@Cloud_imperium said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@princeofshapeir said:
Max Payne 1 & 2 are better than any Naughty Dog game ever: fact. Look it up.
Agreed, although Max Payne 2 was arguably lacking on the story front.
For my money's worth Max Payne 3, (Rockstar) was mostly a better sequel let down by one or two shitty on the rail sections.
Max Payne 2 had better story imo. As for Max Payne 3,,, that was weakest in the series. From story to shooting mechanics, everything is average at best. You can't carry more than 3 weapons, there are no grenades or molotov cocktails, on rail sections are terrible, cutscenes have terrible glowing effect, Story is Man on Fire rip off, writing is mediocre, not even a single character is interesting, long boring cutscenes and then you have cover based shooting.
When you move your camera in slow motion with mouse, it takes forever before Max can turn his body to shoot enemies ie- gameplay was slowed down for controllers. You can't go too far after killing enemies because cutscene triggers and door behind you gets locked, which means you can't go back to previous area to pick up ammos or guns (probably to because PS360 couldn't handle bigger levels). It was full of flaws.
Eh. I'd say story wise Max Payne 3 was excellent, rivaling and exceeding most action movies at the time and what have come since. While it lacks the stylish pulp comic book panals it makes up for it with stellar voice acting, a killer soundtrack and great choreography.
I've seen this argument a couple of times regarding man on fire (which is really just in regards to the psychedelic style), but Max Payne himself is basically was the Punisher to begin with, with the shooting copy pasted from Hard Boiled, many have went out of their way to attempt to paint Max Payne 3 as a ripoff while ignoring the originals influences, which is pretty hypocritical. Even before the game was released people flung shit at it, as they do.
Max Payne 3 from a character perspective makes more sense as well, his entire family killed, he's just massacred hundreds of people, and Max Payne 2 starts with him pretty much fine for the most part going on to become what it thinks it edgy romance, but kinda just comes across as bland compared to the first one.
Max Payne 3 starts off with him half way round the world running away from his problems popping piles and being a wrecked as a husk of a man. Instead of simply copying everything from the first as the sequel did, Rockstar deliberately use the opposite color pallet with a story loosely linked and using themed from the original rather than hinging on a B-character. It feels more like a sequel.
If I had a problem with the story, it would be the gun-ho moments in which be stretches out his arms with 10-20 bad guys imploring them to do something, this happens at least twice in the game. These dude bro moments are very Grand Theft Auto, but don't fit well with this franchise, generally undermining everything around it.
The best moments of the story are the small little comments the character makes, many of them jumping back to the original (e.g. Here I was again, half way down the world and still looking at the bodies of women I was suppose to protect, but only this time I didn't understand the language), it just acknowledges rather than piggybacks it as so many game sequels do.
Having heard about wall cover I suspected the worst, but mechanically it is almost identical. But as stated, very Rockstar section with boats, scripted wack-a-mole and on the rails that doesn't fit. I imagine given the repetitive nature of Max Payne they probably felt they needed to add variety and make it more bombastic to raise the stakes, but I think most people who enjoyed Max Payne were more than happy just shooting people over and over. The original (as well as this) are fairly short condensed games, 6-7 hours tops.
Log in to comment