Login | Signup

Max Payne 3 Pre-Order (With Max Payne 1 + 2) | £29.99 | Steam | PC

Carl Phillips
Action Games, PC games, Remedy Entertainment, Rockstar Games
Max Payne | Max Payne 2: The Fall of Ma... | Max Payne 3 | PC

Max Payne 3 Pre-Order (With Max Payne 1 + 2) | £29.99 | Steam | PC

With just over a month until its release, the pre-order deals are starting to pop up for Max Payne 3. Steam’s overall price is isn’t the cheapest on PC (that honour goes to The Game Collection at £24.75) but because this comes bundled with the previous two games in the series you would actually end up spending around £37 in total were you to buy them individually elsewhere. As such it ends up making this a nice deal for those who want the entire saga.

There are pre-order incentives thrown in as well, including additional multiplayer skins, a shotgun, an extra painkiller for online matches, and the ability to customise your avatar to look like Max in the first game. Previews suggest it will be a satisfying action-packed adventure, although we’re still not sure about the location change ourselves. Still, not long to go before we know for sure now. Thanks to goonertillidie @ HUKD!

Add a comment5 comments
hurrakan  Apr. 11, 2012 at 09:37

I've lost all hope for this game. I may have to boycott it, because thinking about it makes me too angry :(

I could almost forgive the jilting change of style and distinct lack of "noir" but this I cannot.

The PC version uses checkpoints and there is NO quick save... Not a Max Payne game. Not a PC game.

Checkpoint systems are NOT good - they came about with games consoles because consoles don't always have a hard drive. Checkpoint systems ignore one of the most important aspects of Human Computer Interaction - support an external locus of control. The player should feel in control - I tell the game when I want to save and load, the game doesn't tell me. I'm the one playing it, right?

If you build a PC game from the ground up, then there is absolutely no reason to omit a quick save system.

I don't know if anyone ever noticed my ramblings about how I use to play Max Payne games - no quick save makes it impossible for me to enjoy the game the way I want to. It wouldn't bother me so much in other games, but in Max Payne, it does.

r3tract  Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:33

Why should a player feel in control? That is a personal preference, not a requisite, surely?

Some great games have been created which give the illusion of not being in control, Heavy Rain is such an example, as are the earlier Resident Evil titles. They make you feel powerless, rather than empowered.

I know you are talking about external activities, not inner gameplay mechanics, but the way a game uses it's external features such as how and when you can save is often a deliberate attempt by the developer to give/remove the power of control to players.


P.S I'm not disagreeing with you on the relative merits of different "save" mechanisms, just making a point.

Last edited by r3tract, Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:36
hurrakan  Apr. 11, 2012 at 11:00

I admit I'm drawing from the more general field of Human Computer Interaction, which means more than just "computer games".

However, it's still important. You mention Heavy Rain - there is much to debate about that game. If you're not in control, you may as well watch a movie instead.

The player plays the game, the game should NOT play the player.

A game designer might want to remove control, to dis-orient the player for creative reasons - but that should only be TEMPORARY, or only an illusion.

Actually, the Battlefield 3 single-player campaign is a good example of the game playing the player. The game forces you do everything in a single, exact, specific way. You have to do what you're told and jump through hoops - or it's game over. It should have come with a script. That's not a "game".

DivideByZero  Apr. 11, 2012 at 12:59

Some games work great with checkpoints, others do not.

One of the best example of checkpoints done right would be Dark Souls... checkpoints are a massive part of the game. If you could quicksave that the game would be fairly pointless... just keep replaying each bit till you get it right, quicksave and on to the next. By not having quicksave the game forces you to not just luck one fight, but to be able to do a few before the next checkpoint.

In games like shooters, then I find the quicksave a bit of a cheat button. For bits you get stuck on you can get part way through when you are doing OK and quicksave and keep trying until you get it all done... or annoyed if you hit quicksave by mistake and have to go back to a full save 20 minutes ago.

For me, I don't see the point in deciding a game will or wont be crap due to the inclusion or removal of a quicksave feature... the proof will be in the pudding and we will only know once we play it.

hurrakan  Apr. 11, 2012 at 15:50

Sure, some games are OK when they use checkpoints, but they would probably be even better if they didn't.

Dark Souls is a console game, but if it was on PC and was well-designed, then it would not need to use checkpoints.

Anyway, the player should be able to play and enjoy the game in whatever way they want to and the developer should generally support that notion. There is no need for game-makers to treat players like idiots. Players can make their own decisions about how much or how little they enjoy their game.

Some games have ACTUAL cheats. The player doesn't HAVE to use them - but sometimes it can be more fun.

Halo's checkpoints (any Halo) are particularly bad - they frequently save me at a point about 0.1 seconds before my Warthog is obliterated by a Wraith. I had to watch myself explode, powerless, before the game kindly decided to restore my game at a slightly earlier moment. However it was not early enough and I had to watch myself being exploded from a slightly different angle for another half an hour. *FUN!*

If a quick save/load feature uses a single save slot (as it should), then it should display a confirmation dialogue before saving/loading.


Leave a Trackback from your own site

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.