I’m not disagreeing with you on a base level – as I pointed out I would have prefered that several games, which were acquired by other studios or changed developers, were not something I enjoyed. But can we claim R* is doing something so different than what Remedy did with Max Payne 2? MP2 has been seen by some as unnecessary, only using a successful name to get marketing for a title which could have been something new instead.

Even if we somehow justify Remedy over R* because of right of ownership, there are many examples of games which benefited from outside talent to maintain relevancy in the medium, and that sometimes had to cut through what the original creators had done.

Every medium has its own language and limitations. There are many great films that could get crushed if we overanalyze them. The discussion (for me at least) is not about if Max Payne it´s a master work of narrative, but a serious doubt about this sequel being nothing else than using successful name to get some extra marketing for their new third person action game, built over something they didn’t create.

This is how things works, no doubt, but I still have a right to complain about such cynicism. I see less and less respect for the brands in videogames, relegated to a role of attention grabbers and recognizable names, no matter if the game is a high point of the medium or an action game with some personality. I just want developers doing their own stuff, and searching their own ways, instead of trying to build their games over what others created.

It would be great if brand expansion was solely dictated by who created it. I say this with no irony – I would have prefered if several games I know would have grown by the hands of those that created them. But that’s not how it works. What matters is who owns the brand now. Am I saying I enjoy everything a brand owner does with it? No (see: Fallout 3, X-Com spin-offs, Baldur’s Gate miscellanea on consoles, etc.). Am I saying they have the right to do so? Very much, yes.

Also, we’re talking about internal consistency (verisimilitude?) of a videogame where the lead character is shot repeatedly at point blank including headshots, takes pain-killers by the bucketload with no consequence, has overdosed on experimental drugs and survived, had the likeable but inept goon suddenly turn into a criminal masterming (Vlad), and saw Mona Sax dying in his arms only to actually be alive on a higher difficulty setting (“thank you Max but the princess is in a higher difficulty level!”)

But a bald head, muscles and a trip to Brasil is suddenly lacking in consistency? That’s actually more plausible than most Max went through the games. If they can’t properly convey the reasons for the change, that’s one thing. If they can, more power to them.

Besides, the story of Max Payne could very well have ended in the first title. It’s arguable whether there was a need for the sequel, even, in terms of character and story development.

Orson fucking Welles, Charlton Heston: Touch of Evil.

Final Fantasy is a Square Enix creation, they can do whatever they want with that, especially as it doesn’t have any kind of internal coherency between chapters and spin offs.

Max Payne is not Rockstar creation and it had an internal coherency (one that finished with Max Payne 2 by the way). Using the name for nothing else that for free marketing is what I’m complaining about, they may have a brand, but I question their right to just do whatever they want with it. If they wanted to make a kick ass third action game with cover system and bald main character they didn’t need Max Payne at all.

But when R* tries something different for the first time with an established character, it’s all hell to pay. lulz.

Remember, kids: it’s only noir if it’s in B&W, grainy or set during night time. Taxi Driver ain’t noir!

No West Coast
No seriously written fiction
No Black Isle
No point
No Fallout 3

See what I did there?

Also, since it’s the same engine as GTA IV, will it have Euphoria in it? So that I can dive into people and knock them over.