Annie Finn role? *spoilers*

[Ivan]

Why did they put her in the game? She was just giving guns to Vladimir...[Not a really important thing]!And BTW: Why the hell do the cleaners [Vlad mens] killed her when she was actualy telling the true when she said: "I work for Vladimir!!"... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[DvS]

You should have announced the fact that you were going to post spoilers.

[Ivan]

Yeah, but I thought that ppl, comming here have already finish this game! Sorry about that i'll edit it, but let's continue on the subject: Why do this bitch exist? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Joonas]

SPOILERS!!




Think it like this: If wouldn't be there, then what? No point for Max going to Vlad's warehouse, no clues, the script wouldn't be so exciting. No matter how small some person's role it, it should exist if it fits there. There Remedy needed a person to be killed early.

And Vlad was betraying everyone, Annie too.

[fmuder]

Then Max wouldn't think the cleaners are Vlad's men since 'no one' would kill his own ppl (Annie)

[Ivan]

THX for the answers, I think the 2 last ones are the best! [Actualy they are the only answers, but anyway live with it!]

[Joe Siegler]

You should have announced the fact that you were going to post spoilers.



This forum is known to have spoilers - says so in the forum intro. If you don't want anything spoiled, don't visit this forum.

[Wamplet]

Not only does this thread have spoiler in the title, but the entire Max Payne section does in red print on the main forum listing.

If you don't want anything spoiled, just minimize the Max Payne threads from the main forum listing.

I decided to pass the game before even looking in this area. I'd suggest the same before you find out more spoilers. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyways back on topic, what the heck was the point of her in it? Didn't Vlad and her have a thing going on? At least I thought it was her that was being referred to in the answering machine. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[FatherSeraphin]

Yeah i didnt understand that bit of the story too...

Vlad in the end said he had to kill Max to venge his "lady" anyways because he was a gentlemen. I didnt understand when exactly Max killed his G/f and the only explanation i found was that the Woman in question was the COP... But then again, why Vlad left the message for Annie on the answering machine...

Maybe he was playing on two fronts? Funny when you consider that he asked Mona to become his "queen" too.

[Tommyboy]

Yeah i didnt understand that bit of the story too...

Vlad in the end said he had to kill Max to venge his "lady" anyways because he was a gentlemen. I didnt understand when exactly Max killed his G/f and the only explanation i found was that the Woman in question was the COP... But then again, why Vlad left the message for Annie on the answering machine...

Maybe he was playing on two fronts? Funny when you consider that he asked Mona to become his "queen" too.

He was reffering to Winterson.

[Wamplet]

Wait, I thought Vlad was working on All of the ladies? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

[Ratm]

annie was there to give pleasure to vlad end of story. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

[Wamplet]

by dying? Surely she did a decent enough job doing that while she was alive! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[FatherSeraphin]

Word.

The only explanation I can find is that Annie had to die because she was to be replaced by Winterson...

[Cogar]

Word.

The only explanation I can find is that Annie had to die because she was to be replaced by Winterson...


Yes, if Vlad was dumping Annie for Winterson, he might eliminate her to keep her from double crossing him in revenge. Still, this episode is one awkward result of a storyline geared to keep you from guessing who the bad guy is, his relationship to Wooden, etc.)

Regarding the reason to put it in the game--shock value.

[Akari]

Ann was used by Vlad because she was a weapons expert. somthing he needed...

[Ratm]

by dying? Surely she did a decent enough job doing that while she was alive! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

man she couldve been giving him pleasure even before the incident happend. i.e. before he got to the warehouse

[Wamplet]

by dying? Surely she did a decent enough job doing that while she was alive! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

man she couldve been giving him pleasure even before the incident happend. i.e. before he got to the warehouse



That's what I was implying. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



Ann was used by Vlad because she was a weapons expert. somthing he needed...



Yeah, but he also needed to knock boots. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif Guess he preferred guns over her, though. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif

[John Mirra]

Yes, if Vlad was dumping Annie for Winterson, he might eliminate her to keep her from double crossing him in revenge.



He had her eliminated because she probably knew too much. Also, I believe she might've provided weapons to Gognitti, and that was a threat Vlad may have not been able to counter. To remove suspicions, he also left the message on her answering machine (and played out his part when talking to Max).


Still, this episode is one awkward result of a storyline geared to keep you from guessing who the bad guy is, his relationship to Wooden, etc.)



I honestly could see who the main villain would be a mile away http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


Regarding the reason to put it in the game--shock value.



A black female is tied to a chair and shot at point blank range... That's hardly shocking http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[FatherSeraphin]

Remember what Max said about his problems always beggining with a woman dieing... Or a woman he could not save... Thats the shock value. A psychological/pavlovian reminder of what happened in MP1.

[John Mirra]

Remember what Max said about his problems always beggining with a woman dieing... Or a woman he could not save... Thats the shock value. A psychological/pavlovian reminder of what happened in MP1.



A reminder of what happened to the first one is just that, a reminder; its different than a pavlovian conditioning element (which deals with something else entirely unrelated to this kind of situation, as far as i remember). As to the shock value, i'm sure it got to someone, but that scene did anything but shock me.

[0marTheZealot]

yea maybe if they showed an .50AE exit wound, I might have been shocked.

I honestly have no idea what Annie Finn's role was. She was mentioned in episodes 1 and 2 only; then disappears. Maybe was supposed to be part of the story, but Remedy cut it out due to constraints or something, and cobbled together something quick to help it flow.

[Ivan]

Well if there wasn't a "hostage situation" Max wouldn't went in the Vlad's warehouse and meet the cleaners... and maybe they needed someone to be killed in the beggining!

[FatherSeraphin]

A reminder of what happened to the first one is just that, a reminder; its different than a pavlovian conditioning element (which deals with something else entirely unrelated to this kind of situation, as far as i remember). As to the shock value, i'm sure it got to someone, but that scene did anything but shock me.



Pavlovian experiment. You feed the dog again and again, in result, the dog produce saliva each time he see you coming with food. Thus, if you want to make the dog saivate, you can show him food without even feeding him because he was conditioned to react under certein condition.

In Max situation, he says all the worst situations in his life begin with a woman dieing. He see a woman dieing, and he goes, "Jesus ****** christ, there we go again". This is not what i mean by pavlovian. What i mean is, they made annie die to create a n associative feeling into the player (feeling strengthened by what max says) that is aimed at reminding him of what he went thru in MP1.

I hope i was clear this time.

[Wamplet]

He had her eliminated because she probably knew too much. Also, I believe she might've provided weapons to Gognitti, and that was a threat Vlad may have not been able to counter. To remove suspicions, he also left the message on her answering machine (and played out his part when talking to Max).



Ah, now THAT makes perfect sense. Especially the part about her selling guns to Vinnie.

[Ivan]

He had her eliminated because she probably knew too much. Also, I believe she might've provided weapons to Gognitti, and that was a threat Vlad may have not been able to counter. To remove suspicions, he also left the message on her answering machine (and played out his part when talking to Max).



Ah, now THAT makes perfect sense. Especially the part about her selling guns to Vinnie.



Well, I don't think this makes sens. Nowhere in the story they were talking about Vinnie buying guns from Annie. So let's just not imagine things.

[Wamplet]

I thought Vinnie got in big trouble by his boss for buying some stuff, though or taking matter into his own hands? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[John Mirra]

Pavlovian experiment. You feed the dog again and again, in result, the dog produce saliva each time he see you coming with food. Thus, if you want to make the dog saivate, you can show him food without even feeding him because he was conditioned to react under certein condition.



Thanks, but I'm aware of the Pavlovian experimentation on behaviouristic patterns. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif And that example is somewhat wrong/incomplete - the test was to have the dog salivate at the sound of a bell, because he associated the ring of the bell with his meal time. Hence, each time he subsequently heard the bell he salivated regardless of being given/shown food.


In Max situation, he says all the worst situations in his life begin with a woman dieing. He see a woman dieing, and he goes, "Jesus ****** christ, there we go again". This is not what i mean by pavlovian. What i mean is, they made annie die to create a n associative feeling into the player (feeling strengthened by what max says) that is aimed at reminding him of what he went thru in MP1.

I hope i was clear this time.



Yes you were, but the thing is you used it incorrectly. Pavlov's conditioning isn't exactly what's at stake. The scene where Annie dies invokes a certain reaction on Max, but this is the first time it happens. For it to be associated with Pavlov's research, he had to be submitted to an event where every single bad thing in his life began with the death of a woman - and this is not the case, otherwise old Maxie would have gone bonkers by now. The recolection of a past event, and a comment as to a certain event in his past - due to an event in his present - is nothing more than that, a comment or a remembrance of past events; its quite different than a Pavlovian experimentation.

[Ratm]

by dying? Surely she did a decent enough job doing that while she was alive! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

man she couldve been giving him pleasure even before the incident happend. i.e. before he got to the warehouse



That's what I was implying. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



Ann was used by Vlad because she was a weapons expert. somthing he needed...



Yeah, but he also needed to knock boots. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif Guess he preferred guns over her, though. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif

oh LOL MY BAD http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

[FatherSeraphin]

he had to be submitted to an event where every single bad thing in his life began with the death of a woman



I dont think it has to be EVERY SINGLE event. The dog sure as hell ate food before in his life without hearing a bell. But once you start messing with associations, he get conditionned.


Yes you were, but the thing is you used it incorrectly. Pavlov's conditioning isn't exactly what's at stake. The scene where Annie dies invokes a certain reaction on Max, but this is the first time it happens. For it to be associated with Pavlov's research, he had to be submitted to an event where every single bad thing in his life began with the death of a woman - and this is not the case, otherwise old Maxie would have gone bonkers by now. The recolection of a past event, and a comment as to a certain event in his past - due to an event in his present - is nothing more than that, a comment or a remembrance of past events; its quite different than a Pavlovian experimentation.



You are making sens. However, where do you draw the line? The dog might need dozen of repetitions until he is conditionned. We humans learn and apapt faster to situations, what tells you that one single time is not enough to create a significant conditionning? Especially when you keep in mind that the emotional impact of losing one's family (strong trauma) might lessen even more the number of repetitions needed.

Some people get trapped into elevators for days (earthquakes etc) then they develop a case of claustrophobia. They associate small spaces with the horor they went thru in the past. I take this as a proof that strong taumas can create a conditionning without the need for repetition.

I guess you associate the pavlovian experiment with repetition, while you should associate it with conditionning instead. Open psychology books, you will see that we speak about "pavlovian conditionning". Repetition is just a minor, non-defining aspect of his experiment.

[John Mirra]

I dont think it has to be EVERY SINGLE event. The dog sure as hell ate food before in his life without hearing a bell. But once you start messing with associations, he get conditionned.



It has to be, otherwise its not relating to conditioning someone/something to behave a certain way. See, the pattern goes as follows:

Pavlov rings bell -> Shows food to dog -> Dog salivates

Pavlov rings bell -> Shows food to dog -> Dog salivates

Pavlov rings bell -> Shows food to dog -> Dog salivates

This goes on an on until the dog associates one with the other. At one point:

Pavlov rings bell -> Dog salivates regardless of being fed or not

The dog no doubt already salivated when he saw food; but this time we're conditioning his response. He now has a conditioned reaction (salivating) because he associates the sound of the bell with food. This is only achieved with repetition.

For this Pavlovian example to happen with Max Payne, it'd have to be something like this:

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Until one point where we conditioned his response, and he goes and says "Like all the bad things in my life, it started with the death of a woman".


You are making sens. However, where do you draw the line? The dog might need dozen of repetitions until he is conditionned. We humans learn and apapt faster to situations, what tells you that one single time is not enough to create a significant conditionning?



Because an absolute conditioning usually is only achieved trough repetition, mostly. Or radical events, like any kind of trauma. But that's not a conditioning by repetition (a la Pavlov), that's a conditioning by shock. I don't even consider that conditioning at all, to be honest.


Especially when you keep in mind that the emotional impact of losing one's family (strong trauma) might lessen even more the number of repetitions needed.



True, but even a conditioning via traumatic experience is somewhat out of the question here, because there had been only one bad event in Max's life which began with the death of a woman - his wife. Implying that everything bad in his life begins with the death of a woman is an exageration. Even in the case of traumatic experiences, it's not about causing any type of conditioning; rather, about creating reactions of fear, aversion, denial or apathy (and these are different than making someone's behaviour change trough the replacement of a reflex).


Some people get trapped into elevators for days (earthquakes etc) then they develop a case of claustrophobia. They associate small spaces with the horor they went thru in the past. I take this as a proof that strong taumas can create a conditionning without the need for repetition.



You're confusing things a bit.

Pavlov's method showed that conditioning was a modification of a response previously associated with another. Again, the dog example: he used to salivate (response) because of food (stimulus), but trough conditioning (via repetition), he now salivates (conditioned response) because of a bell ringing (new stimulus). This is a reflex, not a mental state like fear, or aversion, cause by trauma. The whole purpose of Pavlov's method was to show conditioned reflexes, not to show aversion to something via trauma (which is totally different). When someone suffers a trauma, they aren't exchanging one kind of response for a new one, they're actually gaining (not replacing, gaining) a reaction to a certain event.


I guess you associate the pavlovian experiment with repetition, while you should associate it with conditionning instead.



How about both, given repetition is necessary to the pavlovian method, actually. Specifically because the repetition is used to condition a reflex. In the primary example of the dog, the repetition of the bell ringing - coupled with association of the dog food - is essential to replace a specific kind of reflex. We don't condition by magically snapping our fingers.


Open psychology books, you will see that we speak about "pavlovian conditionning". Repetition is just a minor, non-defining aspect of his experiment.



Conditioning someone like in the pavlovian experiment involves switching a the reason to have a certain habit/reflex by another reason to have the same habit/reflex. And everyone knows habits/reflexes don't form themselves in minutes. It can take weeks, months, years, and they need repetition.

[FatherSeraphin]

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Woman dies near Max -> Something bad happens to him

Until one point where we conditioned his response, and he goes and says "Like all the bad things in my life, it started with the death of a woman".



He went and said that into the game, remember? And it was in reaction to annie's death. So he is actually associating both "death of woman" and "Bad things happening to him" independently of the number of repetition.

Wich bring us to pavlov. Event(Death of woman) -> MaxReaction(Mental pain). Annie is not his wife, yet her death get Max into a mental state near what he felt in MP1.

Thus i said, the guy who wrote the story for MP2 is somewhat using the pavlovian experiment. He wanted to establish an emotional link with MP1 by using an experience familiar to Max. The death of a woman.

Even if Max situation is not 100% conform to the dog experiment--a point we both agree on--it is close enough to justify the simple comparison i did. IMHO.

[John Mirra]

He went and said that into the game, remember? And it was in reaction to annie's death. So he is actually associating both "death of woman" and "Bad things happening to him" independently of the number of repetition.



Notice the difference between association and conditioning. Specially because he's making an association on his own free will, he's not being forced/lured into making any kind of association. And, it's still not the same.

Another example. Have you ever been shot at? Wheter yes or no, there is one thing we all have, which is a basic survival instinct. If someone is shooting at you, and you have a gun in your hand, you will (unless possessing some death wish), shoot back. That's a reflex. Cause -> Reflex. Same as dodging a car heading your way at high speed. It's a physical reaction.

Another example. Imagine you are walking trough a park and see a couple kissing. You look at them, and you remind yourself of happier days with your ex-girlfirend. That's an association. Cause -> Association. Same as associating the scent of perfume to a woman's presence. It's a mental/psychic reaction.

Both a reflex and an association are reactions to a certain cause, but in this case, Payne is doing nothing more than associating a current event to a past one. Reflex = physical. Association = mental.

By the above, look at this way - Pavlov's method would be to replace your reflex of jumping out of a high-speeding car headed your way by any other kind of reflex. Association can be used to mold a reflex (after all, the dog associates the bell's sound with food), but its never a reflex itself.

If this isn't enough to explain, i honestly won't try anymore because i've been as clear as possible and there's no better way to explain this (other than using drawings that is).


Wich bring us to pavlov. Event(Death of woman) -> MaxReaction(Mental pain). Annie is not his wife, yet her death get Max into a mental state near what he felt in MP1.



And like i said before, between happening ONCE, and happening MANY TIMES, not only what he says is an exageration, its also an association, not a reflex.


Thus i said, the guy who wrote the story for MP2 is somewhat using the pavlovian experiment.



Is there an official statement on this?


He wanted to establish an emotional link with MP1 by using an experience familiar to Max. The death of a woman.



Notice the difference between something emotional, like a feeling, and something physical, like salivating.


Even if Max situation is not 100% conform to the dog experiment--a point we both agree on--it is close enough to justify the simple comparison i did. IMHO.



IMHO, indeed.

[Wamplet]

I like what John's saying.

It happened once...

<font color="black"> twice, if you count the ending, but by the pupose of this argument, that second one didn't count as a starting point... yet. ( MP3? ) </font>


Regardless, it seemed it's purpose was to just start off similar to MP1.

With the death of a woman. I'd assume him saying "everything" was an exaggeration. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Ivan]

The explanations are getting toooooo scientific and tooo elaborate for my little head... I don't think the explanation is this hard! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FatherSeraphin]

Notice the difference between association and conditioning.



I can agree with that. Nevermind the pavlovian comment then. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

John Mirra: 1 -- FatherSeraphin: 0

[John Mirra]

Notice the difference between association and conditioning.



I can agree with that. Nevermind the pavlovian comment then. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

John Mirra: 1 -- FatherSeraphin: 0



And now, some vacations http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Sheikah]

OR it was a cover for a hole in the story.. the message from Vlad on Annie's phone, was a diversion... so that noone would suspect Vlad for being involved with her murder...

[Wamplet]

Oh! Now that is devious. I like it! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[John Mirra]

OR it was a cover for a hole in the story.. the message from Vlad on Annie's phone, was a diversion... so that noone would suspect Vlad for being involved with her murder...



I always thought that would've been pretty much the reason the message would be there.

[Sheikah]

Bingo!! We have a winner hehe (J/K)

[John Mirra]

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Godot]

He had her eliminated because she probably knew too much. Also, I believe she might've provided weapons to Gognitti, and that was a threat Vlad may have not been able to counter. To remove suspicions, he also left the message on her answering machine (and played out his part when talking to Max).



I agree, but I've taken it a step further to try and answer a bigger question: What was Mona doing there?

In the growing conflict between Woden and Vlad, I believe Annie was convinced to switch sides, maybe by Mona. An ambush plot was hatched for Vlad to meet Annie in the warehouse. But Vlad got suspicious, cancelled and sent his Cleaners instead. The Cleaners arrived to find the place crawling with Gognitti's mafia (1 of the 3 groups of bodies Bravura spoke of in his debriefing).

Also remember Annie's last words: "The mob guys attacked us. You took them out. I got no beef with you. I work for Vladimir." That implies that the 2 cleaners were accusing Annie of siding with the Gognitti boys, which of course, she tried to deny.

When the whole plot to ambush Vlad was failing, Mona probably tried to rush in to save Annie. Too late.

In any case, Vlad's and Kaufman's secondary objective was to remove all the weapons. This was probably to keep them from falling into Vinnie's or the police's hands.

[John Mirra]

I can agree with that http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Maxtream]

Great theory, Godot. There isn't much proof to support it because MP2 leaves it up for speculation but I think your theory makes sense.
'Killing Annie' could be 'this' when Vinnie said "You fcuking pay for this..."

On the on the other hand I have my doubts about Annie being involved with Vinnie because I always thought it was her who build the custom-made CBBBB-costume.

[Godot]

...

On the on the other hand I have my doubts about Annie being involved with Vinnie because I always thought it was her who build the custom-made CBBBB-costume.


LOL http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

You could be right about that. In which case, Annie would still have to complete the bomb for Vlad to avoid suspicion, but she would also want to warn Vinnie somehow indirectly. So maybe Annie told Mona. This would then explain how Mona was able to leave Vinnie a bomb warning on his answering machine.

[Maxtream]

Why would Mona be involved with Annie or Vinnie?
Why would she convince Annie to join Vinnie's side?

When Mona warned Vinnie it didn't seem like she's on Vinnie's side. The reason why she helped Vinnie was to compromise Vlad's plans.

[Wamplet]

Why do this bitch exist? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif



haha, I completely missed that line! Did you go back and edit it in there? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

She existed so she could die. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Godot]

Why would Mona be involved with Annie or Vinnie?


Mona works for Woden who wants to stop Vlad's Inner Circle rebellion. Cutting off Vlad's gun supply is just one way to reduce Vlad's power. Vinnie is merely the enemy of Woden's enemy and, therefore, an ally of Woden for the moment.


Why would she convince Annie to join Vinnie's side?


On behalf of Woden, Mona was just trying to hurt Vlad and help Vlad's enemy. Mona might have told Annie what was going to happen to Vlad and that this would affect Annie's business. That was probably enough to convince her to switch customers and even help set up an ambush.


When Mona warned Vinnie it didn't seem like she's on Vinnie's side. The reason why she helped Vinnie was to compromise Vlad's plans.


I agree, but I think it was also to protect Vlad's enemy and Annie's new customer.

In any case, Sam Lake had to devise a way to bring Mona and Max together at the start of this story and, more or less, on the same side. It works for me. It would have been difficult to present more clues about what was going on without revealing too much in the first chapter. Explaining Annie Finn's role later on was probably considered unnecessary.

[Maxtream]

If you're right then maybe Vlad wasn't lying, when he said that Gognitti made a deal with someone powerful. There might have been a deal between Woden and Vinnie.
It makes sense that the mob war and the Inner Circle civil war were actually the same war, fought on different levels of authority.
On the street it was the mafia versus russian OC. Then as Vlad put it: one step up on the ladder of organized crime... There's the civil war between Woden's Inner Circle members and Vlad's renegades, fought through assassinations.