Max Payne 3 WHAT?

[Plague_Injected]

Best interactive CG movie ever.

 

[MrAgmoore]

It wasn't really the same as Max Payne 2. The repetitive psychedelic lighting was gratuitous. The game was very consolified.

 

[HamHB]

Best interactive CG movie ever.

 

[djoye]

Best interactive CG movie ever.

YES...

It wasn't really the same as Max Payne 2. The repetitive psychedelic lighting was gratuitous. The game was very consolified.

...and YES. I want to play it but the psychedelic shit I can only take so much of at a time.

I know that Max drinks a lot, and they're doing a good job conveying that, but the effects remind me of the times where I've had way too much to drink and then the times that typically follow that if I haven't been consuming an adequate amount of food and water to help cushion the fall.

This game gives me post traumatic night of heavy drinking disorder.

 

[M33X7]

One of my fav games this year. Good story, appreciated the cut scenes on my first playthrough. It broke it up some and added a lot of immersion, imo. My only gripe was not being able to skip them on subsequent playthroughs.

Agreed.

It was meant to be a more cinematic experience, and the gameplay itself actually was great, with a great deal of immersion between the story telling and the gameplay, as well as the general atmosphere. I personally thought it was excellent.

I agree with the OP. Games shouldn't be 90% cutscene and 10% player control

No, not generally speaking, unless that's what it's trying to be, so I think people have to finally have a different perspective on the game.

It was trying to be more story-driven, not an all-out FPS action title, and it did a fantastic job as such, IMO, coming together cohesively, with both engaging story telling and great action.

People keep seeing MP3's approach as a "mistake", when it's actually what the devs intended it to be, so in general, people need to learn to appreciate things for what they are meant to be, and not what they think it "should" be, and not by comparing it to other games, even iterations in the same series.

If a game is meant to be heavy on the story telling, then that's the mindset you have to have going into it/playing it, appreciating it for what it has to offer.

Yes, there were a lot of cutscenes, but when the action was on, it was so immersive, that it felt to me like far more many hours of gameplay than it actually was, which says something about the game's execution.

Sure, I felt there could have been a bit more action/gun play added, but would it have fit? Or felt tacked-on? Hard to know now, and it could have perhaps benefited from a bit more, but it was great for what it was, which was very engrossing.

Just my 2 cents, but there it is in a nutshell.

 

[Domingo]

I'd say the story and presentation were strong points. The gameplay was the problem. All of the guns were the same to the point that the pistol was able to snipe just like the rifles, but better. How about some grenades? Maybe some melee weapons like the first game? Maybe limit the range of the accuracy for the pistols?
This one have a little more realism to enemies taking headshots...so they were pretty much all the same, too. I don't mind that, but maybe make some of them use tactics that slo-mo can't beat so easily.
The presentation and look were top notch. It was just the game underneath that got old.

 

[HamHB]

I'd say the story and presentation were strong points. The gameplay was the problem.

Yes and No. The gameplay shined throughout most of the game(but mostly in the beginning stages) The problem wasn't the gameplay, it was the infamous repetitive virus, that most video games nowadays have trouble with. There was absolutely nothing new and impressive about progressing animations. They all felt like a been there, done that moment. It was mostly guns blazing, freeze time-------->pull a Hesinberg(horrible Breaking Bad joke) --------> then continue with the next chapter

Don't get me wrong, the story's direct handling and flawless continuation was really nailed down, but the game just didn't have enough substance to turn heads.

The presentation and look were top notch. It was just the game underneath that got old.

The reason i gave this game a strong 9.25 wasn't because of the single-player aspect alone. This game was meant to be played online. If you didn't play this game online, you didn't get your money's worth. The amount of awesomeness during my time online felt like a CS 1.6 and Starcraft manajatwa. That RTS, semi-fast paced third person shooter feel was a whole new rush. Play this game in a LAN with 10-15 people, and just the epic nature/aspects of the game alone, will make BF3 feel extinct.

 

[Koko56]

l88bastard - sure it probably would have been more awesome to play MP3 on newer and bigger hardware but you are missing the point. Several people here have systems way better than me yet have similar opinions. It can be too easy to take things like that personally, but don't - cos that will make things even easier.

M33X7 - sometimes it does not matter how you approach a game it can be impossible to like.