Breaking news! Max Payne 3 looks like shit!

[Data4]

I never played the first one, but I completely enjoyed the second. Only problem was I thought it was too short.

 

[Suchy]

Console game looks like shit. News at 11.

 

[Multidirectional]

Max Payne looked great at a time. Even playing it today, I can totally see that it looks impressive for a 2001 game. Max Payne 2 looked completely awesome in 2003 with pixel shader skins and reflections and if you ask me, it still looks good.
And, talking about stuff that actually matters, there simply is no Max Payne without noir. Skyway is completely right there. Health regen and cover system cannot ever be good for MP too. It is about dodging bullets John Woo style, not sitting in cover like a pussy.

 

[Ermm]

Max Payne games are okayish, but nothing more.
P.S. Am I the only one who remembers that in the demo at the start level, his baby's dead body was shown, and that the full version cut that?

 

[GarfunkeL]

Both MP1 and MP2 looked great when they came out. My old rig didn't even run MP1 at the time and it still looked just fine after I upgraded around 2003-2004. And the film noir -vibe was pretty unique for games at that time - guess it still is?

Too bad Remedy went full herp&derp after MP2.

Rasputin, I remember that demo but didn't remember they cut it from the full game.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

Are some of you on drugs or something? Oh wait, it's the Codex; I forgot. Those pictures look like badly compressed screenshots. The real game will look much better (especially in motion). WTF, does anyone really need this explained to them?

Meanwhile, there are more screenshots here:

http://www.psu.com/Max-Payne-3--g1457--i.php

I needn't remind you -- actually, I think I should after seeing this thread -- that Rockstar will, like with their GTA games, optimise the graphics for PCs too (these are PS3 shots).

And if these improved GTA 4-style graphics aren't good enough for you, then you're pretty fucking hypocritical for complaining about graphics whores one second and then slamming a perfectly reasonable looking game the next.

The game will be good, and not only for what it is.

 

[ortucis]

I needn't remind you -- actually, I think I should after seeing this thread -- that Rockstar will, like with their GTA games, optimise the graphics for PCs too (these are PS3 shots).

Hahaha.. oh boy.


Must.. stop.. laughing..

 

[Multidirectional]

Hahaha.. oh boy.


Must.. stop.. laughing..

Must.. start... comprehending...

He meant that PC versions of Rockstar games usually look a lot better, and he is right.

complaining about graphics whores one second and then slamming a perfectly reasonable looking game the next.

Actually, Codex is the most graphics-whorish site I've ever been to. I've never seen so much bitching about graphics anywhere else.

 

[KalosKagathos]

1. GTA IV was not optimized in any way.
2. Screenshots of the best version are always used for marketing purposes.

 

[ortucis]

He meant that PC versions of Rockstar games usually look a lot better, and he is right.

USUALLY they look like shit as well. Play Bully and Manhunt for more information. Also, no one can enjoy the awesome graphics if the engine won't let them run the fucking game at max quality or even medium without crawling at 2FPS.

So yeah, he is wrong.

 

[Multidirectional]

1. GTA IV was not optimized in any way.

I still think level of detail in that game is very impressive and underrated. I'm not really surprised it requires so much processing power. They probably could have made it perform better, I wouldn't know jack shit about it really, but I don't think it deserves as much bashing as it got. Half of those complaints probably come from people who suck at configuring graphics settings to suit their machines. Hell, I know a lot of people who don't even bother checking out options and then bitch about something they could have configured to suit them better.

Ortucis, do you have more usual examples than Bully and Manhunt? These are not something that comes to mind right away when I think of "usual Rockstar games". All GTA games certainly look a lot better on PC. Runs better too, even GTA 4.

 

[MetalCraze]

GTA4 wasn't that much improved graphically for PC either.

Multiplatform games will always look heavily outdated, considering that they are made with 6 years old hardware in mind. Yes the kind of hardware that was there before people in this thread saying that MP's graphics looked like crap when it came out learned how to press WASD.

The best any multiplatform dev can do is better textures and better shaders. Which was GTA4's case. And yet it still looked like GTA SA + bumpmapping.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

Hahaha.. oh boy.


Must.. stop.. laughing..

Must.. start... comprehending...

He meant that PC versions of Rockstar games usually look a lot better, and he is right.

Listen to this gentleman.

Grand Theft Auto IV PC: Graphics Settings Detailed
http://members.upc.nl/j.reitsma3/foto/G ... tings2.jpg

How many "console ports" these days come with all the standard settings we expect in a PC game? That's right.

GTA 4: PC version will have visual enhancements compared to console version.

Yep. Now stop bitching that your third world PC can't handle the game. My gaming laptop ran it just fine and on pretty high settings.

And yet it still looked like GTA SA + bumpmapping.

Not on my configs, then again I'm not running a Commodore 64. GTA 4 isn't perfectly optimised for performance, but the graphics were optimised for PC. And that was my point. Max Payne 3 will look better on PC too.

 

[Gragt]

You guys haven't played Darksiders: graphic options for the PC version are limited to screen size and use of vsync. It looks good enough for me but now that screams of console port. GTA IV seem to have bothered many people simply because it had options destined for future computers, and since people gonna bitch for lack of optimisation whenever they can't play something on max details …

 

[Micromegas]

Last TR I played was TR3. Did anything good come out after that?

4 was quite good if you like the previous games, it had a good art direction and the levels were nice and varied from what I remember. Chronicles was just pointless and didn't do anything the previous games hadn't. Angel of Darkness was awful and the Crystal Dynamics have just been mediocre, they aren't bad but there's no real ambition in them it's all just by the numbers action and platforming.

I heard Angel of Darkness was shit and gameplay videos seemed to confirm.

Just watching gameplay videos won't get across just how bad the controls were, Tomb Raider never had great controls but Angel of Darkness was nearly unplayable. And it's problems didn't stop at just bad controls either.

edit: now that I remember, I feel angry about how the series (Tomb Raider) went to shit. They really should have expanded the series with stuff like sneaking, open world approach, character-based minor adventure elements and a more involving story.

They've actually promised something like this for the net game but I wouldn't hold out too much hope.

Series had immense potential for expanding on other genres but in the end, what did we get: a shitty arcade as a throwback to early 90s. Stupid stupid Ubisoft! Goddamn idiots.

Actually it's not published by Ubisoft, it's by Eidos, you know the people currently trying to ruin Deus Ex and Thief.

 

[ortucis]

How many "console ports" these days come with all the standard settings we expect in a PC game? That's right.

First of all, most of the video options were added after the game was released in one of those countless patches which did nothing but tweak the performance.

The game was so terribly optimised that they had to release patch after patch which did nothing but pretty much worked on improving the performance. Definition of "great port." Also, did your laptop run the game with those awesome settings at max when GTA4 was released or was it after all the patches and years later? Tell us more, cause I remember even most hardcore PC gamers not being unable to run the game even on medium even after first few patches. Must be a miracle that a shitty laptop ran it all maxed out.

Ortucis, do you have more usual examples than Bully and Manhunt? These are not something that comes to mind right away when I think of "usual Rockstar games". All GTA games certainly look a lot better on PC. Runs better too, even GTA 4.

Oh I am sorry, I didn't know were discussing Rockstar games that came to your mind only. Last I checked, I and a lot of gamers WERE infact waiting for these games to be ported on PC. SURPRISE, the not only look like shit (remember Resident Evil 4 port? THAT shit) but sometimes refused to run.

GTA: San Andreas also suffered from performance issues and lets not forget that the last patch to fix the issues was released ONLY because they had to patch out the Hot Coffee mod cause of lawsuits. Until that mod, they stopped patching the game completely. Great support guys.


I look forward to most of Rockstar games as well. Don't hate the games, I just hate the shit ports and the fact that Rockstar ignores PC gaming community until they feel like it's time to profit from them again (like I said, Bully patch was released only when they were releasing Manhunt 2 after years of ignoring PC gamers complaining).

 

[MetalCraze]

Options for future computers?

It looks like something from 5 years ago. At maximum settings in ArmA2 (which incl. 10km viewdistance) I have a better FPS despite terrible lags than on high in GTA4 (and by high I mean sliders 2/3 to the right). And let's not even compare detail level and texture resolution. I mean ffs in ArmA2 you have 30k poly trees and dense grass and GTA4 is just boxes with bloom. What is there to lag?

So when will these future computers come so I can run 5 years old graphics of GTA4 optimally?

 

[ortucis]

Options for future computers?

That's the excuse Rockstar gave to all the gullible idiots at first up until they realised that their game was just a shit port most people could'nt even launch. So they released patches to make it less "future compatible" (game looks like shit in the future btw).

 

[Trash]

I vividly remember all the whining here about previous Rockstar games. They all turned out to be good. So no, I'm not worried in the least about how this one will turn out.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

First of all, most of the video options were added after the game was released in one of those countless patches which did nothing but tweak the performance. The game was so terribly optimised that they had to release patch after patch which did nothing but pretty much worked on improving the performance. Definition of "great port."

So, you're actually complaining that the developers provided support for the game. Most ports come out these days and turn out to be shit, and that's the end of it. Most developers never go as far as Rockstar in terms of continuing support, and you're complaining about it?



At least Rockstar acknowledges its faults and provides support for their games.

Also, did your laptop run the game with those awesome settings at max when GTA4 was released or was it after all the patches and years later? Tell us more, cause I remember even most hardcore PC gamers not being unable to run the game even on medium even after first few patches. Must be a miracle that a shitty laptop ran it all maxed out.

Yes, when no arguments are left, chalk it down to a "miracle." By the way, my "shitty laptop", ASUS' gaming range, is worth a lot more than most people make in a month. Please be more butthurt that I could play GTA 4 comfortably when it was released. I also got it to run on two desktops: on an old PC with minimum to mid range settings, and on the other one (a main computer), it was practically maxed out.

The thing about GTA's graphics is that, when looking at the big picture of what's going on in every scene, they paint a really amazing and vibrant world in most parts of the city. Naturally, mega-aspies only concentrate on every little detail and complain about shit that's irrelevant to most people. Hurrr durrr the details don't look as good as Crysis! Well, no kdding, but Crysis had a hell of a lot less shit going on at any one time in its game world.

GTA: San Andreas also suffered from performance issues and lets not forget that the last patch to fix the issues was released ONLY because they had to patch out the Hot Coffee mod cause of lawsuits. Until that mod, they stopped patching the game completely. Great support guys. [...] Bully patch was released only when they were releasing Manhunt 2 after years of ignoring PC gamers complaining).

Guess what? They never had to put out patches for any of those games. Many devs don't. You're acting like a little kid shouting, "Where's my motherfucking chocolate milk!", at his mom. You just can't wait for anything, think you're entitled to the world, and still complain when you finally get something anyway.

It looks like something from 5 years ago. At maximum settings in ArmA2 (which incl. 10km viewdistance) I have a better FPS despite terrible lags than on high in GTA4 (and by high I mean sliders 2/3 to the right). And let's not even compare detail level and texture resolution. I mean ffs in ArmA2 you have 30k poly trees and dense grass and GTA4 is just boxes with bloom. What is there to lag?

So when will these future computers come so I can run 5 years old graphics of GTA4 optimally?

Why do you lie? "5 years ago", back then, was when GTA:SA was released on PC. If you can't see the difference between these two games, well...

GTA 4:
http://gtaworld.org.ua/uploads/posts/20 ... enshot.jpg
http://static.computergames.ro/cg/assas ... 4pc010.jpg
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screensh ... strahl.jpg

GTA SA:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screensh ... Mod_21.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/outa2g.jpg
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/9018 ... t1a3zi.jpg



Also, "Hi, I'm skyway, and I compare EVERY game to ARMA, no matter the relevance." Please do tell us more how an island simulator compares to an engine that simulates a city and everything that goes on in the latter.

If you tried to make a game of the scope of GTA IV run on ARMA's engine, it would shit itself so bad its arse would look like a horror show.

 

[Multidirectional]

It looks like something from 5 years ago.

Do provide examples of games with scope and level of detail of GTA4 that have better or at least equal graphics. I'd like to try them out, cause obviously they will be better optimized too.

 

[Gragt]

You're acting like a little kid shouting, "Where's my motherfucking chocolate milk!", at his mom.

I still remember that video

 

[villain of the story]

VO, I want to buy an M14 but there are a shitload of variations in different chasis, rails, material etc. Lend me a hand here. My priorities are mobility and durability.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

VO, I want to buy an M14 but there are a shitload of variations in different chasis, rails, material etc. Lend me a hand here. My priorities are mobility and durability.

Hilariously random and off topic, but, basically, you'll probably want an EBR (the modernised version we still use).

This company will sell them to you (or they could probably sell it to a registered gun dealership, who could then sell it to you provided you have the appropriate licenses yourself). Have a look through the models. They've got full size and short barrels. You'll probably want a short barrel.

http://fulton-armory.com/

Check out these short models:

http://fulton-armory.com/fultonarmoryus ... 1-1-1.aspx
http://fulton-armory.com/fultonarmoryus ... 1-1-1.aspx

Hope you have the money though! And the correct license... unless you only want semi-auto (would be cheaper though).

 

[SoupNazi]

I saw the title and immediately knew it was Skyway's topic without looking at the author.

Also, everybody knew this was shit the moment they declared it will be in Sao Palo and Max was this bald Splinter Cell wannabe dude in a wifebeater.