Talk:Mafia III

OS X?

Where did that come from? Blackbird256 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Check the sources. It was confirmed for OS X at GamesCon. (Like usual, it might take longer than the PC/console release, but it's still been announced.) 24.148.32.68 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Faster Baby!, a new DLC for Mafia III

I just watched a gameplay video of a new DLC for mafia III that came out. Why isn't it included in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 20:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

How new is it? It's possibly nobody has gotten around to writing it yet if it's very new (like a release date of today).Stereorock (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, another DLC has been released called stones unturned. Please bring the development section up to date/speed with the DLC's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

A new DLC has been anounced, its called sign of the times. Would anyone please updte the development section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone please put an "Aditional Content"(DLC) section in the article?

macOS

There appears to be some disagreement as to whether macOS should be included in the platforms for this game. The macOS release has been announced for 2017 and a citation has been provided for this in the article.
MySuperBelt85 (talk · contribs), Could you expand on your reasoning for removing the macOS platform from the article? – gwendy (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gwendy:The user won't enter into discussion and now can't due to their indefinite block. so I'll explain in the hope that they read this and understand. The user's problem is that the Mac version hasn't been released, as per their edit summary in January "I will keep deleting macOs, because it hadn't been released yet". They're operating on a false principle. Wikipedia has always operated on the principle that video game platforms that have been announced are listed in the article, eg. Red Dead Redemption 2 has a vague release date of late 2017, but it has verified information about the platforms that it will appear on. Using the user's logic we should remove the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One information because they haven't been released yet. But the user can't or won't see this, and just keeps on with their edit war. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like MySuperBelt85 is back but as a IP user. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, maybe ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:E956:9201:F00C:C115:BC9:1766 (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What you don't understand, because you are all stupid, is that when it was't released yet (although now yes), it could not be listed as PLATFORM. So as condemn, I will keep with edit war and vandalism on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeltneverdies (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia puts upcoming release dates and their platforms in all game articles before release. See Red Dead Redemption 2 or any other yet to be released game. Not sure why you think that it couldn't be listed, Wikipedia has always operated this way. - X201 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln Clay's Race

The article has it wrong - I'd fix it but don't have access - in the game, he is referred to as a guy whose mother was Dominican and father was believed to be white - he isn't black. He's a mixed-breed (so to speak) Latino, who's seen as black by the people in game because of his dark complexion. In the words of the guy who gives us this information in-game, "If you aren't black but you look black, then you're black." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.128.66 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Empire Bay is not NYC

In the plot section, it says Empire Bay is a fictionalised version of New York City. However, this is not true. Lost Heaven (Mafia I) might be based on NYC, but I never read something about that either. I always thought that both were completely fictional cities on the East Coast of the USA. UkainoADX (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"reimagined" v "imaginary"

I recently corrected the article's description of New Bordeaux from a "reimagined" New Orleans to an "imaginary" one. This got reverted with the explanation that "reimagined is correct because the developers recreated New Orleans in the game". This isn't a huge deal, but having these discussions on talk pages is always less likely to lead to edit warring than having them in edit summaries, so here goes:

1. it's not true that New Bordeaux is a recreation of New Orleans. New Bordeaux is a clear creative choice to be reminiscent of New Orleans while deviating massively from the real city. (The article even discusses ways in which New Bordeaux is not New Orleans, such as its proximity to the bayou.) Simply because we can identify New Orleans as the inspiration for New Bordeaux doesn't mean it's correct to describe New Bordeaux as a reimagining of New Orleans.

2. recreating a real city in a video game wouldn't be "reimagining" it anyway, so the justification in the edit summary is a non sequitur. "Reimagining" is taking an existing work of art (usually narrative art, like a TV show, movie, book or video game) and remaking it from a different creative angle. In order to be reimagined, something has to have been imagined in the first place. You can reimagine a fictional place, like Middle Earth or Zenda. But New Orleans isn't fictional; it's an actual, real place. It doesn't come from someone's imagination; it exists. Therefore New Bordeaux hasn't been reimagined from New Orleans; it has been imagined for the first time, as a brand new, fictional city inspired by a real-world location. The appropriate adjective for something that has been created in the imagination is "imaginary".

3. to be on the safe side, I ran a google search for definitions of "reimagine". I was actually surprised at the number of dictionaries that had it, considering that it's basically a neologism that was invented for film and TV marketing less than twenty years ago. Every single definition that came up (Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, Collins English Dictionary, the Free Dictionary, and--most importantly--Oxford Dictionaries) defined it as either a new version of something that had previously been imagined, or as a reinterpretation of a previous work of art. Neither of those apply to creating a fictional version of a real city. (I did find this article on the distinction between reboots, remakes and reimaginings a really interesting read.)

4. reverting my edit also restored a grammatical error I'd corrected, in addition to fixing the misuse of "reimagined". Reversion is an iffy thing to do anyway (I would recommend a review of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:DONTREVERT); making articles worse through reversion is definitely not okay.

To reiterate, I don't think the word choice is a big deal. I bring it here only because the alternative is to start an edit summary fight. "Reimagined" is clearly incorrect, but any reader can tell what it's supposed to mean, which means its use doesn't really harm the article too much. I do still think that the sentence and the article are better with the change, but I won't push back too hard if other editors feel strongly the other way. Binabik80 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we just say "New Bordeaux is based on New Orleans"? if that's what sources say? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m fine with any formulation that reads well, conveys the information and doesn’t use words to mean something other than what they actually mean. Sources are useful but not definitive in a discussion like this because no one is disputing any actual facts (unless someone is genuinely saying the original New Orleans is a work of fiction rather than a real place?) but rather our specific word choice, but here are the first four I was able to find: the Guardian says “inspired”, Polygon says “a spin on New Orleans” and IGN and Gaming Trend both say “fictionalized”. Any of these, or your own suggestion, seem fine. My own suggestion would perhaps be to change “New Bordeaux, a re-imagined version of New Orleans” to “New Bordeaux, a fictionalized New Orleans”, which is perhaps better even than either “re-imagined version of” or “imaginary version of” because it conveys the exact same information in two fewer words. Binabik80 (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

There is a spelling mistake I found. Nick sidaway123! (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OceanHok (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)