Dear Rockstar. What the hell?

[Senor Smoke21]

-snip-

Oh yes, it's quite well balanced as you can't use it that often. And there are other perks that can be more interesting than the bullet time one. (Especially the one that lets people think you're on their team. Dead useful with a shotgun in close quarters, you can clear out a room before they know what hit them.)

That said, anyone can use a slo-mo shootdodge, which can actually be just as fun for the person it's used against, trying to shoot someone out of the air who's in a slo-mo dive out the window. And knowing when and where to use it is an interesting tactical aspect. All told, I really like the way it's implemented.

Hah, that actually sounds pretty sick. Gonna give it a go when I've got some time!

 

[Chairman Miaow]

It's got bolt-on multiplayer. what more evidence do you need? The publisher went "here, put multiplayer into it because everyone else does, even though it adds fuck all to the game".

Oh, it does? Tell me: how do you know that? Is there some sort of multiplayer printing-press that produced it? Because I've found it to be remarkably well put together and, more importantly, fun.

And it seems remarkably difficult to know, even if you could detect this sort of thing, unless you've actually played it.

You've got the wrong man I tells yah!

 

[Chairman Miaow]

This...

Hmmm.

Imagine a fat guy on a diet in Starbucks. He orders a coffee. They give him a free cookie. He didn't want the cookie because he was there for a coffee, no more, no less. He didn't want the cookie because he didn't like cookies, he was on a diet and just wanted his coffee. So he starts raging in the face of the barista for giving him a free cookie he didn't want because HE WAS THERE JUST FOR A COFFEE, WHY ARE THEY GIVING HIM THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CORE COFFEE-BASED EXPERIENCE.

THAT is what this rage is like.

Now, now, let's be fair.

It's like he was given the coffee and the free cookie, knowing he got the cookie, left, drove home/to work/to a zoo/amusement park/Statue of Liberty/Big Ben, started drinking his coffee, then got outraged over the inclusion of the cookie, and proceeded to call up Starbucks so that he could rage at the barista.

EDIT: I mean, I don't really have anything OT to add to this... most of the time, multi-player isn't even developed by the same teams working on the single-player. Regardless of my opinion on the inclusion of multi-player into games that don't need it, it's a ridiculous thing to get so worked up about.

Actually, the metaphor doesn't quite work.

He is not raging at the barista.

It is more he started drinking the coffee at some random landmark of your choice and then promptly began to accost random strangers (Us) about the horror of being given a free cookie.

Actually, it's more like he was given a coupon for a free cookie, because if he wants, he never actually has to go on the multiplayer or even look at it until he wants to, whereas the cookie would go bad.

 

[fozzy360]

Ok, first of all, let's get this out of the way. Why the fuck does Max Payne have multiplayer? Have you people never played the first two? Why waste man-hours ADDING A PART TO YOUR PRODUCT THAT NO ONE FUCKING ASKED FOR? No one will not buy your product because it doesn't have multiplayer BECAUSE NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR GAME BECAUSE IT HAS MULTIPLAYER IN IT, WE'RE BUYING IT BECAUSE MAX PAAAYNE 3.

Also, FOUR DVDs? Really? Do me a favour, the DVD that loads the multiplayer assets? Yeah, you can leave that out.


Publishers, stop putting multiplayer into things that don't need it.

NO MP IN MP!

YEAAH!

Anyone else pissed? Or is it just me?

Edit: Turns out Primeape was a fitting choice for today -_-

It might be just you. I've always been a bit dubious about putting multi in franchises that haven't had it, but as long as the single player doesn't suffer, then there's nothing to complain about other than just a pointless multiplayer. MP3's single player took me well over 12 hrs., and I'm starting a second run though (something I don't do often). Plus there's the arcade mode with New York Minute and score attack, and you see there's a lot to do without having to touch multiplayer.

That said, I'm having a fucking blast in MP3's multiplayer. Dual PT92s all day, everyday.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

I thoroughly enjoyed Max Payne 3.It was a good ride all the way through. The only things I had an issue with was the last two missions. Fucking body-armored goons...

Also, 4 discs, you say?

lol, Blu-ray ftw.

 

[Starke]

This...

Hmmm.

Imagine a fat guy on a diet in Starbucks. He orders a coffee. They give him a free cookie. He didn't want the cookie because he was there for a coffee, no more, no less. He didn't want the cookie because he didn't like cookies, he was on a diet and just wanted his coffee. So he starts raging in the face of the barista for giving him a free cookie he didn't want because HE WAS THERE JUST FOR A COFFEE, WHY ARE THEY GIVING HIM THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CORE COFFEE-BASED EXPERIENCE.

THAT is what this rage is like.

Anyone else read this and immediately think of Alan Wake?

Now, now, let's be fair.

It's like he was given the coffee and the free cookie, knowing he got the cookie, left, drove home/to work/to a zoo/amusement park/Statue of Liberty/Big Ben, started drinking his coffee, then got outraged over the inclusion of the cookie, and proceeded to call up Starbucks so that he could rage at the barista.

EDIT: I mean, I don't really have anything OT to add to this... most of the time, multi-player isn't even developed by the same teams working on the single-player. Regardless of my opinion on the inclusion of multi-player into games that don't need it, it's a ridiculous thing to get so worked up about.

Actually, the metaphor doesn't quite work.

He is not raging at the barista.

It is more he started drinking the coffee at some random landmark of your choice and then promptly began to accost random strangers (Us) about the horror of being given a free cookie.

Actually, it's more like he was given a coupon for a free cookie, because if he wants, he never actually has to go on the multiplayer or even look at it until he wants to, whereas the cookie would go bad.

Honestly the original metaphor probably works better for ME3, where it was, "YOU WILL PLAY OUR MULTIPLAYER OR GET A BAD ENDING!" Just saying.

 

[Starke]

I thoroughly enjoyed Max Payne 3.It was a good ride all the way through. The only things I had an issue with was the last two missions. Fucking body-armored goons...

So, like every other Max Payne game ever, only they hold out that long instead of throwing them at you at the halfway mark?

 

[ChildishLegacy]

So you haven't even played it and are making conclusions? YAAAAY!

It's got bolt-on multiplayer. what more evidence do you need? The publisher went "here, put multiplayer into it because everyone else does, even though it adds fuck all to the game".

Prove that adding in multiplayer took away from any of the single player game, it's most likely that there was a different team working on the multiplayer part of the game, so they probably added more resources to the game rather than leeching from the single player resources.

 

[Woodsey]

I thoroughly enjoyed Max Payne 3.It was a good ride all the way through. The only things I had an issue with was the last two missions. Fucking body-armored goons...

Also, 4 discs, you say?

lol, Blu-ray ftw.

They're all either one or two shot kills still with headshots.

(And discs? What is this, the 90s?)

 

[TheCommanders]

Ok, real quick comment, with the disclaimer that I have not played Max Payne 3, nor have any opinion about the quality of it's multiplayer.

For anyone who thinks that adding multiplayer does not take away recourses from single player, or cause it to take longer to be produced, that is factually wrong. Adding multiplayer is a lot of work, and that work requires people and time. Either they take those people and time away from the main game, or they take longer making it with the same amount of people. In no case does multiplayer emerge out of the ether for no extra cost or loss in man hours to the company. QED

Imagine a fat guy on a diet in Starbucks. He orders a coffee. They give him a free cookie. He didn't want the cookie because he was there for a coffee, no more, no less. He didn't want the cookie because he didn't like cookies, he was on a diet and just wanted his coffee. So he starts raging in the face of the barista for giving him a free cookie he didn't want because HE WAS THERE JUST FOR A COFFEE, WHY ARE THEY GIVING HIM THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CORE COFFEE-BASED EXPERIENCE.

THAT is what this rage is like.

I recall someone used an analogy with going to Starbucks and getting a coffee, than complaining that someone gave you a cookie that they didn't want. It would actually be more like either they gave you a cookie, but only 3/4 the coffee, or they took twice as long to get the coffee, but gave you a cookie. If you didn't want the cookie, then all they've done is worsen your coffee. Stop complaining about complainers with the use of bad analogies. I know it makes you feel like you can rage with slightly more legitimacy than direct raging, but doing so without thinking what you're saying through just makes you sound redundant.

 

[doomspore98]

So you haven't even played it and are making conclusions? YAAAAY!

It's got bolt-on multiplayer. what more evidence do you need? The publisher went "here, put multiplayer into it because everyone else does, even though it adds fuck all to the game".

Have you even played the multiplayer? If not, shut up about it being crap, it's actually pretty fun and intuitive.

 

[Kesimir]

Ok, real quick comment, with the disclaimer that I have not played Max Payne 3, nor have any opinion about the quality of it's multiplayer.

For anyone who thinks that adding multiplayer does not take away recourses from single player, or cause it to take longer to be produced, that is factually wrong. Adding multiplayer is a lot of work, and that work requires people and time. Either they take those people and time away from the main game, or they take longer making it with the same amount of people. In no case does multiplayer emerge out of the ether for no extra cost or loss in man hours to the company. QED

I recall someone used an analogy with going to Starbucks and getting a coffee, than complaining that someone gave you a cookie that they didn't want. It would actually be more like either they gave you a cookie, but only 3/4 the coffee, or they took twice as long to get the coffee, but gave you a cookie. If you didn't want the cookie, then all they've done is worsen your coffee. Stop complaining about complainers with the use of bad analogies. I know it makes you feel like you can rage with slightly more legitimacy than direct raging, but doing so without thinking what you're saying through just makes you sound redundant.

You are missing a very obvious third option. If a completely separate team of designers that only work multiplayer plied their craft independently from the single player designers it could be shoehorned into the final game without detracting in any way from the single player. If this separate team were not working multiplayer for Max Payne they would be working on another game's multiplayer like Midnight Club DUB Edition or something. If this were the case than you would be free to argue whether or not this other team did a good job with their proverbial shoehorning or not based on its own merits because it did not effect single player at all...

Or since we are all fond of the starbucks analogy; consider that the guy with the half shaven head and ill-advised piercings handing out free cookies does not interfere with the productivity of the raven haired, red-highlighted, bedazled purple eyeshadow wearing barista with the black lipstick that hands out your double half-caff non-fat mocha latte with cinnamon sprinkles.

Is that scenario so hard to believe?

 

[TheCommanders]

-snip-

You are missing a very obvious third option. If a completely separate team of designers that only work multiplayer plied their craft independently from the single player designers it could be shoehorned into the final game without detracting in any way from the single player. If this separate team were not working multiplayer for Max Payne they would be working on another game's multiplayer like Midnight Club DUB Edition or something. If this were the case than you would be free to argue whether or not this other team did a good job with their proverbial shoehorning or not based on its own merits because it did not effect single player at all...

Or since we are all fond of the starbucks analogy; consider that the guy with the half shaven head and ill-advised piercings handing out free cookies does not interfere with the productivity of the raven haired, red-highlighted, bedazled purple eyeshadow wearing barista with the black lipstick that hands out your double half-caff non-fat mocha latte with cinnamon sprinkles.

Is that scenario so hard to believe?

Ah, and I suppose that other team of designers are working pro bono, are they? Not likely. They are being paid by Rockstar, they are staff of Rockstar. Again, I am offering an opinion not having played Max Payne 3, rather talking about game development in general, but there is nothing that goes into a game that doesn't cost money or man hours or both. If it's another studio, then it's just money, but don't underestimate what the loss of budget can mean for the final quality of a game. Finally, cudo's on the description of your Starbucks analogy, but it's not really applicable. A game has a budget. Money from that budget, if allocated to working on multiplayer, means less money is allocated to single player. This negatively affects single player. It's very, very simple. I speak as a student studying game development and design, so this isn't speculation.

 

[Deathmageddon]

I for one had no motivation to replay the (incredible) story mode, MP is a good way to keep playing and really get your $65 (USD) worth. I'll concede that 4 discs is probably too many.

 

[nasteypenguin]

Ah, and I suppose that other team of designers are working pro bono, are they? Not likely. They are being paid by Rockstar, they are staff of Rockstar. Again, I am offering an opinion not having played Max Payne 3, rather talking about game development in general, but there is nothing that goes into a game that doesn't cost money or man hours or both. If it's another studio, then it's just money, but don't underestimate what the loss of budget can mean for the final quality of a game. Finally, cudo's on the description of your Starbucks analogy, but it's not really applicable. A game has a budget. Money from that budget, if allocated to working on multiplayer, means less money is allocated to single player. This negatively affects single player. It's very, very simple. I speak as a student studying game development and design, so this isn't speculation.

Rockstar, in all likeliness has enough money to fund these guys to go into outer space without needing to cut into the Max Payne budget, the issue is the amount of money Rockstar is willing to put into the creation of the game. Generally this is based on what they are expecting to profit from it, and multiplayer has been known to increase sales.
One could argue that the addition of a separate multiplayer aspect actually increased the budget the game had for single player as well.

 

[TheCommanders]

Ah, and I suppose that other team of designers are working pro bono, are they? Not likely. They are being paid by Rockstar, they are staff of Rockstar. Again, I am offering an opinion not having played Max Payne 3, rather talking about game development in general, but there is nothing that goes into a game that doesn't cost money or man hours or both. If it's another studio, then it's just money, but don't underestimate what the loss of budget can mean for the final quality of a game. Finally, cudo's on the description of your Starbucks analogy, but it's not really applicable. A game has a budget. Money from that budget, if allocated to working on multiplayer, means less money is allocated to single player. This negatively affects single player. It's very, very simple. I speak as a student studying game development and design, so this isn't speculation.

Rockstar, in all likeliness has enough money to fund these guys to go into outer space and not work on the game at all, the issue is the amount of money Rockstar is willing to put into the creation of the game. Generally this is based on what they are expecting to profit from it, and multiplayer has been known to increase sales.
One could argue that the addition of a separate multiplayer team actually increased the amount of funding the game had for single player as well.

Sigh, I'm not really getting anywhere here, but I'll just say two things.

1. Games now are getting multiplayer for 2 reasons - It's a selling point for a small percentage of people, and it's a way to increase the longevity of the game to combat used game sales. Of course they could just make a good game that's worth replaying, but most producers would rather go with the way that is guaranteed rather than the way that is better.

2. Games have a fixed budget decided on pre production. It doesn't matter how much the company has, it's how money that company says that any particular game can have at it's inception. Therefore, when you take away money to work on multiplayer, you have less money left to work on single player. In some companies that means you will have less people to work on it, in bigger companies, it just means you have to invest more man hours, but either way, the single player doesn't receive as much attention as it could have.

 

[Goofguy]

Don't dis it til you've tried it? The multiplayer is pretty damn fun and it doesn't take away from the single player experience. Nothing stops you from, you know, NOT playing it.

I would probably be upset about 4 DVDs, if I wasn't playing MP3 on my PS3. I am utterly convinced now, more than ever, that Blu-Ray is the way to go.

 

[Razoack]

this is probably the dumbest thread i have ever read about on this forum. It's a free feature, a good free feature at that, so why are you complaining?

For Example, in World of Warcraft, i never did PvP (arenas anyway) because it was something i was never interested in. However, i don't berate the game for providing it.

In a related note, from watching videos of the multiplayer it seems to be very enjoyable, providing a decent solution to the problem of bullet time. If that's also a problem, why are you trying to play Max Payne and not a generic shooter. Hell, go play John Woo's Stranglehold, i bet you can pick that up for cheap and there's certainly no multiplayer on that anymore.