Max Payne 3 Review | Quarter to Three

Tom Chick (sigh):Let’s pretend it’s the 90s, when shooters are all about and only about shooting, when storylines have to be inserted between action bits like commercial breaks, when bullet time is the new hotness, when 80s style jumpshooting isn’t replaced by wirework yet, and when finding the next medkit is the single most important factor in determining whether you’re going to have to play this part over again.

[NastyLeftHook0]

wow, 4/10...no way.

[TBM]

i beat it yesterday and id give it a solid 9.25. i dont listen to idiot reviewers because they dont know what i'll like and dont like.

[MattyG]

Oh my god, between quartertothree and destructoid, this has been a great day for terrible reviews.

[Nimblest-Assassin]

Now I am going to explain why I posted this poor review. I liked Max Payne 3, I though it was a great game... but I posted this review to show you why metacritic is useless.

There are 2 reviewers who I can not stand, Scott C Jones and Tom Chick. The reason being they are ridiculously negative on games. Their reviews make no sense, they contradict each time they review a new game, and it just becomes ridiculous to read their reviews.

This is why metacritic is useless. What credentials do these reviewers have to be aggregated? Quarter to 3 is hardly a reputable site, hell most of the reviews are done by Mr.Chick. There are hundreds and hundreds of reviewing websites, each with their own opinons, but what makes these sites on the list and the other not on it?

It's this stupid idea that this score will be taken added to an average, and then the game gets this overall number placed on it, and people go apesh*t whenever that number goes up or down. I can not stand metacritic or gamerankings because of this idiotic system.

Thats why I posted this. People need to find a review site they trust, or make opinions for themselves. Screw this number that is assigned to a game. Screw review scores. They really are a cheap and easy way to get gamers attentions, good or bad scores. Hell now a days people read reviews to find the problems with the score, and complain about things in the review soley due to the score. Why do you care so much? Ignore the opinion and the score if it doesn't match yours.

Review scores and metacritic and gamerankings need to die.

They are ruining gaming, because no one cares about the opinion, only the number.

[MattyG]

Bravo! Encore! I agree completly. Also, who's to say what score means what. To me, a 5/10 is middle of the road, but to the next guy it might mean total garbage. There are so many different ranking systems and interpretations of them that there is really no way to get an accurate representation of the quality of a game with a number. Number scores should just be banned altogether so people have to read the opinion and make their own descision instead of saying, "Oh, well this has a (insert score) from (insert reviewer), it must be (insert opinion)." (I feel like I rambled on for a bit there, but someone will be able to figure out what I meant haha.)

[WolfLeBlack]

Sadly review scores are used because publishers love them, and so to keep publishers happy the sites use them.

I still use scores on my own site because I do believe there's a place for them in the industry, but I also think it's entirely wrong that publishers often won't talk to sites that don't use a scoring system.

It's a bit like how a Metacritic score can now have massive impacts on the industry.

[MattyG]

@WolfLeBlack I actually feel bad for developers, because I've heard recently that many times their bonuses hinge on the game getting a high Metacritic score. This practice is just ridiculous , because low scores like these and Jim Sterling's Burning Skies review can drag a great metacritic score down significantly.

[mafiahajeri]

Good job no sorry great job!! Way to prove a point. I wholeheartedly agree it's sad to see gamers these days basing there purchases on reviews. Some people even ignore good reviews and are swayed away from a purchase by one negative review, as if basing your video game purchases on metacritic wasn't bad enough. I will never forget the ign pes 2008 fiasco where they gave the game a 9 when it is universally known among pes fans as the worst pes game in the decade of this series. Why did they give it a 9 you ask? Well because there was ign advertisements in the game. I have no confidence in video game journalism when it comes to reviews. All were left with is sites that want hits and in turn they've spoiled the credibility of reviewers, for me at least...

[fallacious]

Oh look, another site looking for hits.

[Holeran]

I won't click on the link because I am not going to give this asshat the satisfaction. I've played the campaign and the multiplayer alot and if this guy thinks the game deserves less than an 8 he is a pathetic waste. I give the game a solid 9.25 and there is a ton of games that rate better than this but can't hold a candle to it.

[Kingnichendrix]

Yeah like cod -_-

[GammaSix]

LMAO just know

[fluxmulder]

This is pathetic. Max Payne does NOT deserve a 4/10. I just finished it and had lots of fun with it; a really solid game. It has it's faults, but I give it a solid 8.75/10. Quarter to Three is fishing for hits, plain and simple. Rating a AAA game a ridiculously low 4/10 keeps them on the frontpage of the game's metacritic page, and generates hits for their website.

[european_cannon]

Another fantastic review from the legendary Tom Chick. This guy tells it like it is and fanboys scream and pout for days. Why? Because someone has a different opinion then yours. The guy has played more games then most people commenting here.

Max Payne 3 is a slightly below average game, which equals (surprise!) a 4 out of 10. Great review.

[Nimblest-Assassin]

He's a f*cking reviewer... of course he has played more games than most of us... its his job -_-

And legendary? More like infamous... looked through your comment history... you must have been ecstatic with his uncharted 3 review... but completely ignored his article when he called Skyrim the most overrated game of last year.

http://www.quartertothree.c...

The dude prides himself on poorly reviewing games that are well recieved.... he pretty much thinks he is the best reviewer out there, and does not understand other people have opinions too, why do you think he does those stupid lists and blast every well recieved game and the people who like them, except for Arkham city, which surprised me that he gave it a 10 out of 10, since AC improved on AA, which he blasts every other game of doing... he's been doing this since the original Deus Ex

Let me give you some of his quotes

Crysis 2: People love cookie cutter shooters when they’re beautiful. But Crysis 2 wasn’t particularly beautiful. Read the review here.

Mario 3d Land: Why is everyone so delighted with these same platformer concepts? Have they just not played all the better platformers that have come out in the last ten years?

Gears of War 3: People are taking these neckless space marines seriously? It’s the same good gunplay it’s been all along and not much else. Read the review here.

Forza4: While talking to a colleague who really liked and reviewed Forza 4, I was surprised to discover he’d never played a Need for Speed: Shift game. Are Forza fans in a bubble in which only Forza and Gran Turismo exist? Because that would explain a lot. Read the review of someone who played a Need for Speed: Shift

Uncharted 3: The cautionary tale of how games that think they’re movies can go wrong by forgetting they’re actually games. Read the review here. (This is the one that gives away his agenda)

But gives perfect scores to games like Darkness 2 and Zen Pinball.

He is a reviewer with a common goal... he does not like games that try to be cinematic... kind of like you.

Its the same thing with giving someone allergic to cheese mozzerella... they wont eat it.... you give him a game that is meant to be cinematic he won't like it.

He is a reviewer with a one set opinion,he likes arcadey, hates cinematic. Problem is he thinks his opinion is the only one that matters. Which is why I detest him greatly.

The only reason you call him legendary is because you have the same mindset as him. You hate games that try to be cinematic like Uncharted, Max Payne, Heavy Rain etc

He is the perfect reviewer for you, since you both have the same mindset and interests... but for me and many others... we hate his cocky attitude...

[arbitor365]

@ european_cannon

oh, go back to your hole on QT3. No one cares about your sycophantic devotion to this washed up, pretentious, discredited, obnoxious, intellectual wasteland of a human being, known as "Tom Chick."

No one holds his opinion in high regard. He is stooge and an attention whore. That is all he will ever be.

[european_cannon]

You make great points Nimblest, unlike Arbitor365 below you. I seem to agree with Chick in most instances and I really could care a less that he called Skyrim them most overrated game this year -- it's only his opinion, and I have mine.

As for Arbitor, it is "fans" like you that give the entire industry a bad name. The guy can't hate a game you like? You really think he's trolling for hits? Christ, you could have just said "I disagree, Max Payne 3 is great, Chick is a troll." without attacking me, but no, you had to throw in a jab at a freaking commenter on N4G -- your hole I presume. Not to mention imagining Chick in the middle of a football field surrounded by angry developers is borderline insane.

[mobhit]

The main point is that the guy contradicts himself, much like the people out there who call themselves 'journalists'.

[arbitor365]

I would just love to imagine how Tom Chick and Jim Sterling would react to being stuck in the middle of a football stadium filled with the developers of the numerous fantastic games that they have trashed for hits.

people, we need to stop rewarding attention-whoring clowns like Tom Chick and Jim Sterling. I have been saying it for years. They have no integrity as reviewers. They give great games horrendous, unjustifiable scores and just to reap the benefits of it. We have enabled them to make money by shitting upon the hard, quality work of other people. it needs to stop.

[arbitor365]

tom chick reviewing uncharted 3 (paraphrased)
"whats with all this artistic, cinematic presentation and shit? it gets in the way of shooting stuff! I just want to shoot stuff, dammit" 5/10

tom chick reviewing max payne 3 (paraphrased)
"why is it all about shooting and non-stop action? couldnt we get some more substance?" 4/10

no wonder this guy has been fired numerous times

[Nimblest-Assassin]

Thats what pisses me off the most... he contradicts himself constantly with his reviews. Like I told european, he is a man who prefers arcadey games over cinemtatic. If that was opinion, I respect that, the problem is he thinks his opinion is the only right one, and strangely enough reviews games HE KNOWS he won't like.

Its essentially as useful as the metacritic user scores, asking a cod fanboy to review battlefield and a battlefield fanboy to review cod... how do you think those always end up? With ridiculous scores that chick loves 1.5-4 or 7-10