More on Max Payne 2

Max Payne Headquarters (thanks Xombie) offers some details on the plans for Max Payne 2 based on a story in the latest print issue of PC Zone magazine, discussing the reasons for the subtitle "the Fall of Max Payne," and offering some new scanned screenshots from the third-person shooter sequel. The blurb offers a description of the efforts at making the story more integral to gameplay and some details. There are also reassurances that, in spite of a romantic angle, Max is not going all soft on us in the follow-up, which Remedy's Sam Lake says is "dark, tragic and violent, and mostly in Bullet-Time of course. Love hurts, and you just know there isn't going to be a happy ending? Or is there?"
View : : :
21.
 
Re: Ho-hum
Jun 28, 2003, 17:20
21.
Re: Ho-hum Jun 28, 2003, 17:20
Jun 28, 2003, 17:20
 
Man, I thought Max Payne was one of the greatest games ever released, I'm suprised so many people here don't give it more praise. I just got through playing it again, and while the SP was short and linear, it is a very very fun game. And to those who thought the writing was bad, what part of it was bad? I thought it was superb writing, especially with all of the clever metaphors in the dialog.

The graphics are nice, the engine is great, and the game is FUN. I played it twice through in the past couple of weeks again, and I really don't care if it is the same story line. I don't understand why people say that linear games don't have any replay value. I mean people love watching the same movies over and over; I think a select few games like Half-Life and Max Payne can be played over and over and still be just as fun.

And I really don't think bullet time is a gimmick - the game is very hard (on the harder diffuculty settings), and effective use of bullet time is essential (and fun!). Man I really wish gamers didn't have such pessimistic views about games all the time. Every thread on this site has some rant about "how much xxx game sucks," when (IMHO) they don't deserve it.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
2.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
3.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
4.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
5.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
6.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
10.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
    Re: Ho-hum
11.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
     Re: Ho-hum
7.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
8.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
9.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
    Re: Ho-hum
28.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
    Re: Ho-hum
29.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
     Re: Ho-hum
30.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
     Re: Ho-hum
31.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
      Re: Ho-hum
35.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
      Re: Ho-hum
38.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
       Re: Ho-hum
40.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
        Re: Ho-hum
44.
Jun 30, 2003Jun 30 2003
       Re: Ho-hum
 21.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
  Re: Ho-hum
14.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
32.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
34.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
  Blah
36.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
   Re: Blah
37.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
   Re: Blah
39.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
    Re: Blah
41.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
     Re: Blah
42.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
      Re: Blah
12.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
13.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
15.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
16.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
17.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
18.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
19.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
20.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
22.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
23.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
24.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
25.
Jun 28, 2003Jun 28 2003
26.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
27.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
33.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
47.
Jun 30, 2003Jun 30 2003
43.
Jun 29, 2003Jun 29 2003
46.
Jun 30, 2003Jun 30 2003
48.
Jun 30, 2003Jun 30 2003
50.
Jul 2, 2003Jul 2 2003
51.
Jul 5, 2003Jul 5 2003
45.
Jun 30, 2003Jun 30 2003
49.
Jul 1, 2003Jul 1 2003