BloodEagle wrote:I think the webpage-comprising-the-actual-distance-to-the-moon beats it.
--
How does the gameplay and level design compare to The Fall of Max Payne? I only ask because going from 1 to 2 I noticed the gameplay got better and everything else got worse.
I've not played the second, and not the first for a very long time. In general, it's quite a bit slower (ironically, reflecting the change in the character).
It's tricky, because the cover mechanic mixes it up a bit. I think it's still possible to rely on the shootdodge, but I was just as happy playing from cover and only using the dive to move from cover to cover when I was being flanked (whilst taking off a few heads in the process, natch); one other big change is that when you land, you have to press another button to get back up. That makes a big difference, as you can lie on the floor and pop off a few heads (or just get annoyed at the extra step). But the one thing is, if you went back to MP1 gameplay it'd feel out-of-date IMO.
The level design is pretty good; the last two levels are pretty spectacular in particular, and it does a good amount of work setting itself in believable locations (it may be strictly linear, but there are still places that are clearly put in the level design for the purposes of believable architecture, even when they don't have a gameplay purpose). But a lot of it comes from the sheer level of detail in there, both graphically and in terms of the cinematic stuff they want/expect you to do - it's an unabashedly 'cinematic' linear game, and you really need to get into the storyline to enjoy it properly (which, I'd say, is light years ahead of MP1 in terms of quality, even if it loses the cheesy constipated face fun aspects). If you don't connect with the main character(s), then it'd grate a bit; there's not that much variety you can put in these types of game.
I paid fifteen quid (US$22) approx for it, played about 10 hours, I'd say it's easily worth it.