Max Payne 3 Review Thread

Curufinwe said:
I wasn't, although I was surprised when they gave Neverdead the same score a couple of months back.
Click to expand...

would you be surprised if i told you they gave Max Payne 2 a 6? generally Edge mark down games which are seen as 'safe' designs. Max 2 got a six because it 'wasn't really that different to the original'. Max is a competant TPS, so 7. who cares about all the ground breaking work they did in animation and physics. you still just shoot stuff like in the first two right?

i like Edge, but they've always scored the Payne series low.
 
ZoddGutts said:
Had a feeling this game wouldn't be that good. Rockstar North sucks at gunplay, shame this wasn't made by Rockstar San Diego.

Edit: Bah it's Rockstar Vancouver. Still they should have gone with Rockstar San Diego though.
Click to expand...

It was Rockstar Vancouver. Same guys who made Bully.

Edit - Vancouver is a good team. Why is SD better?
 
corporate cheerleader said:
That's how it goes for every game. You collect facts from each and every review, add all the pros and cons (that aren't a matter of taste), watch gameplays and see if you could probably enjoy the game at full price.
Click to expand...

I think some things are telling with the GT review even if they're not a matter of taste. The review makes mention that you'll need aim assists in the SP and that cover will most likely be used a lot more by players since shootdodge becomes more of a risk now that the enemies are tougher. What this means to me is that whoever wrote the review at GT might've had a hard time playing the SP. They might've taken their own weaknesses when playing TPS games as weaknesses of MP3's design, if you understand what I'm saying. (In short: maybe they suck at shooters.)

I never use aim assist in games and I appreciate challenge so I feel that nothing the GT review mentions will be of concern to me. Of course, I'll find out tomorrow.

I still don't trust the GT review any less for what I've described. It's a great review, in my opinion. I couldn't care less about the score because it means far less to me, personally, than the points they bring up in the body of the review.
 
I think the CVG Video Review is interesting. They talk about how it's a stripped back and pure shooter and as a result the 11-12 hour run time drags on and it should have been 6-7 hours.

But then everyone would be complaining that it's only 6 hours long or something.

I don't mind pure shooters. I'm here for the slow-motion murder and the hard-boiled narrative. Scanning reviews, it seems like the cons are fairly consistent (it gets a bit draining over the whole game, checkpoint issues) and the pros are also mostly consistent (great sound, visuals, fun gunplay, great story).

It sounds like a winner to me. At the end of the day, I want a great game with a great story. The fact that it's Max's story makes it ace.
 
I'm happy the campaign/story is about 12 hours. I was hoping for a longer game. A lot of recent games have been under 6-7 hours, it's not something I don't like that much. Feels like it's over too soon.
 
In one fell swoop, the GameTrailers review confirmed my fears about the game and pushed it back from a day one purchase to a Steam sale pick up. This isn't the Max Payne I'm looking for.

Not entirely surprised, but still a little bummed out.

schwabdizzle said:
So how long is the campaign?
Click to expand...

8-10hrs sounds like
 
The only thing I dislike is when people on here say that "Gaf is being Gaf" because people are concerned or upset over a few reviews. For all the people that are "picking out the bad reviews" there are just as many that are only picking out the good ones. That's hot it always works. People that are already in and invested, and are expecting the game to be good are going to try and look at everything with a positive spin, and people who are indifferent are going to look at everything, and usually take note of the negative things more.

I mean, there is already a bunch of buzz over this game, and rightfully so, seeing as the last two were cult favorites, and this new one is being made by Rockstar. Look at all the avatars already. Look at the fan-made gifs. A lot of people are already invested into this game monetarily or emotionally.

Everyone has a soft spot for an upcoming game. I did the same shit at first when Brink was about to come out. Now I'm not saying this is anywhere near the same level of expectation to actual product type of quality drop that Brink was, but there's going to be disappointments. I'm going to wait and play the game for myself and see what the deal is, but I'm not going to just dismiss all the negative or positive reviews about the game either.
 
guidestone said:
RDR is a style (presentation, atmosphere) over substance (mechanics) game.
Click to expand...

Yeah RDR was about as clunky and goofy as any other R* game but the presentation and everything else was what sucked you in. I looked past the wonky controls and enjoyed the game for what it was and it ended up being one of the best games I've played this gen.
 
My only concern is the shooting. R* games do not have tight shooting. If they've nailed the shooting action then it should be a fun ride.
 
soultron said:
I think some things are telling with the GT review even if they're not a matter of taste. The review makes mention that you'll need aim assists in the SP and that cover will most likely be used a lot more by players since shootdodge becomes more of a risk now that the enemies are tougher. What this means to me is that whoever wrote the review at GT might've had a hard time playing the SP. They might've taken their own weaknesses when playing TPS games as weaknesses of MP3's design, if you understand what I'm saying. (In short: maybe they suck at shooters.)
Click to expand...

Sometimes it can be the lack of skill or bad lucky that sours their view on the game, yeah. Like you said, it could work in your favor. Time will tell! :)
 
guidestone said:
RDR is a style (presentation, atmosphere) over substance (mechanics) game.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you look at the Vancouver Crew. they have made FPS games in the past and some CS maps. I think they got gunplay down better. Which is the heart of Payne games.
 
Plexirvones said:
3djuegos (Spanish) 9.5 http://www.3djuegos.com/juegos/analisis/4268/0/max-payne-3/

mundogamers (Spanish) 10/10 http://www.mundogamers.com/analisis-max_payne_3_max_payne_3-ps3.75.html
Click to expand...


Yep, fucking Rockstar. A game series that has always been dubbed in spanish (an rather well) is decided not to because their localisation is fucking cheap. Its not like Rockstar is fucking poor and cant dub their games for goodnes sake, theres much smaller publishers and studios that decide to dub in various languages, and do it good (and if not i can chose to play it with the original voices, thats the best option), but Rockstar decides they are to good for that. Atrocious.
Not only that, but it seems the subtitles are unreadable.
 
Fabrik said:
That GT review seemed to nitpick a bit too much. Are they jaded?
Click to expand...
Hard to say, since you can't really say if the other grades are accurate. Rockstar(or take two to be accurate) is notorious for their demands to play their review builds(like minimum of 90%, 2 pages of advertising, etc), they did this all the way back in the GTA:Vice City days. I like Rockstar, but their publishers do some pretty scummy stuff.
 
Never thought I'd live to see the day where game reviewers complained about a game being long.

Wanting a 6 hour campaign? What in the fuck is going on?

People have gotten so used to bad, short and easy campaigns that an actual long one(as they should be) is seen as a bad thing.
 
HawksWinStanley said:
Yeah RDR was about as clunky and goofy as any other R* game but the presentation and everything else was what sucked you in. I looked past the wonky controls and enjoyed the game for what it was and it ended up being one of the best games I've played this gen.
Click to expand...

This is totally untrue. RDR was leagues above GTAIV with its core mechanics. Shooting stuff in that game felt great. No it wasn't top notch Uncharted 2 feeling 3rd person control, but it was more than competent. You were juggling a ton of different mechanics in RDR between shooting, riding, dead eye, a weapon wheel, your lasso, capturing + carrying outlaws, and skinning animals, and they all flowed a million times better than simply shooting + driving did in GTAIV.
 
guidestone said:
RDR is a style (presentation, atmosphere) over substance (mechanics) game.
Click to expand...

HawksWinStanley said:
Yeah RDR was about as clunky and goofy as any other R* game but the presentation and everything else was what sucked you in. I looked past the wonky controls and enjoyed the game for what it was and it ended up being one of the best games I've played this gen.
Click to expand...

I thought shooting dudes in RDR felt (and sounded) great most of the time. And I played with fully manual aim. It's not as tight as dedicated TPS games, but it was a definite improvement over GTA4. Time-slowing + horseback aiming = ownage.

edit: beaten by Net_Wrecker
 
I could never get into RDR because all the different systems felt too disjointed and movement in general was clunky.

And I think games can be too long. If it's not paced well, the end game can turn into a slog. It's not really a matter of "too short" or "too long," it's whether or not the game can keep you interested long enough. It all depends on the pacing.
 
SpacePirate Ridley said:
Yep, fucking Rockstar. A game series that has always been dubbed in spanish (an rather well) is decided not to because their localisation is fucking cheap. Its not like Rockstar is fucking poor and cant dub their games for goodnes sake, theres much smaller publishers and studios that decide to dub in various languages, and do it good (and if not i can chose to play it with the original voices, thats the best option), but Rockstar decides they are to good for that. Atrocious.
Not only that, but it seems the subtitles are unreadable.
Click to expand...
Dubbing is a barbarity.
Just play the game in its original language and be happy with it.
 
Net_Wrecker said:
This is totally untrue. RDR was leagues above GTAIV with its core mechanics. Shooting stuff in that game felt great. No it wasn't top notch Uncharted 2 feeling 3rd person control, but it was more than competent. You were juggling a ton of different mechanics in RDR between shooting, riding, dead eye, a weapon wheel, your lasso, capturing + carrying outlaws, and skinning animals, and they all flowed a million times better than simply shooting + driving did in GTAIV.
Click to expand...
I concur. Combat was so much better than in GTA IV. Riding horseback was also great.
 
petethepanda said:
In one fell swoop, the GameTrailers review confirmed my fears about the game and pushed it back from a day one purchase to a Steam sale pick up. This isn't the Max Payne I'm looking for.

Not entirely surprised, but still a little bummed out.



8-10hrs sounds like
Click to expand...

I don't wanna watch the review since their stuff tends to be spoilery. Could you elaborate though?
 
Yeah its really weird to see some people just trusting the GT review and not taking other 8+ reviews into account.

Check out the IGN Uk one for a good review. CVG... meh he blames the game for being too long and being one note.. yeah it's max fucking payne.
 
I have no problem understanding concern over a (still above average) review(Gametrailers); what is weird to me is people only taking into account THAT review, when there are thirty others with high 8/9's...
 
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I thought shooting dudes in RDR felt (and sounded) great most of the time. And I played with fully manual aim. It's not as tight as dedicated TPS games, but it was a definite improvement over GTA4. Time-slowing + horseback aiming = ownage.

edit: beaten by Net_Wrecker
Click to expand...

What it comes down to is that San Diego studios mostly do racing. That's their niche other than RDR, really. This whole RDR thing is because a poster said that SD studios should have done it and not Vancouver. I asked "why". Someone else claimed "RDR".

I'm saying the gunplay in RDR isn't good enough that it would guarantee a good Max Payne experience. Some might agree. Some might not.
 
SpacePirate Ridley said:
NO.
If the dub is done right its awesome to play it like that, if its done wrong I can always change it to the original, like this all people are happy. Options are the best thing ever.
If your country doesnt do good dubs is not my fucking problem.
Click to expand...

You do know that(at least in good games) the animations and characters are based on the actors that voice them.

Basically you're butchering all that work, intention and feel to the characters and dialogues by dubbing it. No matter how well it's dubbed.
 
I'm caring far less about review scores these days.

If it looks interesting, chances are I will be interested, irrespective of a reviewer says. Sniper elite v2 has received some crap scores on meta critic, yet the demo was fucking awesome.

By large, mp3 appears to have positive reception. So it can't be that bad, can it?
 
Gui_PT said:
Never thought I'd live to see the day where game reviewers complained about a game being long.

Wanting a 6 hour campaign? What in the fuck is going on?

People have gotten so used to bad, short and easy campaigns that an actual long one(as they should be) is seen as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

You don't see why people wouldn't want a longer game if all the extra time amounts to is unneccesary padding? Rockstar has been pretty guilty of padding their games out to ridiculous lengths this gen (the Irish missions in GTA4, Mexico in RDR) to their detriment, and I don't see how that's not worth singling out as a problem if it has crept up again. Simply making a 12-hour-long game isn't the same as making a game that has 12 hours worth of content, you know?
 
MMaRsu said:
Yeah its really weird to see some people just trusting the GT review and not taking other 8+ reviews into account.

Check out the IGN Uk one for a good review. CVG... meh he blames the game for being too long and being one note.. yeah it's max fucking payne.
Click to expand...
This is probably why;
bcyri.png
 
-viper- said:
I'm caring far less about review scores these days.

If it looks interesting, chances are I will be interested, irrespective of a reviewer says. Sniper elite v2 has received some crap scores on meta critic, yet the demo was fucking awesome.

By large, mp3 appears to have positive reception. So it can't be that bad, can it?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, yes. Look at L.A. Noire. It's sitting at an 89 on Metacritic and it is one of the worst games I've ever played.
 
Ridley327 said:
You don't see why people wouldn't want a longer game if all the extra time amounts to is unneccesary padding? Rockstar has been pretty guilty of padding their games out to ridiculous lengths this gen (the Irish missions in GTA4, Mexico in RDR) to their detriment, and I don't see how that's not worth singling out as a problem if it has crept up again. Simply making a 12-hour-long game isn't the same as making a game that has 12 hours worth of content, you know?
Click to expand...

Oh they complained that a lot of that was padding? My bad, did not catch that.
 
MMaRsu said:
Yeah its really weird to see some people just trusting the GT review and not taking other 8+ reviews into account.

Check out the IGN Uk one for a good review. CVG... meh he blames the game for being too long and being one note.. yeah it's max fucking payne.
Click to expand...

What's really weird is people complaining about the higher/lower reviews or saying that only the highest/lowest review counts when they even haven't played the game while the reviewers actually played it.
 
MuseManMike said:
Unfortunately, yes. Look at L.A. Noire. It's sitting at an 89 on Metacritic and it is one of the worst games I've ever played.
Click to expand...

Just because a game gets X score doesn't mean you're going to Y it.

Save some cash by waiting two weeks for the inevitable $40 sale and then collect opinions from GAFers you trust.
 
I think the GT review had valid reasons for their criticisms. I too am a bit concerned with the technique used for storytelling, and some of their gameplay complaints do make sense.

The industry is not harsh enough on video games and their review scores. The gametrailers review actually convinced me to get the game, but also set my expectations appropriately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Avalanche Reviews | The Max Payne Retrospective: This Game Changed Everything
Analysis Retro Trailer 
4
67
amigastar replied
Rumor: GTA IV and Max Payne 3 Remasters Likely in Development
2 3 4 5 6
267
5K
hinch7 replied
Hades 2 | Review Thread
Review  2 3 4
178
1K
HYDE replied
Little Nightmares III | Review Thread
Opinion Review 
27
163
Negotiator101 replied
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 + 4 | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2 3
111
3K
NeverYouMind replied
Top Bottom