Max Payne 3 -- When Rockstar 'pushes the envelope'

The specs listing 16GB of RAM are nothing more than advertising IMO. Rage and Witcher 2, arguably the two best looking PC games only recommend 4GB of RAM. This game doesn't look nearly that good. I think it's a tactic of the Rockstar saying, "look at how badass we are, you don't even have a system worth of running this..."

Falsehood.

But in other news, the reviews are positive. I'll be missing the Film Noir aspect of Max Payne 1 and 2, but the game play seem spot on to the originals with the addition of the cover system. And for those who said Max Payne 2 wasn't that great need to have their head checked - it was a better version of MP 1.
 
Master Blaster said:
The specs listing 16GB of RAM are nothing more than advertising IMO. Rage and Witcher 2, arguably the two best looking PC games only recommend 4GB of RAM. This game doesn't look nearly that good. I think it's a tactic of the Rockstar saying, "look at how badass we are, you don't even have a system worth of running this..."

Falsehood.

But in other news, the reviews are positive. I'll be missing the Film Noir aspect of Max Payne 1 and 2, but the game play seem spot on to the originals with the addition of the cover system. And for those who said Max Payne 2 wasn't that great need to have their head checked - it was a better version of MP 1.
Click to expand...

Rage? Best looking? WHAT!? Rage is not that good looking.
 
Most of the feedback I'm seeing is pretty good for this so far.

No regenerating health. Still uses pain killers. People are dying LOTS of times as they play. Saying the gunplay feels good.
 
Additionally, the recommended requirements are so high generally means that the coding is piss-poor and not streamlined at all. What was the verdict on if this was a bad PC port?
 
Master Blaster said:
Additionally, the recommended requirements are so high generally means that the coding is piss-poor and not streamlined at all. What was the verdict on if this was a bad PC port?
Click to expand...

The recommendations are not high because those aren't the recommended specs. Rockstar is saying anything between those should work fine. There is no verdict yet because the PC version isn't out until the end of the month.
 
Matthew Kane said:
This game looks promising since all the reviews for it are all very positive.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. It may not be exactly what fans expect, but I still believe it could be a great game. Rockstar has decided to make the game their own and I applaud them for the decision as opposed to simply mocking Remedy's accomplishments. As long as the PC version isn't a console ported turd and is actually optimized for PC it could be a real stunner.
 
_PixelNinja said:
Simply as info -- if you buy the boxed version of the game, it is contained on 4 DVDs.
Click to expand...

That's the way I'm going. No way I'm going to try and download all that. Even at best possible speed and optimal situation for me which is about 2.5 Mbps? The hell with that.

DVD's still install a hell of a lot faster for me here. YMMV.


I think we've got a good game here. The scouring I've been doing keeps coming back with fairly high praise and relatively few and minor complaints.
 
Got this for the PS3. Almost done with it. It's really mediocre at best. Bullet time/shootdodge feels like a gimmick at best, gunfights are unsatisfying (really, no matter how much kevlar a guy is wearing he should be dying after getting shot by 30 bullets), graphics are showing the age of the PS3, etc.

Feels like Uncharted in an urban setting, except without the best part (platforming), with not-as-good graphics, and gang members instead of antagonistic treasure hunters. Also, the story gets really ridiculous and just silly.
 
killazys said:
Got this for the PS3. Almost done with it. It's really mediocre at best. Bullet time/shootdodge feels like a gimmick at best, gunfights are unsatisfying (really, no matter how much kevlar a guy is wearing he should be dying after getting shot by 30 bullets), graphics are showing the age of the PS3, etc.
Click to expand...

Did you play MP1/2? Just curious because I've seen a bit of criticism of bullet time from people who haven't, and it was never a bad thing in the original games. So is it just bullet time in general that you think is a gimmick, or the implementation in MP3 specifically?

Also, "graphics showing the age of the PS3", well, that's not really a surprise, but does that mean they'll look past it on a PC?
 
Master Blaster said:
The specs listing 16GB of RAM are nothing more than advertising IMO. Rage and Witcher 2, arguably the two best looking PC games only recommend 4GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

What difference does anything above 4GB even make for a 32bit executable? (which I'm assuming it is)
 
Litfod said:
What difference does anything above 4GB even make for a 32bit executable? (which I'm assuming it is)
Click to expand...

You're correct if it's a 32-bit executable. The only engine I'm aware of that will require a 64-bit platform, and thus the extra RAM, are games made on Frostbite engine - and the later games at that.
 
Litfod said:
Also, "graphics showing the age of the PS3", well, that's not really a surprise, but does that mean they'll look past it on a PC?
Click to expand...

Ridiculous specs aside: Yes, the graphics on the PC version will be better and probably appreciably so vs the console versions with the eye candy cranked.
 
Litfod said:
What difference does anything above 4GB even make for a 32bit executable? (which I'm assuming it is)
Click to expand...

If the system is 64bit and has more than 4Gb of RAM then the game will benefit by being allowed to use all 4Gb of addressable memory if the Large Address Aware flag is set in the executable.

Obviously if the rest of the system uses RAM as well so a system with only 4Gb might give the OS and other apps something like 2Gb leaving the game with only 2 where as an 8Gb system could assign the game all 4Gb and use the rest for all the other processes and applications.

That doesn't really account for a usage of 16Gb though, although it's a good argument for a system with over 4Gb for sure, more importantly does anyone know if the executable is x64 or not, at this stage probably not. It's entirely possible there could be 2 builds of the game an x86 and x64, usually it's only the small exe and a few other components that need to change to achieve this, that's just speculation of course.
 
polonyc2 said:
Max Payne 3 PC Version Delayed

don't worry it's only by a few days...Rockstar Games revealed today that they've pushed back the North American PC launch so that it coincides with the European release.

North America was supposed to get that particular version of MP3 on May 29th. However, now PC gamers around the world will get it on June 1st

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/348705/max-payne-3-pc-delayed-to-june-1/
Click to expand...


Ass-hats. Here you go! Oh wait, it has to be fair, *change minds*. :rolleyes:
 
So where was this "we know people want a worldwide release" when the console version was released?

That's straight up PR bullshit.
 
Rockstar to push Max Payne 3 "to its limits" on high-end PC's

Sextuple monitor support and scalable texture filter promised...Hoare went on to explain why the game's install size comes in at a hefty 35GB

"The installed size of Max Payne 3 is due to the no-compromise quality of its assets, which already push console disc space to the limits," he said.

"A good portion of the extra space requirements on PC can be attributed to the increased size of the textures, which are four times the size of those on consoles. In addition, the audio quality is significantly higher than the consoles due to lower compression rates, which improves audio fidelity"...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/256186/max_payne_3_pc_developer_interview.html#tk.hp_new
 
Yea good news about the install size. I don't care about the delay since this will end up being a $7.50-12-50 purchase for me anyway.
 
Gabriel said:
Yea good news about the install size. I don't care about the delay since this will end up being a $7.50-12-50 purchase for me anyway.
Click to expand...

For me, I'm not sure yet how much I'm willing to drop on it. MP1 and 2 are guilty pleasures of mine. The games aren't exactly GOTY worthy, but I like them anyway. I'm very particular with how I want MP3 to be, so I'll have to investigate further before plopping down the cash.
 
piratepress said:
35GB ?!? Holy Crap, does it ship on blu-ray discs or something? Even double-layer DVDs would require 5 of them!
Click to expand...
I mean this is most polite way possible but you could have at least read the OP -- debating the requirements is the point of this thread:
_PixelNinja said:
Yesterday Rockstar made public the system specifications for Max Payne 3. Let's have a look.

Minimum specs:

- Intel Dual Core 2.4GHz or AMD Dual Core 2.6GHz
- 2GB RAM
- GeForce 8600 GT 512MB or Radeon HD 3400 512 MB
- 35GB HDD space

35GB of disk space?! That's crazy. Well the rest seems reasonable. Anyway, we all know what minimum specs. mean, so now let's see what they recommend:

- i7 3930K 6 Core x 3.06GHz or AMD FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHz
- 16GB RAM
- GeForce® GTX 680 2GB or Radeon HD 7970 3GB
- 35GB HDD space

Mother. Of. God.

They might be onto to something, who knows? But we all saw how things went with GTA IV... So what are your impressions?

EDIT: My bad for not verifying the information properly. The information was initially presented as such on a couple of blogs and websites I visit. However, it appears that what Rockstar meant is that the game will run on anything between the specs listed. The 35GB of disk space remains though and I am still skeptical about Rockstar optimizing the game for PC.
Click to expand...

Regarding the number of DVDs:
_PixelNinja said:
Simply as info -- if you buy the boxed version of the game, it is contained on 4 DVDs.
Click to expand...
 
they released a new/updated set of specs yesterday:

Lowest tested specs:
•Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
•Intel Dual Core 2.4 GHZ or AMD Dual Core 2.6 GHZ, or better
•2GB System RAM
•NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT 512MB RAM or AMD Radeon HD 3400 512MB RAM

Low recommended specs
•Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
•Intel Dual Core 3GHz or AMD equivalent
•3GB System RAM
•NVIDIA GeForce 450 512MB RAM or AMD Radeon HD 4870 512MB RAM
•At this level, you will be able to comfortably run the game at 30 frames per second with a 1920 by 1080 screen resolution

High recommended specs
•Windows 7/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
•Intel i7 Quad Core 2.8Ghz or AMD equivalent
•3GB System RAM
•NVIDIA GeForce 480 1GB RAM or AMD Radeon HD 5870 1GB RAM
•At this level, you will be able to comfortably run the game at 60 fps at 1920 by 1080

Highest tested specs
•Windows 7/Vista (64 bit)
•Intel i7 3930K 6 Core x 3.06 GHZ or AMD FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHZ
•16GB System RAM
•NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB RAM or AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB RAM
 
^^ That's a hell of a lot more believable across the boards.

I'm really looking forward to this!
 
Apparently the reason MP3 on PC takes up so much space is because the texture quality is 4 times higher than what was used on consoles. At least Rockstar is making the effort to actually take advantage of PC hardware rather than just giving up a plain vanilla port with warts and all.
 
I wanted to purchase this game on PS3, but decided to wait for the PC version.
I'm a long time MAD PAIN fan.
The name comes from the story of the 1st game which was the best of them all
and one of the best written games ever!

35GB is a total fucks.
So if a DVD holds 4GB this game is going to be over 8 disk???lol
I can hardly belive this game is going to be 35GB, it just doesnt make any sense.
If it is 35GB I want to be able to see detailed camel toes!!!!
 
NastyNative said:
I wanted to purchase this game on PS3, but decided to wait for the PC version.
I'm a long time MAD PAIN fan.
The name comes from the story of the 1st game which was the best of them all
and one of the best written games ever!

35GB is a total fucks.
So if a DVD holds 4GB this game is going to be over 8 disk???lol
I can hardly belive this game is going to be 35GB, it just doesnt make any sense.
If it is 35GB I want to be able to see detailed camel toes!!!!
Click to expand...

4GB? You know there are dual-layer discs that hold nearly 8GB, right? Plus install data is compressed. They've already said it'll come on four DVDs. Also why does 35GB sound big these days? With the EE update Witcher 2 is nearly 20GB. MP3 has a ton of pre-rendered cutscenes those things are not small.
 
Derangel said:
4GB? You know there are dual-layer discs that hold nearly 8GB, right? Plus install data is compressed. They've already said it'll come on four DVDs. Also why does 35GB sound big these days? With the EE update Witcher 2 is nearly 20GB. MP3 has a ton of pre-rendered cutscenes those things are not small.
Click to expand...

Actually, MP3 cut scenes are rendered in-game. R* said the reason why the game is so big is the textures size is 4x larger than consoles.

kERXY.gif


:p
 
LeninGHOLA said:
For me, I'm not sure yet how much I'm willing to drop on it. MP1 and 2 are guilty pleasures of mine. The games aren't exactly GOTY worthy, but I like them anyway. I'm very particular with how I want MP3 to be, so I'll have to investigate further before plopping down the cash.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with waiting to see what the verdict is. If the game is good for PC (i.e. it was handled carefully or extra attention was given to it), I would encourage people who (like myself) are fans of MP1 & 2 not to wait until the game is $7.50 on Steam because paying more and paying early helps support the PC gaming cause IMO. I paid more than what I could have for DX: HR and Rage because I wanted to show my appreciation for the fact that they bothered with a PC release. But now I look at it a little bit differently. Like I said above, there's nothing wrong with waiting.

If you wait for the confirmation that a multiplatform PC title is good and then purchase it, you're doing justice to the PC gaming community. We bitch and complain and plead for PC versions of titles (see: Alan Wake, Dark Souls, etc.) and I think when devs/pubs do develop for PC and aren't sloppy/lazy with the port that they should be given more support than waiting until the title is dirt cheap on Steam. It encourages them to keep doing what they're doing.

I used to be willing to pay for PC games that I thought deserved to be on the platform no matter what. But after buying and playing a few sub-par ports, I don't think the devs/pubs deserve our money "just because." If you port a game without code optimization, advanced graphics options, or - God forbid - custom keyboard mapping, then no, you probably don't deserve my $40-$60 upon release because it will encourage you to treat future titles with the same apathy. You put more effort forth and we'll pay more for a better game. That's the message we should be sending.

I know this has been covered in other threads regarding consolization, PC ports, the current state of PC gaming, etc. But I wanted to let you know that although my initial thought was "Buy it Day 1 and support them for bringing us the 3rd game of a classic series!" I realized that it is only worth paying big bucks for if the appropriate care and attention has been given to the PC version. If it's a shitty game or a half-assed port then be my guest to wait until it's $7.50 or less on Steam because I probably will too. That wasn't the case for me several years ago but I've learned my lesson after paying for some pretty disappointing games only to see them plummet in price before I'm even able to play them. I will spend more to buy a great PC game soon after its release. But if it's not a great game or is lacking in areas that would have been easy to fix, I'm going to wait until it's cheap. My backlog is big enough that I'm not desperate for something to play, and I know I'm not alone in that regard thanks to the holiday Steam sales.
 
ktr said:
Actually, MP3 cut scenes are rendered in-game. R* said the reason why the game is so big is the textures size is 4x larger than consoles.

kERXY.gif


:p
Click to expand...

Wow nice. Hopefully that means the cut-scenes will look just as good as the actual game.
 
imyourzero said:
If it's a shitty game or a half-assed port then be my guest to wait until it's $7.50 or less on Steam because I probably will too.
Click to expand...

After further reflecting on that statement, I have three thoughts:

1) Wait and pay less for crappy PC-specific games or ports. It sends the message that the PC platform generates low sales and isn't worth their time. Note when I say crappy games, I'm not talking all-out trash that no one in their right mind would buy, I'm talking about originals and ports that could have and should have been done better (Bully, AC2, etc.)

2) If we wait and pay less, it could mean even less PC games due to lack of sales, thus contributing to the "demise" of PC gaming.

3) So what? Why pay at all for crappy games/ports? There are enough games to occupy us that even if MP3 or something like the Uncharted series was brought to PC, if they were trash there will be enough good games to keep PC gaming alive. Enough companies will exist and know that by giving us good PC games, we will pay for them. The only problem with that statement is that sometimes we support games that are...not so good. Like CoD beginning with WaW/MW2, depending on how you felt about WaW. Example: people foaming at the mouth for AC2 despite its always-on DRM scheme may have sent a message to Ubisoft that, despite the poor choice of DRM, we want that game and are willing to pay for future PC games that are of marginal quality or use similar DRM schemes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top