ThunderPeel2001

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

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.

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. 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"?

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.

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.

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"?) 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?

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. 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.

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.

Yes! This sort of thing has been going on for quite some time, I guess.

It's weird how they show Ocarina when Williams is clearly talking about the first game.

I hope this turns out as good as it could be... 6CloKbXtD28

Very interesting. I have a feeling it's going to be a computer game, for some reason. Hmm.

Yes, sorry. I was editing my post as you replied. I shouldn't have clicked post until I'd actually finished writing it. I got caught up editing the second half and forgot that I'd not re-read what I'd written in the first bit. Doh.

Scary shit over the review scores thing: PR Firm Threatens Publications (Then Apologizes) Over Duke Nukem Review Scores So fucked up. Speaking of which, it really does seem as though they really didn't get Duke's humour. In that 2001 trailer you can see that Duke is the incredibly capable underdog -- he gets abuse from everyone, gets all the shitty jobs, but saves the day. In the GiantBomb video you can see that in DNF he's hailed and worshipped as a hero by everyone he bumps into. It changes his character from the 80s action hero underdog into an unlikeable asshole. That seems to be where things started to fall apart, and every gameplay video I've seen of this game just seems to show me that they TOTALLY missed the mark, and really, just offends the shit out of me. I started watching a video of the Hive level and I hated what I heard just a few minutes in... Opening weird alien doorways that are designed to look like sphincters Duke says things like, "Ooh, tight fit." and "I thought this was exit only." What? Can you imagine Arnold saying that as he worked his way alone through some Predator homeworld in a movie? You'd be squirming in your seat wondering, "Jesus. What's wrong with him?!". Duke Nukem isn't supposed to be a disgusting, lewd, horrible human-being, he's supposed to be a hero. He's supposed to be Ash from Evil Dead, Roddy Piper from They Live, or Arnold -- he crosses the line in risque, but only just, because he's a hero. He's not a sex obsessed misogynist.

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

It'd be cool if there was some very easy way to know which version you've got without reading the whole thing. The copyright isn't clear in my copy.

I like the Duke Nukem character, he owes a lot to 80s action movies, and Ash from the Evil Dead. What's weird from the video is how the world seems to love him now... I'm sure he's funnier when the whole world is against him.

It doesn't look either from that Giant Bomb playthrough video thing. It looks about as funny as Prey and about as exciting as... Prey. Hmmm.

Zing!

And where did I say this? Hmm?

I wish I could get paid to "inspire" people...

You didn't sound like a dick, especially after I proved you wrong.

Hey! That's the movie I went to see where the front left and right speakers weren't working... you know, where the music lives. Doh!

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?

What does this have to do with Will Wright?