Too hard for its own good.

#11majormPosted 1/29/2013 5:07:07 AM
Just finished it on Hard. Thought I would NEVER beat the last part in the airport hangar! My gosh!! One of the hardest games I've ever played. Nearly every gun fight felt like a boss battle.

I just hate how you can't even blind fire without taking a ton of damage.

I can't believe there are 2 higher difficulty levels!! No thanks. The only way to get through it on old school must be to one-shot kill every enemy, because Max takes so much damage the instant he pops from cover. Sorry, I'm not that good and will never be.

Really; how hard does it get?? One shot deaths for Max even when he's in cover?!! I can't imagine how it can get much harder and still be playable.

I'm all for a challenge and the reward that comes from beating a tough game but there comes a point when it ain't fun anymore. I was about there on hard and have no interest into slamming my head into that wall any more.
---
Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor...now you're scared.
#12NevercomingdownPosted 1/29/2013 4:03:26 PM(edited)
I beat it on hard first playthrough and am halfway through hardcore now.. the game isn't hard. Challenging sure, it just seems worse because of how easy most games are these days. It's a great game.. great campaign and story. I'm a big fan of Max Payne since the first one.

Also don't play it like a cover shooter, move around more. Be a hard target, use bullet time and dodges to go in and out of cover.
---
GT: Elesp || PSN: DestroyTheEnd
Ron Paul 2012: Because voting for other candidates whose main supporters are big banks and the wallstreet elite is un-American.
#13majormPosted 2/1/2013 5:03:04 AM
^^^But his movement is so painfully slow!! And he still just gets shredded while you roll. Plus, moving from cover to cover is incredibly cumbersome. I just had no luck at all trying to move around.

I just don't understand how R-Star can do so many things well but can't figure out shooting mechanics.

The aiming is sloppy and moving in and out of cover is just awful.



.
---
Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor...now you're scared.
#14megametroidPosted 2/5/2013 10:45:16 PM
I don't think the mechanics themselves are inherently flawed, but the environments could have used some work - when Rockstar gets the level design right the game REALLY clicks but in general it's just too constrained. I love replaying the bus depot chapter (Drive or Shoot, Sister??) because the environments are bit more open with more cover points, but the parts where you're traveling through the favelas are pretty badly designed. When Max has the room to run around and dive a bit more, I think the combat is the best in the series but I can definitely see why a lot of people can't get past how the game plays.
#15yomo110Posted 2/6/2013 12:03:00 AM
rockstar has always had average gameplay, but most people are too blind to see it. just look at gta 4, if u take away the pretty graphics, and the engrossing cut-scenes, do u think the gameplay could carry the game as a whole, play sleeping dogs and then play gta4 and then u can see how hard it is to fight and do hand to hand. they always have had above average gameplay its just masked over all the pretty graphics and the engrossing cut-scenes and story

red-dead redemption, la noire, max payne 3,

sleepings dogs and saints row has better gameplay, and when have the ever done a pure shooter?

uncharted isnt even a shooter but it has better shooting mechanics than mp3, face it and gta5 will be the same, i think its that engine they are using RAGE its horrendous
#16Vyse_skies(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 5:31:12 PM
yomo110 posted...
rockstar has always had average gameplay, but most people are too blind to see it. just look at gta 4, if u take away the pretty graphics, and the engrossing cut-scenes, do u think the gameplay could carry the game as a whole, play sleeping dogs and then play gta4 and then u can see how hard it is to fight and do hand to hand. they always have had above average gameplay its just masked over all the pretty graphics and the engrossing cut-scenes and story

red-dead redemption, la noire, max payne 3,

sleepings dogs and saints row has better gameplay, and when have the ever done a pure shooter?

uncharted isnt even a shooter but it has better shooting mechanics than mp3, face it and gta5 will be the same, i think its that engine they are using RAGE its horrendous


I've never considered Rockstar a good developer. Sure they know how to make big sandbox worlds, but take away that element and you get a bunch of below average gameplay in most of their titles. GTA is the main example I'll use here. Primarily, it grants the illusion of this huge explorable world, but beyond that most of the missions are repetitive -the majority of those being escort missions. Next, each element in the game is subpar - shooting is lame, fighting is lame, driving isn't really that streamlined, the visuals aren't that great, and the missions are kinda boring too. It doesn't really have a strong point, just loads of weak points which make a semi-decent, if a hyped game. Max Payne 3 plays bad because the developers at Rockstar don't know how to make a good shooter. Now if Remedy had made it, I guarantee it would have been awesome.
---
My ignore list is exclusive to trolls only. I should warn you though, it's crowded and the trolls imprisoned within are mean, anti-social and well... ignored.
#17yankeefan03Posted 2/8/2013 8:26:15 PM
Vyse_skies posted...
yomo110 posted...
rockstar has always had average gameplay, but most people are too blind to see it. just look at gta 4, if u take away the pretty graphics, and the engrossing cut-scenes, do u think the gameplay could carry the game as a whole, play sleeping dogs and then play gta4 and then u can see how hard it is to fight and do hand to hand. they always have had above average gameplay its just masked over all the pretty graphics and the engrossing cut-scenes and story

red-dead redemption, la noire, max payne 3,

sleepings dogs and saints row has better gameplay, and when have the ever done a pure shooter?

uncharted isnt even a shooter but it has better shooting mechanics than mp3, face it and gta5 will be the same, i think its that engine they are using RAGE its horrendous


I've never considered Rockstar a good developer. Sure they know how to make big sandbox worlds, but take away that element and you get a bunch of below average gameplay in most of their titles. GTA is the main example I'll use here. Primarily, it grants the illusion of this huge explorable world, but beyond that most of the missions are repetitive -the majority of those being escort missions. Next, each element in the game is subpar - shooting is lame, fighting is lame, driving isn't really that streamlined, the visuals aren't that great, and the missions are kinda boring too. It doesn't really have a strong point, just loads of weak points which make a semi-decent, if a hyped game. Max Payne 3 plays bad because the developers at Rockstar don't know how to make a good shooter. Now if Remedy had made it, I guarantee it would have been awesome.


Rockstar is one of the best devs out there. I'm sorry the game is too hard for you and you making accusations on combat you should probably replay 1 and 2. No cover system and getting shot because you are standing straight up and down? Yea
---
"Ummm... Brotherhood was in Rome, not Italy."
X-Box Live Gamertag--GageIsLegend
#18presea_loverPosted 2/8/2013 10:44:27 PM
The plot is insane and dumb even compared to the schlocky noir fun of previous games. The campaign has felt like a complete slog for me, just gunning down 500 guys, cutscene, repeat, not to mention lots of deaths from cheap pop-out traps that Max was too slow to react to. They give you a lot fewer painkillers than MP1 and 2, imo. I dunno, I really wanted to like this game because I love Max Payne, but this just isn't doing it for me. The camera filters hurt my eyes and the gameplay becomes mind-numbingly boring at the same time it's frustrating. Sure, sometimes something awesome happens, the combat clicks and the firefights are amazing, but eh. I think I'll sell this after I'm done with it.

Too bad, this game really feels like another "trying too hard" big-budget mainstream cutscene shooter instead of the atmospheric noir thriller I was hoping for.
---
"If less is more, just think how much more more will be!" - Dr. Frasier Crane
http://www.backloggery.com/main.php?user=presea_hater
#19Vyse_skies(Topic Creator)Posted 2/12/2013 7:36:29 AM
yankeefan03 posted...
Vyse_skies posted...
yomo110 posted...
rockstar has always had average gameplay, but most people are too blind to see it. just look at gta 4, if u take away the pretty graphics, and the engrossing cut-scenes, do u think the gameplay could carry the game as a whole, play sleeping dogs and then play gta4 and then u can see how hard it is to fight and do hand to hand. they always have had above average gameplay its just masked over all the pretty graphics and the engrossing cut-scenes and story

red-dead redemption, la noire, max payne 3,

sleepings dogs and saints row has better gameplay, and when have the ever done a pure shooter?

uncharted isnt even a shooter but it has better shooting mechanics than mp3, face it and gta5 will be the same, i think its that engine they are using RAGE its horrendous


I've never considered Rockstar a good developer. Sure they know how to make big sandbox worlds, but take away that element and you get a bunch of below average gameplay in most of their titles. GTA is the main example I'll use here. Primarily, it grants the illusion of this huge explorable world, but beyond that most of the missions are repetitive -the majority of those being escort missions. Next, each element in the game is subpar - shooting is lame, fighting is lame, driving isn't really that streamlined, the visuals aren't that great, and the missions are kinda boring too. It doesn't really have a strong point, just loads of weak points which make a semi-decent, if a hyped game. Max Payne 3 plays bad because the developers at Rockstar don't know how to make a good shooter. Now if Remedy had made it, I guarantee it would have been awesome.


Rockstar is one of the best devs out there. I'm sorry the game is too hard for you and you making accusations on combat you should probably replay 1 and 2. No cover system and getting shot because you are standing straight up and down? Yea


You're entitled to your opinion on Rockstar just as I'm entitled. I don't think they're as good as people make them out to be. And you're comparing a game from 2012 to a game developed in 2001. It should be improved in some aspects, but MP3 is poor in many others. And yes, the story was a pile of crap.
---
My ignore list is exclusive to trolls only. I should warn you though, it's crowded and the trolls imprisoned within are mean, anti-social and well... ignored.
#20Rome218Posted 2/23/2013 3:44:09 AM
Vyse_skies posted...
yankeefan03 posted...
Vyse_skies posted...
yomo110 posted...
rockstar has always had average gameplay, but most people are too blind to see it. just look at gta 4, if u take away the pretty graphics, and the engrossing cut-scenes, do u think the gameplay could carry the game as a whole, play sleeping dogs and then play gta4 and then u can see how hard it is to fight and do hand to hand. they always have had above average gameplay its just masked over all the pretty graphics and the engrossing cut-scenes and story

red-dead redemption, la noire, max payne 3,

sleepings dogs and saints row has better gameplay, and when have the ever done a pure shooter?

uncharted isnt even a shooter but it has better shooting mechanics than mp3, face it and gta5 will be the same, i think its that engine they are using RAGE its horrendous


I've never considered Rockstar a good developer. Sure they know how to make big sandbox worlds, but take away that element and you get a bunch of below average gameplay in most of their titles. GTA is the main example I'll use here. Primarily, it grants the illusion of this huge explorable world, but beyond that most of the missions are repetitive -the majority of those being escort missions. Next, each element in the game is subpar - shooting is lame, fighting is lame, driving isn't really that streamlined, the visuals aren't that great, and the missions are kinda boring too. It doesn't really have a strong point, just loads of weak points which make a semi-decent, if a hyped game. Max Payne 3 plays bad because the developers at Rockstar don't know how to make a good shooter. Now if Remedy had made it, I guarantee it would have been awesome.


Rockstar is one of the best devs out there. I'm sorry the game is too hard for you and you making accusations on combat you should probably replay 1 and 2. No cover system and getting shot because you are standing straight up and down? Yea


You're entitled to your opinion on Rockstar just as I'm entitled. I don't think they're as good as people make them out to be. And you're comparing a game from 2012 to a game developed in 2001. It should be improved in some aspects, but MP3 is poor in many others. And yes, the story was a pile of crap.


This game becomes infuriatingly hard at certain parts on hard, free aim. Once you beat that and have unlimited pain killers, it is fun to just go on casual and play the game.

GTA 4 was not my favorite Rock* game. I felt that as a Sandbox, RDR may be the best.

If you haven't, take off the auto aim thing. Adjust the sensitivity to your liking.

I feel the core combat of Max Payne 3 to be better than anything else to come out this gen. As a shooter fan, this game brought me into third person shooters. The combat has never felt so satisfying on any game I've played. The great animations to go with the physics is something I love. Then bodies do not disappear and there are exit wounds. Then to be able to appreciate all this in slow motion and on kill cams, it is addictive to me.

I know not everyone feels like that, and that's cool. I love this game though. I can't think of any shooter I've played with such satisfying gun play, where actually killing people is so entertaining. We play violent video games that have guns, but most develops don't even want to add bullet decals.

Max Payne was influenced by John Woo films in the 80s. John Woo was ahead of his time and fans like me appreciated that he added things like exit wounds in his movies. The action sequences were awesome. I am tired of playing shooters where there is no bullet decals are blood.
---
HP Pavilion | Windows 7 | 700 gb HDD | 17' lcd display | Speakers | 3 USB Ports | HDMI port | Wireless-N | DVD/CD Read/Write