Why did L.A. Noire get critical acclaim.

I'm not saying that L.A. Noire is an overrated game, but many people thought it was going to be like GTA and it wasn't and it still received critical acclaim, Mafia II on the other hand, which people also thought was going to be like GTA and it wasn't, got slammed to the ground by critics.

From my experience with Mafia II, I just found it to be dull and boring. Hated the driving a lot.

That being said, L.A. Noire received a lot of praise due to the facial animations. I've never seen like it in a videogame before it. It looked realistic and believeable.

If someone compares L.A. Noire or Mafia 2 with GTA they have no idea what theya re talking about. Aside from driving around it has nothing in common with GTA, in the slightest. Just like those amateur reviewers who said Rise of the Argonauts was trying to be God of War or that Assassin's Creed was a stealth game.

Because it had the Rockstar name on the package.

L.A. Noir, while not everything I had hoped, was a very interesting experience with some very unique gameplay. It wasn't perfect but it was innovative and unlike anything else on the market.

Mafia II was a good shooter with great production values but little else. The driving was dull and the open world empty and pointless.

It was a solid 7.

Because it had the Rockstar name on the package.

coasterguy65

I was rather hoping somebody would make this garbage argument.

So is it your assertion that games like Read Dead Redemption received universal praise merely because of the Rockstar label?

I'd love to know where this fallacious bit of nonsense comes from given the fact that Rockstar has continually put out some of the best-reviewed, best-selling games of this generation.

Did the millions of consumers only buy these games because of the Rockstar label as well?

I'm genuinely curious to know where such vapid assertions come from and what possible evidence you could offer to support such a statement.

i wouldn't say a 76/75 is a "slam" by critics(talking about Mafia 2)

Anyway,about L.A. Noire, i didn't play much, but i thought it was pretty boring and dull.

maybe i just need more time with it though, i may get for PC when it's like 15-10 bucks or something.

[QUOTE="coasterguy65"]

Because it had the Rockstar name on the package.

Grammaton-Cleric

I was rather hoping somebody would make this garbage argument.

So is it your assertion that games like Read Dead Redemption received universal praise merely because of the Rockstar label?

I'd love to know where this fallacious bit of nonsense comes from given the fact that Rockstar has continually put out some of the best-reviewed, best-selling games of this generation.

Did the millions of consumers only buy these games because of the Rockstar label as well?

I'm genuinely curious to know where such vapid assertions come from and what possible evidence you could offer to support such a statement.

If someone compares L.A. Noire or Mafia 2 with GTA they have no idea what theya re talking about. Aside from driving around it has nothing in common with GTA, in the slightest. Just like those amateur reviewers who said Rise of the Argonauts was trying to be God of War or that Assassin's Creed was a stealth game.

Black_Knight_00

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

If someone compares L.A. Noire or Mafia 2 with GTA they have no idea what theya re talking about. Aside from driving around it has nothing in common with GTA, in the slightest. Just like those amateur reviewers who said Rise of the Argonauts was trying to be God of War or that Assassin's Creed was a stealth game.

AcidSoldner

It's as much stealth as Splinter cell Conviction imo.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

If someone compares L.A. Noire or Mafia 2 with GTA they have no idea what theya re talking about. Aside from driving around it has nothing in common with GTA, in the slightest. Just like those amateur reviewers who said Rise of the Argonauts was trying to be God of War or that Assassin's Creed was a stealth game.

AcidSoldner

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

If someone compares L.A. Noire or Mafia 2 with GTA they have no idea what theya re talking about. Aside from driving around it has nothing in common with GTA, in the slightest. Just like those amateur reviewers who said Rise of the Argonauts was trying to be God of War or that Assassin's Creed was a stealth game.

Black_Knight_00

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]But..... Assassins Creed was a stealth game...AcidSoldner

Hopefully, AC III will revive that...

From my experience with Mafia II, I just found it to be dull and boring. Hated the driving a lot.

That being said, L.A. Noire received a lot of praise due to the facial animations. I've never seen like it in a videogame before it. It looked realistic and believeable.

Metamania

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]But..... Assassins Creed was a stealth game...AcidSoldner

L.A. Noire did something new. Mafia II did not.

You have a point. Mafia 2 was criticized for not being a full blown sanbox game with many mindless shooting missions. It was as you have said before " misunderstood". IMO one of the greatest games of all time. What it did was go for an authentic Mafia story & experience from beginning to end.

It wasnt just mindless shooting missiosns. The 1st half of the game has you doing everything, all the small tasks, selling cigarettes on the street, breakiong into a goverment building & stealing ration stamps, going through prison life, shooting up a diner, etc.

It was never just mindless mass murdering missions with hundreds of enemies. Its the ADHD, trigger happy gamers that wanted mindless murdering with big set pieces that did not like M2. I think what they wanted was a mindless sandbox/mafia game & if so there was always the Godfather 2.

It deserved critical acclaim. LA Noire also did desvere critical acclaim but it did fly by without getting slammed for not being GTA. Lucky for LA Noire. It did attempt something that had never been done in game design before though.

It kind of failed in many ways but trying to implement the concept it had & turn it into game mechanics is not easy. For a 1st attempt it actually worked quite well.

You have a point. Mafia 2 was criticized for not being a full blown sanbox game with many mindless shooting missions. It was as you have said before " misunderstood". IMO one of the greatest games of all time. What it did was go for an authentic Mafia story & experience from beginning to end.

It wasnt just mindless shooting missiosns. The 1st half of the game has you doing everything, all the small tasks, selling cigarettes on the street, breakiong into a goverment building & stealing ration stamps, going through prison life, shooting up a diner, etc.

It was never just mindless mass murdering missions with hundreds of enemies. Its the ADHD, trigger happy gamers that wanted mindless murdering with big set pieces that did not like M2. I think what they wanted was a mindless sandbox/mafia game & if so there was always the Godfather 2.

It deserved critical acclaim. LA Noire also did desvere critical acclaim but it did fly by without getting slammed for not being GTA. Lucky for LA Noire. It did attempt something that had never been done in game design before though.

It kind of failed in many ways but trying to implement the concept it had & turn it into game mechanics is not easy. For a 1st attempt it actually worked quite well.

brucecambell

Finally, someone who understands what I mean. Also, Mafia II is not only among this generations greatest titles, but also is the mostunderrated game this generation.

Finally, someone who understands what I mean. Also, Mafia II is not only among this generations greatest titles, but also is the mostunderrated game this generation.

RageQuitter69

Mafia II isn't even close to being one of this generation's best titles.

If anything it was one of this gen's most glaring disappointments.

It's not a bad game by any means but it's a short, pseudo-open world title that isn't really open at all. The saving grace is that the visuals are solid and the combat generally excellent but given the developmental span between the original and the sequel it didn't come anywhere close to meeting expectations.

Because, I dunno, it's good?