7.6 from gametrailers

I definitely want it but will probably wait for a sale.

I am going to try it out with redbox

Getting very solid reviews overall -
Official Xbox Magazine UK 05/14/12 Review 8 out of 10
Joystiq 05/14/12 Review 4.5 out of 5
AusGamers 05/14/12 Review 8.8 out of 10
Giant Bomb 05/14/12 Review 4 out of 5
Game Informer 05/14/12 Review 9.25 out of 10
Edge Magazine UK 05/14/12 Review 7 out of 10
GamesRadar 05/14/12 Review 10 out of 10
Official Xbox Magazine 05/14/12 Review 8 out of 10
IncGamers 05/14/12 Review 9 out of 10
GameTrailers 05/14/12 Review 7.6 out of 10

Unfortunately they did away with the best parts of the franchise and turned it into, as it's been referred to a few times, a Tony Scott movie-game. So while very good, most interest I had in it is now gone, just like the atmosphere. I'll buy it used from Gamefly.

What do you consider to be the best parts of the game that they got rid of?

The atmosphere was always what sold me on Max Payne. I loved the noir feel of the whole thing.

Now it appears to be standard Rockstar Template #012012, sure the main game mechanic is the same, but it's like they stripped the series of its personality entirely. At least they didn't turn it into an open world concept.

It does look like Splinter Cell with more focused action, which piques my interest to an extent.

A 9 from IGN.

I'm a Max Payne fan, the first two were great, but I might not have time for this right away. I still have Skyrim, and FF XIII-2 to finish, and obviously I can add Diablo to the list.

I'll probably jump on it when it's $40 or so.

Never played before but found the review over at Gameinformer a good read. They pretty much like the game throughout and even talked quite a bit on the MP part. One they mentioned seems really intriguing is called "Gang Wars".....

The coolest multiplayer mode offered is Gang Wars. This mode pits two teams against each other and incorporates story threads from the campaign to shape the five rounds. How a round ends dictates what the next objective will be, a design that keeps the battles fresh.

Full review here.... http://www.gameinformer.com/games/ma...old-payne.aspx

So it seems they took the COD route - short single player campaign (about 12 hours - still better than COD though and 12 hours for me is perfect anyway) and it appears they did a good job with the third person shooter multi-player wise.

But I have to admit, I think I'm more excited for the GTA V hype that is about to begin. Will probably pick this up Friday.

I wouldn't call a 12 hour shooter campaign short, but that's just me.

Yeah no, 12 hours is about double the current norm. That's a pretty long ass game.

Not every game needs the filler of GTA, Final Fantasy and Elder Scrolls.

12 hours is a month or two of gaming for me

Considering Max Payne 2 was 4-5 hours, 12 seems epic.

I'll be waiting for the PC version, so I've got a few weeks to mull over my purchase and wait for more impressions of the game.

Same here!

Yeah. It always amuses me when kids today bitch and moan about games getting shorter when it isn't true at all. Just the opposite. Games have gotten longer. Most NES games could be beaten in less than an hour. The "epic" NES games like Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, etc were less than ten hours long. What has actually happened is that games have gotten much easier. Most NES games were brutally difficult, so even though you could beat them in half an hour, it took you weeks or even months to get that good at them. Today's games are much easier, and with abundant quick saves and auto saves, you don't need to keep restarting over and over again. So it just appears that today's games are short when in fact they are much longer than NES/SNES games.

That's what I meant - I will take a while for me to finish.

I'll stop posting now until I actually play - I know some people around here get a little hot and bothered with posts that don't pertain directly to the game only.

I agree, except for the part I bolded, which is pure cockery.

Legend of Zelda takes about maybe 6 hours for me...7 if I get all exploratory and shit. Cant' remember how long it took as a little kid.

Sure, if you've played through it a million times, you can get through Zelda in no time. Back in the day, when you had to trade dungeon locations at recess or spend a few hours trying to burn random shrubs, it could take weeks of playing to get through it.

Back on topic, I played through the first two levels of the MP3 campaign last night and it starts pretty strong. Hearing Max's voice again brought back a lot of memories, even though I haven't played MP1 or 2 since shortly after each one came out.

If you don't recall just how short those games were, watch some "Lets Play" videos on youtube. People have gotten 100% completion on them with under ten hours game time.

I just recently went on a Zelda marathon maybe half a year ago or so. Zelda 1 and 2 on the NES took me no more than five hours, and I got every single item, heart piece, etc. A Link to the Past on the SNES took me just slightly longer, about 8-9 hours to get 100%.

Last month I played through Final Fantasy on the NES in under ten hours. FF II (IV) and III (VI) on the SNES were well under 20 hours.


Well, yeah, that was my point. Games have not gotten shorter. They have just gotten easier. Finding everything in Zelda took tons of time on a first playthrough, but once you found everything and decided to replay the game it could easily be played through it in five hours. Compare that to modern Zelda games, and there is absolutely no way you could play through a modern Zelda game in five hours even if you already know every secret. Games have gotten longer, not shorter.

That just proves their point though. You are playing games you have played and beat before. To make a true comparison it would have to be your first play through. I guarantee that you didn't beat FF I on NES as a kid the very first time in under 10 hours.

Aaaaaaand back on topic... any impressions yet from the DVD Talk community? I hope to actually play by the weekend.

How long a game is determined by how long it takes you to beat it start to finish. Knowing every secret beforehand is immaterial. Knowing every secret relates to the difficulty.

For example, take NES action games like Double Dragon, Ninja Gaiden, Rush N Attack, Ghosts N Goblins, Battletoads, etc. They were brutally difficult, and you would spend countless hours dying and reloading before you ever got to the end. This time spent replaying it over and over really should not count in the time it takes to play. Hell, those speeder bike levels in Battletoads were so damn difficult it took me years before I ever got to the final level of Battletoads. The years of replaying those damn bike levels over and over and over and over and over until I finally mastered them should not count in the playtime to play a game start to finish. Once you actually mastered the game, all these games could be beaten start to finish in less than an hour.

Compare that with modern action games. First playthroughs are usually around six hours or so. Why? Its because these games aren't brutally difficult like NES games. You don't spend countless hours dying and reloading anymore. Autosaves and quicksaves have eliminated that. So a second or third or fourth playthrough isn't dramatically shorter than a first playthrough. You can maybe shave an hour or so off, so a six hour game becomes a five hour game.

And so comparing apples to apples, a replay of an NES game is still much shorter than a replay of a modern game. The brutal difficulty of the NES game artificially lengthened the game, but if you cut out the time spent dying and reloading, you begin to realize just how short the games were.

So games have not gotten shorter. They have gotten longer. Its just the easier difficulty makes it appear that modern games are shorter.

Well, my first time playing CoD:MW took me approx 5 hours, my 2nd play-through took me less than 3, and I'm sure it can be done in under 2, and increasing the difficulty will take longer, yet still less on multiple play-throughs, meaning, you should only judge length on the initial play-through. So it's pretty much the same deal as it always was. Overall, games are longer than they used to be, but it's not all that drastic.

What about Russian Attack? That game was epically short but brutally difficult.