L.A. Noire - Rigidity

[Krantos]

So, I know I'm like a million years late on this, but I just started playing L.A. Noire having let it fester in my backlog forever.

Now I love detective stories. Not the 1940's ones in particular, I'm more of a Castle fan, really. Regardless, I love the idea of playing a detective, especially in a game where the focus is actually on the investigation and not run and gun gameplay.

And the investigations are presented incredibly well. From arriving on the scene and looking for clues. Sorting through the evidence, bringing in suspects and interrogating witnesses, it's a detective fan's wet dream.


...Then why am I not having that much fun?

The simple answer, I'm afraid, is the game is FAR too rigid. Someone once remarked that L.A. Noire is the evolution of the Old point and click adventure games. The unfortunate thing is how accurate that comparison is. There is a one, UND ONLY VON, right response to everything in the game.

This became abundantly clear during an interrogation when a suspect denied being on the scene. A gun was found at the scene, and I had even followed up on it and confirmed that it belonged to the suspect. But whenever I tried to use that, or anything related to it, the game slapped me with a "Wrong Choice" and failed the interrogation. It was only when I mentioned a witness did the game decide that was "Correct."

Wat?

And why can't you Doubt a person, and then accuse them of lying. Evidence doesn't become useless just because you didn't immediately accuse them of lying. That's not only silly, it's outright illogical.

Just like the old time adventure games, the only way to successfully progress through the game is get on the same logic train the developers were on. It doesn't matter if a different way would work, if it's not the arbitrarily "correct" way, you fail.

This rigidity carries over to other parts of the game too. The first time I stopped for one of the random calls on the way to a scene I ended up rage quitting. The mission was to chase a fleeing criminal.

OK, I thought, I'll plug him in the leg and catch him.

NOPE! One shot in his leg and he turns (apparently uninjured) to shoot me.

I get in close to tackle him.

NOPE! No option to tackle he just shoots me.

Fine, I say, I'll do it your way and chase the guy. After a short chase, he grabs a hostage. Alright, I say, he's upped the violence and is threatening an innocent, time to put him down. So I line up my gun. Boom, Headshot.

NOPE! Guy straightens up and kills the hostage. FUUUUU---

Still don't know what I was suppose to do there. I quit at that point.

Despite all this, there is a lot I like about the game. I just really wish they'd actually enabled you to make meaningful choices in the game.


TL;DR My question, for those of you who played the game:

Does it get better? Or is this kind of what I'm going to have to deal with for the rest of the game?

 

[SonicWaffle]

Does it get better? Or is this kind of what I'm going to have to deal with for the rest of the game?

The game doesn't change much at all. You do the same thing over and over, just at different crime scenes. I never even finished it, though that was because there's a story "twist" which comes entirely without foreshadowing and seems to serve only to throw in some drama. Lazy writing, really out-of-character, and renders Cole as a giant hypocrite rather than the likable-but-damaged good guy the game was trying to portray him as. As soon as it happened I took the disc out and never went back.

 

[senordesol]

More like L.A.zy Noire amirite?

...*ahem*

Yeah, that game's got serious problems (one look at its production process will tell you why) it smacked of adding too much scope to a game that should have had a comparatively narrow one.

Why did I need all of 1940s LA rendered drivable and explorable when all I'm going to be doing is solving cases within an area of about 10% of the city? How many more cases could they have put into the game had they not inexplicably decided to make it open world?

The ending itself was just crap-shit. Do you think you'd get some 10-step interrogation with flimsy evidence against 3 suspicious people who were impossible to read? NOPE! Flamethrower.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I'd be the first to recognize the games numerous problems, from the unusual logic of its interrogations to Phelps accusing the suspect of way more than you intended. Not to mention, the controls felt clunky in tight areas, which becomes very obvious at the end of Homicide and Arson. Still, I enjoyed the game a lot during both of my playthroughs, and I've been meaning to do a third once I manage to 100% the game.

The simple answer, I'm afraid, is the game is FAR too rigid. Someone once remarked that L.A. Noire is the evolution of the Old point and click adventure games. The unfortunate thing is how accurate that comparison is. There is a one, UND ONLY VON, right response to everything in the game.

This became abundantly clear during an interrogation when a suspect denied being on the scene. A gun was found at the scene, and I had even followed up on it and confirmed that it belonged to the suspect. But whenever I tried to use that, or anything related to it, the game slapped me with a "Wrong Choice" and failed the interrogation. It was only when I mentioned a witness did the game decide that was "Correct."

The game had its moments where the interrogation was seriously screwed up. That was obvious during the first mission in Traffic when you have to interview the "deceased" guy's wife. If I remember, the game becomes a little better once you get out of Traffic, and some of the interrogations even begin opening up multiple options that are considered correct, but I don't remember how common these were. There are even a couple cases where you have the option to choose between two different suspects at the end. Vice was probably the best in terms of interrogations, but it had its own problems. Arson brought back most of the problems of Traffic, unfortunately. Thankfully, by the time Arson comes around, the story doesn't require as many interrogations.

So, yes, the game does get better once you get past the first or second mission. It still has a fair share of problems, but they seem to finally start getting a handle on some of the worst problems.

And why can't you Doubt a person, and then accuse them of lying. Evidence doesn't become useless just because you didn't immediately accuse them of lying. That's not only silly, it's outright illogical.

There's an option for that. It's called Lie. If you doubt them, it is probably best to accuse them of lying first. Someone may add to the conversation, making a piece of evidence relevant, or Phelps may say something completely ridiculous and you want to back out. The game doesn't penalize you for backing out of a Lie, so it is generally the safest option if you are questioning whether to doubt or accuse them. It might be overly complicated, but the game lays your options out very clearly. If you forgot about that, sorry, but the fault is on you, not on the game failing to explain the way it works.

Just like the old time adventure games, the only way to successfully progress through the game is get on the same logic train the developers were on. It doesn't matter if a different way would work, if it's not the arbitrarily "correct" way, you fail.

You can progress no matter how many things you do wrong. You can get every question wrong, do thousands of dollars worth of damage, and miss numerous pieces of evidence but still manage to proceed due to (sometimes odd) circumstances that arise to make up for your failures. You'll get a lower score for the mission, but I'd focus more on enjoying the story rather than getting 100% complete. Go for 100% after you've beaten the game, because the chances of you doing it your first time through are very, very slim.

Fine, I say, I'll do it your way and chase the guy. After a short chase, he grabs a hostage. Alright, I say, he's upped the violence and is threatening an innocent, time to put him down. So I line up my gun. Boom, Headshot.

NOPE! Guy straightens up and kills the hostage. FUUUUU---

Still don't know what I was suppose to do there. I quit at that point.

Chances are there was a way to catch him before the hostage situation. After the hostage situation, it should have been obvious that you were supposed to kill him. Not sure why the headshot didn't work. It was probably a glitch, or one of the 1/100 times that headshots don't work. I think I had the same problem as well the first time I tried it.

Despite all this, there is a lot I like about the game. I just really wish they'd actually enabled you to make meaningful choices in the game.

Now that was certainly a problem. I managed to overlook it a lot (at least enough to enjoy the game), but it was certainly annoying when the game had to concoct a way to make the story moving when you obviously just failed to do your job. Not to mention, the couple times you can "fail" a mission completely sort of makes for odd character development from Phelps's superiors.

 

[Catfood220]

Does it get better? Or is this kind of what I'm going to have to deal with for the rest of the game?

No. Not really.

I found that the game went right down hill after the Murder investigations, mind you the end to that is frustrating. You end up doing the not very interesting Vice cases where I found repeated running my arsehole partner over more fun than doing then actual investigations. Then you end up on Arson which is so fucking dull and then as someone else has said, the ending sucks.

 

[Krantos]

And why can't you Doubt a person, and then accuse them of lying. Evidence doesn't become useless just because you didn't immediately accuse them of lying. That's not only silly, it's outright illogical.

There's an option for that. It's called Lie. If you doubt them, it is probably best to accuse them of lying first. Someone may add to the conversation, making a piece of evidence relevant, or Phelps may say something completely ridiculous and you want to back out. The game doesn't penalize you for backing out of a Lie, so it is generally the safest option if you are questioning whether to doubt or accuse them. It might be overly complicated, but the game lays your options out very clearly. If you forgot about that, sorry, but the fault is on you, not on the game failing to explain the way it works.

Didn't really forget about it, it's part of the whole Illogical problem. Really, why is the "Call them a Liar" option the safe bet? That just seems off. Feels like it should be the other way around. Use Doubt to apply a little pressure, if they seem legit, accept it as the truth. If they seem to crack, hit them with a Lie.

It just seems weird that the most extreme response is actually the most conservative.

Thanks for your input though. I think I am going to keep going with it, because there is a lot about the game that I really like, and I appreciate that it tried to do something different than the standard run and gun.

But to a degree that makes it all the more depressing. The studio tried something different. They tried to make a game that is unique. However, the problems hold it back so much that we aren't likely to see any more iterations on this type of game for a while.

 

[MysticSlayer]

And why can't you Doubt a person, and then accuse them of lying. Evidence doesn't become useless just because you didn't immediately accuse them of lying. That's not only silly, it's outright illogical.

There's an option for that. It's called Lie. If you doubt them, it is probably best to accuse them of lying first. Someone may add to the conversation, making a piece of evidence relevant, or Phelps may say something completely ridiculous and you want to back out. The game doesn't penalize you for backing out of a Lie, so it is generally the safest option if you are questioning whether to doubt or accuse them. It might be overly complicated, but the game lays your options out very clearly. If you forgot about that, sorry, but the fault is on you, not on the game failing to explain the way it works.

Didn't really forget about it, it's part of the whole Illogical problem. Really, why is the "Call them a Liar" option the safe bet? That just seems off. Feels like it should be the other way around. Use Doubt to apply a little pressure, if they seem legit, accept it as the truth. If they seem to crack, hit them with a Lie.

It just seems weird that the most extreme response is actually the most conservative.

I agree that it is a broken system. They really should have just left Lie out of the initial response and used it like you said, as an extension a follow-up to the Doubt option. It also should given a minor penalty for backing down from a Doubt. As it was, it's just too easy to exploit the system, and more often than not, the unusual conclusions Phelps draws are often the result of the Lie option, and they may have been able to cut down on it tremendously if they just went with the Truth and Doubt options. I understand what they were trying to do, as Doubt adds the instinct element, but I think their system spent more time breaking the game than giving the sense of having an investigator's intuition.

Thanks for your input though. I think I am going to keep going with it, because there is a lot about the game that I really like, and I appreciate that it tried to do something different than the standard run and gun.

But to a degree that makes it all the more depressing. The studio tried something different. They tried to make a game that is unique. However, the problems hold it back so much that we aren't likely to see any more iterations on this type of game for a while.

Well, the problems with the game is hardly the only thing that brought Team Bondi down. They were a horribly run company, and I've heard it argued that it shutting down may have been a long-term blessing to the employees. Actually, it is a miracle we even got the game to begin with. On the bright side, Rockstar has stated that they are thinking about a possible sequel, as it was received very well in general. Unfortunately, there is no time frame on one, and it still isn't fully guaranteed. Still, at least there is hope we might receive a similar game in the future. Regardless of the problems, I would love to have the experience that game provided again.

 

[COMaestro]

I really enjoyed L.A. Noire, but you've pretty much hit the nail in the head regarding its problems. The story was really working for me up until the "twist" SonicWaffle mentioned above. At that point, I was still determined to finish the game to see how it ended, but I found myself caring less about the story than I had before. I really enjoyed the interrogation mechanic and would love to see it expanded further in a future game, so here's hoping Rockstar follows through with that.

I don't think I experienced the same frustration you did with the hostage situation. I believe the headshot did him in real quick. It was probably just one of those random glitches, give it another go and it'll probably work out fine.

 

[Callate]

It's a technical marvel. I admire the atmosphere, and parts of it were fun to play.

...And did I feel the slightest bit of shame for turning to gamefaqs for the interrogation scenes? No, sir. No, I did not.

 

[GiantRaven]

I'm pretty sure you're only forced to repeat the first interrogation if you fail it, as it serves as a tutorial. All the others you can fail miserably on and still continue through the game.

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

It does continue in that vein to some extent.

I thought the game was great fun overall. I think it's incredible value these days as well, considering how long the single player campaign is - especially considering it is story and dialogue driven, so not repetitive hallways with many baddies to extend the game.

Your complaints sound similar to the ones I had with Ace Attorney and the often gripe with The Walking Dead of 'do my choices 'really' matter?' (I personally LOVE both of these games). But they did not prevent me enjoying these titles, just gave me some instances of frustration and ideas for what games of the future could be like.

Ace Attorney: I had the same issues with trying to get into the logic of the game or trying to think along their lines. It is a very hard thing to do and I'd say impossible to pre-empt everyone's thoughts when they are playing the game and they have to make 'a' choice of what your options are. Sadly we are not at free-text point of games. So yes it can get frustrating when you know what you want to say, but the game does not understand you - I do sympathise with the creators though, as I cannot see how this is easy, or really even possible, to rectify. Maybe one day we will have games where you can just speak and interact with people how you choose and drive it that way, but for now I'd say this game is a great step in the right direction and I really wish more games would try to emulate/best its model.

The Walking Dead: Does what I say/choose really drive the game? Is there a choice or is it all pre-determined? What power do I actually have on developing the game? Again, I'd say to some extent you have an impact on the game - like you can fail in some areas and the game will continue (whilst remembering your failure) and in some it will force you to retry until success. There has to be a limit on your agency and ability to craft the game to your own will. The idea that the game could branch off in several different directions and you could create endless different realities to create your own unique experience is CRAZY. The sheer amount of work this would be for game creators would be insane. I think the fact that LA Noire is like 40 hours long is a great testament to the amount of work that went into the game and you shouldn't fault it for not giving you the option necessarily to change things to your will and take a different route. I think they made enough content for you!

 

[havoc33]

LA Noire was a great game. Sure, it was not perfect, but at least it was ambitious and different. It had a great story, good characters and I absolutely LOVED the cinematic noir setting. Some of the crime scenes had crazy good atmosphere, it really felt like playing in your own detective movie at times.

 

[Elel]

Maybe it's not your type of game. I'm totally fine with all points that you consider bad.

L.A. Noire is like a diamond in the dirt. Such a gem among games catering to public tastes. It lacks some aspects of freedom from these popular titles, but it doesn't need them. It has a unique story, a unique atmosphere and doesn't try to add anything on top of it just to be liked. I suppose it was a big experiment for developers and took some courage to release it. So if you want a sandbox detective game with unlimited freedom, it's not even trying to be one, so you're looking in the wrong direction.

As for the similarity to old adventure games, I beg to differ. Most of the time there was no logic in old adventure games at all. You were supposed to guess at random, by combining stuff randomly and using random stuff on random spots of environment. I never saw any logic in that. L.A. is totally different.

 

[Elel]

Maybe it's not your type of game. I'm totally fine with all points that you consider bad.

L.A. Noire is like a diamond in the dirt. Such a gem among games catering to public tastes. It lacks some aspects of freedom from these popular titles, but it doesn't need them. It has a unique story, a unique atmosphere and doesn't try to add anything on top of it just to be liked. I suppose it was a big experiment for developers and took some courage to release it. So if you want a sandbox detective game with unlimited freedom, it's not even trying to be one, so you're looking in the wrong direction.

As for the similarity to old adventure games, I beg to differ. Most of the time there was no logic in old adventure games at all. You were supposed to guess at random, by combining stuff randomly and using random stuff on random spots of environment. I never saw any logic in that. L.A. is totally different.

P.S. Sorry for double posting, it was some sort of glitch. Unfortunately, the post cannot be deleted.