The Original Mafia game is generally criticized for being a linear game in an open-world, but I think its linear nature is one of its strengths, because it gives the narrative a tight, driving focus that open world games tend to lack.
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
67 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1454 readers
72 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Shadow of the Colossus was linear, but I don’t recall anyone complaining.
I think Mafia received that criticism because of its surface level similarity to GTA, which is known for packing a ton of random side content in its open world.
In Mafia there is genuinely nothing to do out in the world when driving around outside of the main story missions, except for occasionally a mechanic at a garage will offer you some small mission to steal a newer and faster car. Because of that, people complained that the open-world part was pointless and a waste.
Is this the one where I kept trying to go visit my mom (as part of my belligerent insistence on looking for stuff to do in the open world after every mission), but the game wouldn't let me go into any building that wasn't the next story mission, and then later the main character got chewed out by his mom for never visiting her? I did find that annoying.
That might've happened in the sequel? I don't think you ever see the main character's parents in the first game, but I do recall visiting them when you come back from WWII in the second game.
I wasn't a big fan of the sequel, since I found the main characters to be unsympathetic assholes.
I think you're right, it must have been the sequel!
Red dead redemption 2 was pretty linear and I think it's one of the best games
In the case of rdr2, it has a linear story, but a plethora of side content the player can engage with outside of the main missions. In Mafia, there was a single person that would sometimes offer you little missions to steal faster and better cars, but otherwise had no side activities whatsoever in between driving to and from the story missions. The lack of side content was the main complaint.
Ariel in Disney's A Little Mermaid doesn't drop everything for "a man".
She is clearly interested in land culture from the opening of the film, spending her time collecting shipwreck items and trying to learn what they are. She also isn't interested in the hobby her father wants her to do, singing.
King Triton is abusive when destroying Ariel's collection of artifacts, which makes you think of what else is going on with how he parents her.
So, Eric shows up and seems like a way out. It isn't a lot of information to go off of for adults, but it is something solid for a teenager.
And what did she give up to gain her legs? Her voice. People interpret it as her giving up being able to speak for herself, but it is her giving up the thing that her father cares about.
In the original cartoon, it is explicitly shown that Triton does not like, or enjoyed or wanted to harm or hurt Ariel by destroying her collection. He wanted to protect her from her own follies and didn't know what else to do. At worst, flawed but well intentioned.
This is obvious on the shot of his face, showing his sad expression, hurt and regret as he looks back at her and as she starts crying, as he leaves. This important nuance was completely cut out from the live action film. Doing so recontextualised the entire scene.
Which in the film does make him look like a crazy asshole father, do not know why this was done as it just unnecessarily vilifies him without reason and removes previously shown emotional depth and context from the cartoon. My guess was because he = man, and man = bad, which went along with some people working in the film and some others saying that she had dropped everything for "a man."
It is still an act of violence against things she loved. It may be well intentioned, but we wouldn't condone that behavior in real life.
A big complaint I saw about the live-action Cowboy Bebop adaptation for Netflix was that the acting was too cartoony/over-the-top.
Personally, I thought the acting was spot-on for what they were trying to accomplish. It was meant to be a live-action anime, so it was never intended to be 100% tethered to reality to begin with. The characters are meant to be characters, and I thought they did a great job with it. Spike, Faye, and Jet were all perfectly-cast, IMO, and they all felt like their original characters felt from the animated series. There are so many times where you can just close your eyes and listen to them talk to each other, and it feels exactly like it felt watching the anime on Adult Swim back in the early 2000s as a kid.
I honestly loved the live-action adaptation and thought it was amazing. I'm still immensely disappointed that the reception was so poor that Netflix decided to cancel it halfway through the story. There are so many characters I wanted to see that didn't appear until later in the original series. I would've loved to see a live-action Toys In The Attic or Heavy Metal Queen.
I really liked it too, and was deeply disappointed that it was cancelled prematurely.
TBH, it seems like Netflix cancels everything that I really end up enjoying, and dragging out shows that should have been a limited series (e.g., Stranger Things).
The Zelda complaint is extra bullshit considering other open-world games like Just Cause do exactly the same thing by giving the guns limited ammo, so you constantly have to switch weapons based on what the enemies drop.
Everyone is on fire in this thread. Every comment legitimately interesting and well thought out. Upvotes abound. (Apologies for the meta)
Almost every case of movie purists. The Hobbit trilogy was great. The new Star Wars trilogy was great. The old ones are great too.
I have similar issues with music and video games. I almost always love the most hated albums or games in a series based on the loudest commentary online. I also find the most popular entry to be kind of meh. I think average people have boring taste or just follow a crowd or something.
Whenever certain keys words are thrown around to criticize something, you bet it’s actually not as bad as everyone is making it out to be. I went through the entirety of The Last Us Part II and she-hulk just because of the hate, and boy was the hate overblown.
Felt the same about Ms Marvel, you'd think it was some crime against humanity. There were a couple cheesy moments (and I love cheese) for sure but I enjoyed it.
Both She-Hulk and Ms Marvel had flaws as TV shows. On account of being TV shows. The over focus on those flaws was driven by people who wanted to hate them for not being about white American men.
It seems like a lot of people complain about Doctor Who not really having any canon or rules, and contradicting itself constantly (sometimes within the same episode) but I don't think that's necessarily a failing because it's not trying to do that at all.
The trend these days is for a lot of shows, especially sci-fi ones, to be sort of 'internet-proof' and be designed to withstand the people who go through frame-by-frame looking for little errors and contradictions to pull apart, and Doctor Who ignores that completely and just aims to be big fun campy dramatic nonsense, which I think it mostly succeeds at. I think the only cardinal sin for that show is don't be boring, which IMO it pulls off more often than not.
And it's fine to not like that of course, but I don't get it when people try to call the show out for not doing something it's never really tried to do, at least since it came back in 2005.
The Van Gogh scene is amazing, and it made me think that I understand the purpose of the show
I once read a comment on the old site about how Skyrim’s combat is like mashing WWE action figures together.
I completely agree but I don’t think that’s a weakness at all. Maybe when it released, the game was seen as a grand RPG by more casual people and as a watered down Oblivion by older ES players.
But I think by looking at it not through the lens of a grand RPG, but as a familiar, comforting brain-off experience, it really shines. It really gave us the most it could for how low effort it is to play, and I mean that in a good way.
I remember getting recommended a YouTube video (by the algorithm) called something like “why do we still like Skyrim” and I thought the video was very disappointing. And I think the video’s thesis was about the same as mine in this comment. I wanted it to be something like this:
I associate the game with a long tradition of RPGs that I wasn’t around for, as one of the last great games we got before the priorities of the industry shifted again. The graphics didn’t need to be perfect, the comically small number of VAs didn’t need AI bullshit, the straightforward story lines don’t need to be groundbreaking. The music and atmosphere though are immaculate. It’s a game with a ton of flaws, even some jank that is endearing in hindsight. It just works!
Throw on the modding aspect and you have a very “pure” PC gaming experience. This is exactly what I want from a game, something that’s good enough to just be fun to run around aimlessly in, without feeling like I need a podcast to play in the background, that I can just lose hours in.
I’m playing a much higher effort game now. Workers and Resources Soviet Republic makes the Cities Skylines 2 look like drawing stick figure houses. WRSR is absurdly complex and is super engrossing when you’re in it, if you’re wired to enjoy these types of games. However, I need to be mentally ready to jump in.
With Skyrim I just launched it when I was bored, and I was less bored after.
I insist: Skyrim’s simplicity is what made it work.
Dark Souls 2 gets so much hate for a few things that I don't see as a big deal, or gets blamed for things that are present in the other games in the series.
They tied a stat called Adaptability to your dodge, so you have to level up that stat to get the same number of invincibility frames as the previous game. I did not notice at all until I read complaints about it. I never felt entitled to a certain number of i-frames. I can see how it might be annoying to someone with more experience from DS1, but it's far from a deal breaker for me.
People complain about hitboxes, as if DS1 isn't full of nonsensical jank in this category.
They complain about enemy spam, as if there aren't 12 undead crammed in a small room before the Gargoyle boss who will body block you if you don't deal with them. Or 8 Taurus demons followed by 6 Capra demons in a row. Or 40 crystal undead that hit like trucks in the Duke's archives. Or another 12 undead in one room in The Depths.
Then there's the magic bullet - Miyazaki wasn't that involved. Ok, well does that mean the rest of the company is useless? Maybe he should create the entire games all by himself just to make sure those pesky colleagues don't screw it up. It's so disrespectful to the rest of the team to imply they aren't shit without him.
People cry "development hell" when you point out the very unfinished second half of DS1, but crucify DS2 which had a massive change of direction and redesign halfway into development.
Ds2 does a lot right in vibes. I didn't really get it that much while playing but it focuses a lot on being an RPG and making you utilize the different systems in the game. You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.
That said I found the game kinda ass to play. I think the enemy spam in ds2 is significantly worse than ds1 other than the room before the gargoyle fight. When there is enemy spam in ds1, you can almost always run past it. In ds2 you're pretty much forced to fight every single enemy every single time.
I do think it's over hated but I think it's because people wanted a clone of ds1 which its not. If you went into without any expectations, I suspect it would be viewed much differently.
You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.
Totally. My first playthrough was as a sorcerer which was difficult, but advantageous in many ways. These games are praised for not hand-holding and DS2 is no different - you're expected to adapt. Adaptability is not just a stat, but a state of mind.
When there is enemy spam in ds1, you can almost always run past it. In ds2 you’re pretty much forced to fight every single enemy every single time.
I have to disagree. I never felt body-blocked so often in 2 as I did in 1. They don't make it easy, but in 2 most areas you can just run through if you bait enemy attacks as you dodge. There are some exceptions like Iron Keep which is downright sadistic in forcing you to kill the enemies, though, for sure. I felt the same way with the bloat-heads in Oolacile township, Demonic Foliage in Darkroot Garden, crystal undead in Duke's, 90% of enemies in Undead Burg and Parish, New Londo Ghosts. I'm sure the amount of experience with either game can make the difference between running through and getting stun-locked though - I still feel like a noob when playing 1.
I do think it’s over hated but I think it’s because people wanted a clone of ds1 which its not. If you went into without any expectations, I suspect it would be viewed much differently.
I think you're right. I played 2 before 1. Both were frustratingly difficult at times, but that was the only expectation I had going in, since the series is known for being about overcoming challenges.
This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There's another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.
This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There’s another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.
I definitely know what you mean about those areas in 2. All four Lord Soul runbacks in DS1 make me feel a similar way. Though if any of these areas in either game were easy it wouldn't feel so dang good to overcome them :)
The lord soul runbacks are rough for sure. I hated doing them, but never for the enemies. Just so long for no real reason lol. But you're right, challenge is absolutely the name of the game here
While I understand people's criticisms of Sucker Punch, I still really enjoy the movie and its soundtrack.
One of the most common criticisms I see is that their outfits have sex appeal. It's a totally valid criticism, but at the same time, I see this as Babydoll choosing an outfit that is the exact opposite of the unsexy hospital gowns she's forced as a way to escape her reality. I would do the same to be honest.
I enjoyed the ending to the Battlestar Galactica series. I know there were some missed opportunities but the writer's strike had an impact.
Sonic Adventure 2's mech stages. I actually loved those stages and was really surprised to learn that so many people didn't like them, I always found it so satisfying getting good combos!
some people think harry potter is actually well written, they probably think it, because they read it as a kid and it was one of their first books, but the writing is quite plump and the storytelling mid at best imo
It depends on the book, tbh. I've read them all as an adult and was surprised how the quality varied
I’m playing Dragon’s Dogma II, taking the suspended tram into Bahkbattal or however you spell it. One of my pawns failed to make it into the basket before it started moving but they’re not a ranged fighter so they’re no use in driving off harpies anyways and I don’t bother turning back since I know from previous antics that they tend to find a way back to you.
A few minutes into the trip, dangling precariously in a rickety wooden contraption over a canyon, I hear the cry of a griffin. I spot it over the horizon, its eyes locked with mine. I am forced to watch helplessly as it approaches, drawing an arrow as if it could accomplish anything. The griffin slams into my tram, shattering it instantly and dropping the three of us to our doom.
That pawn that didn’t make it on the tram catches me in a bridal carry and sets me gently down on my feet, completely unharmed.
That’s why the game’s fast travel systems are made to discourage you from using them, because adventures don’t happen during loading screens.
So much this! It’s hard to argue against qol stuff, hard to explain why Dark Souls doesn’t need difficulty settings, new Zelda games degradation system is reasonable, RE games with no moving while shooting adds to the immersion, monsters in monster Hunter don’t need a health bar etc
I didn't read the GOT books. That said, I enjoyed the show through to the last episode and wouldn't have thought twice about any of it if the fans weren't so angry. Idk why but I just don't have the ability to be critical of (or follow very well) story or writing, or anything really. Maybe I'm just too good at suspending disbelief?
I thought the general broad strokes of what happened were fine (IE with
), I just thought it was rushed and done in a kind of sloppy way. I really didn't like
spoiler
Daenerys being the big villain and stuff
spoiler
Bran becoming the king though
'cause I fucking hate that character lol.
Yeah, the broader plot points would have been totally workable if the execution hadn't been so rushed and half-arsed.