Max Payne 3 PC requirements released. You won't be playing max.

  • 146 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Metal_Mills (3033 posts) -

Max Payne 3 PC System Specifications

Operating System:


Windows 7 32/64 Service Pack 1, Windows Vista 32/64 Service Pack 2, Windows XP 32/64 Service Pack 3

Processor:


Intel Dual Core 2.4 GHZ -  i7 3930K 6 Core  x 3.06 GHZ / AMD Dual Core 2.6 GHZ - FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHZ

RAM:


2GB - 16GB

Video Card:


NVIDIA® 8600 GT 512MB VRAM – NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680 2GB VRAM / Radeon HD 3400 512MB VRAM - Radeon HD 7970 3GB VRAM

Sound Card:


100% Direct X 9.0 compatible – Direct X 9.0 compatible supporting Dolby Digital Live

HDD Space:


35 GB 

 
http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/28201/max-payne-3-for-pc-new-screens-and-details-including-system-spec.html
 
16GB ram, 680GTX, 8 core CPU, 35GB size? What a fucking beast! 35GB? Seriously? That's bigger than the The Old Republic! Lol, have fun downloading THAT off steam! I hope this is just because it's going to push graphical limits and not just a piss poor optimization.
#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Then the title is entirely accurate. If you run it on Max, you will experience Payne. Also, there's a 3 in it.

#3 Posted by Animasta (14718 posts) -

35 gigs? are they serious? I refuse to believe it.

#4 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@Metal_Mills said:

 Lol, have fun downloading THAT off steam!

I respect my games, they have a sentimental value to me and I want to have boxes and goodies and decorations and little souvenirs of them that I can look at, hold in my hand or stick on my belongings, so don't worry, if I end up buying Max Payne 3 (if it turns out to be a proper MP title), I'll be buying the box. 
 
Anyway, those max requirements are insane. Is it because Rockstar got their act together and decided to spend a little money on creating a next-gen beast, or because the game will be so unoptimized it will require a beast to run decently?
#5 Posted by Aegon (5763 posts) -

That seems odd. 35 gigs I don't mind so much, but the rest is kinda strange. 

#6 Posted by Demoskinos (15100 posts) -

Rockstars recent track record with PC games make me Infinitely not care about the PC version. I'm calling bad optimization no way in hell does this look better than witcher 2 on Max settings.

#7 Posted by BigChickenDinner (766 posts) -

Some people.......

#8 Posted by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

I guess it's optmized really badly. Visuals aren't too great. A single model in Shogun 2 has more detail than what I am seeing here.

#9 Posted by matthias2437 (985 posts) -

I'm rocking a I7 3930k @ 4.5 ghz, 32 gb ram, 2x GTX 580, 2x 240 gb SSDs I use for gaming. So correction, I WILL be playing max settings. Also you will not need that high of specs to run that considering the fact that no videogame that will be made in the next 5 years will use 16 gbs of ram, and 6 cores/12 threads.

#10 Posted by AlexW00d (6386 posts) -

HDD space =/= download size. Anyway, that's just a PC from 5 years ago as minimum and then the best you can buy right now. So it's saying it will run on almost every gaming PC.

#11 Edited by themangalist (1742 posts) -

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have that much space to spare for a 10 hour game.

#12 Posted by niamahai (1407 posts) -

16gb ram wut...

#13 Posted by Animasta (14718 posts) -

@themangalist said:

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have 35GB to spare.

that's not really the problem though, it's that internet speeds aren't good enough. Well, in some places, I mean. It took me 20 hours to download LA Noire, and that was half that size.

#14 Edited by zaglis (910 posts) -
@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

I guess it's optmized really badly. Visuals aren't too great. A single model in Shogun 2 has more detail than what I am seeing here.

It can run on a dual core, piece of crap 8600GT and 2GBs of RAM. If that is not optimization, tell me what is then.
#15 Edited by Klei (1768 posts) -

I can run Witcher 2 on Ultra. Why wouldn't run an uglier game? No reason, unless it's badly optimized, of course. As for the 35gb of disk space, wtf? Is it 30 hours long?

#16 Posted by Panpipe (475 posts) -

35GB? STOP IT GAME DEVELOPERS.

#17 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

I guess it's optmized really badly. Visuals aren't too great. A single model in Shogun 2 has more detail than what I am seeing here.

well at your honest about the guessing

#18 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

#19 Posted by Metal_Mills (3033 posts) -
@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

Probably a lot to do with the physics engine too.
#20 Posted by Jayzilla (2571 posts) -

@matthias2437 said:

I'm rocking a I7 3930k @ 4.5 ghz, 32 gb ram, 2x GTX 580, 2x 240 gb SSDs I use for gaming. So correction, I WILL be playing max settings. Also you will not need that high of specs to run that considering the fact that no videogame that will be made in the next 5 years will use 16 gbs of ram, and 6 cores/12 threads.

and yet you have 32 gigs of RAM in your gaming rig?

#21 Posted by jacksmedulla (281 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Rockstars recent track record with PC games make me Infinitely not care about the PC version. I'm calling bad optimization no way in hell does this look better than witcher 2 on Max settings.
#22 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

#23 Posted by Xyber (294 posts) -

Guys, read AlexW00ds comment, you have it all wrong.

@AlexW00d said:

HDD space =/= download size. Anyway, that's just a PC from 5 years ago as minimum and then the best you can buy right now. So it's saying it will run on almost every gaming PC.

They are just listing the range of PC's you can play it on, not that you need the best of the best to play it at minimum.

Shame on you guys, you should know better!

#24 Posted by MikkaQ (10331 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@themangalist said:

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have 35GB to spare.

that's not really the problem though, it's that internet speeds aren't good enough. Well, in some places, I mean. It took me 20 hours to download LA Noire, and that was half that size.

I have the opposite problem, I could download that in like two hours, but it would cost me $70 to download since I'm always over my data cap, and in corporate Canada the monopoly of Rogers likes to charge $2 per gig for overage.

#25 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
#26 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -
#27 Posted by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

#28 Edited by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

@Metal_Mills: Yeah, just started thinking about that. Since Rockstar have been completely awful at optimizing that before, it could explain the ridiculous processor requirement.

edit: Man is it gonna suck if I have to turn down the thing that does look amazing - the animations and physics - because I "only" have a quadcore 2500K @ 4,5 ghz.

#29 Posted by FritzDude (2279 posts) -

Why does a Max Payne title need almost the same amount of a huge MMORPG? 35GB is insane. Maybe it is a typo, as in 5GB or 3,5GB.

#30 Posted by AlisterCat (5709 posts) -

The Diablo 3 beta told me that I needed 35GB of free space (so did Shogun 2 expansion) yet it installed about 2GB.

#31 Posted by matthias2437 (985 posts) -

@Jayzilla: Not only used for gaming, actually gaming is a very small part of what I use it for. Mainly used for 3D game development and some video editing. Also I built it about 2 weeks ago and when I saw how cheap ram is now so I just filled all my slots. $200 for 32GB of memory blew my mind, and was cheap enough so that I now have it and if I need it then I won't have to worry.

But most games are 32 bit, which only supports around 2.4GB of memory which is why unless Rockstar is using some ground breaking technology and has the most un-optimized game made then the game will not use more than 4GB at most.

#32 Edited by AndrewB (7686 posts) -

Those minimums are actually fairly low. And how is hard drive space a concern for anyone who owns a PC? It could be 1 terabyte in size at this point and I'd be like "all set" (unless it's a download. That might take a few months or some negotiating with my ISP.. but seriously, anything short of 100 GB today isn't noteworthy).

#33 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

what do you mean 'presentation wise'

#34 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

Just saying, I'll be playing this on max probably.

#35 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@Bell_End said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

what do you mean 'presentation wise'

He means that while the graphical fidelity looks good, the angles of the shots and what they show us are pretty bad. Some guy aiming at Max on a catwalk and Max holding a gun, not really the best eye candy to show your graphical achievement through, Rockstar.
#36 Posted by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

@Bell_End said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

what do you mean 'presentation wise'

The vegatation looks like something from Tomb Raider 3. The textures look painted on with no sense of depth to them. Lots of sharp edged geometry.

About the only thing worth complimenting is the gun model. Doesn't look very great.

#37 Posted by BigChickenDinner (766 posts) -

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: Your monitor is shit.

#38 Posted by Hunkulese (2837 posts) -

You never know. The Force Unleased was a legitimate 30gb download because the developers were to lazy to properly reuse assets and just threw everything in multiple times.

Online
#39 Posted by AstroCow (76 posts) -

@Jayzilla: Don't bother him. He's too busy showing off his e-cock.

#40 Edited by Zidd (1857 posts) -

@Hunkulese: I remember downloading that over about 3 days during a steam sale. All those 1080p FMVs really added up. AND it was a really bad game.

#41 Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

@BigChickenDinner said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: Your monitor is shit.

I have Viewsonic 120hz 3d monitor. It's pretty good. For comparison, here is (or was prior to patch) a Dx11 strategy game that has to renders thousands of units on screen at any given time.

And Max Payne 3.

Can't say i'm impressed considering all the buzzword DX11, super max spec talk. Looks eh.

I'll still pick it up, mind. The game itself looks good.

#42 Posted by Evan_Buchholz (125 posts) -

They gotta be compressing whatever that is for the 360 version right? That's like more than 3 discs even if they use dual layers....

#43 Posted by Pr1mus (3959 posts) -

@MikkaQ said:

@Animasta said:

@themangalist said:

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have 35GB to spare.

that's not really the problem though, it's that internet speeds aren't good enough. Well, in some places, I mean. It took me 20 hours to download LA Noire, and that was half that size.

I have the opposite problem, I could download that in like two hours, but it would cost me $70 to download since I'm always over my data cap, and in corporate Canada the monopoly of Rogers likes to charge $2 per gig for overage.

It's the same bullshit with videotron... "oh so you give me 120GB monthly data cap? That is mighty generous but why are you giving me enough speed to reach this cap in 10 hours?" I hate this place.

I'm pretty sure it's gonna be no where near a 35BG download. Plenty of games download the data and only install it after and so need double the space. Like Space Marine did "Hard Drive: 20 GB space free (10 GB free after install)". Taken from the steam requirements.

#44 Posted by BigChickenDinner (766 posts) -

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: I'd just like to point out that when you zoom out to render "thousands of units at any given time" your computer does not render those models at that level of detail.

#45 Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

@BigChickenDinner said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: I'd just like to point out that when you zoom out to render "thousands of units at any given time" your computer does not render those models at that level of detail.

Thats cause it's optimized.

#46 Posted by altairre (1246 posts) -

@Klei said:

I can run Witcher 2 on Ultra. Why wouldn't run an uglier game? No reason, unless it's badly optimized, of course. As for the 35gb of disk space, wtf? Is it 30 hours long?

Well, the cutscenes alone are four hours and ten minutes long so...

#47 Posted by BigChickenDinner (766 posts) -

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: No its because the units are so fucking small there aren't enough pixels in a .5cmX1cm box to show that much detail.

#48 Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

@altairre said:

@Klei said:

I can run Witcher 2 on Ultra. Why wouldn't run an uglier game? No reason, unless it's badly optimized, of course. As for the 35gb of disk space, wtf? Is it 30 hours long?

Well, the cutscenes alone are four hours and ten minutes long so...

Doesn't the Witcher 2 also have hours worth of cut-scenes?

Either way disk space isn't a problem for me. Or likely most people who game or use a pc extensively.

#49 Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

@BigChickenDinner said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: No its because the units are so fucking small there aren't enough pixels in a .5cmX1cm box to show that much detail.

The game changes level of detail for optimisation. From very long distance the units will turn into 2d sprites. This is mostly un-noticable.

This is off topic anyway, the point is, it is had a great presentation thats makes use of pc horsepower, Max Payne 3 it appears, does not. It looks average at best. The Witcher 2 is another (and probably better) example. I don't really play that though, so I used this as an example.

#50 Posted by ElNeebre (99 posts) -

After GTA IV and LA Noire, I definitely won't be getting Max Payne for anything other than the 360. Rockstar's games as of late have had terrible PC optimization.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.