Talk:Max Payne 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sam Lake not involved?

What is the source of this? We know that Rememdy isnt involved because that's stated in the article but i have yet to see an article that say's for sure that Sam Lake isnt involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.68.225 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Until now, it's best to leave the [citation needed] beside that comment. 68.117.249.40 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll need to go retrieve the magazine from the other room to cite sources, but it's Rockstar's sandbox now, no longer Remedy's. Incidentally, does anyone else kind of get a "Man On Fire" vibe from the game now? Atypicaloracle (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Without Sam Lake it won't be Max Payne. It'll probably be Niko Payneic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.22.193 (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture for the infobox

See ru:File:Max Payne 3 art.jpg. It's better, than a simple logo ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Strategia Del Ragno (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, our simple logo is Bolder that Russians wiki, but their logo is sure cooler that ours!
I suggest to keep our logo since it's Bolder, and that's what Wikipedia wants from us, to be Bold N.samimi island (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Take-Two Annouce Delay

The game isn't coming out till fiscal 2010, which they say is the first half.--67.34.181.210 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually now slated for a release at a date TBD Q4 2010. I think the infobox should be changed to reflect this for the North America release date, from "Q3 2010" as it currently says, to "Q4 2010", as it should be.98.209.57.0 (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a reliable source, but Gamestop says it'll be releasing the game on 6/01/10.66.41.44.102 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not, alas, stores often lie/guess release dates to secure re-orders. Or something. Rehevkor ✉ 04:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Trailer received "positive" or "mixed" responses

I know I'm wasting my time writing here because no-one involved in editing the article is reading this, but I'm still gonna address the edit war that's going on here: The sources indicate that the teaser has been positively received, but I'm worried that user harshmaxpayne has ulterior motives for continuing to re-add this info. Given his user name, there is clearly a conflict of interest, and it shows; the user does not communicate and reverts any edits he does not like with no reason given. Harshmaxpayne, if you are reading this, please give a reason for your edits to avoid them being possibly being reverted any further. Eik Corell (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've found it difficult to develop the article neutrally thanks to the above mentioned editor. Rehevkor ✉ 04:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User Litis recently removed the section being discussed here. Thinking it over, I totally agree with their decision; It's unofficial, mentioning it in the way that we have thus far, doesn't serve the article in any meaningful way. What do you guys think? Eik Corell (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe worth a mention, but not a whole section. Rehevkor ✉ 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just some fake fan-made video. Check the description for the video on YouTube. And even if information on the game is scarce, this doesn't mean people should go around and add whatever fan-made bull they think looks the best. Litis (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's gone and should stay gone. For what I'd worth I've reminded Mr Harshmaxpayne about our three revert rule so any further reverts can be considered simple edit warring and reported. Rehevkor ✉ 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Spoiler

Sentence was "It has been leaked that there will be full frontal male nudity in this game [during the scene which was a spoiler]." Add back in the part about nudity if you want, but the source linked confirmed neither the nudity nor what was described in this article as, presumably, Max Payne's ultimate fate in the game. 64.190.57.34 (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Rehevkor ✉ 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vaporware?

On December 21, it was not present on the 2011-2012 calendar year, and was pushed back again.

I thought policy was not to run articles on games until a release date was set. With this, not only do they not have a date, they don't have a projected quarter in which to release it, in fact, they don't even know what year this thing's gonna come out, if it ever does at all. Is there really enough known for sure for us to have this article here, or is this an extreme case of crystal-ballery? 74.131.49.72 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on the 'Reception' section

Someone seems to keep editing the reception section to make it appear as if the game is flawed - despite it getting an 88 on Metacritic and counting. Be on the look out.Cross Pollination (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed it for now, but only because it was unsourced. Яehevkor ✉ 18:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ripped copies

Does it not seem prudent to mention that the game has been available to torrenters with a modded console for a good week, now? Pretty big breach of R* DVR security there. I'd rather pay for the game myself, since I trust R*, but it's a pretty notable event, I'd say. 64.253.217.55 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Only if its covered in a reliable secondary source (WP:V / WP:RS) - X201 (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any news coverage of it, but it seems like it should be a big deal. Game didn't come out on console 'til the 15th, still has a solid two weeks on the PC, and if I were a bit lazier of a consumer, I could mod my 360, torrent it, and play it right now. And I could have done so about a week or two ago. Ah, well. 64.253.217.55 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all uncommon these days. Яehevkor ✉ 00:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast

I put back the cast in. It DOES belong here. I actually came a few days ago here to see who is in the cast. This game is heavy on acting so its relevant to this game. And the cast did a good job so they deserve credit. I was surprised to see the cast was removed when I came again today. So I put it back and please don't remove, others might want to also know what the cast is and like me they come to Wikipedia to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max3cast (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mention the primary cast maybe (in prose).. but not the whole thing. Яehevkor ✉ 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As per what Rehevkor said. Complete cast lists are not considered encyclopaedic content(WP:VGSCOPE). Mention of key actors in the prose section is OK but a list of everyone involved is not needed. - X201 (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of surprising, actually. I mean, whatever the rules say goes, but take a brief glance at the article for just about any large television series, novel, video game, etc. - they all have large cast lists as the first or second heading. If it's not considered encyclopedic, why is it featured on half of the encyclopedic articles we have here? Uniformity, y'know? 64.253.217.55 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's true, almost every film has a Cast section. But novels, not so much. :) --Niemti (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how this relates to novels. The actors not only act fantastically, they also physically resemble their characters - so it seems disingenuous to completely dismiss them. James McCaffrey put in an impeccable performance. I actually came to wikipedia to find this information. Can I propose a List of Characters in Max Payne 3 with such information - or is that not considered encyclopaedic content(WP:VGSCOPE) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.229.135 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

I think the previous plot was way, way too long. I mean as an average reader, I personally wouldn't bother trying to read it if I was just looking for a summary of what the plot of the game is. Eik Corell (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy who made the plot way too long here. True, but IMO the shortened version misses out a LOT of important details. The whole thing that made the plot enjoyable was the reveals of how everyone was connected or the dark, DARK stuff involving the organ smuggling ring the Brancos are linked to. The shortened version just removes 90% of that. If anybody can find a way of concisely including those details into the plot, that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.217.103 (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it for a while yet. Don't forget you're still going to have PC owners coming to the game at the end of the month and they'll add stuff as well. Just ignore it for now. The best way to tackle a plot section is a couple of months after the game's release, then you can distil all of the best bits that have been added to it. Will have a go in a month's times when I have played it. - X201 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well someone managed to concise it up. Great work whoever did that, still makes sense and manages to keep in 99% of the important details I had in my overtly long plot summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.216.10 (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

incorrect requirements

the description of this game on wiki has been supplemented by pathetically high recommended system requirements like 16 gigs of ram,gtx 680,hd7970 which is not official at all. so i reuest you to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.39.234 (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

16GB of RAM is the highest tested specs.Magmar452 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also other requirements that are incorrect, I suggest someone correct this. Magmar452 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2