Extra Punctuation: L.A. Noire Is a Bad Adventure Game

[shiajun]

Wasn't that old adventure game, D, based somewhere around this idea? Of course, the game itself had an atrocious plot but you had a limited time to complete the game, aside from the death events you could encounter. As far as I can tell, while it did increase the tension it ended up working that each time you failed you had to redo everything, only faster. Progressive, repetition based gaming.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Sounds like a great game idea but I really really want to play "Mankind has yet to recognize my genius."

No offense Yahtzee but nothing well ever make you happy, so why bother

There are games he likes. And they aren't always good ones either... like No More Heroes: a game with an even more pointless sandbox than LA Noir.

I kind of feel the same way about LA Noir.
I also didn't like their scheme of making gameplay content pre-order "bonus" dlc. So I had a peeve about this game from the start but now that I'm playing the rental, I'm glad I only rented it. It seems like they either came up with the new creepy face (NCF) system for a poker game or something then said "hey let's make a whole open world game with it" or they came up with it for a whole range of interesting uses in the game but then cut everything but investigation and interrogation out. And for the interrogation, what's the use of all the fancy tech if we're only going to get the same three choices each time. They give a good amount of output but not a lot of room for input.

It gives me this horrible feeling that gaming is just going to drift around in the same cycle for the rest of eternity, rather than continually evolving. Forgetting about entire genres while everyone rips off the same dreary tripe, then rediscovering them for the novelty points before remembering how much we enjoyed making lots of money off the easy mediocre bollocks and starting the cycle again.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but that seems to be what gaming has been doing for a while. Even when something that feels really original comes around, it's usually based on a very simple and old mechanic.
As much as I love Katamari and as original as it seemed(to begin with), they're really just trippy driving games.
As great as Elder Scrolls games can seem, they're a lot like Zelda aren't they.
And as crazy as Portal is, it's just an fps that's been made into a puzzle game.

 

[Simonism451]

No offense Yahtzee but nothing well ever make you happy, so why bother

Yeah, this is true. I genuinely don't understand him sometimes. There's about 3 games out there that he seems to like, and what's funny is that Silent Hill 2 is one of them. I'm sorry, but SH2 has a shitload of gameplay problems. It's incredibly easy to rip apart that game, but hey, it's a matter of opinions, I guess.

How come people take him , or to be more precise, his Zero Punctuation-Persona so seriously? Those reviews are mostly for the fun of watching a game being ripped apart, so naturally, his critizism, while, and this is what still impresses me a lot,in most cases, not unjustified, is blown out of proportion in contrast to the more kind aspects of the critique (not review). It helps noticing, that in many of his videos he doesn't state a game is utterly bad, just that it's pretty much mediocre and nothing exceptional and he admits liking (or not hating) parts of a lot of them.

 

[solidstatemind]

It gives me this horrible feeling that gaming is just going to drift around in the same cycle for the rest of eternity, rather than continually evolving. Forgetting about entire genres while everyone rips off the same dreary tripe, then rediscovering them for the novelty points before remembering how much we enjoyed making lots of money off the easy mediocre bollocks and starting the cycle again.

Generally speaking, it has been my experience (and I'm as old as the hills) that you don't see paradigm shifting games until there is new technology to be exploited. Until that happens, you really are limited by the medium itself to the 'same cycle', with the hope that someone will come up with a fresh take on the 'same dreary tripe'.

That is not to say that it's impossible to come up with something totally new within the current limits of the medium, just that it seems that new technology not only allows for innovation, but also spurs it.

It's a sad fact perhaps, but there are enough quality gaming products out there to keep me entertained, so I'm not too terribly broken up about it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think the thing that's new about this game is the use of mo-cap to get facial movements down to the point where you (maybe) can determine if a character's lying or hiding something. That sort of thing wouldn't be a route I'd mind seeing future games take.

But all I hear is that the faces look weird on the comparatively unrealistic bodies and it's blatantly obvious when people are lying to you because they over-act "suspicious" body language. Doesn't sound that great.

Yeah, the technology is in its infancy - I just think it's cool proof-of-concept. And in terms of people lying in a more "suspicious" fashion, that kind of goes with the territory. It makes more sense for this mechanic to have people act in an exaggerated fashion than it does for them to act in a realistic fashion, because players shouldn't have to be actual interrogators to play.

But if it's that easy to tell if they're lying, where's the game? Would it really be different if the story included some sort of supernatural ability to detect lies that made the screen flash? Both are obvious "press button to continue" cues. What's the point?

The point is that, to my knowledge, this is the first game that made paying attention to facial cues a mechanic. I agree with you that L.A. Noire is not the be-all-end-all epitome of motion capture in games, but it is an excellent proof of concept for that tool. That's innovation, in my book.

 

[Umra Tiwil]

Good idea, but wouldn´t correct application of yelling also make their patience wear thin?

But might I add that the killer forces you to solve each case individually and gives you a set amount of time to do so of each case? Like, Case 1: 12 hours. Case 2: 9 hours etc etc instead of a constantly ticking clock? That way, the designer knows KIND OFF how much time you have on you and can design from that.

That's actually not a bad idea, because it would prevent you from blowing all your time on the early cases and not having enough overall time left for the later ones, thus completely screwing over your save. Of course, some people like the idea of a brutal system that can fuck over your current game if you don't have an earlier save. That's why they play Rogue-like games, right? But I don't think that would fly in a mainstream game.

This kind of system would actually work pretty well in something like Inform 7. It handles relationships between objects like this in a very interesting and powerful way.

I also like this idea, but I wonder if maybe you could have an option to choose one system over the other. This would mean that "easy mode" would have a clock for case by case basis, but "Hard Mode" would just have one ultimate countdown. That way the hardcore players could gamble one the whole game. It would require some additional writing, but not really too much more. The hardcore version you only receive one message from the kller about a deadline, while with the other one, you would get several.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think the thing that's new about this game is the use of mo-cap to get facial movements down to the point where you (maybe) can determine if a character's lying or hiding something. That sort of thing wouldn't be a route I'd mind seeing future games take.

But all I hear is that the faces look weird on the comparatively unrealistic bodies and it's blatantly obvious when people are lying to you because they over-act "suspicious" body language. Doesn't sound that great.

Yeah, the technology is in its infancy - I just think it's cool proof-of-concept. And in terms of people lying in a more "suspicious" fashion, that kind of goes with the territory. It makes more sense for this mechanic to have people act in an exaggerated fashion than it does for them to act in a realistic fashion, because players shouldn't have to be actual interrogators to play.

But if it's that easy to tell if they're lying, where's the game? Would it really be different if the story included some sort of supernatural ability to detect lies that made the screen flash? Both are obvious "press button to continue" cues. What's the point?

The point is that, to my knowledge, this is the first game that made paying attention to facial cues a mechanic. I agree with you that L.A. Noire is not the be-all-end-all epitome of motion capture in games, but it is an excellent proof of concept for that tool. That's innovation, in my book.

But where can you go in that direction? You said earlier the over-acting was necessary because you can't expect the player to actually be a competent interrogator. Doesn't that leave this new mechanic forever blunt and overstated?

You really only have to go that route if you make progress in the game dependent on the player being able to tell if a character's lying by picking up on facial cues. There are other ways you could use the technology from a pure storytelling perspective, esp. for games that center on stuff like inter-character interaction or intrigue. Allowing actors to give a better performance can only be a positive thing.

I'd also imagine that you would see future games implement this mechanic more effectively in general (i.e., the level of subtlety players can deal with, etc.) once there's a knowledge base on how to use motion capture in games. The problem with breaking new ground is that you don't really have any idea what works and what doesn't work in practice.

 

[VichusSmith]

My answer to this is: "Who cares?"

Again, LA Confidential is brought up. How many gamers have seen LA Confidential, and even if they did, could you PLAY LA Confidential?

Then let's get to all these adventure games you've mentioned. I haven't played one of them, and I also have yet to play a Pheonix Wright. part of an opinion has to deal with experience, but I think there are more people who play games and have not come across all the elements Yahtzee brings up. There's nothing new under the sun, and even if you point to a games unoriginality doesn't make it unworthy of attention.

 

[Kojiro ftt]

I'd play this game. I think the timer idea is awesome. Dead Rising (the first one of course) gave me genuine anxiety. They softened it in the second one. But the first one, damn, that timer was always running out and those DAMN ZOMBIES WON'T GET OUT OF MY WAY!

 

[Zom-B]

Sure it would take some careful writing, but the larger problem is: "Who wants to play a time limited game?"

Sure, a timer or countdown works in something like a movie, but in a video game where everyone plays at their own pace and in their own style, forcing people to play quickly or potentially "lose" the entire game and then have to start over would not only be frustrating to players, but it would take us back to the time when games didn't have save files or limitless continues.

I don't know about other people, but I know a big barrier to finishing games me in the old days was having to replay beginning levels over and over again to get to the parts that I'd yet to master. I got bored and/or frustrated with the first three or four of five levels and then didn't want to play anymore, even though I'd yet to finish the game. I see this proposed time mechanic forcing a lot of players into that cycle again simply because not everyone is going to be able to think fast enough to complete the game within the timeframe provided, even if eventually they'd have come to the correct solutions/conclusions.

 

[TheHappySquid]

"The game is almost entirely about info-gathering. Puzzling only comes into it when you have all that info - you solve the crimes by selecting two pieces of intelligence from your notebook and combining them into a conclusion."

Sounds like Miles Edgeworth: Ace Attorney.

 

[s_glasgow99]

Yahtzee,
Interestingly enough, the forensics missions in the Atlus Wii game; Trauma Team. Plays out quite a bit like your game design, and is worth a look to see how it came together. It doesn't use time and patience mechanics, but the investigation tactics and evidence combining is spot on to what you were mentioning.

Scott Glasgow

 

[mjp19xx]

This article is an example of either simple failed logic or a misunderstanding of what new means. New is not synonymous with better or even good. The word new offers no insight into the quality of something other than temporal placement, and an indication of difference from what has come before. The atomic bomb was at one time new, but I am not so sure it was better for humanity than weapons that preceded it. People have been writing stories for thousands of years. In that time countless stories have been retold. Some of the worlds most beloved stories are simply old stories retold by new authors. L.A. Noire draws from several different sources, but I dare anyone to point out an adventure game that really does all the same things that L.A. Noire does. It offers a unique package, and much like the writings of arguably literature's greatest borrower, Shakespeare, has made the old seem new and exciting again for many people.

L.A. Noire is not a perfect game, and it probably will not be remembered for centuries like the works of Shakespeare, but to dismiss it because its elements are derived from what has come before is absolutely foolish. The game concept that Yahtzee introduces is interesting, but L.A. Noire is an actual finished product that is fairly polished and succeeds at the majority of what it attempts to do. Tearing into a game is fine but tearing into it simply because it is built on old or borrowed ideas just to try and make your "novel" ideas look better is pathetic. Time limits are not exactly new, and elements of everything else Yahtzee describes can be found in Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire.

 

[Zom-B]

This article is an example of either simple failed logic or a misunderstanding of what new means. New is not synonymous with better or even good. The word new offers no insight into the quality of something other than temporal placement, and an indication of difference from what has come before. The atomic bomb was at one time new, but I am not so sure it was better for humanity than weapons that preceded it. People have been writing stories for thousands of years. In that time countless stories have been retold. Some of the worlds most beloved stories are simply old stories retold by new authors. L.A. Noire draws from several different sources, but I dare anyone to point out an adventure game that really does all the same things that L.A. Noire does. It offers a unique package, and much like the writings of arguably literature's greatest borrower, Shakespeare, has made the old seem new and exciting again for many people.

L.A. Noire is not a perfect game, and it probably will not be remembered for centuries like the works of Shakespeare, but to dismiss it because its elements are derived from what has come before is absolutely foolish. The game concept that Yahtzee introduces is interesting, but L.A. Noire is an actual finished product that is fairly polished and succeeds at the majority of what it attempts to do. Tearing into a game is fine but tearing into it simply because it is built on old or borrowed ideas just to try and make your "novel" ideas look better is pathetic. Time limits are not exactly new, and elements of everything else Yahtzee describes can be found in Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire.

Served!

 

[Woodsey]

"Not ones that don't really add anything, and especially not ridiculously huge ones that you're penalized for driving recklessly around. Mafia 2 also take note"

You don't feel like you're in the mob when you're just shoved from mission to mission. It has an open-world backdrop (there's a distinction between that and a sandbox).

 

[NickCaligo42]

As much as I love Katamari and as original as it seemed(to begin with), they're really just trippy driving games.
As great as Elder Scrolls games can seem, they're a lot like Zelda aren't they.
And as crazy as Portal is, it's just an fps that's been made into a puzzle game.

SPECIFICALLY:
Katamari is an offshoot of old arcade games. Elder Scrolls has pig shit to do with Zelda, it's actually derived from the Ultima Underworld series, which are also among the first true 3D first-person games and are notable for inspiring Doom. Portal? Well, yeah. It's not all that big of a jump from Portal to Lemmings.

This article is an example of either simple failed logic or a misunderstanding of what new means. New is not synonymous with better or even good. The word new offers no insight into the quality of something other than temporal placement, and an indication of difference from what has come before. The atomic bomb was at one time new, but I am not so sure it was better for humanity than weapons that preceded it. People have been writing stories for thousands of years. In that time countless stories have been retold. Some of the worlds most beloved stories are simply old stories retold by new authors. L.A. Noire draws from several different sources, but I dare anyone to point out an adventure game that really does all the same things that L.A. Noire does. It offers a unique package, and much like the writings of arguably literature's greatest borrower, Shakespeare, has made the old seem new and exciting again for many people.

L.A. Noire is not a perfect game, and it probably will not be remembered for centuries like the works of Shakespeare, but to dismiss it because its elements are derived from what has come before is absolutely foolish. The game concept that Yahtzee introduces is interesting, but L.A. Noire is an actual finished product that is fairly polished and succeeds at the majority of what it attempts to do. Tearing into a game is fine but tearing into it simply because it is built on old or borrowed ideas just to try and make your "novel" ideas look better is pathetic. Time limits are not exactly new, and elements of everything else Yahtzee describes can be found in Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire.

Additionally, I would like to give due recognition to this fellow's post. Well done sir, well done.

 

[themerrygambit]

Actually L.A. Noire is not based on LA confidential. Rather both the game and LA confidential are based (sometimes losely) around actually cases and events that happened in L.A. during the 1940s. One of the biggest appeals to me about this game is that when I used to live in L.A. I heard stories of out clean and new the town used to be. I always wondered why houses were made the way they were. What L.A. Noir does for me is that it shows me what that town used to look like. Back when America was at the peak of prosperity. The big war was over. There was peace in the world. We could rebuild anew and make things better than before... there was a sense that the sky was the limit.

This game really shows me that in a way that L.A. Confidential did not. Granted there was this seedy side to this prosperity but that's also what makes it interesting... it gives a reason why. All these veterans back from the war are all trained to be hardened killers and now they have to find some way to acclimate back into society. Here they are going from hell on earth to candy coated round gumdrop shaped cars and soda pop stands... it's no wonder a few of them cracked.

Granted Phelps was a bit of a stiff but the fact of the matter is there are people like that in real life. I've literally met a guy like phelps. The guy that has to follow the rules no matter what and because of that he has trouble fitting in and making friends... he's always the teacher's pet until the teacher themselves breaks one of the rules. In Enneagram Personality Types Phelps would be a 1. To be honest in a way he seemed more real to me because of those traits... it made sense that he acts so uptight. Granted I would have liked to have see that facade break down a few times and see some real emotion come out of him but overall he made sense. He was consistent.

Can LA Noire be improved? Yes. I think in these kinds of games the difficulty level is very different to a grown adult than it is to a 12 year old kid. The vibration and sound ques make the game almost ridiculously easy for an adult whereas a child might need those cues to help them develop their detective skills. Likewise the facial features are very much exaggerated in the interrogations

I would like to see a difficulty setting in that game which you can use to turn off the vibration and sound cues to make the game more challenging for adults. Likewise I would like to see higher difficulties tone down the facial "tells" a little bit more so they are subtle on high difficulty and obvious on easy.

I do agree with Yahtzee that there should be more ways to solve a case with a variety of consequences for them as well as not limiting what the player try to use as clues.

 

[Simonism451]

My answer to this is: "Who cares?"

Again, LA Confidential is brought up. How many gamers have seen LA Confidential, and even if they did, could you PLAY LA Confidential?

Then let's get to all these adventure games you've mentioned. I haven't played one of them, and I also have yet to play a Pheonix Wright. part of an opinion has to deal with experience, but I think there are more people who play games and have not come across all the elements Yahtzee brings up. There's nothing new under the sun, and even if you point to a games unoriginality doesn't make it unworthy of attention.

The problem is, that LA Noir is not wildly praised for its absolutely perfect execution, but for its "original concept" which is frankly put a lie. The only thing original about it, is it being on the next gen consoles and having fancy graphics.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I like the overall idea. Especially the constantly ticking clock throughout the game. Seems like it would make the game more tense as it continued and you'd be rushing to solve the mystery as fast as possible. The only thing I would think it needs is the ability to have alternate endings with alternate killers (like what Heavy Rain could have done... and didn't do). This way you would be more apt to replay the game and not have to sit through the same story and know how it ends. It would make each time playing through just as engaging as the first.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think the thing that's new about this game is the use of mo-cap to get facial movements down to the point where you (maybe) can determine if a character's lying or hiding something. That sort of thing wouldn't be a route I'd mind seeing future games take.

But all I hear is that the faces look weird on the comparatively unrealistic bodies and it's blatantly obvious when people are lying to you because they over-act "suspicious" body language. Doesn't sound that great.

Yeah, the technology is in its infancy - I just think it's cool proof-of-concept. And in terms of people lying in a more "suspicious" fashion, that kind of goes with the territory. It makes more sense for this mechanic to have people act in an exaggerated fashion than it does for them to act in a realistic fashion, because players shouldn't have to be actual interrogators to play.

But if it's that easy to tell if they're lying, where's the game? Would it really be different if the story included some sort of supernatural ability to detect lies that made the screen flash? Both are obvious "press button to continue" cues. What's the point?

The point is that, to my knowledge, this is the first game that made paying attention to facial cues a mechanic. I agree with you that L.A. Noire is not the be-all-end-all epitome of motion capture in games, but it is an excellent proof of concept for that tool. That's innovation, in my book.

But where can you go in that direction? You said earlier the over-acting was necessary because you can't expect the player to actually be a competent interrogator. Doesn't that leave this new mechanic forever blunt and overstated?

You really only have to go that route if you make progress in the game dependent on the player being able to tell if a character's lying by picking up on facial cues. There are other ways you could use the technology from a pure storytelling perspective, esp. for games that center on stuff like inter-character interaction or intrigue. Allowing actors to give a better performance can only be a positive thing.

I'd also imagine that you would see future games implement this mechanic more effectively in general (i.e., the level of subtlety players can deal with, etc.) once there's a knowledge base on how to use motion capture in games. The problem with breaking new ground is that you don't really have any idea what works and what doesn't work in practice.

But the reason you declared the motion-capture faces innovative is because it was a new game mechanic. If you just use it for better quality computer-generated people, it's just a new method of presentation like they've been developing constantly. That would make it technically, not artistically innovative and not that interesting.

It's cool as a mechanic and as a storytelling technique - the two aren't exactly mutually exclusive. Using it as a mechanic is very tricky for obvious reasons, but has a lot of potential.