The Walking Dead and LA Noire - How Do They Stack Up?

With PSN finally back up, I grabbed me a Season Pass for TWD, and just played the first episode. T'was alright thus far. Nothing to write home about yet really.

From what I've seen and read about LA Noire in reviews and such, it seems to be quite similar to TWD, just with exorbitantly higher production values. Makes me wonder why I've not heard anyone compare the two. I can't imagine the likes of John Noble drawing the short straw against the rather woodenly spoken and animated characters of TWD, but according to the internet's response to TWD as a whole, that seems to be the case.

For those of you who've already played both, how do you see this - and how do you find the two games in direct comparison?

LA Noire? Pretty cool. The Walking Dead? Haven't played it yet.

They are both point and click adventure games with poor to awful shooting segments thrown in, but for my money The Walking Dead is by far the better narrative experience. LA Noire is divided into sections depending on what desk the main character is working at the time, and the murder desk is a cohesive whole story that really shows the game at its best. After this you are put on the vice desk and the pacing just completely collapses in my view. It feels completely different from everything you did before it and the story loses its track completely. The arson desk regains some of the charm but the ending segment of the game was awful and way over the top, going against the tone that the first half of the game established.

The Walking Dead on the other hand is smaller in scale and has much more believable character interactions and writing. There are a few plot contrivances, but it is a more gripping experience that does not outstay its welcome unlike LA Noire, which devolves into a mess by the end.

Overall I would say that LA Noire is a decent game while The Walking Dead is incredible narratively, though it has suffered from an element of hype since the end of 2012.

The Walking Dead gets better, and LA Noire was very good, though I prefer TWD.

The Walking Dead is much more of an emotional experience than LA Noire is. LA Noire is based more on gameplay than TWD, and it's essentially a point and click adventure game. TWD doesn't offer much in terms of gameplay in comparison. What is there is either walking around, pushing a button to hit a zombie, or a bad shooting sequence (there aren't a lot of those, don't worry). Both are worth playing.

la noire is more of a game. walking dead is more of a story

The Walking Dead is very good. Never played LA. Noire. They don't seem all that similar really.

I liked LA Noire's story and characters better, but that's a personal preference. They're not really too similar. TWD drops a lot of it's adventure game elements and focuses more on talking to people as the game goes on.

Both are a bit different in my opinion. TWD is definitely more story based and less actual gameplay. LA noir has those random moments where it tries to remind the player that its actually a game by putting in shooting segments and what not, but I felt that the story was interesting enough. TWD was better written though for sure.

Both of those games were a play once for me, I saw the stories and didn't care about the mechanics for either.

Not really comparable. In terms of story, they tell incredibly different ones. In terms of gameplay, very different.

I really hate The Walking Dead. I think the writing is forgettable to frustrating, the lack of control is completely apparent, and the characters bore me. Oh and I hate the MC, who's a pussy ass pussy who needs to get his man on already and just do shit, fuck.

LA Noire pulls things off much better in my book.

And it's not a "I hate zombies, love Noire" situation. Noire and the time period it is associated with is one of my favorite settings, and a zombie apocalypse is as well. The general idea of both are pretty high in my book, but I feel TWD is pretty poorly executed. Episode One is just boring, until the very end it gets kinda interesting. Episode Two is the most obvious dumb twist ever despite all of the characters being oblivious, and then ends with everyone acting like complete retards and not thinking about practical solutions at all.

Also, keep in mind that TWD is not very interactive. You aren't going to change the story, you're just going to change the characters you see, and usually those characters play minor roles and at a certain point stop being meaningful at all. LA Noire is a game, TWD is more of a glorified film saga. And again, in my opinion, not a good one.

I wouldn't compare them to each other but they are both great games. LA Noire kinda starts to drag on though and the ending was shitty. Walking Dead was awesome from beginning to end.

@Seppli:

I guess they are similar because they are both new takes on adventure games. Honestly, LA Noire is more of an adventure game then TWD. TWD is essentially a 'choose your own adventure' adventure game whereas LA Noire is more 'photo-hunt in a 3D space pseudo-interrogation' adventure game. Really they don't share many mechanics or really anything else. I don't really see the similarities.

L.A. Noire - Not good

The Walking Dead - Great

i have played both and when i read your topic title i thought id spend sometime thinking about what you have said. i have spent a few hours now comparing then though an excel speadsheet and i think i am ready to share my findings.

they both have a story

simple: la noire is better .

all the cartoonist and TV story and my god every simple story game mechanic cant !. many flaws just like la noire but not as interesting ,but shit i forgot it has sombies in it ,it.

I think that LA Noire is a better game both in terms of how it plays and the story. However, the thing The Walking Dead does  extremely well is the meaningful choices and that's the reason I like that game.

@Seppli: There is no comparison in my opinion. L.A. Noire is an actual game, with story beats taken from real life events. The Walking Dead is kind of like a choose your own adventure book in video format. Of course the narrative in TWD gets better as time goes on and for better or worse you do get attached to the characters. On the other hand there is almost zero gameplay and most of it is very benign in order to service the advancement of plot. LA Noire plays like a game and although there is little to do despite the open world format, the cases themselves are all interesting. What can get in the way is that crux of the gameplay which is the "interrogation" mechanic is somewhat flawed in execution and after a while you start to get tired of the familiar pattern the game adapts to the very end.

That said, if you want to experience a zombie story and take it easy then I'd say Walking Dead. There isn't much gameplay in it so you're basically just sitting back and watching the story unfold which in itself while not always top notch does end very well.

IF you actually want to sit down and play a game then LA Noire is probably the better choice. There is some light gunplay, driving sections and tons of story. If you are into that time period then thats a huge bonus too. On top of that the game is pretty down long so you can really get a bang for your buck when buying it used these days.

Hmm, an interesting comparison. L.A. Noire is definitely a very modern iteration on the classic adventure game formula, whereas TWD doesn't make many attempts to advance the genre: TWD does, however, have a more ambitious story. I suppose one stumbling block is that these are games that you play for very different reasons: you play L.A. Noire to engage in solving the crimes and watching the narrative unfold as you do, whereas TWD is about creating your own narrative experience, with the gameplay sections being more about stringing you between those core narrative moments. They're both masterful in how they achieve atmosphere though; one of the very best parts of L.A. Noire is how genuine and detailed they recreated not just a city, but an era in time, whereas TWD is as good at presenting the atmospheric intensity of the zombie apocalypse trope as any game I've seen, right up there with the Left 4 Dead games.

And qualitatively speaking, I really liked TWD, but I loved L.A. Noire.

The Walking Dead was a flawed game but it was great, while L.A. Noire was immensely flawed, only okay as a result and incredibly overrated. They are also very different games other than the point-and-click adventure aspect.

@tunaburn said:

la noire is more of a game. walking dead is more of a story

Exactly this. Having played both, I look back more fondly on my time with LA Noire...which is a little surprising. I think it's the better game.

I haven't played Walking Dead, but I LOVED LA Noire.

Totally different games.

One had bad gameplay and good writing. The other had bad gameplay and mediocre writing.

I thought they were both fantastic (Walking Dead was my 2012 GOTY, and LA Noire was second only to Portal 2 on my 2011 list), but I wouldn't really say they're that similar.

@Seppli: You and I must have had the same thought recently.

I'm replaying LA Noire for the first time since its launch. The people who say they're totally different games are missing the point. They have the same sensibility, and nearly identical philosophies when it comes to player agency in video game narratology. Both are preoccupied with providing the illusion of choice whilst funneling players down a particularized arc. Some people might read that as a criticism or as a categorical fault. It isn't.

Both games encounter the same problem late. At the outset, both games seem to deal with flexible, malleable player-narrative dynamics in novel ways. But you'll undoubtedly hit a point where you understand on a deeply intuitive level that your choices aren't affecting anything apart from your own attachment to the world. Once you begin to identify the seams of the "choice" mechanics--and once you start understanding how each game uses its own respective smoke and mirrors to hide those seams from the player--the part where you feel you have agency in anything the world confronts you with is no longer a point of interest. At least, that's my take. Others' mileage will vary, obviously.

To be fair, I enjoyed both games. The Walking Dead, I felt, is more hampered by the limitations of its choice mechanics than LA Noire. That's partly because of the production value, and partly because of Team Bondi's uncanny knack for capturing in a snapshot the verisimilitude of that world. It helps that there's simply "more game" to LA Noire. Not everything in this experience hinges on one mechanic. And the face-mapping stuff is truly incredible at points. As a result, though, LA Noire has more typical issues you're more likely to hear about in a game. Awkward, GTA IV-style shooting. Goofy driving controls. It's also much, much, longer. Which means it may wear out its welcome long before the Walking Dead does.

These games deserve to be compared though, you're absolutely right. They are way more similar than people are giving due diligence for.

LA Noire is infinitely better but both are worth playing. I can see how you compare the 2 but LA Noire is alot more fun to actually play.

@cloudnineboya said:

simple: la noire is better .

all the cartoonist and TV story and my god every simple story game mechanic cant !. many flaws just like la noire but not as interesting ,but shit i forgot it has sombies in it ,it.

uhhh... wut?

I think they're both great games and worth playing. The story/writing in The Walking Dead is better in my opinion and held up to the end, whereas L.A. Noire's story/writing was patchy, great ideas but not always developed and executed to their full potential. Fun to play though.

Hmm, bit of an odd comparison but I see what you're getting at. I personally found the gameplay mechanics more satisfying in "L.A. Noire" as you almost always have the freedom to move around and while the shooting mechanics aren't especially well facilitated and feel out of place, you at least feel like you are in control of what's happening. "The Walking Dead" largely felt extremely guided to the point where you are almost watching a machinima, not exactly playing a video-game. That said, while I found the narratives in both games rather flawed, I'd say "L.A. Noire" dropped the ball a bit worse in that department as the final act of that game threw in way too much action for my liking and the plot kind of devolved into nonsense (its been two years, flamethrower battle? Really? You end your intricate noir crime story with a flamethrower battle?)

Both are adventure games in a lot of respects so your mileage may really depend on the subject matter. I'm personally a little bit tired of the whole post-apocalyptic zombie thing (regardless of how much love and attention was put into this particular expression of it) that I just found "L.A. Noire" fresher as I hadn't walked around in a period piece of Los Angeles before and I liked the notion of paying tribute to film noir (and neo-noir, love me some L.A. Confidential). So yeah, "L.A. Noire" is a better video-game, "The Walking Dead" has more going for it in the story department but you are almost watching a film at some point. Apples and oranges.

Do you always speak in that bizarre hollywood manner? Throwing expressions left and right, you're on fire mang.

The Walking Dead kicks ass compared the trolling LA Noir shit. Story and gamplay is much better than LA Bore...

I loved LA Noire. so much detail in that world. Great acting, not just voice acting and a pretty great story

Really hope Team Bondi get to make another one down the line, the face technology was worth the 60 dollars alone.

I think LA Noire is way better story wise, but than again it's an ex-60$ games so it's bound to have better graphics, better shitty shooting segments, better fake choices that don't affect the game in the slightest...etc

Both stories are kinda ridiculous but TWD uses the "kids" and "death" cliche way more than LA Noire and thus it gets people emotionally invested, hence all the fanaticism you see for the game with no apparent reason.

So might LA Noire have been better received as an episodic release? Since so many say it overstayed its welcome? Kinda like a procedural cop show on TV, only instead of the "case of the week", it's the "case of the month" or so?

I'll be playing one episode of TWD each day for five days. It might well overstay its welcome, consumed this way. With like 2 months between episodes, like it was consumed by early adopters, that surely was not a problem.

Big fan of both of those games, but in general i'd say LA Noire is horribly inconsistent in both gameplay and story, while The Walking Dead (after the lackluster first episode) maintains a great standard in immersion and storytelling across the whole thing. Disclaimer: they are both games.

The Walking Dead's pretty dated now.

@Seppli said:

So might LA Noire have been better received as an episodic release? Since so many say it overstayed its welcome? Kinda like a procedural cop show on TV, only instead of the "case of the week*, it's the "case of the month" or so?

I'll be playing one episode of TWD each day for five days. It might well overstay its welcome, consumed this way. With like 2 months between episodes, like it was consumed by early adopters, that surely was not a problem.

As a dude who played it this way, some of the writing is also way more absurd and logical plot holes are way more apparent.

It's a good and interesting comparison to make. Both games are an attempt to do something novel with the classic adventure game format. However TWD is far more successful in what it attempts. People have said LA Noire is 'more of a game' but that's a really empty advantage when you consider the elements which make it more of a game: shooting (terrible) and driving (fun, but literally pointless - you have the option to skip these bits). Personally I would never skip the driving sections, because that is when the game exhibits its main strength - the atmosphere of a lovingly recreated 1940's LA. That was where the main enjoyment came from for me: driving from mission to mission and soaking up the old-style ambience.

The rest of the game is very hit and miss. I admire the ambition and hope to see more games with the same kind of scope, but ambition and achievement are different things. The writing is merely OK - the very worst 40's/50's noir film I can think of still has a more engaging plot than LA Noire. It was awesome to walk around an insurance office which could have come straight from the film Double Indemnity, but it's no substitute for believing I was an actual character in a story like that, which is something I don't really think the game achieved, barring the inclusion one or two likeable characters which are not fleshed out enough.

Where the games really overlap is that they've tried to blend some form of serious character interaction with the very basic point and click experiences they offer. LA Noire's comes in the form of interrogations - and these are flat broken. There is some terribly shoddy logic employed in the evidence selection used to confront suspects, and the moments you're expected to use that option. The facial tech just isn't fit for the purpose IMO; the devs' idea of a 'suspicious' expression consists of a bunch of unbelievable cartoon-like, shifty-eyed, Wile. E. Coyote style mannerisms which scream 'LOL I AM LYING', but when the characters display more naturalistic suspicious behaviour - a great deal of the time - you're supposed to just let it slide. When you get it wrong, the characters make a jarring switch to a shouty angry persona which is forgotten as soon as that question is done with. Of course, getting it wrong doesn't matter because you're funnelled towards the same outcome no matter what, but you are visibly graded on how well you do on these interviews. I found them completely unbelievable and unenjoyable. In the absence of believable branching moments - even minor, diamond shaped branches like TWD has - the only way the game has of differentiating between player actions is this meaningless 'score'. This is supposed to add replay value but it doesn't. All it does is turn legitimate choices into frustrating ones.

On the other hand, the dialogue in TWD is wholly naturalistic and believable. The animation may be wooden but the voicing is some of the best and most consistent I've heard in any game. All of the dialogue options are well thought out and the conversations make the characters feel wholly substantive and three dimensional. I generally hate the zombie apocalypse as a setting, but the narrative journey that the game takes is thoroughly immersive and deeply emotional. And that's basically all it is - a great story. Open world driving sections are no substitute for this IMO.

They do nothing original with their medium of choice, and they're far outdone by similar examples in others like film and novels.

Silent Hill 2 is far superior to both as it uses its canvas (video game) the right way and does something that couldn't be done with a book or movie. Shadow of the Colossus is much the same, the emotion it wants to deliver just wouldn't work in a non interactive medium.

We're so busy praising games for "writing" and being like movies that we lose sight of what an actual great game is.

When you boil it down LA Noire isn't even on par with poor episodes of Law & Order and The Walking Dead is almost a word by word scene by scene ripoff of McCarthy's "The Road"

I liked Walking Dead, it's a great game, but it's not this revolutionary piece of work set to change the world of video games.

Also Heavy Rain was better than LA Noire plot holes and all.

I find them quite hard to compare myself. TWD for me was more of a means to show a new way to experience a story more over than being a standard adventure game. While I did enjoy LA Noire, the sheer amount of case after case makes it hard to get as invested in each one by the end like I was at first on the traffic desk, hypothesing while I played.

When it comes to LA Noire I would recommend lots of breaks between cases as sometimes it can be easy to lull into the gameplay and let it carry you forward without having to think much for yourself unless of course you deeply care about ratings. Whereas with TWD I marathoned the entire series in one day making it all the more intense. Even resorting to putting off eating my lunch in Episode II to further emphasise with Lee.

The Walking Dead is great, for the most part, the story and characters are interesting but there is one flaw you should never hear of or else it will ruin the game for you...

LA Noire on the other hand is a travesty of a game, a perfect example of how having all the greatest tech and unmatched realism will not make your game any better and could make your game boring.

Seriously, the characters are robots and the story repeats itself as nothing interesting happens, the Ace attorney series is really similar in gameplay but shows LA N how to make your game fun despite being an old looking DS game.

Edit: how do I use spoiler tags? tell me quick!

@jebara said:

Edit: how do I use spoiler tags? tell me quick!

Top right of the text-entry box, see the 'more' button to get more options. Spoiler formatting is in there.

Both are great games but Lee>Cole so TWD wins. Cole is a philandering bastard; Lee is a murderous saint.

Maybe some people might jump on this but I never really appreciated L.A Noire's methodical game play. I get what they were going for but at what cost? The atmosphere was there to be sure and their attempt to bring authenticity to a period piece worked well but it's just boring. It can be argued that TWD is just as sluggish in the game play side of things but choosing dialogue responses was more thrilling for me than scouring the crime scene for evidences.

They both play terribly and can be boring as hell, but the characterization is pretty good.

Zombies suck and old LA crime does not. So victory LA Noire! Time to not play either!

They are so different. LA Noire is all about reading people and doing some more 'traditional' adventure game environment-analysis. The Walking Dead is all about narrative decision making.

Despite it's unique mechanics, LA Noire feels a lot more like a traditional 'game.' The Walking Dead is interactive fiction (but still very much belongs in video game discussion and criticism).

I loved both, but The Walking Dead doesn't fall apart in spots like LA Noire does.