and here to this,,timothy gibbs who was max payne in max payne 2 is actually max payne 3 ,,i.e. he is max payne in the third game also

if u people dnt belive me go to this link-

http://maddieman.wordpress.com/2009/…uick-analysis/

Exactly what I was thinking. My problem isn’t with the talent of Rockstar Vancouver, but they haven’t made anything like this before, and some of their proposed ideas just don’t sound like the kind of game I would want to play. As a fan of Max Payne (and Sam Fisher), this sort of thing can be greatly disappointing. My perspective is that I don’t see a need for every game to be uniform in having a cover system or a destructible environment, though I agree that these can add a lot to some games, and it doesn’t make much sense to reinvent any good series to the point that it is hardly recognizable.

Regardless, many of us, yourself likely included, have been gaming for many years and can draw pretty accurate conclusions from those experiences. Many of these speculations will be wrong, but many will very likely be correct. However, forming these opinions and speaking about them does not make people stupid. If enough people speak up on a subject, dev teams may even hear about it, so it’s worth doing. And even if that never happens it’s a decent pressure release.

Taking a series in a new direction is one way of looking at this situation. And this parallels the Splinter Cell discussions. What concerns some of us is that the new direction is the same direction tons of mainstream titles are going, and doesn’t seem new to us but discouragingly common. There are not many quality noir/graphic novel/intelligently written shooters out there, and we hate to see a series that fit that bill become something much more pedestrian. Similarly there’s not that many quality stealthers out there so the perceived action-centric changes to Splinter Cell have some concerned. These concerns may be ultimately be baseless – we know very little yet. But with what little we know, there are grounds for concern and reason enough to opine here at RPS.

Presumably you understand the difference between someone venturing an opinion on the concept art / magazine cover (fine, you either like it or you don’t) and someone moaning about aspects of a game they know very little about. Presumably also you understand the difference between speculating about the game, and lambasting a talented dev team for daring to do something new with a franchise.

If you’re not gonna make a Max Payne game, don’t steal that title. Make another game, say that you are inspired by the Payne games (creds to developers who are open with their influences, we all know when they are there anyway) and make whatever you want with it.

This will probably be a good game in itself, but it will always be facing the legacy of the name Max Payne, which can only harm it’s reception, though obviously not its sales.

Yes, those of us with concerns may be wrong, but voicing those concerns does not make us stupid (nor lacking in perspective for that matter).

teo said: “I hold Remedy and their games in very high regard which is why I don’t want some lower-teir developer messing with their property.”

Firstly, it isn’t Remedy’s property any more. Secondly, on what planet is Rockstar Vancouver a “lower-teir” (sic) developer? Bully and Homeworld Cataclysm is a pretty decent CV.

Here’s a suggestion geniuses: wait and see how the game turns out before moaning about it. The new Max looks awesome – if you really want the old Max there’s nothing stopping you playing MP1 and MP2 is there?

But, I am curious. A chance for a noir game based around here: hmm.