Just as I feared, the graphics are really weak. The narrative looks decent but without any indication as to what the gameplay is like we still know pretty much nothing about the game, other than that PC users are getting screwed over again. I'm really surprised that GTAV and Assassin's Creed 3 both went for last current-gen rather than first next-gen, especially when it's easy to scale down games so they can still benefit from the massive install base of the current consoles.
What are you talking about? I was complaining that Max Payne 3 had cutscenes that were pre-rendered at console graphics levels and that it looks terrible in comparison to PC quality graphics. Unfortunately, that's what you get when bad developers put out half-assed ports - even the console versions of GTAIV suffered from slow down and the resolution for the PS3 version had to be lowered as well. Consoles can't render at 2560x1600, let alone 60fps, let alone with anti-aliasing, let alone with hardware physics, let alone with high resolution textures, etc. Even the bad PC ports are better than the console versions - it's just they terrible in comparison to how they should have been. Consoles are great if you don't care about graphics or accurate consoles and you're on a budget. That may sound elitist but it's like comparing McDonald's to a fancy restaurant - they both provide good food, it's just aimed at people with different tastes.
Yea right, Rockstar's a bad developer.
It also wouldn't have been possible to render the cutscenes in game with the amount of post-processing/effects that were going on. I'm not surprised hardware which is 7 years old can't compete with modern PC's.
Developers go where the money is and right now it's at the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
Always funny no matter how many PC exclusive extra bells and whistles the developer adds, Max Payne 3 is called a bad-port. DirectX 11, far-higher textures and assets and greater visual fidelity controls.