L.A. Noire

[Hockeyguy15]

I didn't say you had ADD, I meant that about the people complaining about not being able to cause chaos in the streets.

As for you point about accusing a person of lying being a bit of a stretch...Keep in mind the time period of the game. Today saying you found a receipt with the suspects name on it at the crime scene might not be enough to link them to a crime. Back in the 1940's they didn't have DNA and things like that so really finding circumstantial evidence was a good way to break cases...And if a cop came to you and said "I know you are lying because I have this connecting you to the crime" maybe you might feel pressure to admit guilt even if it isn't the strongest evidence in the world because you know that you were involved...

[silentsim]

I am probably gonna buy this game today...sounds interesting.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I didn't say you had ADD, I meant that about the people complaining about not being able to cause chaos in the streets.

As for you point about accusing a person of lying being a bit of a stretch...Keep in mind the time period of the game. Today saying you found a receipt with the suspects name on it at the crime scene might not be enough to link them to a crime. Back in the 1940's they didn't have DNA and things like that so really finding circumstantial evidence was a good way to break cases...And if a cop came to you and said "I know you are lying because I have this connecting you to the crime" maybe you might feel pressure to admit guilt even if it isn't the strongest evidence in the world because you know that you were involved...

I know you didn't specifically say me, just letting people know that my gripes had nothing to do with the generalization.

With that particular case/question, my puzzlement is when Phelps says "I know you were there, and I can prove it". If he said "I know you are linked to what happened" it would have been a bit different, and a bit easier to choose that piece of evidence. I see your reasoning, but I am a little hung up on the technicalities.

On another subject, have you been able to use intuition points to eliminate evidence when accusing someone of lying? I'm probably doing it wrong.

[Hockeyguy15]

I haven't tried it yet, I wanted to hold onto them for when I get passed the traffic division and the cases get harder. Once I use one I will let you know how it goes though.

[La Flames Fan]

One of the actors is my friend Ned Vaughn, the red haired detective.

It's amazing how much it looks like him.

[Esoteric]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I missed one item of evidence...I will have to play that one again later and try and find it.

Also another SPOILER (Did you go an arrest the guy for the hit and run, as well as go and watch the wife get shot and chase the other guy down?)

Yup!

I watched the suspect shoot the wife, and then chased him through the streets, where he ended up grabbing a hostage, and put a gun to her head. I had to put him down with a single well placed shot to end the mission .

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I haven't tried it yet, I wanted to hold onto them for when I get passed the traffic division and the cases get harder. Once I use one I will let you know how it goes though.

That was my plan as well, but I am gaining rank quickly and have maxed my intuition points, so I figured I would start spending them. They are fairly easy to earn, even if you start screwing up the questioning and clue finding. Landmarks, hidden cars, and street crimes all give you XP.

Also, for those wanting to talk spoilers but not knowing how to do the button/reveal in the forums, you use the 'spoiler' tags.

[spoiler_] It was Colonel Mustard with the lead pipe in the billiard room.[/spoiler_]

Just remove the _ .

Spoiler!

It was Colonel Mustard with the lead pipe in the billiard room.

White text seems to work just as well though.

[3 Justin 3]

I knew it was Colonel Mustard, that ####### was behind it the whole time.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Yamer

On another subject, have you been able to use intuition points to eliminate evidence when accusing someone of lying? I'm probably doing it wrong.

Yes, but it's not intuitive.

You have to cancel the accusation of lying (which you can do without penalty), then, you can use the intuition point to eliminate an option. Then, if "Lying" is still available, you can again accuse the person of lying and when you look at the list of evidence to use to prove the person is lying, those items that are completely unrelated will be crossed out...it still doesn't ensure you'll be right because there may still be multiple pieces of evidence that aren't correct.

[Hack&Lube]

[Hack&Lube]

^ I think that's really the problem. A lot of people were sold on it because it was from Rockstar and they thought it was the next GTA/RDR game and it was not what they expected.

The fault is partially on Rockstar because in all the advertising, they make the driving and shooting and sandbox look to be much more emphasized than it actually is in the real game.

In reality, this is more of a good detective adventure. Maybe I would have liked it without the driving parts and it was more a normal quick travel to crime scenes and solving crimes and puzzles type game. It would be have been cool to have more consequences for failing cases.

[silentsim]

Was gonna get this, but im starting to think I should perhaps wait and pick up a used copy, based on user feedback!

[Sainters7]

The more I read about this game, through comments here and everywhere else, the less I want to play it. Was on the fence before, now I'm not sure if I'll even rent it, may just take a full pass.

Hurry up GTA V...

[metallicat]

Are they planning a new GTA?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

The more I read about this game, through comments here and everywhere else, the less I want to play it. Was on the fence before, now I'm not sure if I'll even rent it, may just take a full pass.

Hurry up GTA V...

You could play Mafia II, then LA Noire back to back - the time periods modelled would line up, and the gameplay experience would incrementally improve slightly

[getbak]

I finished the Homicide desk cases last night, and I have to say, the game really starts to pick up right around the final case on the Traffic desk (Fallen Idols). That's when things start coming together and the investigations start to lead you through the story.

One big difference between this game and most others is that you really need to pay attention to what's happening at all times. Cut scenes aren't just something you can tune out waiting for the next action segment. Thankfully, in the pause menu you can review all of the dialog in a script format because I've found myself, more than once, thinking "wait, what did he/she just say?" or worse "what was the question I just asked?".

The biggest difference between this game and other Rockstar games is that it's not a full sandbox game by default, where you can just wander around the environment and do the storyline segments at your own pace. This game plays through linearly from case to case and you have to exit to the main menu and actually choose to enter free roam mode...and you only have that option once you've cleared the Traffic desk, which is 7 cases into the game.

If you just pick it up and play it for a couple of hours, it can definitely feel repetitive and boring. I was regretting my enthusiasm for it on Tuesday night as I was playing the first few missions. So, all I can say is, stick with it, there is much better stuff to come.

If you finish Fallen Idols and get promoted to Homicide and you still aren't enjoying it, then it probably isn't the game for you, but I would advise giving at least until then to get into its groove. Remember that the first few missions in Red Dead Redemption were doing menial farm chores, and that turned out pretty well.


Also, one of the other early complaints was that no matter how poorly you did on the cases, everything always comes together and you can solve the case. That changes too once you get to homicide. There are a few cases where there are two suspects who each have evidence pointing towards them and you have to choose which one to charge with the crime based on the evidence you've collected. There's even one where your boss wants you to charge one guy but more evidence points to the other -- if you charge the guy your boss wants, he'll be happy at the end of the case; if you charge the other, he gets really mad at you.

So, yes, you do work a case for as long as it takes to charge someone with the crime...and the early cases are so obvious that if you can't solve them, you really shouldn't bother trying to keep playing because you'll never be able to piece together all the clues on the later cases...but, that makes sense in the context of the game. You're supposed to be a hot shot cop rising through the ranks like a rocket, you have to be solving cases. GTA IV wouldn't have been much fun if Niko had stayed just a petty thug in Little Russia, and his rise to power was just as unrealistic as Cole's is.

If you don't find all the necessary clues, it affects what questions you're able to ask later and might impact whether you can catch someone in a lie during questioning. So, the hunt for clues and puzzle solving is much more important than the running and gunning parts of the game.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Are they planning a new GTA?

Does Rockstar want to make another billion $? Of course they are.

Hopefully we hear something about it this year at E3 which is next month.

[Yamer]

Ugh, this games logic is pretty flawed. I'm on the Silk Stocking homicide case:

Spoiler!

How in the hell does it make sense to call Angel on a lie on the first question? He says that he saw his wife around midnight and that she left soon after that. The evidence you are supposed to use is the Husbands Alibi from one of the neighbors, but all it says is that he went after her. That doesn't mean that she didn't stay long and didn't get there around midnight. I don't get how they can make that leap and expect you to too. You can tell that he is lying or holding something back (doubt), but the evidence isn't worthy of catching him in an outright lie.

This is the first opportunity I have gotten to play it since I bought it, and it just gets increasingly frustrating with the leaps and bounds they ask you to make in logic.

I'm just frustrated, feeling the need to vent. Don't know if anyone agrees with me on this particular instance. Such a neat idea for a game, but fundamentally flawed in the feature that drives the game IMO.

[Yamer]

Yeah, after running into the same kinda BS in the next case, I think I need to trade this in while it is still worth something.

[3 Justin 3]

I'm glad I just played my brothers copy. I'm only at the Red Lipstick Murder and I am already bored with the game.