More like L.A. Not.

 UPDATE: It seems the Rockstar defense force came out in droves to offend me for not enjoying their precious game as much as them, and people claimed my opinions were wrong and I did not elaborate on them so much. So I will do that now. All the added bits will be bold.
 
 Yes another blog, partially, about L.A Noire. I know it is hardly the most uncommon of things around these boards, but it's not like any of you read these things so who care, right?  

  

My thoughts on L.A. Noire

 
So yes, in my last blog I noted how it my copy hadn't arrived, even after 5 days of shipping time. It still didn't arrive for a further two days after this. So I was playing the game a full week/4 days after everybody else.  

I don't really like it. It is a bad game. A bad game with some brilliant ideas that I hope will be taken that much further in the next game, or at least in games in the same vein; but a bad game nonetheless. The driving is not as good as a 2011 game should be, we all expect it to be a bit 'boaty' considering the setting but Mafia 2 seemed to do it much better and in the same time setting, and it feels lifted straight out of a game 10 years ago; the textures, not the graphics as a whole, just the textures are lazily drawn, pretty low resolution, and most of the time, anything lacking importance will be part of the texture below e.g. paintings, newspapers, tramlines, manholes, windows, keyholes etc and it make the game look very flat; the mo-cap that isn't facial is pretty poor, the characters kind of flop about when they die, and instead of recording a sprinting animation they just speed Cole up; the gun combat is terrible, the damage done doesn't change depending where you hit them -- except for the head -- so you can't incapacitate targets with a gun, only kill, which as a detective is something you don't want to be doing; and the 'brawling' consists of mashing X and occasionally Square 'til it tells you to press Circle. Now most of these are clearly filler content between clue hunting and interrogating, but still it is really obvious it is filler, which is wrong.

Then there is the interrogation sequences: these consist of you asking a suspect a series of questions, usually 3 or 4, and then gauging by the way they answer whether or not they are telling the truth. This usually boils down to did their animation stop or are they still moving their face. Simple as that. If they stare blankly at you then are telling the truth, and if they are looking around or smirking or avoiding your gaze etc, then they are lying. Now if they are lying you have two options, you press doubt if you don't have evidence and you click lie and choose the evidence if you do. Now it isn't always obvious which piece of evidence you need, as a few times I have clicked lie chose the evidence I would expect to be correct and have it be wrong. I have also had occasions where the perp has just looked at me and blinked like a normal person would so I have chosen truth and it turned out they were lying, which is a load of crap. 
Obviously, these sections could be brilliant, but they are massively flawed. A lot of questions have answers that will be repeated in later questions and you'll act like you didn't know. And I know this is so if you miss it once you have another chance, but they could have at least removed them if you already know the answer, or maybe tailor it so they answer differently as they know you already know the answer. E.G. "Yeah that bar I told you about" or something similar. 
 
Lastly we have the clues: they operate in a user friendly manner; when the music chimes and the controller vibrates press X, and when the music stops you have found all of them. It's all kinds of simple, but it isn't boring at all, it is actually kinda cool being able to manipulate loads of different clues and possible clues to check for evidence and such, because the detail put into the important ones is pretty high. 
  
I felt initially it was pointless to talk about the facial animation because it is so damn good and this is kind of an obvious point to talk about, but whatever, y'all be moaning so here it is. I really like the facial animation, even if it is a bit creepy seeing Greg Grunberg telling me he wasn't a killer. The tech used to recreate it is mighty impressive, and Team Bondi should be darned proud of it, I know I am. I really hope they license it out to other, more capable, studios but I really doubt Rockstar would let them, which sucks. 

Now this game could have been brilliant, but as it is, it much too shallow. I kinda feel like I am offending both Detectives and Adventure games by calling it a Detective Adventure game like so many others have but hey. If the dialog had been more dynamic and I was given more freedom to choose the way I ask my questions then it would have made the game much, much better. And if the whole thing didn't look like a Playstation 2 game it would have helped me ignore the bad driving and bad gunplay. But alas, too many glaring faults makes this game pretty un-enjoyable, for the most part.
 
I don't think I'm much more than half way through, so I will try and sit it out 'til the end but I won't be surprised if I don't. 
Ok, I am now onto the Vice missions. I really enjoyed the setting and atmosphere of the end of the last homicide case, but it was ruined by being forced to blow some dude's brains out.
 
If I was to give it a rating it would probably be a 6/10. Great ideas that definitely deserve praise, but they are poorly executed, and the filler content is quite obviously filler content.

Dirt 3

  
Now this is a bloody good game. 
I have always enjoyed Rally games, ever since the first Colin McRae game back for the Playstation. This on is no exception, even if it does fail to bear the Colin Mcrae name. 
Unfortunately I don't have as much to write about this: the rallying itself feels a lot better than Dirt 2, which I found felt pretty arcade-y, the wide range of cars and the re-inclusion of the WRC license are all things that make me happy. 
There are only two things I'd change about the game: firstly I would bring back proper rallies, not just one off events, but multi-staged rally events where you have to take care of your car in between, much like in real rallying; and secondly I would burn that friggin' American commentator at the stake, WHY DOES HE SPEAK TO ME LIKE THIS WAS DUDE WHERE'S  MY CAR? Oh a third thing actually, I would include actual rally drivers like Mikko Hirvonen, Sebatien Loeb, and Petter and Henning Solberg; not people like Dave Mirra and Travis Pastrana. Ken Block is ok because he actually does drive in the WRC now. 
 
But I am having buckets and buckets of fun with this game, so much so I attempted to organise a race night for last Thursday, but that failed because you all suck. Yes, that is why. 
 
Anyway I feel myself not wanting to type any more. So scores.  
 
As a Rally game dirt 3 gets a 9/10. 

As a regular video game it gets an 8/10, if only for the fact that as a Rally game, there are only two of the main areas you can excel in, graphics and gameplay. 
 
 
If you read this: thank you, this seems to be becoming a somewhat regular occurrence, so do read next time. 
 
Alex.
93 Comments
96 Comments
  • 96 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited by AlexW00d

 UPDATE: It seems the Rockstar defense force came out in droves to offend me for not enjoying their precious game as much as them, and people claimed my opinions were wrong and I did not elaborate on them so much. So I will do that now. All the added bits will be bold.
 
 Yes another blog, partially, about L.A Noire. I know it is hardly the most uncommon of things around these boards, but it's not like any of you read these things so who care, right?  

  

My thoughts on L.A. Noire

 
So yes, in my last blog I noted how it my copy hadn't arrived, even after 5 days of shipping time. It still didn't arrive for a further two days after this. So I was playing the game a full week/4 days after everybody else.  

I don't really like it. It is a bad game. A bad game with some brilliant ideas that I hope will be taken that much further in the next game, or at least in games in the same vein; but a bad game nonetheless. The driving is not as good as a 2011 game should be, we all expect it to be a bit 'boaty' considering the setting but Mafia 2 seemed to do it much better and in the same time setting, and it feels lifted straight out of a game 10 years ago; the textures, not the graphics as a whole, just the textures are lazily drawn, pretty low resolution, and most of the time, anything lacking importance will be part of the texture below e.g. paintings, newspapers, tramlines, manholes, windows, keyholes etc and it make the game look very flat; the mo-cap that isn't facial is pretty poor, the characters kind of flop about when they die, and instead of recording a sprinting animation they just speed Cole up; the gun combat is terrible, the damage done doesn't change depending where you hit them -- except for the head -- so you can't incapacitate targets with a gun, only kill, which as a detective is something you don't want to be doing; and the 'brawling' consists of mashing X and occasionally Square 'til it tells you to press Circle. Now most of these are clearly filler content between clue hunting and interrogating, but still it is really obvious it is filler, which is wrong.

Then there is the interrogation sequences: these consist of you asking a suspect a series of questions, usually 3 or 4, and then gauging by the way they answer whether or not they are telling the truth. This usually boils down to did their animation stop or are they still moving their face. Simple as that. If they stare blankly at you then are telling the truth, and if they are looking around or smirking or avoiding your gaze etc, then they are lying. Now if they are lying you have two options, you press doubt if you don't have evidence and you click lie and choose the evidence if you do. Now it isn't always obvious which piece of evidence you need, as a few times I have clicked lie chose the evidence I would expect to be correct and have it be wrong. I have also had occasions where the perp has just looked at me and blinked like a normal person would so I have chosen truth and it turned out they were lying, which is a load of crap. 
Obviously, these sections could be brilliant, but they are massively flawed. A lot of questions have answers that will be repeated in later questions and you'll act like you didn't know. And I know this is so if you miss it once you have another chance, but they could have at least removed them if you already know the answer, or maybe tailor it so they answer differently as they know you already know the answer. E.G. "Yeah that bar I told you about" or something similar. 
 
Lastly we have the clues: they operate in a user friendly manner; when the music chimes and the controller vibrates press X, and when the music stops you have found all of them. It's all kinds of simple, but it isn't boring at all, it is actually kinda cool being able to manipulate loads of different clues and possible clues to check for evidence and such, because the detail put into the important ones is pretty high. 
  
I felt initially it was pointless to talk about the facial animation because it is so damn good and this is kind of an obvious point to talk about, but whatever, y'all be moaning so here it is. I really like the facial animation, even if it is a bit creepy seeing Greg Grunberg telling me he wasn't a killer. The tech used to recreate it is mighty impressive, and Team Bondi should be darned proud of it, I know I am. I really hope they license it out to other, more capable, studios but I really doubt Rockstar would let them, which sucks. 

Now this game could have been brilliant, but as it is, it much too shallow. I kinda feel like I am offending both Detectives and Adventure games by calling it a Detective Adventure game like so many others have but hey. If the dialog had been more dynamic and I was given more freedom to choose the way I ask my questions then it would have made the game much, much better. And if the whole thing didn't look like a Playstation 2 game it would have helped me ignore the bad driving and bad gunplay. But alas, too many glaring faults makes this game pretty un-enjoyable, for the most part.
 
I don't think I'm much more than half way through, so I will try and sit it out 'til the end but I won't be surprised if I don't. 
Ok, I am now onto the Vice missions. I really enjoyed the setting and atmosphere of the end of the last homicide case, but it was ruined by being forced to blow some dude's brains out.
 
If I was to give it a rating it would probably be a 6/10. Great ideas that definitely deserve praise, but they are poorly executed, and the filler content is quite obviously filler content.

Dirt 3

  
Now this is a bloody good game. 
I have always enjoyed Rally games, ever since the first Colin McRae game back for the Playstation. This on is no exception, even if it does fail to bear the Colin Mcrae name. 
Unfortunately I don't have as much to write about this: the rallying itself feels a lot better than Dirt 2, which I found felt pretty arcade-y, the wide range of cars and the re-inclusion of the WRC license are all things that make me happy. 
There are only two things I'd change about the game: firstly I would bring back proper rallies, not just one off events, but multi-staged rally events where you have to take care of your car in between, much like in real rallying; and secondly I would burn that friggin' American commentator at the stake, WHY DOES HE SPEAK TO ME LIKE THIS WAS DUDE WHERE'S  MY CAR? Oh a third thing actually, I would include actual rally drivers like Mikko Hirvonen, Sebatien Loeb, and Petter and Henning Solberg; not people like Dave Mirra and Travis Pastrana. Ken Block is ok because he actually does drive in the WRC now. 
 
But I am having buckets and buckets of fun with this game, so much so I attempted to organise a race night for last Thursday, but that failed because you all suck. Yes, that is why. 
 
Anyway I feel myself not wanting to type any more. So scores.  
 
As a Rally game dirt 3 gets a 9/10. 

As a regular video game it gets an 8/10, if only for the fact that as a Rally game, there are only two of the main areas you can excel in, graphics and gameplay. 
 
 
If you read this: thank you, this seems to be becoming a somewhat regular occurrence, so do read next time. 
 
Alex.
Posted by JasonR86

For LA Noire:
 
What could have been done, specifically, to the driving and gunplay to make you enjoy it more then you did?

Edited by DeeGee
@AlexW00d said: "This usually boils down to did their animation stop or are they still moving their face. Simple as that. If they stare blankly at you then are telling the truth, and if they are looking around or smirking or avoiding your gaze etc, then they are lying."
 
Right, so you didn't play past the first mission. Gotcha.
Posted by AlexW00d

Well the driving in another 'open world' third person game published by the same publisher is at least better than this, so they could have at least taken some tips from them. Also even with my siren on cars never yield.
And they should have just taken the gunplay out, and had it as a QTE occasionally. You're a detective you shouldn't be getting into firefights in the first place.

Posted by AlexW00d
@DeeGee just like you didn't read past those paragraphs, I stated at the end I'm over half way through. I played the game not 4 hours ago for about 2 hours.
Posted by DeeGee
@AlexW00d: Oh I read it all, but that doesn't change the fact after you leave traffic, you can no longer judge lies based on facial animation. So you can't have played as much as you claim.
Posted by Nekroskop

What a big baby...

Posted by scarace360

Boo the Fuck Hoo!

Posted by LackLuster

I like L.A. Noir alot, strange how we all have opinions.

Posted by Oni
@DeeGee: I find you pretty much can, even in later cases. You still have to decide between truth and doubt, but it's usually pretty blindingly obvious whether someone is telling the truth or not. Some of them just happen to believe in their lies a little more than others.
Posted by JasonR86
@AlexW00d said:
Well the driving in another 'open world' third person game published by the same publisher is at least better than this, so they could have at least taken some tips from them. Also even with my siren on cars never yield. And they should have just taken the gunplay out, and had it as a QTE occasionally. You're a detective you shouldn't be getting into firefights in the first place.
I'm assuming you're talking about GTA?  GTA 4 had a driving system that was physics based and a loud group of fans hated it.  It seemed to me that when the siren was on the citizens slowed and moved to the right.  As for the gunplay, you may be right in that it wasn't necessary but, if I'm not mistaken, detectives do get in to firefights.  Maybe not as extravagant as the ones in the game but they still fire their weapon from time to time.  It all depends on the case they are working on.  Here, look at this; http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm.  You also have to consider the time frame and the scope of work a detective did in the 40s compared to now.  It is very likely that a detective would be forced into situations where they would have to fire their weapon.
Posted by AlexW00d
@LackLuster: Exactly, and this is me expressing mine. 
 
@ahaisthisourchance@scarace360: I don't get it, am I not allowed to have an opinion? Just because I don't think the same as you doesn't mean you're allowed to be wankers? 
 
@DeeGee: Wait, are you trying to tell me I am lying about how much I have played? I am on the homicide case with the vagrant girl who lives in the liquor store at the moment. And yes, you can tell as easy as I just said, because that is what I have been doing this whole time.
Posted by Esquisse
@AlexW00d said:
the textures are awful, they look, again, at least 10 years old and the goddamn tram lines are part of the road texture for god sake, they don't even have their own
Well, I think you don't remember what games looked like 10 years ago. L.A. Noire is a good looking game.
Posted by Rolyatkcinmai

This is not just a different opinion, it's wrong.

Posted by Animasta

YOU DONT LIKE THIS GAME THAT'S POPULAR!? YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND YOUR OPINION IS INVALID.
 
rockstar defense force awaaaaaaaaaaay

Posted by AlexW00d
@JasonR86: Hmm I suppose they did yeah. And I've yet to notice that, but they might well do so. 
 
And definitely they would have to use their guns, but most of the time they need their suspects alive, but the game never lets you use the gun to subdue, just kill. And I suppose yeah it would have been different back then and I guess the game would be boring if you had to wait for backup or whatnot.
Posted by AlexW00d
@Laketown said:
YOU DONT LIKE THIS GAME THAT'S POPULAR!? YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND YOUR OPINION IS INVALID.  rockstar defense force awaaaaaaaaaaay
Iknorite. Tbh I expected no-one to read this, instead I get little children telling me my opinion is wrong. Which is obviously impossible.
Posted by JasonR86
@AlexW00d said:
@JasonR86: Hmm I suppose they did yeah. And I've yet to notice that, but they might well do so.  And definitely they would have to use their guns, but most of the time they need their suspects alive, but the game never lets you use the gun to subdue, just kill. And I suppose yeah it would have been different back then and I guess the game would be boring if you had to wait for backup or whatnot.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply your opinion was wrong.  I hope you didn't take it that way.  I just wanted to talk to you about it since you've put it up here for us to read.
Posted by Fluxxed
@Laketown:  Actually there have been more people criticizing it than blindly defending it, just look at the LA Noire forum.
Posted by AlexW00d
@JasonR86 said:
@AlexW00d said:
@JasonR86: Hmm I suppose they did yeah. And I've yet to notice that, but they might well do so.  And definitely they would have to use their guns, but most of the time they need their suspects alive, but the game never lets you use the gun to subdue, just kill. And I suppose yeah it would have been different back then and I guess the game would be boring if you had to wait for backup or whatnot.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply your opinion was wrong.  I hope you didn't take it that way.  I just wanted to talk to you about it since you've put it up here for us to read.
No not at all, you're the only one who has actually partaken in any actual conversation so far, I respect you. All the other comments on the other hand...
Posted by Animasta
@Fluxxed said:
@Laketown:  Actually there have been more people criticizing it than blindly defending it, just look at the LA Noire forum.
And then, in those threads, are like 10 people deriding the poster because "they just aren't playing it right" and "you were just expecting to run over hookers and shoot people" and, my favorite, "you just don't GET it"
Posted by Fluxxed
@Laketown: So what are you saying? That the board should just be full of people shitting on the game and no one is allowed to say anything positive?
Posted by AlexW00d
@Fluxxed said:
@Laketown: So what are you saying? That the board should just be full of people shitting on the game and no one is allowed to say anything positive?
I think what he is saying is that people should form proper opinions and back them up with evidence regardless of where they sit on the fence, not just write HEY YOU'RE WRONG COS I SAID SO, like people have done in the comments to this.
Posted by Fluxxed
@AlexW00d: I agree, but there has been a lot of similar topics on the board already, although this is a blog so fair enough.
Posted by AlexW00d
@Fluxxed said:
@AlexW00d: I agree, but there has been a lot of similar topics on the board already, although this is a blog so fair enough.
Tbf I have only seen two topics on it so far, both full of people lambasting the respective OPs with nonsensical remark on how their opinion is wrong. But it does always work boths ways. 
and yeah I wasn't honestly expecting people to read this Haha.
Posted by Animasta
@Fluxxed said:
@Laketown: So what are you saying? That the board should just be full of people shitting on the game and no one is allowed to say anything positive?
Are you going to say that there's not a difference between someone defending the game with well reasoned points and them just saying that the game is too "smart" for them?
Posted by Fluxxed
@Laketown: If you can provide an example of someone saying that they're too stupid for this game on here then that'd be great, but at the moment it just seems like you're exaggerating
Posted by salad10203

Haven't played it yet, but from what I've seen, the textures are horrendous.

Posted by FancySoapsMan

The graphics are awesome.
 
Some of the textures look bad, but the environments are very lively and detailed.

Online
Posted by Gaff

" I don't really like it. It is a bad game. A bad game with some brilliant ideas, but a bad game nonetheless. The driving is terrible, feels lifted straight out of a game 10 years ago; the textures are awful, they look, again, at least 10 years old and the goddamn tram lines are part of the road texture for god sake, they don't even have their own; the mo-cap that isn't facial is pretty poor; the gun combat is terrible; and the 'brawling' consists of mashing X and occasionally Square 'til it tells you to press Circle. "

  • It would help if you elaborated more on what is "terrible" about the driving and shooting: Is the driving unresponsive, slow? Is the shooting fidgety, are criminals bullet sponges? Is the body animation stilted, unnatural? Blanket statements like "terrible", "pretty poor" don't really make addressing your points any easier.
  • What were your expectations going into LA Noire? An open world detective game, much in the vein of GTA, or an adventure game, in the vein of Police Quest. Also, Adventure games, like the ones from LucasArts, Sierra or even Telltale, never were big on freedom of any sorts.
This:

" Then there is the interrogation sequences: these consist of you asking a suspect a series of questions, usually 3 or 4, and then gauging by the way they answer whether or not they are telling the truth. This usually boils down to did their animation stop or are they still moving their face. Simple as that. If they stare blankly at you then are telling the truth, and if they are looking around or smirking or avoiding your gaze etc, then they are lying. "

And this:

" I have also had occasions where the perp has just looked at me and blinked like a normal person would so I have chosen truth and it turned out they were lying, which is a load of crap. "

This doesn't make any sense? If it was simply a case "Not moving, therefor truth" and "Moving, therefor false", you wouldn't have been wrong?    

" And if the whole thing didn't look like a bad Playstation 2 game it would have helped me ignore the bad driving and bad gunplay. but alas, too many glaring faults makes this game pretty un-enjoyable. "

Hyperbole, or exaggeration, is a great literary device to drive home a point, if and only if the comparison is valid. Even the biggest layman, who never laid eyes on a video game in his entire life, would point out that LA Noire looks "better" than a PS2 game. An early PS3 game? That would be much closer to the truth.
Posted by Animasta
@Fluxxed said:
@Laketown: If you can provide an example of someone saying that they're too stupid for this game on here then that'd be great, but at the moment it just seems like you're exaggerating
too stupid maybe not, but deny that people haven't said my previous statements in that other topic about overhyping LA Noire.
Posted by Shadow

I didn't play either game, but feel it necessary to post in this topic and express my supreme distaste for that terrible, terrible pun.

Posted by scarace360
@AlexW00d said:
@LackLuster: Exactly, and this is me expressing mine. 
 
@ahaisthisourchance@scarace360: I don't get it, am I not allowed to have an opinion? Just because I don't think the same as you doesn't mean you're allowed to be wankers? 
 
@DeeGee: Wait, are you trying to tell me I am lying about how much I have played? I am on the homicide case with the vagrant girl who lives in the liquor store at the moment. And yes, you can tell as easy as I just said, because that is what I have been doing this whole time.
No me being a wanker gives me the right to be a wanker.
Posted by AlexW00d
@Gaff: Honestly I'm not really one to write in-depth things because I'm not that good at writing in-depth things. 
The shooting is just plain bad, aim at their legs? They die. This should not happen, unless I was to hit them in the femoral artery, and even then they would bleed out, not die instantly. The driving is clunky, and the cars mostly all perform the same: badly. I would compare it to GTA 3. 
 
My expectations? Probably neither of those things. I didn't really know what to expect other than oddly realistic facial animations and detective work. I stayed away form all footage of this game because I didn't really care to start with, but then I was like, hey the hell not. Now I know why the hell not. 
 
That time seems purely anomalous though, every other time throughout the whole game it has been just as black and white as I described, and unless the game is finally starting to get more subtle in it's uses of it's facial animation it was just poorly executed. 
 
Tbh the textures are PS2 era though, non important posters and newspapers are incorporated into the floor/wall/table. This didn't happen in GTA3 a PS2 near-release game. And both God of War games were far better looking than this. Minus the facial stuff of course.
 
@Shadow said:
I didn't play either game, but feel it necessary to post in this topic and express my supreme distaste for that terrible, terrible pun.
Thank you :D
Posted by President_Barackbar
@AlexW00d said:
@Gaff: Honestly I'm not really one to write in-depth things because I'm not that good at writing in-depth things. 
The shooting is just plain bad, aim at their legs? They die. This should not happen, unless I was to hit them in the femoral artery, and even then they would bleed out, not die instantly.
Have you ever played another game with shooting in it before? Pretty sure this is how it works in every game ever where shooting is involved. Also, I think the reason you are getting so much backlash, aside from the fact that you attempted to use a snarky title to criticize a widely well liked game, is the fact that you engage in several hyperbolic descriptions of things without justification. Saying something is "horrible" or "really bad" without elaborating makes you look uninformed.
Posted by AlexW00d
@President_Barackbar: Most modern games at least cause them to go down first. 
And I didn't mean it to be snarky, I meant it to be a terrible pun, because terrible puns are the best puns. 
Like I said, I didn't write in-depth about everything because I am not very good at it. If I was a journalist then yeah, this would be unacceptable, but I'm not. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm merely noting down my opinion. I didn't even expect anyone to read it.
Edited by bybeach

Driving can be mediocre. They of course make it worse on purpose by sticking solid stuff in from the sides on chases. I personally favor shooting, but I've discovered I am near invincible in LA Noire. The textures can be a little off. And above all, that fucking fucking camera!  

But I love this game, none the less. Heall yeah, it's got my attention.  Sometimes there can be negatives you can list(don't let me get started on another, Fallout 3 and NV!) but the game rocks anyways. Blame it on something overwhelmingly good about it.
Online
Posted by Bloodgraiv3

it looks great and the driving is fun, comparing the graphics and the way the cars handle to games of 10 years ago is just plain stupid and wrong, and that's where I stopping reading.
Posted by Getz

Yeah, your critique of L.A. Noire is really weak. You think the textures look bad? Some things are subjective and entirely a matter of opinion, but I don't know what to say to you when you're unimpressed by the texture work in this game. Maybe you've got some shit in your eyes, and need to get them cleaned.

Posted by Jayross

I enjoyed the driving. If only they had cockpit view.

Posted by AlexW00d
@Getz
Yeah, your critique of L.A. Noire is really weak. You think the textures look bad? Some things are subjective and entirely a matter of opinion, but I don't know what to say to you when you're unimpressed by the texture work in this game. Maybe you've got some shit in your eyes, and need to get them cleaned.
@Bloodgraiv3

it looks great and the driving is fun, comparing the graphics and the way the cars handle to games of 10 years ago is just plain stupid and wrong, and that's where I stopping reading.
@Getz shit in my eyes? Really the best you could do? And yes this is subjective, they are my fucking opinions. That's the goddamn point. The textures are bad. They look uprezed, not downrezed like textures usually are.

@Bloodgraiv3 it doesn't look great at all, not when compared to modern games. It looks like a better version of GTA3 and the driving is about as good. And that game is roughly 10 years old is it not?
Posted by zombie_bigdaddy
@AlexW00d said:
@JasonR86 said:
@AlexW00d said:
@JasonR86: Hmm I suppose they did yeah. And I've yet to notice that, but they might well do so.  And definitely they would have to use their guns, but most of the time they need their suspects alive, but the game never lets you use the gun to subdue, just kill. And I suppose yeah it would have been different back then and I guess the game would be boring if you had to wait for backup or whatnot.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply your opinion was wrong.  I hope you didn't take it that way.  I just wanted to talk to you about it since you've put it up here for us to read.
No not at all, you're the only one who has actually partaken in any actual conversation so far, I respect you. All the other comments on the other haIts

 
It's shame that you don't like it but maybe its just not your thing. And to be fair you are kind of asking for all those negative comments when you say things like "the textures are awful, they look, again, at least 10 years old." Because ,regardless of the quality of the game-play, the game doesnt look as bad as you are implying.

This is what games looked like 10 years ago.

 
This is LA Noire
Posted by Tsoglani
@Laketown said:
YOU DONT LIKE THIS GAME THAT'S POPULAR!? YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND YOUR OPINION IS INVALID.  rockstar defense force awaaaaaaaaaaay
No shit! 
 
Why can't people have a differing opinion? I happen to agree with the OP, the game COULD have been so much better. 
 
Deserves a 7/10 at the most. Nothing revolutionary for mine. 
 
And yes, this is just MY OPINION.
Edited by theillusiveman0
@AlexW00d said:


                @President_Barackbar: Most modern games at least cause them to go down first.
           


Actually I do remember people falling if you shot them in the leg or at least stumbling back for a sec. Hell one guy I shot even rolled over, picked up a gun and shot me while laying down!! If there was one complaint I had about the game it was that the body animations didnt seem to fit the facial animations but everything else seemed spot on and that was mostly in the earlier parts. FYI as far as the driving goes virtually all games that deal with this time period have the cars drive this way too, I mean for christ sake you're driving cars made of nothing but steel, there not gona drive that well.
Edited by Landon

There are two kinds of driving in video games. Either the driving is bad, or your bad at the driving. 
 
I've beaten the game and put a few more hours into it. I've never once had a problem with the driving. It didn't even have that GTA4 "gotta play it for a few hours to get use to it" driving. I think your just bad at it.

Posted by Agent47
@AlexW00d: Yeah doesn't seem to me you made it too far enough into LA Noire.You should have reviewed after you finished the game or at least after you finished the homicide and vice cases cause that is when the game really picks up.And LA Noire a bad looking game?I'm sorry but you can dislike if you want but calling it a bad looking game is just wrong.Have you seen the amount of detail they put into all those items?I am amazed how when I open a letter or look through a wallet I can read it clear as day without a single blurry pixel.It's no wonder the game is fucking 24GB.
Posted by MariachiMacabre
@zombie_bigdaddy said:
@AlexW00d said:
@JasonR86 said:
@AlexW00d said:
@JasonR86: Hmm I suppose they did yeah. And I've yet to notice that, but they might well do so.  And definitely they would have to use their guns, but most of the time they need their suspects alive, but the game never lets you use the gun to subdue, just kill. And I suppose yeah it would have been different back then and I guess the game would be boring if you had to wait for backup or whatnot.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply your opinion was wrong.  I hope you didn't take it that way.  I just wanted to talk to you about it since you've put it up here for us to read.
No not at all, you're the only one who has actually partaken in any actual conversation so far, I respect you. All the other comments on the other haIts

 
It's shame that you don't like it but maybe its just not your thing. And to be fair you are kind of asking for all those negative comments when you say things like "the textures are awful, they look, again, at least 10 years old." Because ,regardless of the quality of the game-play, the game doesnt look as bad as you are implying.

This is what games looked like 10 years ago.

 
This is LA Noire
Curse you! I was gonna do this :( same exact example too. But yeah. L.A. Noire is a damn fine looking game. If Adventure games aren't your thing, that's fine OP. But don't go saying "this game sucks. Looks just like GTAIII. Bad game is bad." and then be surprised when people call you out on statements that, frankly, make your entire argument sound like trolling. It's fine to dislike a game but expect to hear people tell you why they like the game.
Posted by Getz
@AlexW00d said:

@Getz shit in my eyes? Really the best you could do? And yes this is subjective, they are my fucking opinions. That's the goddamn point. The textures are bad. They look uprezed, not downrezed like textures usually are. 
Wow, your defensiveness is really hammering your points home. I'm sorry that I don't understand your ridiculous assertions, I was just trying to theorize as best I could. I'll stop guessing, and you just tell us: how does the game look like it's from 10 years ago? I literally cannot fathom how you can honestly believe this. Other than this, I take no umbrage with your "opinions" because "that's the goddamn point", as you say. No need for the righteous indignation; we all know they're you're opinions. We have ours too, don't forget.
Edited by Dylabaloo
@AlexW00d
I enjoyed the feel of the driving in this game, I liked the priority they put on turning and the use of LB while driving fast to do I full 180 turn was kind of badass. Having looked at my stats after beating the game I realised I had drove for over 2 hours, most of this accumulated through going to objectives between cases and in that time I found It never got in the way and allowed me to explore the city and catch crooks in high speed chases as intended. It certainly isn't why I come to the game but it perfectly serves the gameplay. Also many of the driving is optional in case you just want to get into the meat of the game.
Posted by SgtGrumbles

He's right about the graphics, look at this screenshot I just took from one of the later cases.

  
  • 96 results
  • 1
  • 2