L.A. Noire Is a Bad Adventure Game
Yahtzee doesn't think L.A. Noire did anything new.
Read Full Article
Yahtzee doesn't think L.A. Noire did anything new.
Read Full Article
Extra Punctuation: L.A. Noire Is a Bad Adventure Game
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
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.
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.awesomeClaw said:
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.
It's only one case the killer wants the player to solve. Yes, there are multiple murders, but they were all killed by the same person. The player's means of solving the case is, presumably identifying the killer and perhaps ensuring the authorities have enough evidence to convict them. However, as the protagonist's operating outside the law, it could very end with a kill or be killed climax, which could actually be rather awesome. With just the one case, it'll be easier on the designer's part to guess how much time is appropriate.awesomeClaw said:
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.
Tex Murphy was awesome. I have fond memories of Under a Killing Moon and Pandora Directive.
I always wanted to play the others. Maybe a trip to GOG is in order.
+100 points to Yahtzee for the mention of an early gaming icon most have probably never heard of in this age.
I always wanted to play the others. Maybe a trip to GOG is in order.
+100 points to Yahtzee for the mention of an early gaming icon most have probably never heard of in this age.
Sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure several people will love it. I probably wouldn't because anything timed stresses me out.
Why isn't a company paying you bucket loads of money to write the story and think up the core game mechanics for that game. Seriously, cause I'd play that adventure game.
To be honest, I hate the idea of there being any sort of time limit in an adventure game. The beauty of adventure games is being able to relax once in a while, not having to constantly shoot something, run from something, perform leaps and jumps, hide from something, dodge something, or perform some other action associated with quick fingers and reactions. That's what I've loved about adventure games - it's a time when you're giving your reflexes a rest, and instead letting your brain and creative mind take over while you get immersed in a unique and interesting world. Unfortunately, a time limit (no matter how drawn-out it may be) can do nothing but damage that relaxing, laid-back experience that comes with playing an adventure game. It would require the player to do everything quickly, and it would make them feel like they have to rush the thing; something which the adventure game genre simply should not make a player do, in my opinion.
Subsequently, a time limit would ruin almost everything that's great about an adventure game. It would discourage exploration and experimentation, for one thing. Whenever I've played adventure games, from a young age until now, I've always enjoyed exploring every nook and cranny of the environment, and have had fun with trying out random, illogical item combinations purely to see what the character response(s) would be. If I were to have a time limit throughout the entirety of my playtime, it would discourage me from experimenting with and exploring the virtual world around me; I'd be more inclined to simply search for the solution straight away. As a result, I'd probably miss out on a lot of content, and would ultimately be deprived of a lot of the depth within the game and the potential enjoyment that it may hold.
In fact, this is precisely what happened to me when I played the first level of 'Space Quest 1' (which I only played recently). See, with the 'King's Quest' games, I'd like to do the aforementioned and 'look at', 'examine', 'pick up', 'talk to' almost every single bit and piece of the environment. Why? Because a lot of the subsequent responses were often quite funny or interesting. I was looking forward to doing the same thing in 'SQ1'. However, the first thing that I was presented with upon playing was a lovely, big countdown clock in the corner of my screen. This prevented me from going about my usual adventure-gaming routine, which I instead had to exchange for a more rushed and fast-paced approach. Ultimately I was given a less enjoyable experience; the time limit detracted from the whole experience that the first level could have held. I actually felt cheated, to be honest - cheated out of an enjoyable section of the game - to the point where I'd gotten rather pissed off and decided to resort to a walkthrough (something I very, very rarely do). So, to have an entire adventure game be based around a time limit would just suck, for me, and would probably turn the game into something unenjoyable.
Subsequently, a time limit would ruin almost everything that's great about an adventure game. It would discourage exploration and experimentation, for one thing. Whenever I've played adventure games, from a young age until now, I've always enjoyed exploring every nook and cranny of the environment, and have had fun with trying out random, illogical item combinations purely to see what the character response(s) would be. If I were to have a time limit throughout the entirety of my playtime, it would discourage me from experimenting with and exploring the virtual world around me; I'd be more inclined to simply search for the solution straight away. As a result, I'd probably miss out on a lot of content, and would ultimately be deprived of a lot of the depth within the game and the potential enjoyment that it may hold.
In fact, this is precisely what happened to me when I played the first level of 'Space Quest 1' (which I only played recently). See, with the 'King's Quest' games, I'd like to do the aforementioned and 'look at', 'examine', 'pick up', 'talk to' almost every single bit and piece of the environment. Why? Because a lot of the subsequent responses were often quite funny or interesting. I was looking forward to doing the same thing in 'SQ1'. However, the first thing that I was presented with upon playing was a lovely, big countdown clock in the corner of my screen. This prevented me from going about my usual adventure-gaming routine, which I instead had to exchange for a more rushed and fast-paced approach. Ultimately I was given a less enjoyable experience; the time limit detracted from the whole experience that the first level could have held. I actually felt cheated, to be honest - cheated out of an enjoyable section of the game - to the point where I'd gotten rather pissed off and decided to resort to a walkthrough (something I very, very rarely do). So, to have an entire adventure game be based around a time limit would just suck, for me, and would probably turn the game into something unenjoyable.
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.Fronzel said: