missions and proper density. The game is detailed in places but also empty and barren and the setpiece missions are great but the method to getting there is rinse and repeat. Had they made the game shorter by diminishing the 'filler missions' required to lure out the racket boss in order to progress and made the size of the world much smaller so they could add more density and then focus all detail to a more confined location then this could have been a truly great game. Mafia 3 excels in gameplay mechanics, sense of place and story but drops the ball when it comes to A.I.(often laughably bad), lack of mission variety and a world that is spread too thin.

Problem with Mafia 3 is that they tried to make a game like GTA but with what appears a fraction of the budget and without the luxury of incremental improvements this series had. It overshadows what is probably this game's biggest draw: the story. The story is so good that it reminded me of one of the better gangster flicks from the '80s or '90s. I'm normally not a fan of cutscenes but they are so good that they really draw you into the story with incredible voice acting and character expressions that look like they were 80% of this game's budget. Character motivations seemed real and authentic and while these are obviously criminals over the course of the game I really developed a fondness for their mannerisms and flamboyant behavior. Just really memorable characters throughout. The game really drove in how these characters were shaped by their circumstance and it didn't celebrate the 'gangster lifestyle' but rather chronicled how a basically good person(Lincoln Clay) slowly became like the people he hated through his thirst for revenge. It did so even through gameplay and a choice in ending really was a kind of meta commentary 'Spec Ops The Line' moment.

Mafia 3 is a great game in my opinion, it's just not a great GTA. I think it's really a shame that the game is judged so harshly because of that fact. Luring out the racket boss specifically is a repetitive grind but the threshold for doing so is pretty low(making the main criticism for this game being it's repetition fairly exaggerated). Also I don't see reviewers making the same complaint about Titanfall 2 or Battlefield 1 which are repetition incarnate.

I'm not saying Mafia 3 scoring in the 6 - 7 range is undeserved but when more generic FPS action receives way higher scores I'd say reviewers should re-assess what constitutes 'repetition'.

 

[sXeth]

I haven't played it myself, but the gist I've gotten from basically all quarters (reviewers, social media, friends, youtubers) was that it was riddled with bugs and technical issues.

Which may still be unfair if you compare it to other releases that inexplicably get passes (Bethesda), but certainly offers an explanation.

Repetition is generally the goofiest thing to criticize a game on though. You can boil down any game to repetition if you want to. The ones you can't, you could just turn and declare inconsistency.

 

[happyninja42]

Now, where the game falls drastically short is keeping the entire sandbox fun and satisfying through variety in missions and proper density. The game is detailed in places but also empty and barren and the setpiece missions are great but the method to getting there is rinse and repeat. Had they made the game shorter by diminishing the 'filler missions' required to lure out the racket boss in order to progress and made the size of the world much smaller so they could add more density and then focus all detail to a more confined location then this could have been a truly great game. Mafia 3 excels in gameplay mechanics, sense of place and story but drops the ball when it comes to A.I.(often laughably bad), lack of mission variety and a world that is spread too thin.

I'm not saying Mafia 3 scoring in the 6 - 7 range is undeserved but when more generic FPS action receives way higher scores I'd say reviewers should re-assess what constitutes 'repetition'.

You seem to have answered your own question in your initial statement of the game. You say you don't know why the game has low scores, and yet you say you understand why they gave it scores of 6-7. And you say they need to re-assess what constitutes "repetition" while simultaneously saying the game is "rinse repeat" style with it's missions and setpieces.

I...I really don't understand what you are confused about, just look to your own review of the game to answer your question.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

The biggest problem is they try to be like GTA. end up bieng broken GTA.

Mafia 1 is best third person action game of all time.

 

[Evonisia]

It's a game that has a decent story, likeable characters with solid emotional stakes and the odd memorable and well constructed mission. It has really solid aesthetic elements as well. Everything else is padding.

Repetition in itself is not a bad thing. If that was the case, every shooter ever made would be a 5/10 most mediocre thing ever. It's knowing how to pace your game. "Mafia III" is ludicrously padded. You could cut out 80% of the missions and lose nothing of value because they're as you acknowledge, rinse-repeat. Most shooters will change their locations, add new enemies or do something to stop it becoming tedious. "Mafia III" does not. It has no difficulty curve, and the story lacks progression, because every mob boss is taken down in the same way.

In attempting to become this strange GTA/Saints Row hybrid, "Mafia III" forgot that both those franchises actually gave you stuff to do in the sandbox and had more than 10 unique missions each. And unlike your typical shooter, "Mafia III" is held back by its sandbox element, because the levels don't change beyond the aesthetic of the buildings.

EDIT: Plus as somebody mentioned, it's a bit of a technical shitshow. In my personal experience it wasn't so bad, maybe it was only bad on certain platforms(?).

 

[chrissx2]

First of all, I did enjoy the game, but it definitely deserve such a "low" score.

1. It's buggy as hell. While none of the bugs were gamebraking and they usually lead to some hilarious situations, there were those that simply gave me headache (screwed up global lighting, spastic cars).
2. Visually unpleasant (mostly to some shitty post-processing effects and the lighting bug)
3. There is no amosphere. The City feels dead and completely forgetable. You don't get attached to anything. The only character I somewhat cared about was Vito and that's because I knew him from the previous game. Main character was just mindless killer and though he would be a great GTA protagonist, in Mafia he felt out of place. Cassandra and Burke? If it wasn't for the upgrades, I would just completely ignore them and forgot about their existance. Those guys that

Spoiler

got killed at the beginning

? They could as well be just some random NPC's. There was no real bounds between the characters or locations. I didn't feel like a part of family. Those guys that I was suppose to kill? Most of the time I had no idea who they were and why I was suppose to kill them (except to weaken the main 'target') the game didn't give me a reason to care. They just blended with all the other generic characters that I slaughtered.
4. Gamedesign - this is the biggest pile of shit (with a charry on top) that I've seen since Ubisoft found their golden gamedesign template (aka. gamedesing for dummies) for their sandbox games. I don't know if I ever seen more schematic and repetitive mission structure in my entire gaming career. They had some good ideas, but majority of them ended up beeing poorly implemented.
5. Gameplay - this was mostly fine with exception of collision detection. Driving and shooting was ok. It lacked some of the small details when it comes to police behavior (like chasing you for crossing red light or speeding and actually giving you a ticked instead of fucking murdering you for bumping into other car).


The thing that they did really good was the music and cutscenes and I guess that's where 90% of the budget went.

 

[Zhukov]

It smothered all its good points in an even-more-boring-than-usual open world slog.

Gameplay was nothing to write home about either.

 

[stroopwafel]

You seem to have answered your own question in your initial statement of the game. You say you don't know why the game has low scores, and yet you say you understand why they gave it scores of 6-7. And you say they need to re-assess what constitutes "repetition" while simultaneously saying the game is "rinse repeat" style with it's missions and setpieces.

Like I said, I recognize the game's problems but I think they are mitigated by a really good story and satisfying gameplay mechanics. They still drag the game down obviously, which like I also said prevents the game from being what it could have been. Some poor design decisions however don't warrant the low scores this game received when compared to other current releases which, by the same token, are much more repetitive.

 

[chrissx2]

You seem to have answered your own question in your initial statement of the game. You say you don't know why the game has low scores, and yet you say you understand why they gave it scores of 6-7. And you say they need to re-assess what constitutes "repetition" while simultaneously saying the game is "rinse repeat" style with it's missions and setpieces.

Like I said, I recognize the game's problems but I think they are mitigated by a really good story and satisfying gameplay mechanics. They still drag the game down obviously, which like I also said prevents the game from being what it could have been. Some poor design decisions however don't warrant the low scores this game received when compared to other current releases which, by the same token, are much more repetitive.

What was good about the story? From the beginning you knew what's going to happen. There was no 'schocking' moments. The game didn't invoke any emotions.

What are the other repetitive games? (I'm asking because I don't really follow what games comes out each year)

 

[stroopwafel]

What was good about the story? From the beginning you knew what's going to happen. There was no 'schocking' moments. The game didn't invoke any emotions.

I think it's a really layered revenge story with interesting characters and really good voice acting. Like I said the game mimicks some of the better gangster flicks with characters becoming more tragical as the story evolves. It didn't celebrate or glorify crime but rather showed how all these characters were on the road to nowhere(with espescially Burke having some really memorable scenes). Just dismantling Marcano's criminal empire bit by bit was satisfying but also had a subversive message about the price of revenge(while not 'shocking' I thought this was espescially good in one of the endings). I haven't really seen such an interesting take on this kind of game since GTA4.

What are the other repetitive games? (I'm asking because I don't really follow what games comes out each year)

The new Battlefield, Titanfall, CoD just to name a few.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

The biggest problem is they try to be like GTA. end up bieng broken GTA.

Mafia 1 is best third person action game of all time.

Mafia 1 is ugly as sin though. Ugh.... the way it rendered cigar smoke...

 

[chrissx2]

What was good about the story? From the beginning you knew what's going to happen. There was no 'schocking' moments. The game didn't invoke any emotions.

I think it's a really layered revenge story with interesting characters and really good voice acting. Like I said the game mimicks some of the better gangster flicks with characters becoming more tragical as the story evolves. It didn't celebrate or glorify crime but rather showed how all these characters were on the road to nowhere(with espescially Burke having some really memorable scenes). Just dismantling Marcano's criminal empire bit by bit was satisfying but also had a subversive message about the price of revenge(while not 'shocking' I thought this was espescially good in one of the endings). I haven't really seen such an interesting take on this kind of game since GTA4.

I guess my problem was with the main antagonist. I didn't hate him so killing him and all his people didn't gave me any satisfaction - which is, i think, a big problem for a vengeance story. I was actually more annoyed by people that were on my side than anyone else.
The voice acting and facial animations were indeed top-notch.

What are the other repetitive games? (I'm asking because I don't really follow what games comes out each year)

The new Battlefield, Titanfall, CoD just to name a few.

I didn't play TF or CoD but BF1 SP missions were quite diverse. Every campaign felt somewhat different (they were still kinda shit due to bad AI and silly story that was trying to be serious). I would give it even lower score than Mafia3 if it wasn't for the MP. There's a lot of repetitive games, but Mafia isn't trying to break that repetition or even mask it.

 

[squid5580]

You seem to have answered your own question in your initial statement of the game. You say you don't know why the game has low scores, and yet you say you understand why they gave it scores of 6-7. And you say they need to re-assess what constitutes "repetition" while simultaneously saying the game is "rinse repeat" style with it's missions and setpieces.

Like I said, I recognize the game's problems but I think they are mitigated by a really good story and satisfying gameplay mechanics. They still drag the game down obviously, which like I also said prevents the game from being what it could have been. Some poor design decisions however don't warrant the low scores this game received when compared to other current releases which, by the same token, are much more repetitive.

What was good about the story? From the beginning you knew what's going to happen. There was no 'schocking' moments. The game didn't invoke any emotions.

What are the other repetitive games? (I'm asking because I don't really follow what games comes out each year)

DONOVAN!!! That is what made the story great. He is the sole reason I suffered through the game. The whole documentary thing they did was also refreshing. I got right into it. The actual ingame story though was kinda lacking (except the parts with DONOVAN!!!). The problem for me was when I finished and assigned the 3rd district I was ready to be done. Then the game kicked me square in the balls and made me do 3 more to finish it.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Mafia 3 is a great game in my opinion, it's just not a great GTA.

Sorry to say you lose a lot of credibility here if you genuinely think Mafia 3 is a great game. It would be hard pressed to get an above-average 70%. It was thoroughly generic in every way. The combat was generic chest-high wall, the gameplay was repetitive and unvaried (you do one racket, you have literally seen everything the entire game has to offer you), there was no clothes or cars to buy, customise and collect and the story and characters were forgettable.

It had a great premise and setting with high production values, but it was all wasted on endless cutscenes that we, the player, spend so much time watching instead of playing. You are entitled to believe Mafia 3 is quote unquote "great", but you are very, very wrong. It implies you haven't played actual great games if you are willing to accept generic trash and call it great. Boring, repetitive, generic, mediocre. Mafia 2 was 10x better than this one.

 

[stroopwafel]

Sorry to say you lose a lot of credibility here if you genuinely think Mafia 3 is a great game.

I made an entire post to explain it in context. I think Mafia 3 is 'great' insofar it compares to other current releases(with much higher scores) but that the sandbox formula drags the game down while being mitigated by a good story, authentic sense of place and solid gameplay mechanics.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

It smothered all its good points in an even-more-boring-than-usual open world slog.

Gameplay was nothing to write home about either.

Pretty much this^

It absolutely bored the hell out of me. Films, music, games - it's all about the experience, not picking apart the things it does well.

With that in mind Mafia 3 was a 5/10 game for me. All too often I found myself wanting to do other things such as walk the dog or do some work rather than keep playing.

 

[Seishisha]

From what i gather having not actualy played it myself, mafia 3 would have been vastly impoved if they removed the sandbox and just kept it to a linear story broken down into chapters. But because the sandbox style gameplay is a key feature of the mafia games, removing it would have probably caused a more negative reception from fans even if the game was still good.

What should have been 60's uncharted with gangsta's, was in fact 60's gta with not enough budget for the open world bits.

(yes i already know about gta london, i owned that and the original years ago)

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Sorry to say you lose a lot of credibility here if you genuinely think Mafia 3 is a great game.

I made an entire post to explain it in context. I think Mafia 3 is 'great' insofar it compares to other current releases(with much higher scores) but that the sandbox formula drags the game down while being mitigated by a good story, authentic sense of place and solid gameplay mechanics.

The story wasn't anything to write home about, generic revenge story, which is sad because I wanted to play a MAFIA story, like Mafia 2. Authentic sense of place I will grant, but it wasn't a good sandbox particularly. The setting was unique and the racism was authentic (and chilling) but that is window dressing. Solid mechanics, absolutely NOT. Press button to enter sticky cover, whistle to lure one guard over, press button to make character perform killing animation, repeat.

I LOATHE sticky cover, I LOATHE press one button to have my character do something I don't actually do myself. I'm not firing a gun or throwing a fireball myself here, I'm pressing "Kill my target" context sensitive button and the game takes care of it for me. It's mechanically shit. It isn't fun, it's not challenging, it's barely even gameplay. Pressing buttons (in an action oriented game) to have my character do things isn't ME doing them. And how come he has see-thru-walls vision? Did Vietnam vets all have the ability? Vito didn't get it after WWII, so one can only assume Lincoln was born with it or picked it up in Vietnam.

One other mechanic that wound me up...the keep tapping (A) to break or burn a crate. Let's say I hit them or hold fire to them for 90% of the time the game wanted....I let go and what happens? All the previous hits/burning are forgotten and I have to start hitting it with a crowbar again? So let me get this straight....these wooden crates need to be hit 10 times in a row, within a very short time span, or they won't break? They are regenerating wooden crates that can shrug off 9 hits from a crowbar if the 10th isn't immediately forthcoming? They also have the ability to rapidly cool themselves if fire isn't held to them for long enough in one go. Applying flame, removing flame, they cool down instantly! Why couldn't the crates just have a health pool, or better yet, why not a context button that we press once? I might even understand if it was time-sensitive, but it wasn't.

It was "solid mechanics" only if you define such as they exist and function. If one aspires to mediocrity, then it's fine. But Mafia II had a much better and more personal story, a better, more memorable sandbox and cars, and more satisfying gameplay. I say that in spite of the fact it had a god-awful FoV on PC that on practically any other game is unforgivable and would result in immediate uninstall. Sleeping Dogs is similarly better in every way, in spite of a similar issue with FoV. It was so good that despite having such a flaw I continued to play it. The Saboteur is a flawed gem of a game but a much, much better game than Mafia 3, with more personality, atmosphere and interesting story (similarly revenge motivated).

This was a mediocre, designed-by-committee generic sandbox game designed for "mass market appeal". The unique selling point of racist-deep south didn't add much to the experience. I spent far too much time in unskippable cut scenes and conversations and not enough actually playing it. The mo-cap was top notch, as was most of the voice acting, but if I wanted to watch a movie, I wouldn't have installed a game.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Let me tell you some of what I loved about Mafia 2. I LOVED picking what to wear from the wardrobe before leaving the apartment, walking down the same dingy corridor that felt like home. I loved picking which car I'd drive and go to visit the gun dealer whose door I had to buzz and walk down the stairs to get to him. I would stock up, then drive over to see Joe or some such.

I loved that I had to spend those minutes lifting crates at the docks in my "honest" job, and I loved MORE that the game let you continue without a word until you started getting frustrated with it, just as Vito was supposed to. I loved that I started out small, selling knock off cigarettes and beating people up for chump change. Becoming "Made" was so exciting!

I loved going to prison and having to clean the urinals while the guard pissed in it. I loved the old man, Leo, that took Vito under his wing despite being from a different Family. I really loved the later decisions regarding loyalty to the family or loyalty to Leo.

The fight sequence in the Chinese restaurant and the Hotel, escaping my house nekkid while it went up in flames, the ending with Joe...this was memorable, fantastic story telling. I loved driving around Empire Bay, the observatory, stopping for fuel, going to upgrade my cars, buying a new suit. I remember all this *years* since i last played it.

Mafia 3 was a pale imitation of its predecessor and despite the better hardware and clearly superior mo-cap, failed to engage remotely as well.