Max Payne 2 Shows Bullet Time Squared?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Max Payne 2 Shows Bullet Time Squared?

Posted by simoniker on Monday September 29, 2003 @08:37PM from the doze-off-to-slo-mo? dept.

Thanks to IGN PC for their new preview of Remedy/Rockstar's Max Payne 2:The Fall Of Max Payne, as the October-due PC, December-shipping console title unveils a little more, particularly Bullet Time 2.0, the key new gameplay feature which "...will reward Max for good performance by increasing his action speed during Bullet Time. What this means is that you can start to move proportionally faster while in Bullet Time simply by killing multiple enemies." Elsewhere, GameSpot also get to "visit with the older, wiser Max Payne", particularly mentioning the "game's implementation of Havok physics", as this middleware physics engine also gets used in games such as Half-Life 2 and Starcraft: Ghost.

38 of 45 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Such emphasis on violence by Dancin_Santa · 2003-09-29 20:43 · Score: 1

It's no wonder kids are so violent these days. Violence feeds on itself: real world violence is mimicked and increased by the media, the violence reflected by the media is mimicked and increased in the real world, and so on and so on.

While we as individuals can only control the violence within ourselves, we must look to controlling the violence in media (be it games or the news or music) to put an end to the circle of violence.
1. Re:Such emphasis on violence by MadMoses · 2003-09-29 21:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Dear Santa,
  
  Generally, I'm a nice guy. I will only get violent if you try to tell me what I can and cannot watch, play or hear.
  
  --
  
  Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
2. Re:Such emphasis on violence by Dancin_Santa · 2003-09-29 21:47 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Generally, I'm a nice guy
  
  Who are you fooling? I've got the list. I checked it twice.
3. Re:Such emphasis on violence by KDan · 2003-09-29 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  So do you dance when we whistle?
  
  *whistles*
  
  Daniel
  
  --
  Carpe Diem
4. Re:Such emphasis on violence by __aafkqj3628 · 2003-09-29 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  If I share it on Kazaa, will Santa sue?
5. Re:Such emphasis on violence by MadMoses · 2003-09-29 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Could it be that your list is provided by a government or agency that wants to restrict the rights of the citizens and that fanatically tries to impose their "morals" on the whole world, and uses lies and deceit to achieve this?
  
  --
  
  Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
6. Re:Such emphasis on violence by jilles · 2003-09-30 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ehh the US is quite an exception when it comes to violence. Game violence is one of the factors that is pretty much the same in other countries that are far more pieceful. It is far more easy to blame the media than to take a critical look at, for example, the fucked up social economics in the US. Poverty + guns = violence. IMHO the way the media report in the US is a symptom rather than a cause of the real problems that underly the exceptional amount of violence there.
  
  BTW. your last statement is a contradiction. The whole point is that there are people who are not in control of themselves. The fact that they are not in control of themselves is the problem, not the media.
  
  --
  
  Jilles
7. Re:Such emphasis on violence by baneblackblade · 2003-09-30 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  OR you could just tell people that it isn't real
Payne Freeze by mraymer · 2003-09-29 20:51 · Score: 4, Funny

While I enjoyed the graphic novel in Max Payne, I kind of hope it is a little less melodramatic this time around.

--
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
Thank god by KDan · 2003-09-29 21:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thank god I can visit slashdot and see news of great technological importance such as the latest minor features of max payne 2. I'm sure this will change the face of computer gaming - or in fact of IT as a whole, and thus the world! - completely!

Next on slashdot - front-page article series on each of the weapons and ammo types in Doom 3 - one article per weapon. Plus, bonus article, usage of the "shift" key in Half-Life 2.

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem
1. Re:Thank god by gedanken · 2003-09-29 22:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Don't like reading about games? Why not simply disable it?
  
  Bullet time is one of the few original concepts to come out of the shooter genre in a while, I think it is great that they are improving it.
2. Re:Thank god by KDan · 2003-09-29 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  I do like reading about games in general, being myself an avid gamer. But as for particular specifics of features of one game, that seems a bit too detailed. And the fact that "bullet time" is one of the few original concepts in the shooter genre is sad, not something to be advertising in a slashdot story!!!
  
  I guess I'm just bitching though. Feel free to ignore me.
  
  Daniel
  
  --
  Carpe Diem
3. Re:Thank god by Danse · 2003-09-30 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Feel free to ignore me.
  
  Thanks. Done.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
4. Re:Thank god by Etone · 2003-09-30 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell did this ever get moderated up? It's the second obvious troll post on this comment thread. If you want to whine on about violence in society or the deterioration of ./ article quality, there's usually a story on either one of those every week.
  
  Wait your damn turn.
  
  -etone-
5. Re:Thank god by mrpuffypants · 2003-09-30 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  yar! NO SHIT! I hate hearing about all this crap too! In fact, I hate reading about Apache, BSD, and Apple! Why the hell can't /. just cover generic geek stuff! It's not like I can disable or not ever see stuff from particular topics!
6. Re:Thank god by KDan · 2003-09-30 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, I'm a gamer, I like games, I play games. Why is slashdot so irrelevant, then? They hit the nail on the head for most other topics, why can't they do it with games?
  
  Daniel
  
  --
  Carpe Diem
7. Re:Thank god by Danse · 2003-10-03 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sure did.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Max Payne actor by Carrion+Creeper · 2003-09-29 23:28 · Score: 1

Didn't I see the guy from Max Payne in one of those "It's not delivery, it's DiGiorno" commercials? The one set in Phoenix or some such?

Life kinda sucks for video game actors huh? Maybe that's why hes older and wiser/
1. Re:Max Payne actor by waaka! · 2003-09-30 05:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Max Payne guy (at least the one whose face was used in the first Max Payne) wasn't an actor at all. He was Sam Lake, one of the writers for Remedy, which is based in Finland. You can actually see Sam in the picture of Remedy's staff at the back of the Max Payne manual.
ragdoll physics by rwven · 2003-09-30 01:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

with the creation of all the new physics engines such as the Havok system, i find that things get a little stupider in games. they seem to throw random objects in the game just so you can bounce them off the walls... the ragdoll physics on the models pretty much looks completely fake. it may look cool, but if you throw a body it wouldnt do that. there are points that you cant physically stretch past that they have the models go past. they turn all the joints into these springy balljoint's and it looks really....dumb. in the HL2 videos, the only stuff i didnt like was when he picked up the guy and he bounced all over the place. it just looked fake.... cant they add some resistance to the joints and a little stiffness like is natural???
1. Re:ragdoll physics by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 01:59 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Exactly how many bodies have you thrown against walls to know this stuff?
2. Re:ragdoll physics by scolbe · 2003-09-30 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I dont know... you complain about fake physics and then use an example of a "guy" from a HL2 video who is infact a ragdoll and not meant to act like a real body.
  
  --
  Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself 8+)
3. Re:ragdoll physics by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-30 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I believe one of the interviews I read also stated that as they experimented with the physics system players responded better to somewhat less realistic values for the variables built into the system. In other words, the more exaggerated physics model was probably intentional, as players saw it as more realistic than the realistic values (probably comes from most people getting their ideas of what happens to people and objects when they get shot from movies and cartoons rather than actually going out and shooting people or getting shot themselves).
  
  In other words, people want things to happen the way they do in movies, which usually involves pully systems and exaggerated acting, rather than the way they do in real-life. The game developers would love for everything to be as realistic as possible, but in the end they still have to please the people that might be deciding whether or not to buy their game.
  
  I'm not trying to say that the physics engine is capable of completely realistic physics, merely that it's probably capable of more realistic physics than you're likely to see in the videos of Half-Life.
  
  --
  -PainKilleR-[CE]
4. Re:ragdoll physics by Flunitrazepam · 2003-09-30 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps this can be likened to the introduction to colored lighting in games, and the abuse that followed.
  
  Hopefully developers will be quicker to realize that less can be more, this time.
  
  --
  1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
5. Re:ragdoll physics by rwven · 2003-09-30 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  agreed. i think there are some places when it's not over abused. in some parts of the HL2 vids it's rediculous, like where the guy is shot off the top of the light pole in the Barricade vid. the physics overreact so much that arms and legs do flailing everywhere and the body bounces and really looks dumb. but then there's the part in the same vid where the guy is blows up by the grenade and flies toward the player and bounces off thhe car. This part almost looks like there IS that resistance that is needed. the body lands exactly how you'd expect. i wonder if this is just coincedence or if there really was a difference in the two... i just thing they need to stop making a tech demo out of games and make the games realistic and fun.
  
  i say: a unbelivable movie can be really good when presented in a believable way. (IE: the matrix) but if's so chock full of rediculous over-special effects, then it gets a little stupid. (IE: Minority Report (IMHO)) I think this goes for games as well. time will show that you need to have moderation in things like these... time will tell in any case...
No shooting through objects by Zed2K · 2003-09-30 04:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Stupid:

"The team won't be implementing any sort of penetration model"

So that means I could be on the other side of a cardboard box with the bad guy on the other side behind the box. Both of us facing each other unloading clip after clip into the box to kill each other yet noone will get hit or die because the developers were lazy?

I didn't like the first max payne and it looks like this one will just be more of the same. Bullet time was just a gimick, it got old very quickly. In the end its just a soldier of fortune type game. Ultra violent but no substance.
1. Re:No shooting through objects by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-30 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Both of us facing each other unloading clip after clip into the box to kill each other yet noone will get hit or die because the developers were lazy?
  
  Projectiles penetrating through items aren't difficult to implement in most game engines, and since the physics engine has defined parameters for objects (such as wood or metal objects), it wouldn't be hard at all to implement penetration based on the object type (ie it would penetrate a wooden box but not a metal box).
  
  In other words, it's unlikely that it has anything to do with developers being lazy, but rather with a choice in the design of the game to maintain the typical game/movie/comic style of being able to hide behind just about anything and not get killed.
  
  Bullet penetration is a design choice just as one-shot kills are, especially as game engines get complex enough to let bullets pass through objects without having to regenerate them on the opposite side of an object (which is what was typically done in the past, such as in Counterstrike), although that's fairly easy to do in most game engines, too. It's at least as much of a gimmick as bullet time is, especially given that it's probably an item listed on the box of many of the games that implement it.
  
  --
  -PainKilleR-[CE]
2. Re:No shooting through objects by exick · 2003-09-30 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  So that means I could be on the other side of a cardboard box...
  
  Assuming, of course, that there are any cardboard boxes in the game. =)
  
  Actually, I'm with you. I didn't really care for Max Payne and I don't understand the obsession with Bullet Time. It's weird how people clamor for realism in games, but somehow don't seem to mind when the player character can slow down time for everyone but himself.
3. Re:No shooting through objects by DavidLeblond · 2003-09-30 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Max couldn't slow down time for everyone but himself. His aiming may have been normal speed, but he was still slow-motion.
  
  Realistic games are boring. They may look neat but they get old quick.
4. Re:No shooting through objects by prichardson · 2003-09-30 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  No substance? I found the game to have a lot more substance than almost any game i've played in a long time. It was the first game to impliment bullet time, just that can qualify it as revolutionary. What I liked best about the game was story. The gameplay, graphics, sounds, and all that are just a vehicle for story telling in this game. This is a game that I really wanted to finish and I felt rewarded after I did, too. The game had a lot more substance than almost any other FPS I can think of. I think it's up there with the System Shocks and Deus Ex.
  
  --
  Help I'm a rock.
5. Re:No shooting through objects by Zed2K · 2003-09-30 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  "Assuming, of course, that there are any cardboard boxes in the game. =)"
  
  Oh I'm sure there will be boxes. You'll probably be able to break into them for ammo and such like every other game does. Its the game within the game, breaking boxes for loot.
6. Re:No shooting through objects by Repton · 2003-09-30 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Every FPS has crates. Just like every mammal has breasts. You can't have one without the other.
  
  The only question is, how long is the Start-to-Crate?
  
  --
  Repton.
  They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
7. Re:No shooting through objects by nobbis · 2003-09-30 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  "Just like every mammal has breasts."
  
  You haven't met my girlfriend, have you?
Re:Bestoweth your Mod Points upon this Man! by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-30 04:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not only do they have too many gaming stories, it's usually about something academic or relatively insignificant. An obscure theory, or in this case, a single feature.

Considering that the Games section here averages less than 6 stories a day, it's hard to see your point, unless the other sections you don't ignore are putting out far less. As for obscure theories, well, as far as I'm concerned that's what most of Slashdot deals with in the first place. Just because the games section deals with game theory rather than rocket science or some such theory doesn't make it any less interesting to those few that can understand and discuss it.

As for the 'single feature', the article is 2 pages long and discusses 'Bullet Time 2.0' in one paragraph near the end of the 2nd page. It also discusses the physics engine, which is the same one many other games have licensed, and the story line. In fact, if I were to pick 2 things this article spent the most time discussing besides the story, it'd be the lighting effects and the things allowed by the physics engine, and related design choices (such as the decision not to allow bullets to penetrate wooden crates, though they will spin the crates according to force).

But no, instead of commenting on the article, we get a handful of people that feel the need to comment on the fact that Slashdot has a games section with a half-decent output, which most people visiting Slashdot won't even see because most of the (relatively few) stories don't show up in the default preferences for the main page.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Pretty Much Offtopic by exick · 2003-09-30 05:02 · Score: 2, Funny

After following the links to the Havok website, I managed to get to a page featuring videos which show off what their physics engine can do.

I'm just wondering if they actually know or care how big their .avi files are since they seem to make up random sizes.
Video #1 - listed as 6.9MB, actually 9432KB (9.2MB)
Video #2 - listed as 7.9MB, actually 7218KB (7.0MB)
Video #3 - listed as 7.9MB, actually 6764KB (6.6MB)
You'd think they could at least come a little closer to the truth.
the arms look too long by nobodyman · 2003-09-30 05:07 · Score: 1

The arms look disproportionately long to me. Has anyone else noticed this?
Fascinating conclusion!! by Etone · 2003-09-30 05:50 · Score: 1

So, to summarize, your theory is:

"Bullet Time 2.0 = Increased Violence in Children"

I can never tell when people post crap like this if they're just trolling or just illogical.

-etone-
Re:Bestoweth your Mod Points upon this Man! by KDan · 2003-09-30 21:37 · Score: 1

1) 6 stories a day is a lot. I have a numer of sections enabled, but the games section somehow stands out by its numbers and by its irrelevance.

2) If bullet time is a small paragraph at the end then blame the story submitter for having the editorial sense of a piece of used toilet paper. No, I did not read the article - mainly because of the stupid story title.

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem