ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 11, 2011 Well if you look at it from his point of view, she's helping someone get away with murder (potentially). There's a time for politeness and there's a time where any amount of bullshit is not tolerated. From the police's point of view you're the enemy as soon as you start lying or withholding information. That said, I'm still getting to grips with the game myself, to be honest, and I'm halfway through, but it sounds like you're getting onboard with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 14, 2011 I have to say, as much as I enjoy a good case in LA Noire, it's just not as much fun to play as GTAIV or Red Dead Redemption. It's something to do with the game mechanics themselves, I think. Anyways: So nobody wants that code? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miffy495 Posted June 14, 2011 What code is this? I think I missed something in my efforts to avoid spoilers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 14, 2011 I put it at the bottom of this post to see if anyone actually reads long posts: http://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7039&page=8#181 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) So I finally completed this and my final feeling is: "Meh". All the problems that everyone talked about when they first played this game are absolutely spot on. I sort of feel that those of us who were prepared to give the game a pass because of its technical accomplishments or because of its potential for greatness have ultimately been proven wrong. - The gameplay is simplistic and repetitive at best, and dull and random at worst. - The world map, while impressively rendered, is unused by the game. Every game element (e.g. case locations, street crimes, etc.) is best visited via "teleport" (i.e. getting your partner to drive). You're actually punished by the game if you drive there yourself, because you'll probably hit something and lower your final ranking on a case. In GTA you could "teleport" at a cost -- and that's only provided you could find a taxi. In LA Noire you're able to take any car in the city, not have to worry about a police response, and then teleport to your destination. It just seems like a pointless waste of a fantastic resource. (There's not even any multiplayer that might put it to good use.) The world itself is also not much fun to hand around in. There are no random events to get embroiled in. No interesting things to discover or places to explore (other than landmarks -- which are merely technically impressive). There's not even a police threat to turn driving around crazily and shooting people into an "evading the cops" type game. On the plus side: - The acting is fantastic, and the facial animation is wonderful. It does help draw you into the game and get engaged. - 1947 LA is awesome. Also listening to period radio shows as your drive around is very cool. - There is a great deal of enjoyment to be had when you're "into" a case and really following it. (When you can tell who's lying, when you know what evidence you're looking for, when you're successfully piecing things together in your mind -- a rare treat that a game doesn't hammer "realisations" home to you, and actually expects you to think.) But it's not enough for a complete gaming experience. You'll have fun going through the world to begin with. It seems filled with potential (and really, it is) but by the time you get to the end you'll probably come to the same conclusion as me: The potential was wasted. Even if you tried to separate the poor game mechanics from the good stuff, and placed the story elements into a 2D point and click adventure with FMV (much like Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective did 20 years ago) you're still left with one final inexcusable problem: A 20 hour long crappy story. At no point did I engage with what the characters were going through, or particularly care about their outcome. At no point did the story particularly grip me (it came close in the final two cases -- close). I never once felt emotionally engaged. Of all the things this game fails at, the fact that the characters and story are dull and uninteresting is possibly the worst crime of all: Because it could have easily been avoided if they'd spent some of their $xx million budget on some professional writers. I thought the stories and characters in GTAIV were bad, but at least they were somewhat interesting and memorable. Even though I could predict every twist and turn in Red Dead Redemption, at least there was some charm to it. LA Noire's characters and stories are overly serious, unnecessarily ghoulish, and just plain... dull. Even if solving individual cases is enjoyable, the time and effort you're putting into the world, characters and overall story is all wasted... and ultimately leaves you feel let down. If this had been released during the time of the Amiga, I feel pretty confident that Amiga Power would have gotten some flack for pointing out what needed to be said: As technically impressive as this game is, it's just not that much fun to play with. People would have wined and complained, "but look at the graphics!", "it's like a movie!", but if it's not as good as a good movie, and it's not as fun as a fun game, then you have to admit: It's failed. If I had to give it a percentage, I'd give it: 69%. Better than average (for the sheer experience and way in which a case can be very satisfying to "solve"), but ultimately suffering from some serious fundamental problems that stop it from rising to the levels you'd expect. Edited June 19, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) Random extra thoughts: The closest I came to enjoying the story and the characters was during the Black Dahlia storyline -- because with all the "mistakes" that were happening, I imagined it was all leading towards something impressive. It didn't. In fact the outcome was actually very dull. (I can barely remember who was responsible in the end... sigh.) Where were the female characters in this game? The only time a woman appeared it was either to be naked and murdered (side note: pretty goddamned unnecessary given the highly fictional nature of this game), be an evil Machiavellian type character, or an airhead. Most of the time a female voice is heard, it's filtered through the misogynist rantings of one of Phelp's partners. In fact there's so much misogyny is this game, and so few genuine female characters, and so many murdered, naked ones, that you could draw the conclusion that LA Noire has some issues with women. The game's only female character was so badly rendered it's almost embarrassing. I felt zero chemistry between her and Phelps, and we never got to know a damned thing about her. In fact that whole sub-plot is best forgotten (Phelps is married -- wha?), along with the game's crappy, unearned ending. Oh, he's dead. Also, I think the game tried so hard to feel like a "hard boiled" detective crime novel (ooh, gritty), that it forgot to inject any fun into it. The world, the characters, are all far too serious. At least GTA had Brucie. Edited June 20, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JonCole Posted June 19, 2011 Man, your score and commentary are completely disjointed, TP. Looking through what you said, I can only pick out one definitively positive comment on the acting quality. Otherwise, you say that the story, gameplay, environment, and open world are all badly executed. How is that barely better than average? That said, I really don't want to argue the score or "Meh". I've personally got through about half of the game and enjoyed it most of the way through. What got me there is the simple fact that I could buy into the world and not question it at every turn. Sure, driving from place to place has no obvious, utilitarian advantage; in the interest of expedient gameplay, one would definitely benefit from using your partner as a taxi. But I actually wanted to play the game as though I was in the world, so I mostly drove from place to place until I actually tired with the experience of driving (as I might in real life). As a result, I responded to dispatches that were in range (no way am I gonna drive to the other side of the city to answer a call, someone else can take that!), I shook my fist at shitty drivers, and I felt a sense of reward when I got somewhere fast by weaving through traffic fairly effortlessly. So, is the moral of the story that I think you're playing wrong, TP? Not really. I just think that L.A. Noire is so concerned with the experience of playing the game rather than the minute to minute interactions with the environment. If you have no affinity for noir films of the 40s and 50s, I can similarly see why you'd have a bad time with this game. The misogyny that you speak of comes hand in hand with that element of culture and I feel in no way displays any "omg gamers hate women" leaning in that context. Maybe I'm totally off base here, but reading your review just makes me think it's more of a reaction to other positive reviews than a one-to-one explanation of your own time with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) I think to understand my feelings you probably have to know that halfway through the game I was actually really enjoying it. Also, I drove everywhere (according to the ingame stats I've spent a surprising 6 hours driving in total and have driven well over 200 miles) and I loved the rendering of the city itself. The score main seem disjointed from what I wrote, but that's possibly only because I didn't go into the parts that I enjoyed, but instead focused on how the game left me feeling. I threw in the good points to try and balance it out, but maybe I should have gone into more detail or just not bothered. Hmm. (Also, I have to question: Just because a game does something poorly surely doesn't mean it's automatically "below average"?) So, is the moral of the story that I think you're playing wrong, TP? Not really. I just think that L.A. Noire is so concerned with the experience of playing the game rather than the minute to minute interactions with the environment. If you have no affinity for noir films of the 40s and 50s, I can similarly see why you'd have a bad time with this game. The misogyny that you speak of comes hand in hand with that element of culture and I feel in no way displays any "omg gamers hate women" leaning in that context. Maybe I'm totally off base here, but reading your review just makes me think it's more of a reaction to other positive reviews than a one-to-one explanation of your own time with it. I think you're pretty off-base here, JC. I have a massive affinity to 40s/50s films in general and "noir" stories (you may note that I used to the preferred purist term "hard boiled"). I played a fair portion of the game in black and white in order to capture the feeling of some of my favourite films, and I even used Google maps and film trivia to find locations while I was playing the game for things I might recognize from classic films. Also, I haven't read a single review of L.A. Noire, good or bad. This is purely my own experience from playing it. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote when you've finished it and see if you agree more then? Edited June 19, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JonCole Posted June 19, 2011 I think to understand my feelings you probably have to know that halfway through the game I was actually really enjoying it. Also, I drove everywhere (according to the ingame stats I've spent a surprising 6 hours driving in total and have driven well over 200 miles) and I loved the rendering of the city itself. The score main seem disjointed from what I wrote, but that's possibly only because I didn't bother repeating what I'd already written about the parts I enjoyed. Also, just because a game does something poorly doesn't mean it's automatically below average. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote when you've finished it and see if you agree more then? I've been reading the whole way through and your thoughts seem fairly consistent. You say you've been having a good time, then admit that it's way easier to talk about all the bad things. I know you're not writing a review for a magazine or something, but I can't really see where you were having the fun in these recountings of your time with the game. But yeah, I'll be finishing it this week so I'll give it a revisit. And keep in mind, I actually agree with you on a lot of points you had earlier about the mechanics of interrogation and whatnot. It just seems like you're coming out overly negative about a game that you actually think is pretty decent, at least by the "scores" you gave it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 19, 2011 I've done my usual trick of editing my post after it went live, you may want to update your response. I'll wait if you like. Apologies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
subbes Posted June 19, 2011 Actually the score struck me as lower than I was expecting, given your earlier posts about the game which were so optimistic. You ran out of optimism and had to look at what was left over? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 19, 2011 Actually the score struck me as lower than I was expecting, given your earlier posts about the game which were so optimistic. You ran out of optimism and had to look at what was left over? I think it's easy to focus on the game's promise while you're playing it, but by the time I got to the end it was sadly revealed that doesn't live up to its potential. That said, it IS enjoyable when you're cracking a case. That is, when you're following the sub-text perfectly, and you've got a good idea of who's lying, who's guilty, and what kind of evidence you're looking for. In those moments it IS fun... but those are only moments sandwiched between things that don't quite gel. I wonder if the difficulty in summing it up is because the good parts of the game (solving the case) and the bad parts (the mechanics of gathering evidence) are so separate that it's hard to criticise them both at the same time. In many ways you could pull out all the bad stuff and just leave the good stuff and still feel disappointed, and I guess that's where my complaints about storyline and characters come from: It's the one place they couldn't afford to drop the ball, or could have easily made me forgive the mechanics. And so my final feeling is: "Meh." A frustratingly wasted opportunity, given the impressive tech and budget. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JonCole Posted June 19, 2011 I'll leave my response as it was. I may have assumed too much, but it just seems like you were so into it in those first smaller posts then massively negative in the longer, later ones. Take it as you will, I just want to understand how you can have so much to say about the game in a negative light and still regard it fairly positively in general. Also, it's funny that you want me to look at all of your comments as a whole when you make overarching, ultimate statements like (emphasis mine) - Ultimately I think the game tried so much to be "hard boiled" that it forgot to be any fun at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 19, 2011 I'll leave my response as it was. I may have assumed too much, but it just seems like you were so into it in those first smaller posts then massively negative in the longer, later ones. Take it as you will, I just want to understand how you can have so much to say about the game in a negative light and still regard it fairly positively in general. Fair enough. To be honest I think I've done the best I can to explain how I feel about the game, and I agree that I may sound contradictory, but that's only because I've found it so difficult to reconcile its glaring faults with enticing gameplay. Also, you'll note that I'm not alone in finding it hard to talk about its good points, while also claiming that I enjoyed it on some level. The initial comments about the game were so negative that I considered not buying it. Then the commenters then came back and said that actually they were enjoying it. Also, it's funny that you want me to look at all of your comments as a whole when you make overarching, ultimate statements like (emphasis mine) - I only said that you may find it easier to understand my comments if you take them as a whole. Case and point is this quote. Taken out of context it makes a very generalized statement. In context, however, I was hoping it was obvious I was talking about the game's story content and tone. (If not, my bad.) Edit: Actually, even out of context it strikes me as quite obvious what I'm referring to. Maybe you're not familiar with the term "hard boiled"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JonCole Posted June 19, 2011 Heh, dude, I know what you're referring to. I just think it's funny that you want me to read generalized comments as anything but generalized comments. If you had fun with the game, it's inherently an overstatement to say that the game's efforts to be hardboiled doesn't make it any fun. Again, I agree with you on a lot of these points, I just feel like you're inflating the hell out of them. This is devolving quickly into semantic bullshit, so I'll just say that I haven't yet felt any of the bellyache about the mechanics that (most of?) you guys have obviously observed. I'm even more eager to finish the game now, although I'm seemingly wasting my time even more magnificently at the moment playing Red Faction: Armageddon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted June 19, 2011 A month from now no one will remember LA Noire. OK, I won't remember LA Noire. I wholeheartedly agree with Thunder's ultimate statements. I'd like to recap what I said earlier in this topic: this game features the most shockingly horrible (not in a good way) character I've ever seen in a video game, that goddamn doctor. Holy shit. To give the game some props, there were moments where it was pretty fun. When I was chasing after some guy with trumpets blaring, and the investigations against King Denethor in the final quarter of the game. But the whole experience was decidedly meh and I could never really care about it. It remains a dubiously told story going no specific places of interest. Both GTA4 and RDR were immeasurably better, more fun and more enthralling. As far as I'm concerned this will be the biggest disappointment of the year, just in terms of expectations -> reality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) Heh, dude, I know what you're referring to. I just think it's funny that you want me to read generalized comments as anything but generalized comments. If you had fun with the game, it's inherently an overstatement to say that the game's efforts to be hardboiled doesn't make it any fun. Again, I agree with you on a lot of these points, I just feel like you're inflating the hell out of them. Heh. No, you've just misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm NOT saying "the game's efforts to be hardboiled doesn't make it any fun". I am saying, "it seems as though the creators tried so hard to make the game's story their idea of 'hard boiled detective fiction', that they forgot to imbue it with any lightness or humour (aka 'fun')". The game just takes itself so seriously, both in the crimes that you have to solve and with its characters. I was NOT making a generalized statement about the total amount of fun in the game, but instead talking about its tone. I thought it was obvious by talking about "hard boiled" -- a literary genre -- that I was talking about its story content and not talking about game mechanics. Looking back I could have picked a much better selection of words to make what I was saying more obvious. Apologies. Edit: I've re-written both posts in order to try and clear up what I was attempting to say. Edited June 19, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
subbes Posted June 20, 2011 Edit: I've re-written both posts in order to try and clear up what I was attempting to say. Hm. You, too, may benefit from a sub-editor. [EDIT: I originally wrote that as "you need a sub" but that has a RUDE DOUBLE MEANING.] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JonCole Posted June 20, 2011 Hm. You, too, may benefit from a sub-editor.[EDIT: I originally wrote that as "you need a sub" but that has a RUDE DOUBLE MEANING.] He needs a submissive submarine sandwich? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
subbes Posted June 20, 2011 These sandwiches will do anything you want! Any filling, any time! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 20, 2011 Hm. You, too, may benefit from a sub-editor.[EDIT: I originally wrote that as "you need a sub" but that has a RUDE DOUBLE MEANING.] Yes, is there a "dom-editor"? Anyways, was there something specifically grammatically incorrect about that sentence? Or was it just because I went back and re-wrote my posts? And who's the other person who needs a sub? Confused Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted June 20, 2011 Perhaps what Subbes was trying to say was 'U2 may benefit from a sub-editor'. I agree, I also don't like their music. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thrik Posted June 20, 2011 Both GTA4 and RDR were immeasurably better, more fun and more enthralling. As far as I'm concerned this will be the biggest disappointment of the year, just in terms of expectations -> reality. Yeah I'd definitely say GTA4 and RDR were better from what I've seen so far, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's my biggest disappointment of the year as in all honesty I had very low expectations for LA Noire. Right from the outset I saw it as an over-hyped, graphically unappealing adventure game, and that remains a fairly accurate perspective. However it is more fun than I was expecting, even though I'm not convinced I'll ever summon the energy to finish it. One thing I do find very interesting about LA Noire is how much it looks and feels like a Rockstar game even though it was developed by another team, uses a completely different engine to GTA4 and RDR, and doesn't really have anything in common with them formula-wise. It's like they took a really cool game concept and stuck it into the 'Rockstar mould', but it doesn't completely fit which is why there's been so many complaints about unengaging gameplay, an unnecessarily open environment, etc. I can't help but feel that without Rockstar's influence it might have actually ended up a bit better, because that core vision would have been realised more strongly rather than all this other clutter surrounding it. You can see the same kind of treatment of Max Payne 3 coming a mile off. Hell, the bullet time is already there in RDR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lobotomy42 Posted June 20, 2011 I agree with a lot of ThunderPeel's stuff. I'm only 3/4 of the way through the game, but I'm quickly being pushed in similar directions as TP. My experience has been: enamored -----> disillusioned -----> frustrated / disappointed. In general, if you're going to make a highly linear story-driven game, which is what this is at heart, there are two things you should do above all others: 1) Make sure the story and writing is good. L.A. Noire's feels, eh, passable. I'm no noir expert, but this seems more like "Law & Order: 1940s" than "The Big Sleep." 2) Be mindful of the other structural strategies in story-driven games (*cough* Telltale, Bioware, Obsidian, Phoenix Wright *cough*) and either incorporate the positive elements from these or eschew those elements "cleanly." (E.g., if the plot is not going to change when I take one fork versus another...maybe you shouldn't have put a fork there? With all the flexibility in solving cases, this game ended up biting off more than it could chew. I can go through every conversation and get every single interrogation question laughably wrong AND STILL WIN. Without a failure case, you're just bringing the forced linearity front-and-center. ) Also, am I the only one who *doesn't* find the technology all that impressive? I get that it's very very very detailed facial capture, but I'm not sure it adds anything that couldn't be done with, say, hand-drawn sprite animations. The gameplay effect seems negligible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 20, 2011 uses a completely different engine to GTA4 Say what?! Are you sure about that? It seems crazy that they wouldn't use the same engine... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites