Originally Posted by DougClayton4231
Both games play well on the consoles. It's very funny that he griped about the length and the multiplayer, as it is virtually as long as the first game and offers better multiplayer. The graphics are better than the first games as well and it runs at a constant 60fps. That's why I said the review is completely biased, there's nothing objective about the whole review.
Mafia 2 was reviewed very similarly. It sucks just as much ass as GTAIV or the expansions, except that the cars actually handle somewhat accurately, but it was panned for shortening the GO HERE-SHOOT 30 GUYS-DRIVE HOME formula to 10 hours instead of 30. It's pretty much the same game sans helicopters and rocket launchers but everyone hated it.
I wouldn't say that Mafia 2 shortened the formula at all. In fact, I'd say they milked it. I can't tell you the number of missions that have you starting off at your house (west end of town), going down to the docks (south end of town), and going to Joe's place (north end of town).
GTA 4, on the other hand, shortened all this considerably by letting you take cabs wherever you wanted because they understood that while a car chase can be fun, driving a long distance without a time limit is not. I understand that some of these instances in Mafia 2 are so they can squeeze in some dialog, but when Rockstar did that in RDR, they mixed it up by having the NPC drive you on occasion. None of this "I'll pick you up, but you drive my car" nonsense.
As for Kane and Lynch, Jim had said that the main draw for the original was the story and unique characters, as the gameplay was a bit lacking. That's why he hated the second one so much; it had all the same problems, and none of the character development of the first. He also mentioned that the multiplayer experience suffered from many of the problems he mentioned for the single player campaign.
Finally, the reason I don't like people calling game reviewers "biased" is because that statement has no meaning. When you review something, you compare it with what already exists, then you layout the good and bad points with explanations for each. That's pretty much the antithesis of objectivity. The only aspect of a game that can be evaluated objectively is whether or not the game actually runs, and even that can depend on what equipment you're using.
Reporters are the ones who are supposed to be unbiased. Not game reviewers.