Also: "You will clearly see that it's a Rockstar game"

See this interview at 4:30 onward.

Like Ryan said in the quicklook, there is a risk of homogenization here. Rockstar games are usually good, but lot of games already have the Rockstar style characters and writing. It would have been nice if they kept the old visual style and setting, but updated the gameplay.

Even if Remedy didn't prefer the setting, plot, or style of Max Payne 3 they probably wouldn't say it. Remedy is a developer not a publisher right now. It wouldn't really serve them to point out creative differences of another company's game if they would have done things differently. Again, it's not a bad game, but it's clear it would have been a lot different if Remedy made it.

Edit - I guess this could be moved to the game's forum.

a different dev would have done it differently? NO WAY!

As much as i loved Max Payne 1&2, i think i like Alan Wake better so i'm glad they decided to make that instead of Max Payne 3. However, a Max Payne 3 made by Remedy would've been cool too.

Still think it looks excellent

I like Remedy but I'm happy with the MP3 we got. The more serious tone and rockstar style is what I want. Also obviously they would have done it differently because they are different developer

It looks like a great game, and if you're going to rip off the style of something then Man on Fire is definitely the way to go, but it doesn't feel much like a Max Payne game outside of the mechanics, so I'll be giving it a pass.

Remedy has made some great games, but I'll take a Rockstar game over any other developer.

I wouldn't want to see Rockstar trying to make a game that they didn't feel they could do well. If the compromise to that problem is that it has to go in a different direction, then that's fine.

i havent played it yet. gotta wait till amazon gets it to me. but everything ive seen, the quicklook, trailers, a couple other gameplay videos ive seen. all of it looks pretty damn solid.

and i cant think of a single rockstar game that ive been even remotely disappointed in. so im not worried at all about remedy not being the developer, granted im not one of those people that get all anal about changes since the changes theyve made make sense.

Yet the general tone of the interview seems to indicate that they don't mind and are pleased with the direction.

I like that they chose to go Michael Mann neo-noir on this one. The silly stuff fits much, much better with Alan Wake, given how meta is that game - and Remedy themselves seemed to realize it by the time they made Max Payne 2, since that game does a lot less cheeky, cartoony stuff than the first one.

Although I miss the flowery narration (still, I chuckled at the line about "an American has been and a Brazilian never been" in the QL).

Sure they would have made it differently. But they didn't and saying it like that does not really mean anything.

Honestly, I think Rockstar might be the closest the video game industry has to an actual "auteur." Their games, specifically post-GTAIV, have a specific look and tone to them that gives them a distinctive cred--you know what you're getting when you put in a game by Rockstar. While some might argue--as was mentioned in this thread--that this is an example of homogenization, I just see it as Rockstar implementing their own take on an established character--and I guess I don't see a problem with that.

Besides, I don't really understand the argument that Rockstar should have simply aped Remedy's own vision of the game. Yes, Max Payne did start out with Remedy, but it's been 10 long years since that last game, and it would have been lazy if they didn't somehow modernize this franchise for this generation of gaming.

@cexantus said:

Besides, I don't really understand the argument that Rockstar should have simply aped Remedy's own vision of the game. Yes, Max Payne did start out with Remedy, but it's been 10 long years since that last game, and it would have been lazy if they didn't somehow modernize this franchise for this generation of gaming.

You are talking about 2 different things. There is the style and tone, and then there is gameplay. The gameplay needed to be updated, and it would have been regardless of who made it. However, that doesn't mean the visual style and writing needs to change. Seriously, handing onto a helicopter sniping rockets? The goofy characters in the helicopter? Sounds good in a GTA game, but Max Payne, not so much.

Seriously, handing onto a helicopter sniping rockets? The goofy characters in the helicopter? Sounds good in a GTA game, but Max Payne, not so much.

Oh please. Considering we're talking about a game whose central character can leap off the ground and take down multiple enemies by "slowing down time," complaining that Max Payne 3 is too "ridiculous" seems a bit...silly. Considering that those games had their own moments of goofiness (it's not as if this franchise is the epitome of realism), I'm willing suspend my disbelief just a bit for showy game mechanics.

@cexantus said:

Seriously, handing onto a helicopter sniping rockets? The goofy characters in the helicopter? Sounds good in a GTA game, but Max Payne, not so much.

Oh please. Considering we're talking about a game whose central character can leap off the ground and take down multiple enemies by "slowing down time," complaining that Max Payne 3 is too "ridiculous" seems a bit...silly. Considering that those games had their own moments of goofiness (it's not as if this franchise is the epitome of realism), I'm willing suspend my disbelief just a bit for showy game mechanics.

There was nothing nearly as crazy in the first two games, as was noted in the quicklook. Even the boss fight in the first one did not require you do to any crazy acrobatics.

Eh, what's done is done. They'll probably reboot the series in a few years and call it "The Max Payne" and go back to the old style. Or not, I dunno. The game still looks fun to me, but then again, Max Payne (the game) was always more about jumping through the air whilst firing two guns (in slow motion) than it was about the style and story stuff. Not that I didn't like that stuff.

As much as I liked MP 1&2. From the QL, I really enjoy the changes made. It seems like a good shift, considering the amount of time thats went by and how bad a situation Max is in. I think I'll really enjoy the game, and of course Remedy would have done things different. They would have made a clone of MP1&2 in all likelyhood.

Does anyone know if it has any of the surreal hallucinatory stuff?

It's like people need to be vindicated at every turn that Max Payne 3 isn't the "true" Max Payne 3. This is getting ridiculous.

I've disliked every game Rockstar have made bar RDR and VC, and even those had rough patches.

The worst things about their games is the actual gameplay of walking and shooting, so I have definite concerns about MP3 and kinda wish anyone else had made it

A lot to do about nothing itt. Remedy has been very gracious about being consulted on MP3, and have said all along they approve whole heartedly of the game R* is making. It's obvious too they're psyched to play the game along w/all the fans of the first two.

This game looks pretty underwhelming.....bargain bin purchase for me.

It looks like a good game and I will get it when it drops in price and have beat some other games first. I adore the first 2 games and the first one is one of my favorite games ever made. It blew my mind playing it as a 12 year old and I look very fondly back on it.

MP3 might not be the "Max Payne" game I wanted with the odd references and somewhat Alan Wake tone but its fuckin Rockstar. And with Rockstar I know I'm going to get a damn good game with a damn good story with characters that are over the top and a bit annoying (that's what they do). The only thing Rockstar can do wrong with Max Payne really is making the game way longer than it should just like GTA4, RDR, and LAN. All fantastic games but at some point were way to long.

I will buy and play this game knowing that I will enjoy my time wit it no matter what. That's what Rockstar games do.

Remedy is a great company, and so far, hasn't made any bad games in my opinion, and not to say Rockstar is better, but I will say that if you have a franchise not being made by the original company, Rockstar isn't a bad choice to take a hold of it.

I have never played Remedy's Max Payne games, and I'm glad I'll get a chance to play Rockstar's version with my friend's dollars.

Clearly nobody here actually watched the interview because Remedy did NOT say what the OP claims in the title. 
They said there are individual decisions that would've been different in they made it, but that the sum of its parts are very close to what they would have made.
 
Also OP you're only speculating that Remedy are hiding their dissatisfaction with MP3. Personally after having watched that interview months ago I firmly believe that Remedy are happy with MP3.

@SASnake said:

a different dev would have done it differently? NO WAY!

That's dumb to say. Max Payne is their property.

@AhmadMetallic: No I, for one, watched it all, and I agree. But it's been pretty clear for a while(lip service or not perhaps but I strongly doubt it), that Remedy is behind R*'s efforts w/MP3 completely. The fact that they were privy to the game's design and direction early on, and had some significant consultation from R* says all you need to know about this topic.

@AhmadMetallic said:

Clearly nobody here actually watched the interview because Remedy did NOT say what the OP claims in the title. They said there are individual decisions that would've been different in they made it, but that the sum of its parts are very close to what they would have made. Also OP you're only speculating that Remedy are hiding their dissatisfaction with MP3. Personally after having watched that interview months ago I firmly believe that Remedy are happy with MP3.

Fair points, but what does it really mean to say that the sum of it's parts are the same? Both games would have been 3rd person shooters? They do say they would have made different choices, and they do say that rockstar is making a rockstar styled game. Sure, we don't know that they are really unhappy with the changes, they probably aren't. That doesn't mean they would not have done things a lot differently. Even if they would have simply preferred that the game stayed in the same setting, or have comic book cutscenes, and a similar tone, they probably wouldn't say it. Most companies wouldn't.

And it would have taken them over 5 years to make it, cancel the PC version a year before launch, and completely change the game from it's initial premise.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

@squirrelnacho:

But I don't really get what you're trying to prove here. Of course Remedy would have made a much different game; they are a radically different developer than Rockstar. No one is denying that, but the implication of this thread is that that quote somehow proves that Rockstar's method of creating the game was wrong because "they would have made different choices."

As others have said already--Remedy has publicly made it known that they're happy with the end product. Does that mean that they'd make it the same way? Of course not, but I don't think reflects badly upon Rockstar.

@cexantus said:

@squirrelnacho:

But I don't really get what you're trying to prove here. Of course Remedy would have made a much different game; they are a radically different developer than Rockstar. No one is denying that, but the implication of this thread is that that quote somehow proves that Rockstar's method of creating the game was wrong because "they would have made different choices."

As others have said already--Remedy has publicly made it known that they're happy with the end product. Does that mean that they'd make it the same way? Of course not, but I don't think reflects badly upon Rockstar.

Actually, a lot of people seem to have no clue about how different of a game this would have been. You seem to be suggesting something that isn't true. It was established that Rockstar makes good games with a specific style. However as has already been said, a lot of people don't think that style is best suited to Max Payne. Also, no one is suggesting that Remedy is extemely unhappy. Again, it would serve them no good to point out where their creative differences would be, and they have said that they would have made different choices.

@Sackmanjones said:

Still think it looks excellent

I agree. Aside from wallcover and that odd flickery camera rather than comic book style, it looks like a cool dude game. I shall give it a chance before jumping aboard a hate train of hate designed to be hate like in nature.

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

@Sackmanjones said:

Still think it looks excellent

I agree. Aside from wallcover and that odd flickery camera rather than comic book style, it looks like a cool dude game. I shall give it a chance before jumping aboard a hate train of hate designed to be hate like in nature.

So I take people wanted the same Max Payne ? so Max Payne 2.1 with the same stuff? man that's so boring I kinda like this letting other developers take a franchise and give it a spin of their own.

@rebgav said:

@Ghostiet said:

I like that they chose to go Michael Mann neo-noir on this one.

Michael Mann? It's a Tony Scott joint at best. They should have had an aging, bloated Denzel Washington voice Max for the full effect.

There's at least some Michael Mann influence there.

@Ghostiet said:

I like that they chose to go Michael Mann neo-noir on this one.

Michael Mann? It's a Tony Scott joint at best. They should have had an aging, bloated Denzel Washington voice Max for the full effect.

Sure, it's Man on Fire, including the editing, but the gun porn, music and overall atmosphere is very Mann-ish. The scenes in the club or on the streets made me think of his Miami Vice. A game can take from various influences.

And yeah, I gotta admit - that gray suit has to be at least an homage.

@squirrelnacho said:

@cexantus said:

Besides, I don't really understand the argument that Rockstar should have simply aped Remedy's own vision of the game. Yes, Max Payne did start out with Remedy, but it's been 10 long years since that last game, and it would have been lazy if they didn't somehow modernize this franchise for this generation of gaming.

You are talking about 2 different things. There is the style and tone, and then there is gameplay. The gameplay needed to be updated, and it would have been regardless of who made it. However, that doesn't mean the visual style and writing needs to change. Seriously, handing onto a helicopter sniping rockets? The goofy characters in the helicopter? Sounds good in a GTA game, but Max Payne, not so much.

I don't know that Remedy wouldn't have had similar moments in a modern Max Payne game, though. Hanging from a helicopter shooting rockets out of the air in slow-mo sounds like something Max Payne would do to me (even if he didn't do it in Max Payne 1 or 2 - but how many games were doing things like that in 2001?) I think it's an odd criticism, myself. That said it's obvious that Rockstar have brought their own Rockstar feel to elements of the game - I don't really feel this is necessarily a bad thing though. I am far from some kind of Max Payne purist, however.

I bet Bioware would have made a different Max Payne....

Remedy should just make Max Payne Noir which will be a mod for May Payne 3 on PC and turns every level into a warehouse/apartment complex and Max is always wearing a trenchcoat - also the contrast is turned way down.

The old Mass Payne-style was never really that amazing - it hit some notes that brought into the same "amazing because it is weird" territory that Deadly Premonition also enters - thought Max Payne did certainly have better gameplay than Deadly Premonition! (for some reason it never got to just jump around in bullet-time shooting dudes).

@Humanity said:

Remedy should just make Max Payne Noir which will be a mod for May Payne 3 on PC and turns every level into a warehouse/apartment complex and Max is always wearing a trenchcoat - also the contrast is turned way down.

I gather you've only seen some screenshots of Max Payne 2. :/

@SeriouslyNow: It's my understanding you've used the internet?

I played both and they were fun back in the day but no one can claim they weren't a bit of a slog at parts and the environments weren't exactly stellar. Also people saying "oh man is there a dream sequence" seem to not realize that the particular dream sequence from the originals where you walk on the trail of blood was notorious for being an awful part of the game - not some fun element we should add to each iteration.

For me it has nothing of the feel or style of the first games, MP3 is like the wannabe hipster cousin of the lot. But no big deal - I simply won't buy it as it does not interest me.

But they didn't

Misleading thread.

@Humanity said:

@SeriouslyNow: It's my understanding you've used the internet?

I played both and they were fun back in the day but no one can claim they weren't a bit of a slog at parts and the environments weren't exactly stellar. Also people saying "oh man is there a dream sequence" seem to not realize that the particular dream sequence from the originals where you walk on the trail of blood was notorious for being an awful part of the game - not some fun element we should add to each iteration.

Award winning hits often have some issues in retrospect, that change them from being award winning hits. I felt you were being simplistic and pretty disrespectful of Remedy's work frankly. Maybe if you hadn't have phrased it so flippantly I wouldn't feel the need to say anything at all. Remedy have a right to question this game. Alan Wake is a particularly good game too.

@SeriouslyNow: I would contest the notion of Alan Wake being a good game. Although it's a bit of a GB darling with the staff, especially Patrick, I found that entire game quite tiresome. The plot was pretty convoluted and not resolved very well if you didn't purchase DLC, and the bulk of the game has you running through random woods fighting the same handful of enemies. Of course you might interject "well a lot of good games do the exact same thing!" to which I'd say yes and no. Alan Wake had a few pretty cool set pieces I'll give you that, especially near the end of the game - but along the way it was bland woodland setting after bland woodland setting, having to stop over for a monotonous fights constantly. It was a 3/5 in my book, but thats just my opinion.

@Humanity said:

@SeriouslyNow: I would contest the notion of Alan Wake being a good game. Although it's a bit of a GB darling with the staff, especially Patrick, I found that entire game quite tiresome. The plot was pretty convoluted and not resolved very well if you didn't purchase DLC, and the bulk of the game has you running through random woods fighting the same handful of enemies. Of course you might interject "well a lot of good games do the exact same thing!" to which I'd say yes and no. Alan Wake had a few pretty cool set pieces I'll give you that, especially near the end of the game - but along the way it was bland woodland setting after bland woodland setting, having to stop over for a monotonous fights constantly. It was a 3/5 in my book, but thats just my opinion.

Award winning hits often have some issues in retrospect

@SeriouslyNow: yah but they have fun and varied gameplay mechanics to back it up - Alan Wake wasn't extremely fun or interesting in it's combat mechanics, and they didn't change one bit throughout the entire game.