L.A. Noire

[Patters]

Well it's more that complaint and the previous one... That the "sandbox" world is completely separate to the main game. It sort of reminds me of The Movies in that way, and it just feels like it may not be Rockstar's best. (Also note: I very rarely buy full price games, so it'd have to be Red Dead Redemption/GTAIV to make me consider buying it now, it's not a massive slight against a game if I don't buy full price! Also, the fact that I'm considering buying it at all is something for me.)

It's not a Rockstar developed game, it's made by Team Bondi.

[lobotomy42]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I wasn't enjoying the game. You can ignore all the open-world stuff quite easily, and the game actually helps you do this in some ways. My strategy is:

1) Never leave an investigation area on foot.

2) When you want to drive somewhere, you can make your partner drive so you don't have to destroy half the city on your way from one location to the next.

Boom, it's a location-to-location adventure game, done.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It's not a Rockstar developed game, it's made by Team Bondi.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. The two games I mentioned, I only picked because for me, they were worth buying at full price. It's just a coincidence that Rockstar is involved in all three.

[Patters]

Well it's more that complaint and the previous one... That the "sandbox" world is completely separate to the main game. It sort of reminds me of The Movies in that way, and it just feels like it may not be Rockstar's best. (Also note: I very rarely buy full price games, so it'd have to be Red Dead Redemption/GTAIV to make me consider buying it now, it's not a massive slight against a game if I don't buy full price! Also, the fact that I'm considering buying it at all is something for me.)

See where I'm coming from?

[Roderick]

I'm about three to four hours in and I still have to come to grips with the game. It feels disjointed, like they took Heavy Rain and tried to cram it into GTA. I haven't really made up my mind about L.A. Noire yet, it's way too weird for that. I'll have to play a lot more to make any sense out of it.

[Erkki]

I might buy this. Maybe not immediately, but if I ever get bored and need another game to play (which seems unlikely this year with all them DeusExes and Skyrims coming out).

[Erwin_Br]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I wasn't enjoying the game. You can ignore all the open-world stuff quite easily, and the game actually helps you do this in some ways. My strategy is:

1) Never leave an investigation area on foot.

2) When you want to drive somewhere, you can make your partner drive so you don't have to destroy half the city on your way from one location to the next.

Boom, it's a location-to-location adventure game, done.

And 3) Don't rub up against every surface, pressing X to find clues.

[Sno]

I also didn't mean to suggest that LA Noire is a bad game, i've been finding it pretty incredible. I suppose i'm focusing on the negative elements just because the response everywhere seems to be so intensely positive.

You can easily completely ignore the open-world elements, and even if you don't, there's almost nothing for you to do out there, which is why i was questioning this game being built around such a vast environment. I mean, I've also been doing the "hold Y to have your partner drive" thing almost all the time. It even still allows the en-route conversations to play out before just skipping to the destination. Its not that the big city actively detracts from the game, it's more that it's frequently not even a factor.

I mean, and you can go out there and muck around, and seemingly very urgent cases will just kind of wait for you to return. There's a bunch of side-missions in which you will rack up a really jarring body count that makes the main quest line seem absolutely restrained by comparison. You can drive like a complete lunatic, and the game implies that you'll be punished for causing chaos, but it only seems to lower your end-of-case "score" as if that really matters. It just feels wildly disconnected from the rest of the game.

I think this is a game that is worse for being more than it needs to be, but because you can so easily ignore it, i don't think it truly wrecks the experience at all. It's all just so disjointed, tangential, and unnecessary. It's just weird, i feel like it's probably only there because that is the expectation for a Rockstar-published game.

I'm also bothered by how contextual all the various actions are, there often seems to be little to no logic governing what you can and can't do in an action sequence. It seems to be subject completely to the whims of what the story needs to have happen. (For example, sometimes you can hold a gun on a suspect to make them stop running, and sometimes holding a gun on a runner will do nothing. Maybe the character can't be threatened into cooperation, maybe that's the intended justification, but that's never conveyed to you during the action.)

[lobotomy42]

I'm also bothered by how contextual all the various actions are, there often seems to be little to no logic governing what you can and can't do in an action sequence. It seems to be subject completely to the whims of what the story needs to have happen. (For example, sometimes you can hold a gun on a suspect to make them stop running, and sometimes holding a gun on a runner will do nothing. Maybe the character can't be threatened into cooperation, maybe that's the intended justification, but that's never conveyed to you during the action.)

That's definitely an issue I've had. There's at least one action sequence where

you have to shoot a guy once to make him release a hostage, and then arrest him. Only I kept shooting him too many times, so he died, and the mission failed. Eventually I opted to skip the action scene and was shown a cutscene...with the guy dying in a firefight.

What?

[Sno]

That's definitely an issue I've had. There's at least one action sequence where

you have to shoot a guy once to make him release a hostage, and then arrest him. Only I kept shooting him too many times, so he died, and the mission failed. Eventually I opted to skip the action scene and was shown a cutscene...with the guy dying in a firefight.

What?

After many, many car chases in which having your partner in the vehicle will cause him to automatically lean out the side to try and shoot the tires of the vehicle you're chasing, i just ran one sequence where he wouldn't. Completely arbitrarily, no explanation given.

I'm fine with contextual game mechanics, but you should at least be able to have a reasonable understanding of when those systems will come into play. I really, really don't like how LA Noire keeps changing the rules.

Also, it occurs to me that LA Noire having that immense open-ended city was likely them setting the ground work for lots of episodic DLC, some of which has already been released or at least revealed. I remember reading interviews with Rockstar North concerning GTA4, about how they could easily add new interiors and quest lines into that game's version of Liberty City, and that all being the basis of the two expansions they did. Rockstar and Bondi probably have similar plans for LA Noire. (This is also more-or-less what Rockstar did with Redemption.)

With that in mind, I wonder, do you think they could have had that huge city there, and not had the free-roaming? Really enforce pacing and structure for their narratives? Or would have people responded poorly? I suspect probably the best way they could have handled it would have been to give you a chance to explore between cases, but once you commit to a case, prevent you from just wandering off. I think i would have been more ok with that than how the game actually handles it.

Or is it really even an issue? Am i making a big deal out of nothing?

[Thrik]

I think the open world thing is an attempt at what most people have always said they want from games, which is take place in a completely believable environment. In real life you don't have invisible walls and stupid limitations on where you can go, and while these are well-accepted and traditional features in games it's inevitable that developers are going to start trying to break away from that if it can be done without compromising the narrative (which in LA Noire's case is apparently the case).

Granted the technology doesn't really live up to such a notion because unless you've got at least a GTA4 level of interactivity and depth out there it's going to break the illusion, but still I can respect the attempt.

A comparison would be a game like Zelda that allows you to explore endless meaningless forests and landscapes, with little to do out there beyond tackle the odd side-quest. Just because it's superfluous is it bad to have it there, if it makes the world seem more vast, believable, and existent? Or is it better to have an extremely confined world that for all intents and purposes only exists around your actions and intentions?

[Nappi]

Many people complained that Mafia II had an open world with nothing to do. Why did 2K Czech waste time and money to build a beautiful city if you can't, I don't know, play darts or go bowling with your drunk annoying cousin whenever he wants to? I think people should stop taking the developer's point of view for a second and start thinking about themselves. Mafia II, for example, benefited from the gorgeous city greatly. It was a real joy to drive through its streets, enjoy the scenery, obey the rules, turn on the radio and simply relax between the missions. Granted, there was nothing much to do, but what should there have been? A couple of side missions would have been nice, true, but I certainly didn't miss any of the minigames from GTA IV or even RDR (I rather go bowling in real life than in Rockstar rendition of it). More importantly, what would the game have gained if the open city had been removed? A more linear, controlled experience akin to Uncharted 2? Thanks but no thanks.

I am yet to play L.A. Noire but I'm really looking forward to exploring the 1940s Los Angeles, even if I have to do that on my spare time. That night turning to day and people waiting for you forever thing is unfortunate and bad design, but I think I can live with that. Actually, now that I know about it, I can actively avoid breaking the immersion, so thanks for the heads up.

[Sno]

A comparison would be a game like Zelda that allows you to explore endless meaningless forests and landscapes, with little to do out there beyond tackle the odd side-quest. Just because it's superfluous is it bad to have it there, if it makes the world seem more vast, believable, and existent? Or is it better to have an extremely confined world that for all intents and purposes only exists around your actions and intentions?

Well i think it's a flawed argument you're making, because i wouldn't say that those "endless" forests in Zelda are meaningless in the first place, since solving the challenges posed by those environments are the core thrust of the gameplay for that series. Neither are those games particularly vast, aside from Wind Waker, i guess. Nevertheless, It is not really an appropriate comparison for the LA of LA Noire, which is essentially just a backdrop for the stories Team Bondi wants to convey. (A backdrop without the kind of obfuscation and restriction necessary to hide the seams.)

Let me make your argument for you though.

Shadow of the Colossus.

Has a massive, massive environment that is devoid of largely anything, and the game is amazing for it. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a large environment expressly for atmosphere, i absolutely agree that can be used to great effect. Here's the thing though, say you're a developer, you've gone and given the player a sandbox game that is also trying to tell a story, now it's up to you to prevent the player from cocking up your story. The problem here is that LA Noire kind of doesn't, not just for seams around the quest scripting, but also just in trying to maintain a consistent tone for characterization of its protagonist. They sort of try, to be fair, but they don't account for everything, and they actively make it worse in some other ways. That's the kind of stuff i am talking about.

Of course i can make the mental distinction between my free-roaming antics and the main story, but they keep trying to hammer it home that Phelps is a complete boyscout. So you get out on those free-roaming roads and you smash through a bunch of cars and nearly run over a couple of pedestrians on you way to solve a single murder that the game is treating as deadly serious, while your partner who is also in the car barely reacts to your reckless driving. Dude, it kind of kills the illusion, there is some really crazy dissonance there. Especially in a game that takes itself so completely seriously, I think they either need to go all the way, carry those things through to their logical conclusions, or really restrict what you can do.

You know, but now i really am making a big deal out of nothing. It's a complicated problem faced by a lot of games and LA Noire does enough. I think i'm talking more just about open world designs in general, or maybe just games in general. As games try to tell increasingly detailed narratives with increasingly humanized characters, i find gameplay/story segregation more and more noticeable. I mean, in my game of LA Noire, Phelps has killed like sixty guys in random side-mission things, while every gun battle in the main quest line is still treated with great severity.

Games are weird.

[Murdoc]

Finally got my hands on this and yeah it's pretty much what people were saying here and I really enjoy it. I took labotomy's advice on driving and enjoying it a lot more than crashing into people all the time.

The city is pretty awesome to see though, so I'm sure by skipping it that I'm missing the atmosphere; which the whole game has a good vibe to it.

The game does scream a problematic development though, it seems pretty clear that they originally started with different intentions than what they ended up with.

The vibe isn't super thick, cheesy noire; which could have been cool, but the stiff dialog is right out of dragnet or the old movies which is awesome and is executed really well most of the time.

I can say Im disappointed it's not more fluid, where the open world was a city I get to explore and I have several cases on the go at once, etc... But as far the game stands as a mission to mission "mystery puzzle" it delivers and I am really enjoying it.

Shame they went through all that trouble making a gigantic open world when it wasn't used.

[toblix]

Got it today. Impressions so far:

1. Downloaded patch right away.
   
2. Installer told me my game data was corrupt and it had to fix it.
   
3. Started up the game, opened the DLC screen, and the game froze with looping audio.
   
4. Restarted the game, opened the DLC screen, same thing happened.
   

Big disappointment. From what I understand, both Sony and Rockstar are handling the thing like proper corporate assholes, too.

edit: I realise the hanging probably has to do with the PS store being down, but the fact that the game hangs makes me dubious about their computer skills.

[toblix]

I haven't had any issues with the actual game, and I've been playing for a couple of hours. This game is awesome. After waiting for it for so long, and not being exactly sure how it would be, it's cool to actually get to play it. The facial stuff is neat, though it's really obvious everyone acted with their head in some kind of rig. Nobody really looks at each other, and the really detailed facial animation combined with the slightly aging arms-out-to-the-sides GTA animation is hilarious – I keep expecting gangsters to come out of a car and bro hug me while holding an uzi. I haven't really figured out the interview system yet. I guess I might be approaching it too much like Phoenix Wright, in that I expect to be able to spot whatever's off with the testimony by looking over the evidence. Here, though, it seems they want me to use my gut feeling and some amount of guesswork. I keep failing at this, but I guess I might go back and retry the earlier cases when I've figured out how it's done. I get the impression cases can play out really differently depending on how well you interview people, and I hope replaying old cases will reveal some of that.

Also, now I feel terrible whenever I run into other cars and benches.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I haven't really figured out the interview system yet. I guess I might be approaching it too much like Phoenix Wright, in that I expect to be able to spot whatever's off with the testimony by looking over the evidence. Here, though, it seems they want me to use my gut feeling and some amount of guesswork. I keep failing at this, but I guess I might go back and retry the earlier cases when I've figured out how it's done.

Hmm. So you just have to guess...? Not sure I like the sound of that :-/

[subbes]

Allegedly there's some body language cues, but these may be as legitimate as the majority of the alleged Poker Night at the Inventory body language cues, i.e. complete bullshit resulting from confirmation bias.

[Sno]

I guess I might be approaching it too much like Phoenix Wright, in that I expect to be able to spot whatever's off with the testimony by looking over the evidence. Here, though, it seems they want me to use my gut feeling and some amount of guesswork. I keep failing at this, but I guess I might go back and retry the earlier cases when I've figured out how it's done. I get the impression cases can play out really differently depending on how well you interview people, and I hope replaying old cases will reveal some of that.

They want you read faces to fish out lies, hence all the elaborate face-scanned acting. So look for them to avoid eye contact, be smiling inappropriately, start crossing their arms, things like that. Once you determine if somebody is lying, the evidence should determine whether you go with lie or doubt. (In that, if you don't have applicable evidence, use doubt.)

^ I've personally kind of had a problem with this game where Phelps will take the discussion in wildly unexpected directions. For example, I think i know a person is lying, but the doubt response spins off in a wildly different direction from what i was expecting, and it gets completely shot down. Had i known the direction they were going in, i probably could have successfully accused them of lying. I guess it's kind of like the Mass Effect wheel in some ways, because prior to making your choice, you're shown only the flavor of the response and not the actual response.

You can mitigate this somewhat though, by just accusing everybody of lying all the time and then backing out once you get to the evidence selection screen. The doubt response usually follows the same line of thought and sneaking this preview of the lie response can also help you decide if that's what you need to do instead. (Heh, and when you back out of accusing somebody of lying Phelps always makes these awkward apologies that never cease to crack me up.)

Also, the intuition points thing is kind of misrepresented to the player, you get far more of them than the game suggests you will. In addition to the extra points earned on a level-up, they also seem to reset in number at the end of each case, so don't be afraid to use them. I spent most of the game thinking they were far more scarce than they actually are. Heh.

Finally, it does seem like there's some cases that can play out in fairly different fashions depending on which clues you fish out of witnesses and what actions you take. (Apparently visiting different locations in different orders will occasionally yield different results.) I don't know though, i feel like LA Noire is a game where replaying it would just reveal where all the moving parts are, in something that initially felt really fluid and natural.

The body language thing though, it's definitely there and it's definitely intentional. Once you see what they're doing, it's almost comically easy to fish out the liars. It seems that the actors were probably instructed to specifically be leaving such clues in their acting. (And holy shit, it's so weird seeing the faces of actual recognizable actors all over the place in this game.)

Edited May 24, 2011 by Sno

[Forbin]

I braced myself for such a huge uncanny valley given all the videos I'd seen, but honestly it's just fantastic. The large majority of the time, the faces just look amazing.

[ThunderPeel2001]

They want you read faces to fish out lies, hence all the elaborate face-scanned acting. So look for them to avoid eye contact, be smiling inappropriately, start crossing their arms, things like that. Once you determine if somebody is lying, the evidence should determine whether you go with lie or doubt. (In that, if you don't have applicable evidence, use doubt.)

Oh brother. An actor acting as though they're lying vs an actor acting as though they're telling the truth. Right.

I hope they took this list of myths into account:

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3123.html

Still, it seems I should pick up this game once I have the money, as everyone appears to be having fun with it

[Thrik]

I'm sure at the very least the developers spent some of their many years developing the game doing a bit of research on Google into the psychology and science of lying. Especially considering that, you know, it's the central theme of their game.

One of the primary reasons they're using experienced actors rather than technical directors and sound guys for the facial capture is probably because they're more likely to be able to adhere to certain principles and habits surrounding lying, just like the actors in 'Lie to Me' (which was based on the very same Paul Ekman quoted in your article) did.

Or not and it's actually just a complete joke. The reviews imply otherwise, though!

[Sno]

I just finished the game, i think it was probably around thirty to forty hours? In general i had a great time with it. I really love the way the story wrapped up, and I think it's probably one of the most well executed narratives i've seen in a game. (Certainly for a Rockstar game, at least. I felt the attempts at serious story telling in Red Dead Redemption were kind of a disaster.)

The problems i have with LA Noire are fairly esoteric, and i don't think there's really anything especially wrong or broken with the game. So yeah, I would recommend it, it's quite good. I won't be surprised to see it on a lot of best-of lists when the end of the year rolls around.

A couple other things -

When you go to the cases section of the front-end, you can replay individual completed cases from the story, but there's also dedicated free-roam modes for each case desk. So i'm going to recommend people actually just go ahead and ignore all of the open-world stuff on their initial playthrough, that seems like it would be the best way to experience it.

Also, my copy of the game had a code for a free DLC case, so i had downloaded it prior to playing the game, but then just left it alone and started the main game. I went to look it up in the cases sub-menu after finishing and came to realize that i had already played it, it had been integrated seamlessly into the normal story progression. I thought that was pretty cool.

[Sno]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-la-noire-face-off

An interesting read, there's a lot of small and peculiar differences between the two versions of the game. The salient points would be the poorer framerate of the 360 version, with the PS3 version having faster streaming and a longer draw distance. Combine those with the game being spread out over three discs on the 360, and the PS3 version is clearly the one to have.

For the record though, i played the game on the 360, it was fine. The framerate does dip hard in a few spots, but i never found it especially bothersome, and it's not exactly a game that demands precise and accurate response anyways. Shadows can be pretty ugly on the 360 version, but the PS3 version apparently has its own brand of weirdness concerning shadows.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Sno

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'm sure at the very least the developers spent some of their many years developing the game doing a bit of research on Google into the psychology and science of lying. Especially considering that, you know, it's the central theme of their game.

Yes, but do they design a game based on the average person's understanding of lying (someone who avoids eye contact must be lying!) or on reality (someone could be avoiding eye contact for lots of different reasons)? They're making a game, afterall, not a simulator. Like you say, you would hope it's the latter based on the research they must have done.

One of the primary reasons they're using experienced actors rather than technical directors and sound guys for the facial capture is probably because they're more likely to be able to adhere to certain principles and habits surrounding lying.

That and they have the ability to act