Max Payne 3: Is This The Fall of Max Payne?
People were largely conflicted when details trickled out on the revival of the long dormant Max Payne franchise, and with good reason. The setting, the developer- even the drastic redesign to Max himself. Some have applauded the bold direction the franchise is taking, others fiercely oppose it (Take a guess where I fit into things). But frankly, regardless of how rigidly Rockstar stick to the gunplay conventions of its predecessor, Max Payne 3 will only be a sequel in namesake.
One of the most common poorly implemented conventions in games recently is a revival of the Noir. And with good reason, given Max Payne was the only series that springs to mind so far that did it well (We’ll have to wait and see how ‘Sadness’ turns out). Rather than become absorbed in the sincerity and the emotion of the character’s brooding side, Remedy had the audacity to make the protagonist a little bit ridiculous- spurting out elegant similes whilst maintaining a habitual addiction to painkillers.
And what does Max Payne 3 retain from this? Admittedly, the last in the series didn’t leave much room for a sequel- given the likelihood of most of the cast of the original returning this time around. But it’s hard to understand any legitimate reason why shedding the original New York setting, the look, or the poeticism James McCaffrey gave to the character.
Regardless of how the game turns out, Rockstar would need to make some drastic changes to make the game rightfully lye somewhere within the established fiction. Here’s why:
New York, I Love You
I remember the first time I approached the franchise with Max Payne; I hadn’t the slightest clue what year the fiction was set. Was Max stranded in glitzy 40s New York, explaining the decrypt architecture and suave jive talking gangsters? Or did these mafiosos exist in a more contemporary setting? That was the charm of the original- it had this remarkable capacity for blending the old with the new.
Now, in a bid to appear as gritty and topical, Rockstar have opted to neuter possibly one of the best aspects of the original in favour of drug addled Brazil. There’s no legitimate excuse for the setting change- Sure, taking into account the fate of the cast from the original game. But still, leading to my next point…
Make do with what you’ve got
A prequel, or mid-quels shedding some light into the events between Max Payne 1 and 2 (Which avoided most of the mysticism ‘The Inner Circle’ brought to the plot, given the ending tied up most of the loose ends there…and because it’s as redundant as hell) would have been better conceived.
In fact, a number of the cast could have still been present in the sequel to warrant the title sticking to the original setting (Max’s lieutenant and, maybe at a stretch, his former fem fatal companion Mona- if you count one of the endings as canon) while adding new characters this time around- even though the ending of Max Payne 2 didn’t leave this suited towards establishing a new game in the series in the first place.
It seems lazy just giving up on the established fiction. Why even bother making a sequel in any case? Using up old I.Ps and, in the process, pissing off fans?
Lazy Conventions for Lazy Developers
You know what the second most telling visible signature of a character’s inner pain? Bad posture and a sunken face. Care to take a guess at the first? Baldness and a grizzly beard.
That’s the most lazy way possible to depict a character’s further descent, second only to Sam Fisher’s brief stint with his little emo hairdo. You could argue that Max himself was just as much of a walking caricature, but this way he’s becoming a caricature unfamiliar to us. Regardless of how many brilliantly executed the metaphors Max fires off are, he still won’t be the same- largely owing to the omission of James McCaffrey. Instead it’ll be some generic, gravelly-voiced old man.
But…
It’s not like Max Payne 3 doesn’t have the potential to be great on its own terms. It’s what they’re doing to the character that seems…well…out of character. This hardly seems like the foreseeable direction Remedy would have took for the franchise- considering there was some resolution at the end which seemed to imply that he was at peace.
There’s plenty of things could have done with the universe, and now it seems like Rockstar have neutered the franchise and the character himself. Bullet-time wasn’t the only trick Max Payne had up his sleeve, but it seems like Rockstar are making it out that way. It’s almost a disservice to Remedy who molded this brilliant character and universe, and now they’re dissecting all the established conventions for no discernible reason except maybe to wear out a name that resonates with gamers.
If it makes any sense, I have hope for this game, but low expectations. Rockstar, in general, knows how to make an entertaining game. I think Brazil could make a very interesting noir setting, but so far it just looks too bright and cheery and just like every other 3rd person shooter. The trouble is, by calling this Max Payne, if they just make a fun and exciting game, they fail. They have to capture Max on top of all that in order to really succeed and stand out from the other 3rd person shooters.