Was Max Payne 2 one of the worst and most disappointing sequel??

[IceForce]

Also, dont like the woman hating

where this not liking certain games means women hating came from??

Because every time the subject of a female protagonist and/or a female main character comes up, you show nothing but disdain for them. Go back and look at your past comments regarding Lara Croft, Elizabeth Comstock, Ciri, etc.

You also say that you dislike playing as Mona Sax; - a female with actual characterization, an actual personality, and an actual backstory; - but then say that you enjoyed playing as Chell, a female who has none of the above, and can barely be considered a "character" at all, more like just an avatar with a female face.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you, but to anyone else it's not a surprise that your comments come across as sexist or even borderline offensive.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Also, dont like the woman hating

where this not liking certain games means women hating came from??

Because every time the subject of a female protagonist and/or a female main character comes up, you show nothing but disdain for them. Go back and look at your past comments regarding Lara Croft, Elizabeth Comstock, Ciri, etc.

You also say that you dislike playing as Mona Sax; - a female with actual characterization, an actual personality, and an actual backstory; - but then say that you enjoyed playing as Chell, a female who has none of the above, and can barely be considered a "character" at all, more like just an avatar with a female face.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you, but to anyone else it's not a surprise that your comments come across as sexist or even borderline offensive.

So because i prefer to play as males because im guy. that make me women hater? come on my friend.

the point is, not playing as chell. point its Portal is only game with female protagonist i ever liked. and that was coincide or it was made by valve or it remind me of Half life. or something. Max payne 2 is weakest game in series not because of playing as mona (and thats only short part) but because of things i mentioned.

it was not my fault that lara croft was terrible whiny character but theres plenty of well written female characters like shodan from system shock and Alyx from Half life.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Also, dont like the woman hating

where this not liking certain games means women hating came from??

Because every time the subject of a female protagonist and/or a female main character comes up, you show nothing but disdain for them. Go back and look at your past comments regarding Lara Croft, Elizabeth Comstock, Ciri, etc.

You also say that you dislike playing as Mona Sax; - a female with actual characterization, an actual personality, and an actual backstory; - but then say that you enjoyed playing as Chell, a female who has none of the above, and can barely be considered a "character" at all, more like just an avatar with a female face.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you, but to anyone else it's not a surprise that your comments come across as sexist or even borderline offensive.

So because i prefer to play as males because im guy. that make me women hater? come on my friend.

the point is, not playing as chell. point its Portal is only game with female protagonist i ever liked. and that was coincide or it was made by valve or it remind me of Half life. or something. Max payne 2 is weakest game in series not because of playing as mona (and thats only short part) but because of things i mentioned.

it was not my fault that lara croft was terrible whiny character but theres plenty of well written female characters like shodan from system shock and Alyx from Half life.

Okay, in a proper discussion, you would actually provide reasons why Lara Craft is bad to you while Aljx and Shodan are. That is the nature of proper debate and the lack of constructing arguments is why I called you a poor debater and why people see you as sexist.

You want to dispel the notion you are sexist, actually construct an argument

 

[Kae]

I must start this by saying that even though I haven't played Max Payne 1 & 2 in awhile, the first time I played both was on 2012 back when Max Payne 3 came out & I played all 3 of them back to back and I must say, you're wrong.

Max Payne 2 is different to Max Payne but that's because it was a much bigger production and as a result a far more polished game, now this doesn't mean better and a lot of the charm of Max Payne 1's amateur & rough production that gave it a more gritty tactile feel but also much more of a tongue in cheek quality was most definitely lost and I don't think it feels as passionate & energetic as the first one, however the polish that was gained & more professional presentation gave it a much more consistent tone that was able to marry Max Payne's Parody elements with the Neo-Noir tone a lot better than the first one if you ask me anyway.

In addition to that I think the writing is very much on point, I don't want to say best in the series as it's far less witty than it was on Max Payne but it's definitely much more clever and better paced they go pretty deep into Max's Psyche and the Amusement Park level is one of my favourite levels that I've ever played, it's clever, witty funny & dark, I have no idea who came up with building a theme park that was modelled after Max's inner conflict but it's absolutely brilliant & something that could only ever have been pulled off by a work that straddles the line between parody & serious as thinly as Max Payne does & the ending itself is also a very nice closing of this chapter of the life of Max.

There's no way a game as good & clever as Max Payne 2 that actually builds on the character, mechanics & themes of the previous one could ever even be considered to be close to the list of worst sequels ever, just for the fact that it's thematically inconsistent & mechanically it fails to iterate successfully in the previous games in the series I would say that Max Payne 3 is easily a much worse sequel than Max Payne 2, especially on how it mostly waves off all the character development that went on during the second game & in addition to that as mentioned before Duke Nukem Forever still exists & there was also that awful Alone in the Dark co-op sequel that came out that was garbage & while we're with horror games let's not remember that Silent Hill Downpour exists & while we're at Silent Hill let's not forget that even the most decent of sequels that came out after 3 are all much worse sequels than Max Payne 2 is and I should probably stop just about now.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

So because i prefer to play as males because im guy. that make me women hater? come on my friend.

the point is, not playing as chell. point its Portal is only game with female protagonist i ever liked.

So, out of curiosity... Why is it that nearly every female character you've ever played as up to this point was bad or made the game worse, and many games that have them as protagonists ended up being on your shit list for seemingly little other reason... and yet the one game with a female protagonist that is silent, the game doesn't focus on her gender, and that unless you actually saw her at some points you'd probably never know the difference, that suddenly this game is ok in your books despite having a female protagonist?

Is it because of the above reasons? Cause I don't think people are calling you a woman hater for being a guy. They're calling you a woman hater cause you love every game with the grittiest, gravelly manly men in it, but the moment a woman is involved it's "the worst thing ever"

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you

You really shouldn't bother. Aside from his asinine "opinions", he's also very much a liar. Half the games that he said he played, he didn't. He just hates them on principle because they feature a female protagonist.

you love every game with the grittiest, gravelly manly men in it

Maybe he's the gayest person in the world.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

So because i prefer to play as males because im guy. that make me women hater? come on my friend.

it was not my fault that lara croft was terrible whiny character but theres plenty of well written female characters like shodan from system shock and Alyx from Half life.

You can't play as Shodan or Alyx. Hell you'd probably hate those games if you could.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you

You really shouldn't bother. Aside from his asinine "opinions", he's also very much a liar. Half the games that he said he played, he didn't. He just hates them on principle because they feature a female protagonist.

you love every game with the grittiest, gravelly manly men in it

Maybe he's the gayest person in the world.

1. Im straight.

2. I played Max Payne 2 and like i said I enjoyed it. its not wolfenstein level of bad. it was fun but i found it worst in series. when i played 15 years ago and even replayed now. thats my point.

3. I already mentioned mona or not. i would have consider it inferior to original but original had charm, had amazing dark gritty atmosphere, nightmare sequence were better, and it has better locations too.

 

[SolidState]

Maybe it's just me, but "I can't be a woman hater because I liked Chell" sounds uncomfortably similar to "I can't be racist because I have a black friend"

It's the most token and insincere reasoning one could possibly come up with.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

3. I already mentioned mona or not. i would have consider it inferior to original but original had charm, had amazing dark gritty atmosphere, nightmare sequence were better, and it has better locations too.

Okay, you feel this way, fine.

Actually explain why you think this, actually generate supporting arguments or else, you will get nowhere

 

[sXeth]

I'm sorry, what? T3 undermines the first two films (especially T2) in that it effectively makes them a waste of time. We have two films where a recurring theme is "no fate," then T3 does a 180 and goes "yes fate," where JD occurs because it always had to occur, and where everything up to this point is effectively rendered meaningless. So, not only is there significant thematic whiplash, but it's done in the context of a film that's really just a lesser version of T2.

Uh T1 prettymuch sets up fate. Since JD has to happen for Kyle Reese to get sent back for John Connor to be born.

T2 and T3 establish that you can maybe stretch the proverbial rubber band, but thats always snapping back to the pre-aligned course.

I'll give Salvation some credit for at least trying to broaden the setting a bit, though the execution would barely qualify as "shoestring" quality under any reasonable thought put in to it.

 

[Hawki]

Uh T1 prettymuch sets up fate. Since JD has to happen for Kyle Reese to get sent back for John Connor to be born.

In the context of T1 itself, even if John's conception can be taken as pre-destination paradox, the film still introduces us to "no fate." As in, in that specific context, Reese is imparting it to Sarah that her future is in her hands, that she has to take charge and survive, so that her son survives as well.

T2 and T3 establish that you can maybe stretch the proverbial rubber band, but thats always snapping back to the pre-aligned course.

Um, no.

T2 doesn't do this. T2 runs with the idea of "no fate" even further. This is reinforced over and over, mainly from Sarah's POV, to her carving the words on the bench, to her nightmares of the future, to the dark road analogy, to how they stop Judgement Day - as in, in the context of the film itself, history is changed, and JD never occurs. There's nothing to suggest in T2 that future events are inevitable, and the entire film bases itself around altering those events. Watch to the end of T2, and there is absolutely nothing in the film itself that suggests that the future war will happen. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

T3 is the film that turns all of this on its head. You know, the tonal whiplash is arguably bad enough, but if we look at the first three films as a stand-alone trilogy, then this becomes even worse, because it makes the entirety of T2 redundant. Not just in terms of theme, in terms of plot. Like, you could easily have T1 occur, have T2 never occur, make slight alterations, and you wouldn't really miss anything. It's not a good idea in a trilogy to make your second installment a complete waste of time. It's ironic that T3 cribs so much from T2 in terms of plot and action, but simultaniously invalidates it as well.

I'll give Salvation some credit for at least trying to broaden the setting a bit, though the execution would barely qualify as "shoestring" quality under any reasonable thought put in to it.

Salvation takes the #4 space on my ranking of the Terminator films, but setting isn't the issue for me. If Salvation has a key issue, it's that the film isn't John's story. It's Marcus's. Marcus gets more screen time, and it's Marcus who has the character arc...all this for a character who dies at the end. If Salvation had its promised sequel films made, then maybe that would be mitigated, but since all it got was a lacklustre comics conclusion, I have to take it as it is. But whatever flaws it has, Salvation isn't copy-pasting a prior film, and nor is it undermining it.

 

[sXeth]

Uh T1 prettymuch sets up fate. Since JD has to happen for Kyle Reese to get sent back for John Connor to be born.

In the context of T1 itself, even if John's conception can be taken as pre-destination paradox, the film still introduces us to "no fate." As in, in that specific context, Reese is imparting it to Sarah that her future is in her hands, that she has to take charge and survive, so that her son survives as well.

T2 and T3 establish that you can maybe stretch the proverbial rubber band, but thats always snapping back to the pre-aligned course.

Um, no.

T2 doesn't do this. T2 runs with the idea of "no fate" even further. This is reinforced over and over, mainly from Sarah's POV, to her carving the words on the bench, to her nightmares of the future, to the dark road analogy, to how they stop Judgement Day - as in, in the context of the film itself, history is changed, and JD never occurs. There's nothing to suggest in T2 that future events are inevitable, and the entire film bases itself around altering those events. Watch to the end of T2, and there is absolutely nothing in the film itself that suggests that the future war will happen. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

T3 is the film that turns all of this on its head. You know, the tonal whiplash is arguably bad enough, but if we look at the first three films as a stand-alone trilogy, then this becomes even worse, because it makes the entirety of T2 redundant. Not just in terms of theme, in terms of plot. Like, you could easily have T1 occur, have T2 never occur, make slight alterations, and you wouldn't really miss anything. It's not a good idea in a trilogy to make your second installment a complete waste of time. It's ironic that T3 cribs so much from T2 in terms of plot and action, but simultaniously invalidates it as well.

I'll give Salvation some credit for at least trying to broaden the setting a bit, though the execution would barely qualify as "shoestring" quality under any reasonable thought put in to it.

Salvation takes the #4 space on my ranking of the Terminator films, but setting isn't the issue for me. If Salvation has a key issue, it's that the film isn't John's story. It's Marcus's. Marcus gets more screen time, and it's Marcus who has the character arc...all this for a character who dies at the end. If Salvation had its promised sequel films made, then maybe that would be mitigated, but since all it got was a lacklustre comics conclusion, I have to take it as it is. But whatever flaws it has, Salvation isn't copy-pasting a prior film, and nor is it undermining it.

T2 actuallly reinforces the pre-destination issue. As the tech for Skynet was also from the future and part of the loop. Furthermore, despite Sara's pre-knowledge and training efforts of John, the Terminators are still jumping back, thereby the efforts were unable to shift it.


T3 (and certainly its a critiquable choice, and a little flimsy in how it gets there) just takes that to the end conclusion. They've realized they can't avert Judgement Day in the past, and focus back on making sure the Terminators/Skynet don't knock back the Resistance years or decades by knocking John off course. (And also stripped away John's keystone messiah status since he just dies in the future anyways).


T4 then contradicts everything, because John Connor is suddenly the all important hero that requires the insane Xanatos Gambit to try and kill him. Marcus aside, if anything, the more relevant plot would be Skynet having picked up communications from one of the prior Terminators that Kyle Reese was Johns Father and trying to hunt him down in the future-present.

Thats really kind of where Skynet has its biggest idiot ball. It only ever sends hunter=killer bots. When it could have a bot reconning Sarah/John/Whoever and finding out every detail about them then uploading the data onto some obscure internet server or forum for future Skynet to find. Then sending much more effective hunter-killers who wouldn't have to wander about playing detective.

 

[TopazFusion]

Half the comments in this thread are roasting another user for their taste in video games, and the other half are about a completely different series altogether. When a thread has strayed this far off track it means something's gone wrong, so I'm closing this one.