Mafia III

May 9, 2016

One thing I do want to see return from Mafia II is being able to repair your car whenever it breaks down

I didn't even know you could do that in Mafia II and i have like 100 hours if not more into the game

I think I did it once just try to f*ck up your car. It's been a while since I played it so I don't remember much but when I did it the car repaired itself magically when I pressed X and I didn't get the animation.

The random sh*t you learn eh?

May 10, 2016

This clip kind of concerns me, because it makes it sound like the game is being made more for me, even though Mafia's whole aim is to be soul crushingly realistic.

And don't get me wrong, I still don't like mafia II, but the thing is, it's not FOR me. It's for people who absolutely love realism. The realistic sandbox games crowd is starving, and they deserve good games too. This whole games industry thing isn't about pleasing me. There's more than one hungry crowd out there. Other people need games too.

Not happy with that video at all, 1960's Steve Mqueen movie like driving? Horrible decision IMO

May 10, 2016

I'll still be getting the game. I think I might like the driving better in this one than the second one.

May 11, 2016

The driving is disappointing

May 11, 2016

The Secret Of Steve McQueen's Bullitt Chase Scene [ link ]

"But keep in mind, those weren't ordinary cars. Many people who have watched the film think that any fast muscle car can do what we did. No way. Both the Mustang and Charger in Bullitt were heavily worked on. They needed to be faster than street cars but also be able to take an enormous beating. That required heavy-duty parts and additions like race-car shocks, skid bars to protect the underside and special overinflated tires. Most people think Steve McQueen did his own stunts in films. Steve was a hell of a driver, but he was only behind the wheel for about 10% of what you see on screen. He drove in scenes that required closeups - but not in the ones that could KILL HIM."

I'm a big fan of the movie but I think if the developers really want to pay tribute to this classic movie then there's other ways to do, instead of going for an approach that ruins the immersion for the sake of Hollywood style choreographed car chase sequences for a game series that's largely about focusing on the importance of authenticity in game design and faithfully realistic representations through the gameplay set in the time of 1968.

Hangar 13 seems to be drifting away in that respect, since it seems like the developer don't seem to want to take risks for better sales by upsetting the casuals who have no clue about the concept of Mafia nor played the first Mafia that has been referred to as a gaming masterpiece.

There's a solution to every problem and the best way to not upset the crybabies who disliked the "authentic driving experience" of the first Mafia is to simply let the players choose between simulator and arcade mode like in Mafia 2. This will easily solve this issue.

E:typo

Edited May 11, 2016 by Osho

May 11, 2016

This clip kind of concerns me, because it makes it sound like the game is being made more for me, even though Mafia's whole aim is to be soul crushingly realistic.

And don't get me wrong, I still don't like mafia II, but the thing is, it's not FOR me. It's for people who absolutely love realism. The realistic sandbox games crowd is starving, and they deserve good games too. This whole games industry thing isn't about pleasing me. There's more than one hungry crowd out there. Other people need games too.

Not happy with that video at all, 1960's Steve Mqueen movie like driving? Horrible decision IMO

Yeah the driving looks awful. I was hoping they would improve it but it doesn't seem that way. What do people have against some realism these days?

Edited May 11, 2016 by Journey_95

May 12, 2016

Because realism always looks good to be viewed, heard, and read, but not in actual practice.

May 12, 2016

Because realism always looks good to be viewed, heard, and read, but not in actual practice.

I believe Mafia 1 and 2 Disagree with this stance...

It works really well in practice, especially when they pander to the crowd who wants the realism. Not like they seem to be doing with Mafia 3, pandering to casual gamers.

Edited May 12, 2016 by 018361

May 12, 2016

This could another hit for Take-Two's 2K division this year after Battleborn (X-COM and Civilizations are PC cash-cows).

May 17, 2016

I'm actually very excited for this. I'm a total geek for anything in the 1960s and 70s so this is right up my alley. The only thing I don't like is how they say it will be more "open world" than Mafia 2 and won't use the same chapter by chapter story structure. I was actually a big fan of Mafia 2's structure and hoped they would continue that in the 3rd one.

May 17, 2016

I absolutely loved it too. The unique treatment to storytelling introduced in Mafia City of Lost Heaven gave the sense of cohesion through handcrafted missions designed in order to fully immerse the players in Tommy's amazing journey as the events unfold and the players proceed to the next mission without any pointless side distractions except for the optional Lucas Bertone's missions that helps Tommy to unlock different models of cars to drive.

The "open world" mainly worked as only a backdrop for the story. The rest of the mayhem and fun activities can be accessed by unlocking Free Ride and FRE modes.

Completely different from GTA, this unique treatment really helped a great deal to immerse yourself into the narrative with missions taking place in variety of set pieces like the airport, parking garage, harbor, prison, art gallery, etc and many of these missions were quite open ended as well, giving the players good freedom in playing them unlike the bullsh*t cut scenes after cut scenes that interrupt the flow of the action as seen in AAA games like Max Payne 3, GTA IV and even Mafia 2.

Furthermore, the missions of Mafia 1 have a set time of the day and attention to details with unique soundtrack instead of having day and night cycle which greatly enhanced the immersion making each mission atmospheric and memorable.

Unfortunately, Mafia III wants to be different for all the wrong reasons making it more like GTA than what made Mafia 1 so great and take it further for making it better.

May 17, 2016

Not only driving is awful, shooting is horrible too, all mechanics are quite primitive in Mafia III, looks like producers are not very skilled. They should rename this "game" and live Mafia series alone, but then again it would sell poorly, and it's all about the money, right ? Story no matter how good, wont save it from average reviews, i think it will score around 66 - 74 which isn't that bad, but then again no reason to be so excited about it. Such a shame mechanics are mediocre 'cause story is nice, city and cars too, and cool music

p.s. Physics, if they are in the game, are vestigial, barely seen.

Edited May 17, 2016 by ARC8_1982

May 21, 2016

Looks horrible. Driving and shooting are less about realism and more about being over the top and pretentious. The story sounds too simple and uninteresting.

And I still dont like the black protagonist. Thats like having a game about street gangs like the Bloods or Crips and the player is white.

I highly doubt this game is going to be a success. Its like they know they suck at making games so they are trying to appeal to casuals and the politically correct crowd.

May 21, 2016

Looks horrible. Driving and shooting are less about realism and more about being over the top and pretentious. The story sounds too simple and uninteresting.

And I still dont like the black protagonist. Thats like having a game about street gangs like the Bloods or Crips and the player is white.

I highly doubt this game is going to be a success. Its like they know they suck at making games so they are trying to appeal to casuals and the politically correct crowd.

Exactly mate. Summed it up perfectly. This is their way to prove that they aren't racists and attract the politically correct crowd. It just shows the bad side of the white man with pure ignorance. Everything else in game is horrible and unrealistic. Story sounds petty and too simple. I will probably buy it but in my opinion it won't top Mafia 2

May 21, 2016

The HUD is the real sinner here, just LOOK AT IT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. It's a straight rip off of Ubisoft HUDs.

May 21, 2016

I'm still remaining positive about this. As a huge GTA fan, I don't mind if Mafia want to lean towards a more GTA approach to mission triggering or open-worldness. I'm pretty good creating my own realism in a game to help immerse myself. I can f*ck around free-roaming doing my own sh*t, or I can sit down and play more realistically "in character" as my protagonist. But putting restrictions on the free-roam because others can't do that is too restrictive I think.

Also, on this very forum a huge driver of complaints and criticism was about the lack of things to do after story completion or that there was no open world in the traditional sense.. There was this lovely open-world city but nothing to do after. Is that what you guys want? I think free-roam cities for the sake of backdrop is biggest dicktease of wasted-potential ever. There's no reason why we can't have two. Those who don't like exploring or free-roaming, finding new places, discovering the city etc can still play the game and pass all the curiosities as they wish on to trigger the next mission. For those of us who like to poke their nose down the dark alleys, listen to pedestrian conversations, tease cops, do side-missions etc, that stuff is there.

As for the people saying it looks over-the-top and the exploding cars etc. Did you not see the developer saying they ramped that up for demo purposes. Also, if we have multiple approaches to missions, gins blazing or a more stealthy option, I think that will add more to realism, no?

The driving in Mafia II was technically great. It felt real, but I don't think it was ever really fun. It was nice to admire as it was realistic but that's it. It really only served as a means to get from A to B. This new game looks like it might actually be fun, taunting police, like GTA and getting in to car chases. That's added replayability right there. Also, the cars are 17 years after Mafia II. One would expect you to be able to have more fun in them as the performance of cars improved and since iconic films like Bullit (set in the same year as Mafia III), inspired generations of filmmakers to have this wild and dramatic car chases. You have to remember, cars in the 50's wouldn't necessarily provide the opportunity for exciting chases, who's to say 2K

The finishing moves or take-downs are phenomenal and pretty gruesome. It's been a while since a game shocked me in that respect. Much better than GTA and I really look forward to trying my hand at them.

The story sounds interesting to me. Being betrayed by the Italian Mafia and seeking vengeance sounds like fun, taking control of the city by taking out various crime-bosses. It looks pretty realistic to me as well.They've still captured and gone beyond with capturing this really great warm humid atmosphere with the moisture in the air in the graveyard, no two window-panes looking the same (they really got that non-copy-paste vibe Rockstar has been so good with lately). There seems to be a lot of unique pedestrian AI doing lots of unique different things. I'm not sure that completing one chapter only to thrown in to the next chapter is really that fun. It feels forced.

Also, I've been reading about online and people think 2K have some PC agenda when it comes to this game? Are they for real? Also I seen a guy complain that the protag is black (mixed race) and that the game is called Mafia.. so funny. I watched a film called Eastern Promises and I didn't see anyone make any eastern promises in the film. Also, what the f*ck is this plane doing in GTA. I thought GTA was called Grand Theft Auto.. last time I checked a plane wasn't an auto. These are the type of people that will go to a movie called Match Point (Woody Allen) and complain that it didn't feature enough tennis, or complain that it was more of a thriller and not a film exclusively about tennis.

I'll concede the game could be sh*t but I don't know that as I haven't played it yet. Some people seem to know what it's like to play it already.

@Mr Webby: You said:

This is their way to prove that they aren't racists and attract the politically correct crowd.

What?! Really?! You think that these intelligent, creative game developers, want to manipulate their vision of a good game or story because they are afraid of appearing racist to politically correct people? Politically correct people mostly and probably not being their target demographic? Wow. Just think about that for a moment.

I can see it now.. "2K: We're Not Racist"

Reminds me of that episode of Father Ted when he was mistaken for a racist and he invites the Chinese over to prove he's not racist...

Edited May 21, 2016 by Mister Pink

May 21, 2016

Looks horrible. Driving and shooting are less about realism and more about being over the top and pretentious. The story sounds too simple and uninteresting.

And I still dont like the black protagonist. Thats like having a game about street gangs like the Bloods or Crips and the player is white.

I highly doubt this game is going to be a success. Its like they know they suck at making games so they are trying to appeal to casuals and the politically correct crowd.

Yeah it looks awful. This is clearly no Mafia game and I wish they wouldn't abuse the name. A non-linear generic story (taking over the city, how original), the italian mafia is turned into a generic villian organization, the driving is the opposite of how it should look like in a Mafia game, lots of explosions everywhere, repetitive side activities etc. WTF

Wish they just made a sequel with Vito set in Las Vegas or whatever and of course that the original team was making it. Hangar 13 doesn't know sh*t about the series, that much is clear.

@Mister Pink

So take everything away what made Mafia unique (story focused with open world as backdrop, no generic side activities, realistic driving, linearity etc.) just so GTA fans can enjoy it more... I like GTA a lot too but Mafia was different and that was a good thing. This looks like a generic GTA clone, just without the latter's charm.

And comparing the black protag with planes is just silly. Both Mafia titles focused on the Italian Mafia and gave us Italian protags, that was part of what made the series unique. Instead of continuing that we get a black protag for some reason, whats next the Yakuza and an asian protag?

Edited May 21, 2016 by Journey_95

May 22, 2016

The contradictions in your argument are quite amusing; "taking over the city, how original" yet the game developers are trying to give you an original take on a story about the Mafia in 1968 New Orleans and them screwing you over and because you aren't playing as one of them and that they're the antagonists that the game isn't going to be a success? lol

I'm not claiming anything like you are, my friend. I'm saying what I see is positive. I haven't played the game yet, but you guys have arrived at your conclusions and I think it's rather naiive of you.

I didn't compare anyone with a plane but if you are referring to my analogy, I think my analogy was sound. The name of a series doesn't have to be taken literally and should give studio room to play with. At best it's a name based on a theme. You have Mafia 1. A Mafia game where you are..guess what? A mafioso. You have Mafia II, another mafia game when you are a mafioso. Then you have Mafia III, where you associate with the mafia who f*ck you over and you go after them. One of your allies being.. another guess what here.. A mafioso or ex-mafioso from the previous game.

You are being quite childish. Why do you assume that the developers are making these decisions "just so GTA fans can enjoy it more." The game series has to evolve. There's no shame in a game being more like GTA. There's a reason GTA is successful. They want Mafia to reach it's potential. Why do you think each GTA is different? Because they go somewhere new. If you want the same experience every time you game, why don't you play a game like Assassins Creed or Call of Duty?

And 2K are addressing feedback from the fans. Mafia II more recently, was empty. And who said the side-missions have to be generic?

2K have built a brand based on the Mafia name. Now, maybe they didn't have the foresight to acknowledge that they would make Mafia a series and not just a standalone. With that, if you were a game developer would you like to feel stuck, knowing that because of you Mafia brand you have to make games as Italo-American Mafia and your protagonist must be a mafioso. He can't just be affiliated, lol.

By that logic, Martin Scorsese, shouldn't have made Goodfellas, you know why? Cause Henry Hill was only half-Italian and Jimmy Conway/Burke was half Irish too. They weren't even made-men. The gaul of Scorsese making a Mafia film and the protags weren't even fully Italian, lol.

We also don't even know the story.. we're given the overall general story but we don't know the story yet. You guys are so quick to judge.

The irony of someone on a GTA forum complaining about a game looking too GTA and calling it unoriginal because in a mafia game you are going after the mafia and not playing on their side.

I'm interested in the alliance system.. So after you take over a gang hide-out (which is probably considered side-missions) you can chose to give it to one of the other allies. Each hideout gives a unique perk depending on who you give it to as well.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Mister Pink

May 22, 2016

The contradictions in your argument are quite amusing; "taking over the city, how original" yet the game developers are trying to give you an original take on a story about the Mafia in 1968 New Orleans and them screwing you over and because you aren't playing as one of them and that they're the antagonists that the game isn't going to be a success? lol

I'm not claiming anything like you are, my friend. I'm saying what I see is positive. I haven't played the game yet, but you guys have arrived at your conclusions and I think it's rather naiive of you.

I didn't compare anyone with a plane but if you are referring to my analogy, I think my analogy was sound. The name of a series doesn't have to be taken literally and should give studio room to play with. At best it's a name based on a theme. You have Mafia 1. A Mafia game where you are..guess what? A mafioso. You have Mafia II, another mafia game when you are a mafioso. Then you have Mafia III, where you associate with the mafia who f*ck you over and you go after them. One of your allies being.. another guess what here.. A mafioso or ex-mafioso from the previous game.

You are being quite childish. Why do you assume that the developers are making these decisions "just so GTA fans can enjoy it more." The game series has to evolve. There's no shame in a game being more like GTA. There's a reason GTA is successful. They want Mafia to reach it's potential. Why do you think each GTA is different? Because they go somewhere new. If you want the same experience every time you game, why don't you play a game like Assassins Creed or Call of Duty?

And 2K are addressing feedback from the fans. Mafia II more recently, was empty. And who said the side-missions have to be generic?

2K have built a brand based on the Mafia name. Now, maybe they didn't have the foresight to acknowledge that they would make Mafia a series and not just a standalone. With that, if you were a game developer would you like to feel stuck, knowing that because of you Mafia brand you have to make games as Italo-American Mafia and your protagonist must be a mafioso. He can't just be affiliated, lol.

By that logic, Martin Scorsese, shouldn't have made Goodfellas, you know why? Cause Henry Hill was only half-Italian and Jimmy Conway/Burke was half Irish too. They weren't even made-men. The gaul of Scorsese making a Mafia film and the protags weren't even fully Italian, lol.

We also don't even know the story.. we're given the overall general story but we don't know the story yet. You guys are so quick to judge.

The irony of someone on a GTA forum complaining about a game looking too GTA and calling it unoriginal because in a mafia game you are going after the mafia and not playing on their side.

I'm interested in the alliance system.. So after you take over a gang hide-out (which is probably considered side-missions) you can chose to give it to one of the other allies. Each hideout gives a unique perk depending on who you give it to as well.

You are interpreting quite many things from what my post. I never said it wouldn't be a success, open world games (especially the generic kind) sell a lot these days.

I also never said its will be 100% awful but it indeed looks bad so far and not like a proper Mafia game. Where you see evolution (just because its more like GTA no less lol), I see regression. Mafia was above having generic & repetitive side activities (they already showed some of them, meh), it was a more realistic and story focused series (and very linear).

Its obvious the developers are pandering to GTA fans, you are the perfect example here. I think GTA is an outstanding series, doesn't mean every open world game has to be like it.

Again with the bad examples, Goodfellas was still focused on the italian mafia, you got an in depth look of how things worked etc. but this game (so far) just seems like a generic revenge story and taking over the city from them.

The whole system with the districts also sounds repetitive as f*ck. The "gang-hideouts" are actually main missions, you have to do a lot of them so you can unlock a set piece main mission. Its all non-linear too, yeah that will result in a great story...not.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Journey_95

May 22, 2016

I'm with you, every open-world game doesn't have to be like GTA. That's true. But why is this even like GTA or what is it about this being like GTA that you dislike?

For Mafia, if the city is built and you can drive around it, why not just add things to have replayability? I mean the story will always be there. I'm just having trouble trying to understand why the game is somehow being down-graded by being more open-world. L.A. Noire felt like a waste of a map but it's more like Mafia II. It's a pointless map that only serves as a back drop. It sort of defies the point of open-world/Free-roam for me.

I think we need to define open-world again for this discussion... Are we talking about the fact that you can sort of chose to start the mission as you please in a GTA? Or is it that in Mafia you like how one chapter just goes in to next?

I disagree with the gang-hideouts. What's wrong with non-linear? If you have to do them to unlock a main set-piece mission, which will be linear and will have the story we crave with cutscenes, where is the problem? I liked playing RDR like that. Wherever I the main missions took me, I would like to do all the side stuff while I was there, then progress with the main story. It's kind of normal, no?

I think it's more realistic for timeline that you would be doing side-missions/gang-hideouts, then the story carries on, side missions, then story again. Like GTA IV, Nikos story is the main story but in a realistic world, you meet girlfriends, friends, strangers etc. It wouldn't really go from one main plot point to the next and then the next. That to me seems very unrealistic.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Mister Pink

May 22, 2016

I'm with you, every open-world game doesn't have to be like GTA. That's true. But why is this even like GTA or what is it about this being like GTA that you dislike?

For Mafia, if the city is built and you can drive around it, why not just add things to have replayability? I mean the story will always be there. I'm just having trouble trying to understand why the game is somehow being down-graded by being more open-world. L.A. Noire felt like a waste of a map but it's more like Mafia II. It's a pointless map that only serves as a back drop. It sort of defies the point of open-world/Free-roam for me.

I think we need to define open-world again for this discussion... Are we talking about the fact that you can sort of chose to start the mission as you please in a GTA? Or is it that in Mafia you like how one chapter just goes in to next?

I disagree with the gang-hideouts. What's wrong with non-linear? If you have to do them to unlock a main set-piece mission, which will be linear and will have the story we crave with cutscenes, where is the problem? I liked playing RDR like that. Wherever I the main missions took me, I would like to do all the side stuff while I was there, then progress with the main story. It's kind of normal, no?

I think it's more realistic for timeline that you would be doing side-missions/gang-hideouts, then the story carries on, side missions, then story again. Like GTA IV, Nikos story is the main story but in a realistic world, you meet girlfriends, friends, strangers etc. It wouldn't really go from one main plot point to the next and then the next. That to me seems very unrealistic.

How isn't it like GTA? The unrealistic driving, the over the top style etc. and if anything it looks much worse than any GTA so far. I'm fine with good GTA clones (see Sleeping Dogs, it had a great open world + awesome story and characters).

I don't recall having to do pointless & repetitive side missions in GTA games just to get a "real" main story mission. This looks more like the MGS V (also a game that sh*tted all over its series) of the Mafia series, just repeat the same old sh*t just so you can progress in the main story.

Whats realistic about it? Its just forced and a lame way to extend the game. You don't see them eating or sleeping either like you would in the real world, bad comparison. IV is a bad example too, meeting friends and strangers actually added to the story. There were basically no filler side missions.

Good for you if you like that sort of thing but I don't like being forced to do it. I was also always fine with the open world being just a backdrop, I would rather they focus on the story and characters.

Mafia 3 being non-linear and so open just makes it more lame. So the whole game will be taking over district after district and defeating mini bosses, then giving that district to one of your guys and just rinse and repeat (thats how its being advertised)? Not to mention how you can attack multiple districts at once, how will that make for a good story?

Its obvious that the story will suffer from making it a generic open world game. Almost all game series do, see MGSV, DA:I and soon ME:A too. Tired of open world being forced everywhere to be honest.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Journey_95

May 22, 2016

I personally hope that "taking over the city" isn't anything like Assassin's Creed Syndicate, in which all the territory missions are extremely repetitive and tedious.

May 22, 2016

How isn't it like GTA? The unrealistic driving, the over the top style etc. and if anything it looks much worse than any GTA so far. I'm fine with good GTA clones (see Sleeping Dogs, it had a great open world + awesome story and characters).

I don't recall having to do pointless & repetitive side missions in GTA games just to get a "real" main story mission. This looks more like the MGS V (also a game that sh*tted all over its series) of the Mafia series, just repeat the same old sh*t just so you can progress in the main story.

Whats realistic about it? Its just forced and a lame way to extend the game. You don't see them eating or sleeping either like you would in the real world, bad comparison. IV is a bad example too, meeting friends and strangers actually added to the story. There were basically no filler side missions.

Good for you if you like that sort of thing but I don't like being forced to do it. I was also always fine with the open world being just a backdrop, I would rather they focus on the story and characters.

Mafia 3 being non-linear and so open just makes it more lame. So the whole game will be taking over district after district and defeating mini bosses, then giving that district to one of your guys and just rinse and repeat (thats how its being advertised)? Not to mention how you can attack multiple districts at once, how will that make for a good story?

Its obvious that the story will suffer from making it a generic open world game. Almost all game series do, see MGSV, DA:I and soon ME:A too. Tired of open world being forced everywhere to be honest.

Please give me something more than answering my question with a rhetorical question.

Also, can you please elaborate on the over-the-top style? What is the over-the-top style you speak of?

Why is it that anything that follows a city-based open-world game style is a clone of GTA? Do you think that if someone didn't invent the lightbulb that nobody else would have?

The missions aren't pointless. It fits with the story. I'm basing that on facts and evidence. The missions to which I think you are referring to are taking out gang-bosses because you are taking control away from the establishment of the criminal underworld, in this case the Italian-American Mafia. In order cripple the Mafia, you take out their sources of money, their hideouts and their bosses. This is the dirty ground work you would normally do take on a criminal organization. As discussed before, as you take over the hideouts, you will receive an unlockable - whomever you decide to hand that hideout over to (one of your allies) you will receive a unique perk or benefit, depending on which ally you give it to. It's also a balancing act of like the original GTA where if you do so so much for one faction the other may dislike it. Now, can you please tell me how that is pointless or how it's "a forced and lame way to extend the game?"

With that, there's the option to stealthily take over these hideouts or go in guns blazing. With the new takedown features and more stealthier options, I think that will offer variation. Also, with each hide-out being different, with two different ways to take it over, also offering us a great deal of interiors by the sounds of it, I suspect it may not be as repetitive as you seem to know.

Taking over the districts will be complimentary to the story. It seems like you are struggling to imagine that. Maybe you aren't so creative and crave more methodical linearity in life to comprehend this.

The original writer from the original Mafia will be writing the story. I don't see how doing complimentary missions to the main story is going to f*ck up the story, especially as they're functional missions ie. taking over territory.

Just imagine they took out pre-heist missions for GTA V or taking over taking over turf in San Andreas. The taking over the turf in SA didn't change the story, the story would and could remain the same. However, in between missions you could take over turf from the Ballas as Grove St Families reclaimed the throne. Rockstar could have left that feature out because some people might think it's boring and repetitive. Maybe that's not the best example.

I don't know, I'm all for diversifying the gameplay. For me, games are about the game play. I love stories too. You seem to believe that they can't co-exist or that good Mafia story is impossible if more gameplay is brought in.

It was all ready open-world. You could freely drive around in Mafia II and f*ck about. What's wrong with them putting some longevity in to the game? What wrong with them putting more gameplay in to a game? I think you just want a story-game where your not playing that much.

I understand, if the game is gone too much in another direction that you dislike. I would understand your frustration in that respect. I would like another Mafia game where I'm in the Mafia and I rise through the ranks (I'm a sucker for empire-building) and it's set in the 40's again. Unfortunately Mafia II's story was so short and Empire Bay is delicious, especially in the snow.

Fortunately for me, I like the idea of where it's going in terms of them fleshing out more gameplay. I want to get 30+ hours at least, with stuff to do on the side to flesh the game out.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Mister Pink

May 22, 2016