sdharrison

Brad's reviews aren't critical about obvious aspects of the experience that deserve attention.  We can throw the "O" word around a lot - but it's like doing a shitty paint job on a house and saying that it is just their opinion because your opinion was that it was fine.  Hard fact is:  He isn't the greatest of game critics because you can pretty much guess what Brad will say about a game based on it's pre-release buzz.  Which, is what it is.  I don't really trust what he says one way or another.  It is more a press release for the publisher.  It just sucks to have GB send him out on so much. 
 
"Brad, what was on the bottom screen of Starfox at the event you were specifically sent to cover?" 
 
"I don't know, I didn't look"

Yes I did

Yeah, ALMOST like that!   Kind of like he ALMOST critically looks at things in games he's reviewing 
 
That is a solid point about Rockstar releases being impervious to poor reviews early on.  GTAIV especially got away with an awful lot.  Not sure how they go about it, but they are effective in marketing to critics.  

After some time to think about it, LA Noire definitely doesn't age well as an experience. What offends me most about the design choices in the game is that none of your choices matter. You can't fail - you simply get given evidence through a plot device like a phone call or pick the wrong suspect. Speaking of which, I found it more than weird when you were given a choice of two suspects and had to sentence the one who seemed more unpopular with the times. The game really feels like it's pulling you along for the ride and not letting you have any influence on its outcome whatsoever. I detest this trend in so-called "adventure" games - the only games that even approach real choice in a storyline are Heavy Rain and Mass Effect 2. LA Noire tries to hide its linearity a lot, but it boils down to just walking around and clicking to search everywhere, repetitive shooting, the overrated interrogation scenes which are not used as best as they could be... just bleh. It's barely a game.

And yet, I would have forgiven it for all of that, if not for that ending. I loved so many of the characters and the story started to really pick up around the beginning of Arson, then descends into crap. The ending is just terrible. People seem to want to say it's noir... it seemed blatantly rushed to me, like the last quarter of the game. Even after five years, the game feels half unfinished.

As the reviewer who gave it 5 stars, I was impressed with Brad's  eloquent defense of L.A. Noire in the bombcast.  Ryan and Pat casually admit that the game had some pretty massive holes in it (story reveal and pacing were hamfisted, gameplay systems are erratic and poorly conceived, etc).  Valiantly, Brad offers only a muted agreement after Ryan calls the clue searching arbitrary.   Then silence.
 
I couldn't help but feel like the whole segment seemed like a passive aggressive way of everyone saying "yeah...  you blew that one."

Yeah I thought the game snuck by reviewers and got away with being a VERY shallow experience in terms of actual gameplay.  As an interactive movie, it wasn't paced well and lacked emotional punch.  The ending sucked not because of it's content - but because I didn't really care about any of it.
 
The one thing I unequivocally loved was the look of the city.  They did a fantastic job - I just wish it was in service of better mechanics and more fun.
 
The worst thing I can say with LA Noire is how much I wanted to like it VS how long I could stand to sit and play it at once.  The longer I played, the more the experience bottomed out for me and I would have to forget about it for a few days just to press on.  1-2 hours MAX before the cracks start showing and you realize all you are doing is playing a point and click game with control sticks and a pointless open city.  Also the interrogation system is badly designed.  If it worked as advertised, that would be fine.  But it only responds to the direction the writer wants you to go and often has huge gaps in logic.  Getting "good" at the game means always accusing first to see where Cole wants to go, then back out and figure out what clue the writers want used.

Also, why the hell did they think the thing people were craving so much from a Dungeon Siege game was that trademark Obsidian storytelling?  Not to get to off topic, but it reminds me a bit of MMOs that make a big deal out of story.  There are genres FOR that.  In this case, hack and slash is going to move units based on it's gameplay and addictiveness - NOT mediocre branching stories for characters you care nothing for.  And HOW do you make your entire marketing campaign ABOUT CO-OP and then release a frustrating and poorly implemented co-op mechanic?  GOD who was in charge of this project?!  It's baffling.

I can't help but think Gearbox (or whoever was in charge of determining price point) made a big mistake in giving DNF a premium price tag.  If this had been a $20 - $30 nostalgia trip, I think it would have been forgiven more in the press and ultimately sold TONS more copies (especially through low overhead digital downloading).  A bit baffling to me that they opted to take the route of being judged on price against current games.

I love the pro-Square dude with an anime avatar who was offended that I wanted to play as a male protagonist.  Glorious.