L.A. Noire

[Stiler]

While I loved Heavy Rain, I think it's absurdly unfair to say this game doesn't have "gameplay" and use HEavy rain as an example of a better game. I mean Heavy Rain's gameplay consisted faaaar more of quick time events and things rather then actual combat/driving around/shooting, etc.

Then there's the huuuuuuuuuge plot hole that kind of takes you back a bit, but the game itself I loved and hope the next one is better.

 

[Katalysis]

While I loved Heavy Rain, I think it's absurdly unfair to say this game doesn't have "gameplay" and use HEavy rain as an example of a better game. I mean Heavy Rain's gameplay consisted faaaar more of quick time events and things rather then actual combat/driving around/shooting, etc.

Then there's the huuuuuuuuuge plot hole that kind of takes you back a bit, but the game itself I loved and hope the next one is better.

You misunderstood--I meant Heavy Rain is a better example of a "game as art" than LA Noire. By jamming in the basic and frankly boring combat and shooting into LA Noire, it makes you realize more that you are playing a game, rather than navigating through the story. Heavy Rain was more immersive into the story because you didn't worry about that stuff. Either way, I think it is incredibly dumb think making a game as art means you make story where you barely navigate the character through it, never failing, always coming to same conclusion. Heavy Rain was an interactive movie; LA Noire is something else that is neither a good game nor a good interactive movie.

I mean, let's face it: 95% of the driving in LA Noire is filler time. The combat I feel was added merely to put into a trailer to make it seem like a GTA sandbox style game. Actually, everything in LA Noire that could be considered gameplay really is just filler time.

 

[4saken]

I just have zero interest in the subject matter surrounding this game. It looks like a really good solid title though, just dont think i could dig it.

 

[Q-BZ]

You misunderstood--I meant Heavy Rain is a better example of a "game as art" than LA Noire. By jamming in the basic and frankly boring combat and shooting into LA Noire, it makes you realize more that you are playing a game, rather than navigating through the story. Heavy Rain was more immersive into the story because you didn't worry about that stuff. Either way, I think it is incredibly dumb think making a game as art means you make story where you barely navigate the character through it, never failing, always coming to same conclusion. Heavy Rain was an interactive movie; LA Noire is something else that is neither a good game nor a good interactive movie.

I mean, let's face it: 95% of the driving in LA Noire is filler time. The combat I feel was added merely to put into a trailer to make it seem like a GTA sandbox style game. Actually, everything in LA Noire that could be considered gameplay really is just filler time.

I have to agree with this now that I've spent some time with the game.

I kind of wish there was a little bit more of GTA, RDR, or even Mafia 2 elements in this game.


I LIKE the game as a whole but overall this is not something that's going to stick with me and something I keep coming back to like Red Dead Redemption or a GTA title or some such as far as anything with Rockstar's name on it.

I'll finish it and I doubt I'll ever play it again, at least anytime soon whereas I still play RDR and go online with it and have a blast.

That comic is hilarious but there's something to be said for this: When I see the name Rockstar on the box I have certain broad expectations: Tight and fun gameplay (the driving is decent but the shooting is subpar), a certain sense of freedom, and an open world (to a point) in which to do a variety of different things.

None of those are here in this game. I realize Rockstar was the publisher and I understand the differences between publisher and developer but I quite frankly wish maybe another 6 months worth of work had been done on this where you could have had the best of both worlds going here: The RDR and GTA freedom and variety of tasks plus the good detective work story elements that this game currently has. THAT game would be a game people would be playing and talking about for years.

Maybe that'll be part 2?



Heavy Rain really is a masterpiece. There's some gameplay issues in that I wouldn't have minded seeing done differently but I can't salute that thing with enough respect.

 

[Stiler]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm glad there isn't all thle GTA crap in the way.

I know some people looooove GTA to death. However the formula is getting old. I enjoy the GTA games, they are fun for some hours. However I never finish the game storyline. I End up going off, doing random events, etc and lose focus on the main storyline.

In this game staying ont he storyline is the main point of the game, there are side-missions yes but the overall game keeps you focused on story/cases and less on friends this, friend that, bowling bowling bowling, etc.

 

[Starcrossed]

God, games suck these days. They all seem so lifeless.

 

[Q-BZ]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm glad there isn't all thle GTA crap in the way.

I know some people looooove GTA to death. However the formula is getting old. I enjoy the GTA games, they are fun for some hours. However I never finish the game storyline. I End up going off, doing random events, etc and lose focus on the main storyline.

In this game staying ont he storyline is the main point of the game, there are side-missions yes but the overall game keeps you focused on story/cases and less on friends this, friend that, bowling bowling bowling, etc.

You make an excellent point. I agree with you. What I'm getting at is I just wouldn't have minded a little bit more balance and sense of freedom. Don't need bowling, friends, or other BS fluff like that.

Wouldn't have minded the shooting mechanics to feel less "tacked on" as well.

 

[Dallows]

God, games suck these days. They all seem so lifeless.

This makes no sense. You'll have to explain.

 

[Katalysis]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm glad there isn't all thle GTA crap in the way.

I know some people looooove GTA to death. However the formula is getting old. I enjoy the GTA games, they are fun for some hours. However I never finish the game storyline. I End up going off, doing random events, etc and lose focus on the main storyline.

In this game staying ont he storyline is the main point of the game, there are side-missions yes but the overall game keeps you focused on story/cases and less on friends this, friend that, bowling bowling bowling, etc.

The gameplay in GTA though, regardless of all the side quests or stories, is actually fun. The driving, shooting, running around, etc., is all very enjoyable. In LA Noire, it is the total opposite, so why even have it? I swear Rockstar added in this stuff only to convince people to buy it. I was not going to purchase it, then I watched the gameplay trailer and they show you foiling bank heists, running and gunning, and you start thinking there is actual gameplay in there. It would be like going to see a movie and having them hand you a novel to read in between the 3 minutes of video, even though the trailer for the movie was nothing but the video.

Story and gameplay do not have to be at opposites, but that is what this game does. It is just an interactive movie, which is fine, but people should not be going around giving it perfect 10s, or 9s, or whatever. As a story and a piece of tech, it's good. As a game, it's shitty, and does not deserve to by hyped up the way it has been.

 

[Kinsaras]

The gameplay in GTA though, regardless of all the side quests or stories, is actually fun. The driving, shooting, running around, etc., is all very enjoyable. In LA Noire, it is the total opposite, so why even have it? I swear Rockstar added in this stuff only to convince people to buy it. I was not going to purchase it, then I watched the gameplay trailer and they show you foiling bank heists, running and gunning, and you start thinking there is actual gameplay in there. It would be like going to see a movie and having them hand you a novel to read in between the 3 minutes of video, even though the trailer for the movie was nothing but the video.

Story and gameplay do not have to be at opposites, but that is what this game does. It is just an interactive movie, which is fine, but people should not be going around giving it perfect 10s, or 9s, or whatever. As a story and a piece of tech, it's good. As a game, it's shitty, and does not deserve to by hyped up the way it has been.

There are some pretty popular point'n'click games that would disagree with you. Monkey Island for example. In LA Noire the story is the game and the game is the story. It’s hard to classify it or compare it to another game. Sure, not everyone will like it but not everyone will like every game. Bravo for R* taking a chance and doing something new and different. You and others may hate this game but in the end its true innovation we’re seeing here.

 

[Katalysis]

There are some pretty popular point'n'click games that would disagree with you. Monkey Island for example. In LA Noire the story is the game and the game is the story. It’s hard to classify it or compare it to another game. Sure, not everyone will like it but not everyone will like every game. Bravo for R* taking a chance and doing something new and different. You and others may hate this game but in the end its true innovation we’re seeing here.

Innovation? What excatly is innovative about it? Short of the face tech, there is literally NOTHING about this game that is innovative. It is Heavy Rain running on a neutered GTA clone with a noir storyline.

When you play a point and click adventure game, you know what you are getting into. I like Sam & Max, the old Space/Kings Quest, Myst, Monkey Island, etc. They didn't show me a trailer where I was running down bad guys, foiling bank heists, gunning down a big group of criminals.

If the story is the game, and the game is the story then: 1) stop putting out gameplay trailers showing other things and 2) don't tack on some basic bullshit gameplay to make it seem as if it is something else. If I want a story, there are plenty of books, movies, and TV shows that offer stories far better than LA Noire. Which takes me back to this whole "games as art" BS--Pac Man CE2 is a better example of games as art than LA Noire. LA Noire is an example of something trying to minimize the gaming aspect, but not minimize it enough. It's a game, stop trying to make it a movie or a novel. I don't see any novelists putting out chapters that make you train a virtual pet, so why add in this excess stuff to LA Noire? I'll tell you why. It wouldn't sell without it.

 

[Stiler]

Umm, how can you say the shooting/Driving in GTA is better? It's like hte same basic overall feeling.


I actually like the shooting int his one better because the enemies react better to being shot and the location based damage. It feels more authentic as opposed to GTA's sloppy ass feeling riddle them with bullets style of action shooting.

 

[Katalysis]

Umm, how can you say the shooting/Driving in GTA is better? It's like hte same basic overall feeling.


I actually like the shooting int his one better because the enemies react better to being shot and the location based damage. It feels more authentic as opposed to GTA's sloppy ass feeling riddle them with bullets style of action shooting.

You are confusing better with fun. The shooting and driving in GTA is a million times more fun than anything going on in LA Noire. Pulling out a rocket launcher and shooting down a helicopter, crashing cars all over the place, blowing stuff up, etc. is much more enjoyable GAMEPLAY than what LA Noire is bringing to the table.

At some point, people got it in their heads that for games to be some sort of transcendent, artistic experience, they needed to be like movies or books. When movies came out, did they try to be like books? Nope. So, why make a game like one? GTA is a better representation of the medium than LA Noire is. The point of a game as opposed to a book is immersion and control. I never feel immersed in Cole, nor do I feel like I am really controlling things. From a gamplay standpoint, I trudge from one place to another, pick up some stuff, hit some buttons, and do it all over again. That is what you see in the reviews that honestly assess LA Noire as a GAME and not as some piece of high art.

LA Noire wants to be a point and click adventure game but doesn't have the stones to actually be one, so it tried to throw in the GTA elements to make it seem as if it had open world gameplay and capitalize on that market. There's nothing wrong with being a point and click adventure game, but we know if that was what LA Noire was, and if it didn't have the rockstar name on it and look like GTA, it wouldn't be selling like it is. By aspiring to be everything, it succeeded in being mediocre.

 

[Dallows]

You are confusing better with fun. The shooting and driving in GTA is a million times more fun than anything going on in LA Noire. Pulling out a rocket launcher and shooting down a helicopter, crashing cars all over the place, blowing stuff up, etc. is much more enjoyable GAMEPLAY than what LA Noire is bringing to the table.

At some point, people got it in their heads that for games to be some sort of transcendent, artistic experience, they needed to be like movies or books. When movies came out, did they try to be like books? Nope. So, why make a game like one? GTA is a better representation of the medium than LA Noire is. The point of a game as opposed to a book is immersion and control. I never feel immersed in Cole, nor do I feel like I am really controlling things. From a gamplay standpoint, I trudge from one place to another, pick up some stuff, hit some buttons, and do it all over again. That is what you see in the reviews that honestly assess LA Noire as a GAME and not as some piece of high art.

LA Noire wants to be a point and click adventure game but doesn't have the stones to actually be one, so it tried to throw in the GTA elements to make it seem as if it had open world gameplay and capitalize on that market. There's nothing wrong with being a point and click adventure game, but we know if that was what LA Noire was, and if it didn't have the rockstar name on it and look like GTA, it wouldn't be selling like it is. By aspiring to be everything, it succeeded in being mediocre.

I skimmed this. Basically took away this:

You don't like this game. You will never like this game. You will not understand this game. You will continue to have misconceptions about this game.

You should move on now.

 

[Katalysis]

I skimmed this. Basically took away this:

You don't like this game. You will never like this game. You will not understand this game. You will continue to have misconceptions about this game.

You should move on now.

Nice non-response. There is no misconception, and I'm almost convinced you don't even own the game.

Stop being a blind faith fanboy and actually think about why this game is getting perfect 10 reviews despite all of them stating that the game is boring and the actual gameplay nonexistent. We were basically sold a bill of goods on what this game was going to be, and if it was rereleased without the Rockstar name behind it, we'd be seeing a whole lot of 6-7 reviews.

Watch this gameplay trailer and try to tell me with a straight face that they didn't try to upplay the action. They show it all like it is an open world sandbox game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYym1U226M

Here are some choice quotes: "An intense blend of action," "classic action gameplay," "shootouts." (which is mentioned BEFORE investigation and interrogation) Classic action gameplay? Give me a break.

 

[mrgstiffler]

The shooting and driving in GTA is a million times more fun than anything going on in LA Noire.

Maybe for you, other people enjoy the cases in LA Noire better.

When movies came out, did they try to be like books? Nope.

Books tell stories. That's also what movies and games do.

The point of a game as opposed to a book is immersion and control.

Immersion is the point of books and movies too. You're supposed to be immersed in the story. Games are about controlling that experience.

 

[Katalysis]

Maybe for you, other people enjoy the cases in LA Noire better.



Books tell stories. That's also what movies and games do.



Immersion is the point of books and movies too. You're supposed to be immersed in the story. Games are about controlling that experience.

The shooting and driving in GTA is more enjoyable than the shooting and driving in LA Noire. Anyone who says otherwise is insane.

Yeah, books and movies tell stories, and they do it much better than games do because of the lack of control. When I play a game, I want to control the experience, not shuffle around from chapter to chapter.

 

[Q-BZ]

I'm somewhere in the middle here. I like the game for what it is but I have no idea how the hell it's getting 9's and 10s. At best, I'd give it a 7.5/10.

It's got some things going for it. I just find that I'm already getting bored with it and I'm not having...wait for it...much FUN with it.

Stop being a blind faith fanboy and actually think about why this game is getting perfect 10 reviews despite all of them stating that the game is boring and the actual gameplay nonexistent.

IGN's has to be the most distinct. They gave it an 8.5 but that review reads like a game that's going to get a 5 or 6 at best. The score and that review seem completely mismatched with each other.

I'm starting to look over some of these reviews again now that I've spent time with the game and am seeing some of them in a new light.

It's like a bunch of them felt obligated, because they saw the name Rockstar...they just didn't have the heart to give this thing the mediocre to average scores it rightly deserves.

We were basically sold a bill of goods on what this game was going to be, and if it was rereleased without the Rockstar name behind it, we'd be seeing a whole lot of 6-7 reviews.

NO question about it.

I absolutely agree with that. The ads, trailers, promo, marketing...everything about this game was unmistakably a "solve detective crime dramas in a GTA like situation."

Who can deny it?


That's why we're seeing some people who bought the game really unhappy with it because they either expected Rockstar's version of Mafia 2 with cops or some such.

I admit, even I was to a point because that's the nonstop impressions I was given from every corner of the universe up until the game was released. How could I NOT have that impression and expectation going into this thing?

Watch this gameplay trailer and try to tell me with a straight face that they didn't try to upplay the action. They show it all like it is an open world sandbox game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYym1U226M

Absolutely. Perfect case in point of what I'm talking about.

Here are some choice quotes: "An intense blend of action," "classic action gameplay," "shootouts." (which is mentioned BEFORE investigation and interrogation) Classic action gameplay? Give me a break.

It's definitely some BS there.


This game is an interesting object lesson in the power of brand name whether it be developer or in this case just the publisher.

The name "Rockstar" carries a lot of weight and certain broad expectations. When I see that name, I expect to have fun. Even though they were only the publisher, that name is almost like a "seal of approval" in a lot of people's eyes, including mine.


I see this game ultimately being a fascinating experiment that doesn't quite take off. If they ever do a part 2, they need to make it the best of both worlds. THAT would be an incredible game. This one isn't.

 

[Stiler]

To me it wouldn't. You are playing a cop, going around causing mayhem and popping caps in civilians asses without regard would tear down the entire point of the game being a cop/detective/good guy.

 

[Q-BZ]

To me it wouldn't. You are playing a cop, going around causing mayhem and popping caps in civilians asses without regard would tear down the entire point of the game being a cop/detective/good guy.

That's arguably going too far in the other direction. I'm talking about finding more of a happy balance between the two concepts and a little bit of both more even-handedly.


But let's explore your idea for a second.

Let's say I had the freedom to all of that. That freedom would be nice.

But guess what? I should suffer the consequences if I'm a cop and I go crazy like that. You do in the GTA games or RDR. The worst you get, the nastier the heat gets and you rightfully get put down unless you're cheating.

So I don't see the problem there. I'd love to have some more freedom and variety in this game. I'd love to have more complicated choices and decisions that aren't always black and white.



I'd like to have a game where if I'm a cop and I felt like cutting a few corners or bribing some people or things like that maybe I'd get away with it or maybe I wouldn't, suffer the consequences, and go from there.

Imagine a game where you kind of become like Denzel's character in Training Day if you felt like it and could get away with it. This would require skill, finesse, and a certain level of brutality at the right times obviously. Or I could be Mr. Boy Scout like we are in this game. Or somewhere in between.

Maybe you get away with it for a while and then one day you make a big mistake and it all comes back to haunt you.

That's the kind of potential I see here with the concept that I feel like LA Noire more teases at vs. actually giving to us all the way.

 

[Dallows]

Nice non-response. There is no misconception, and I'm almost convinced you don't even own the game.

Stop being a blind faith fanboy and actually think about why this game is getting perfect 10 reviews despite all of them stating that the game is boring and the actual gameplay nonexistent. We were basically sold a bill of goods on what this game was going to be, and if it was rereleased without the Rockstar name behind it, we'd be seeing a whole lot of 6-7 reviews.

Watch this gameplay trailer and try to tell me with a straight face that they didn't try to upplay the action. They show it all like it is an open world sandbox game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYym1U226M

Here are some choice quotes: "An intense blend of action," "classic action gameplay," "shootouts." (which is mentioned BEFORE investigation and interrogation) Classic action gameplay? Give me a break.

I don't care about reviews. I do own the game and have been playing it. I enjoy it. Why do you care so much?

Again your clear misunderstanding of that video is evidence enough against you.

You did play the game right?

 

[ktr]

In GTA, gameplay defines the story. In LA:N, story defines the gameplay.

R* has mentioned from the get-go that LA:N is NOT a sandbox game.

Reviews are opinions, and if you disagree with a review, that is perfectly fine. Some people prefer a tight story, some people prefer open gameplay.

 

[RX3]

Let me see if I got this straight.

People bought LA Noire thinking it was going to be GTA, but when they actually played it they realized the game was not GTA -- it was an entirely different game called LA Noire??!

 

[4saken]

Let me see if I got this straight.

People bought LA Noire thinking it was going to be GTA, but when they actually played it they realized the game was not GTA -- it was an entirely different game called LA Noire??!

Thats what was said about RDR too tho, but RDR was much closer to GTA than LA:N is so its not hard to see why many people were thrown off.

 

[Signal]

Waiting for a sale price on this game, I can wait until the end of the year. Backlog

If you buy at K-Mart before Sunday with the rewards card (free and they set it up in store in a couple minutes) you can get free game that is $19.99 or less plus a 20$ off coupon for any video game related purchase that's good for 45 days.

 

[Q-BZ]

In GTA, gameplay defines the story. In LA:N, story defines the gameplay.

R* has mentioned from the get-go that LA:N is NOT a sandbox game.

Reviews are opinions, and if you disagree with a review, that is perfectly fine. Some people prefer a tight story, some people prefer open gameplay.

All true but people need to be honest about this: The entire advertising and marketing campaign from this game clearly did not convey this message/impression.

Certainly there were avenues for customers that wanted to be better informed to take before the game came out to better determine what the game was really all about.

I myself bought the game knowing that it was not a "GTA clone" but that's no thanks to the advertising and marketing.

Let me see if I got this straight.

People bought LA Noire thinking it was going to be GTA, but when they actually played it they realized the game was not GTA -- it was an entirely different game called LA Noire??!

Some people, yes.

See my above comments.

 

[Kinsaras]

I'm sorry but this day and age there is no excuse for not knowing what a game will be like. If you bought LA Noire thinking it was GTA clone, that's on you. If you bought the game thinking its R* so it must be good. Where were you when Bully came out? And that’s on you. If you bought the game before doing just a single google search, wiki or reading/watching a review, which reviews were out before the game was…it’s on you.

If you live in a 3rd world country, I suppose I can understand not knowing since you not having access to a computer. For everyone that doesn’t, really? You can’t take 5 minutes of your time to use google. And if you answered yes, then you shouldn’t worry about a video game anyways.

 

[Q-BZ]

I'm sorry but this day and age there is no excuse for not knowing what a game will be like. If you bought LA Noire thinking it was GTA clone, that's on you. If you bought the game thinking its R* so it must be good. Where were you when Bully came out? And that’s on you. If you bought the game before doing just a single google search, wiki or reading/watching a review, which reviews were out before the game was…it’s on you.

All true.

Ultimately Bully ended up being alright. It's kind of fun to play.

If you live in a 3rd world country, I suppose I can understand not knowing since you not having access to a computer.

For everyone that doesn’t, really? You can’t take 5 minutes of your time to use google. And if you answered yes, then you shouldn’t worry about a video game anyways.

Right.



^^
Despite all of this...and I feel like I'm pulling hairs and going in circles here but let's try it again and see if we can at least get everyone to agree and admit this fact: The fact is that the marketing and advertising for this game clearly made it come across like it was a GTA clone. I don't know how anyone can deny that. That's really the only point I and a few others are trying to make here.

People SHOULD do research and not rely on advertising and marketing alone for anything, certainly. I'm glad I did. If I'd gone into this expecting a GTA like game I'd be pissed.


I think you can pretty much tell reading here and abroad who the people are that relied solely on marketing and advertising vs the people that went past that step.

I think some of the reviewers for this game were also expecting something more GTA like as well.

 

[mrgstiffler]

Let me see if I got this straight.

People bought LA Noire thinking it was going to be GTA, but when they actually played it they realized the game was not GTA -- it was an entirely different game called LA Noire??!

Those would be the people who blindly buy games without knowing anything about them. Then they get pissed because it's not what they thought it would be.

 

[Katalysis]

No, they got pissed because it wasn't as advertised.

Here is how the game actually is:

1. Get case.
2. Drive/Teleport to location.
3. Look at shit / talk to people.
4. Teleport to location.
REPEAT 3-4
5. Every now and then maybe chase someone for 30 seconds.
6. End case, get new case.

How the game is portrayed:

First, look at the box. There's Cole with his...gun drawn?
Watch the gameplay trailer where they talk about all the "action," show all these action scenes, talk about "classic action gameplay," all BEFORE they talk about investigation and interrogation.
They talk about the "huge, recreated LA to explore" never mentioning that there isn't shit to actually do in it other than drive by.

They clearly wanted to market this as GTA-Cop, or Rockstar's version of Mafia II, rather than what it actually is.

 

[_brew]

I dunno, I haven't played it yet, but all the stuff you guys keep linking to doesn't leave me with the impression of "GTA Clone." Nothing I've seen about the game makes it seem like that to me. I'm not saying whether the game sucks, but are you sure you're not just getting pissed off because your own expectations weren't realized? and that those expectations came from what you wanted to see from the advertisements and not what was actually portrayed?

 

[mrgstiffler]

No, they got pissed because it wasn't as advertised.

Here is how the game actually is:

1. Get case.
2. Drive/Teleport to location.
3. Look at shit / talk to people.
4. Teleport to location.
REPEAT 3-4
5. Every now and then maybe chase someone for 30 seconds.
6. End case, get new case.

How the game is portrayed:

First, look at the box. There's Cole with his...gun drawn?
Watch the gameplay trailer where they talk about all the "action," show all these action scenes, talk about "classic action gameplay," all BEFORE they talk about investigation and interrogation.
They talk about the "huge, recreated LA to explore" never mentioning that there isn't shit to actually do in it other than drive by.

They clearly wanted to market this as GTA-Cop, or Rockstar's version of Mafia II, rather than what it actually is.

If you view marketing material and immediately go buy the product, then you have bigger problems than LA Noire. As mentioned previously, there's no excuse for anyone to not know what a game is like before they buy it.

 

[Katalysis]

If you view marketing material and immediately go buy the product, then you have bigger problems than LA Noire. As mentioned previously, there's no excuse for anyone to not know what a game is like before they buy it.

Rockstar purposefully marketed the game as if it would be a typical Rockstar open-world sandbox action game. You cannot possibly disagree with that statement.

The fact of the matter is, a lot of people see Rockstar, see the marketing, see the "ZOMG ROCKSTAR HAS DONE IT AGAIN 10/10" reviews, and think "well, they say it has less action than GTA, but it got a 10/10 and looks EXACTLY like GTA in all the trailers," so they go buy it, and then find out there is no action and no sandbox.

I frankly blame the reviewers for not telling it like it is. Even the ones that did still gave it 10s and 90s. There is such a severe lack of gameplay in this it does not deserve those scores. Even when taking the game and comparing it to a point and click adventure, those games have overarching stories where you are constantly advancing the plot. LA Noire's overarching plot hasn't even started hours into the game, or at least I can't tell it has (other than his unplayable flashbacks that do nothing to motivate me). If they wanted to do this game right, they needed to have one huge story line and much more gameplay.

 

[mrgstiffler]

Rockstar purposefully marketed the game as if it would be a typical Rockstar open-world sandbox action game. You cannot possibly disagree with that statement.

I never once was under that impression. And it appears others in this thread weren't either.

I frankly blame the reviewers for not telling it like it is. Even the ones that did still gave it 10s and 90s. There is such a severe lack of gameplay in this it does not deserve those scores. Even when taking the game and comparing it to a point and click adventure, those games have overarching stories where you are constantly advancing the plot. LA Noire's overarching plot hasn't even started hours into the game, or at least I can't tell it has (other than his unplayable flashbacks that do nothing to motivate me). If they wanted to do this game right, they needed to have one huge story line and much more gameplay.

I'd give it a 90-92. It's an excellent game. There is a larger storyarch. You apparently haven't played very much.

 

[_brew]

Rockstar purposefully marketed the game as if it would be a typical Rockstar open-world sandbox action game. You cannot possibly disagree with that statement.

I don't understand what you are basing this argument off.

I was waiting for this release with a completely different expectation. The only reviews I had read referenced the MotionScan technology. I just went to metacritic to see what else the major reviewers were saying to see why you and I had such different expectations.

I read through the first ten blurbs (before you click on the full review) and every single one of them points out: MotionScan tech, defies expectations of typical open-world genre, isn't what Rockstar normally develops (positive thing in the reviewers' opinions given that their typical offerings are becoming stale), and Impulse Gamer (I don't think that's a no-name review?) even blatantly states, "However, if you are a player looking for an action game you'll want to skip this one or maybe rent it."

All of those reviews were written and available on the 16th, which was a full day before release if I'm not mistaken.

The only thing left is to confirm what I came away with by asking my buddy, whose most technological piece of equipment is his phone, what he thinks of this game. His only impressions would have come from TV advertisements. In fact, I'm not even sure how he came up with the idea this is a game he wants to buy or even that it was coming out (he said, hey man can I buy a game and play it on your ps3? would that be cool?).

 

[Q-BZ]

The marketing and advertising are clearly as Katalysis and to a lesser extent myself have outlined.

EVERY ad I personally saw and heard on TV or in a magazine definitely made this game look like it was going to be some kind of Mafia 2 meets GTA meets detectives game. I can't believe anyone's actually trying to deny that.

It's obvious even some of the review outlets were expecting that going into their reviews. That's part of why there's this bizarre disconnect between the review itself and the final scores. IGN's 8.5 review being a prime example. That review reads like a 6/10 game at best but it got an 8.5. Huh?


BUT: People should not be lemmings and just buy something blind based soley off of marketing and advertising and nothing else in the first place. Duh.

 

[_brew]

I just got off the phone with my buddy. Apparently he learned about the game from ad spots during the NBA playoffs. He said that it looked cool and every chance they got the advert specified "from the makers of GTA" and there was cool action scenes (seems typical, no sense in promoting with boring imagery ).

That said, he also added a few things. Afterwards he did some reading and learned that it wasn't going to be a GTA clone. In fact, he pointed out that GTA was fun and all but at the end of the day you just wanted to beat it. He wanted a narrative driven story and not something like GTA. In short, he's looking forward to it precisely because he doesn't think it'll be like GTA. He can see how people might take away that's what it is, but he didn't feel like that's what all the information out there is portraying it to be.

 

[Q-BZ]

I just got off the phone with my buddy. Apparently he learned about the game from ad spots during the NBA playoffs. He said that it looked cool and every chance they got the advert specified "from the makers of GTA"and there was cool action scenes (seems typical, no sense in promoting with boring imagery ).

Exactly. Now unfortunately this where too many people stop.

And it's a misleading ad.

This Australian bunch of developers that actually made this game had nothing to do with GTA to the best of my knowledge. That's Rockstar North?

Rockstar was strictly the publisher. So there's a misleading ad with a very clear intent.

They know this game would have no chance in hell without that hook and that's all there is to it.

I can guarantee you the bulk of the preorders this game enjoyed were thanks to the "Oh! Rockstar, the GTA folks!!!" rub.

That said, he also added a few things.

Afterwards he did some reading and learned that it wasn't going to be a GTA clone.

See? Your friend isn't a lemming. That's the difference.

He had to go past the blatantly misleading marketing and advertising to get down to it.

This is a fact, folks.

In fact, he pointed out that GTA was fun and all but at the end of the day you just wanted to beat it. He wanted a narrative driven story and not something like GTA. In short, he's looking forward to it precisely because he doesn't think it'll be like GTA.

And he would have never known ANY of that if he'd believed ANY of the marketing and advertising of this game and stopped there.

He can see how people might take away that's what it is, but he didn't feel like that's what all the information out there is portraying it to be.

If he was talking about ONLY marketing and advertisinghe would be wrong and he essentially makes my point for me in the opening of your post.

Sure, now, after the fact that reviews and player impressions are all over the place...if you take even a handful of minutes' worth of extra effort then, yes, it's easy to determine that this game is no GTA clone.


There's no excuse for anyone NOW to go into this expecting a GTA clone.

 

[Katalysis]

I just got off the phone with my buddy. Apparently he learned about the game from ad spots during the NBA playoffs. He said that it looked cool and every chance they got the advert specified "from the makers of GTA" and there was cool action scenes (seems typical, no sense in promoting with boring imagery ).

That said, he also added a few things. Afterwards he did some reading and learned that it wasn't going to be a GTA clone. In fact, he pointed out that GTA was fun and all but at the end of the day you just wanted to beat it. He wanted a narrative driven story and not something like GTA. In short, he's looking forward to it precisely because he doesn't think it'll be like GTA. He can see how people might take away that's what it is, but he didn't feel like that's what all the information out there is portraying it to be.

The information from Rockstar is what we were talking about. I had heard about the game a long time ago, but I knew it was stuck in development hell and totally forgot about it until I saw it during an NBA game as well. Seems like he and I probably saw the same commercial, and I thought "wow, they took so long to develop it to add in more GTA style gameplay."

Obviously, the reviews are what they are. I am with Q-BZ though: there is some strange disconnect between the reviews and the scores.

I don't think the game is terrible, and I am sure I will finish it. I hate when games have awful storylines, but I hate it doubly so when what would pass as medicore in another medium is hailed as some genius writing just because you hold a controller while navigating it. I'm just not seeing where the story is so great in this. Production values? Off the charts. Face tech? Amazing. Gameply? Terrible to nonexistant. Story? Meh. Adding all those up, I don't hit 10/10 or 9/10. I didn't go into it expecting GTA levels of nonstop carnage, but I did expect more action, side quests, exploring, and a more open world than the totally linear presentation.

 

[MorgothPl]

I love LA noire. And I'm glad Rockstar went finally away from the sandbox gaming. I hate that type of games, as usually open world means 'We had no idea how to run a proper plot, so we give you free world, now enjoy it"... and if you get to main quest, which is the only thing that holds any itnerest for me is about 6 or so hours. Rest is grinding some collectibles, useless side missions like GTA taxi/ambulance/fire brigade stuff.

I prefer games like Heavy Rain or Final Fantasy XIII, no open world, great story, that leads you from A to B, and not make you guess where the hell "b" is. THius I never really enjoyed any of GTA and never understood hype of that game.