I guess you and I had very different impressions of the videos then. The game turned out pretty much exactly as I'd expected after watching those videos. having seen plenty of Western movies I was expecting vast expanses of land with little in between towns. If the game world was more 'full' I think it would've been worse for it.Ickman3400 said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
L.A. Noire Main Story Takes 25-30 Hours to Complete
- Thread starter Sn4ke_911
- Start date
I do say games look good for a Wii game, I say games look good for a PS360 game too.DaBuddaDa said:
And I do think polish is relative, Assassin's Creed or Fallout for example are horrible buggy messes. Yeah GTA4 is far from Virtua Fighter levels of perfection, but they are producing the most polished games of their genre I believe.
Miggytronz
Member
Day 1
Kung Fu Grip
Banned
You have good anger range sir. I would have shot him already.Stumpokapow said:
Anyway, why are people doubting the lenth? The game is from rockstar. All the games they're involved with are long.
I beat red dead in 25 hours. And i think that turd GTA4 took me just as long, if not longer.
Net_Wrecker
Member
DaBuddaDa said:
Disagree completely. There are a HUGE number of issues that can happen every second in an open world game that linear games don't even need to worry about. A game like Red Dead Redemption, GTAIV, Saints Row, Oblivion, Just Cause 2, etc. etc. can never be as polished as something like Super Mario Galaxy under any circumstance so yes, it IS appropriate to use "...for an open world game."
Ickman3400 said:
I don't even understand what you mean by "empty." Did you expect a sprawling metropolis in a Western game? And what other open world game even has those random encounter scenarios that blend seamlessly with everything happening in that world?
ProtoCents
Banned
Why no mention of DLC on XBLA?
Kermit The Dog
Banned
Kintaro said:
what is this i dont even...
Never has a man been so wrong about anything.
Net_Wrecker
Member
DaBuddaDa said:
Meeehhhhh the quote was...
StuBurns said:
...which is pretty much the same thing. For an open world game, they're pretty polished. Does everyone like the decisions Rockstar makes sometimes? No, but I haven't experienced a ton of glitches in anything from Rockstar this gen, made more surprising when you compare them to other open world games doing much less with the physics, and general detail.
I don't want to derail L.A. Noire any further, but the quote wasn't that, it was:Net_Wrecker said:
Rockstar games aren't "polished as fuck," and disagreed that you would call one that. They are polished for an open world game, but that distinction isn't inherent in the statement and wasn't specified in the quote.
Because it's not an arcade game. *Giggles*ProtoCents said:
Maybe Sony has some exclusivity deal with DLC for LA Noire. Perhaps a little push-back from GTA?
Kermit The Dog
Banned
I' seriously baffled by the people who blast through these games in 10 hours.
Where's the fucking fun in that? I've played RDR for more than 50 hours, and I reckon 20 of those was just riding around, admiring the world.
You people sicken me!
Where's the fucking fun in that? I've played RDR for more than 50 hours, and I reckon 20 of those was just riding around, admiring the world.
You people sicken me!
StevePharma
Member
DaBuddaDa said:
OK guys I'm sorry I'm sorry. I guess polished as fuck only applies to Blizzard, Nintendo EAD and the likes. Lets just put Rockstar in the lower "it's good when it's done" quality distinction
ProtoCents said:
Because the original article is from a Playstation centric site.
http://*************************/2011/03/14/l-a-noire-main-story-takes-25-30-hours-to-complete/
EDIT: Looks like it's a banned site
Appollowexx
Member
These games are always less than the length the developer states, it's a ball park figure. With an open world game it's very hard to judge exactly how long it will take a player. I'm guessing if you're taking your time and enjoying the game, then it's probobly quite accurate. If you blast through and effectively speed run from beginning to end then shave off 7-10 hrs.
Why are people in such a rush to burn through their money anyway. Take your time - enjoy, take in the sights.
Why are people in such a rush to burn through their money anyway. Take your time - enjoy, take in the sights.
Angry Fork
Member
It was. I could write a 9 paragraph rant on how weak RDR was and how there's a huge mass dillusion on the internet when it comes to people's dislike of GTA4 and like of RDR. I'm not going to write too much but RDR was massively disappointing.squicken said:
I love the setting, everything about the game before-hand looked great. I bought the game day one and it became the first PS3 game I ever traded in, before Red Dead I never thought about the concept of trading things in. I always got a good amount of enjoyment from my games and replayed them from time to time, but Red Dead was dreadful enough that I didn't even want it sitting in my house anymore, reminding me of what a bad decision I made.
Take out all the buildings, cars, pedestrians, and interesting characters from GTA4, and you've got Red Dead. The combat/movement was very much improved over GTA4 but that means nothing when the rest of the game has so little to do. This game as far as i'm concerned had less to do than GTA4, and GTA4 was as bare bones as you could get. I was thoroughly disappointed because this could've been a Sergio Leone kind of masterpiece and they could've done SO much more I don't even know where to begin, but they just didn't, it was gunfight after gunfight. Terrible.
Red Dead definitely suffers from new IP syndrome, ie Assassins Creed, Infamous, etc. where the first game is often bare bones and doesn't quite have enough things to make it great, but the sequels usually end up vastly improving them. I suspect Red Dead will have an amazing sequel, but the first game is very weak imo.
Anyway in regards to this topic LA Noire looks amazing in every way, and I know Team Bondi is making this, but after Red Dead I'm not sure I can bring myself to do a day one buy 'just incase', fool me once etc. kind of thing. I'm gonna wait until I see another one of the gameplay videos, hopefully detailing the environment/city, this 25-30 hour news definitely has me much more interested in a day one buy though.
Appollowexx said:
For those sort of players i would imagine that they've rented the game and need to go through as quickly as possible. Or they buy a new game complete it and then exchange it asap before it's value goes down.
But their missing out so much by playing like that especially open world games.
But each to their own.
Cheesyhobo
Member
Ugh. Despite getting burned on GTAIV and RDR, I am so tempted to preorder this. I think I'll wait a week after it launches for GAF impressions, to see if the investigation aspect is all it's cracked up to be. I'm sure the actual gunplay will be terrible, but hopefully there will be much less of it than in Rockstar's last two games.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
GTA IV would've had a really good story if it was 20 hours shorter.
... as proven by Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and the Damned which were about 6-8 hours long each and absolutely wonderful stories.
Similarly, RDR went on too long, with the whole Mexico section really dragging the narrative down.
Longer most of the times does not = better and although this may be the exception to the rule, I'm not so sure. Rockstar seem to do their best stories over a short duration, rather tha dragging it out ala GTA IV and RDR.
Still pumped as hell for this game though - I just don't want to come back in a few months and say I wish it was 12 hours shorter.
... as proven by Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and the Damned which were about 6-8 hours long each and absolutely wonderful stories.
Similarly, RDR went on too long, with the whole Mexico section really dragging the narrative down.
Longer most of the times does not = better and although this may be the exception to the rule, I'm not so sure. Rockstar seem to do their best stories over a short duration, rather tha dragging it out ala GTA IV and RDR.
Still pumped as hell for this game though - I just don't want to come back in a few months and say I wish it was 12 hours shorter.
Net_Wrecker
Member
DaBuddaDa said:
I thought you meant the response quote which I was responding to your response to that...*head spins*...in any case, this is an LA Noire thread so w/e.
Angry Fork said:
This nothing to do meme keeps coming up for both RDR and GTA:IV
It had plenty to do. You have to understand that R* with both this game and GTA:IV moved a bulk of it's content to the online mode. If that's not for you. I don't know what to say but it offered plenty of content imo.
Even the SP sidestuff was cool. Take the ambient hunting challenges for instance which became my little obsession for a while the idea of trailing an animal and hunting it. Never got boring for me. Even flower collecting had it's charms.
But go online and it had loads of modes that they had worked on including free roam and others that they've added on over time poker,racing, co-op missions.
Sickboy007
Member
RockmanWhore
Member
Foliorum Viridum said:
I love GTAIV and RDR, but they were indeed too long, I hope the same thing won't happen in LA Noire. I don't get the need to have such a long story in these types of game anyway. They could make the main story last 10-20 hours and put all the other missions as extra stuff, I think GTA IV would have been much better with this kind of structure.
Ickman3400
Banned
Dabanton said:
Free roam was even worse in the game at launch. Me and a group of 8 others all bought it because of free roam, and there was nothing to do except the same 7 or so bandit hideouts over and over, and a few meaningless challenges. At least in GTA 4 we could use the city to create fun, there's not as much opportunity in a giant barren desert. I and 7 of the 8 traded the game in a little more than a week after release (I was the only one to complete and 100% the single player, former achievement whore here)
Net_Wrecker
Member
RockmanWhore said:
So then just change your mindset, what's the difference? If THEY as developers are dropping the main story every once in a while to meet other characters like RDR in Mexico, then treat it as the subplot it is, and think to yourself, "OK, I'll be back to the main plot after John Marston's adventures in Mexico." And even then, there are still many references, or pieces of information dropped along the way that go back to the main plot. I really don't see the problem. In 2011 when every other game seems to be a 5 hour experience, I'm definitely not going to be the one complaining that a game is too long unless it absolutely ruins the experience which in the case of GTAIV and RDR, it didn't.
Ickman3400 said:
Freeroam WAS a HUUGE missed opportunity, I'll agree with you there. I don't know if it's console limitation or what, but they have a chance to do something very big with Free Roam in these games, and really haven't captured that magic yet. The day that the exact world from singleplayer is transferred into multiplayer is the day these games will reach their full potential.
Angry Fork said:
I love the original AC, just like RDR. I thought both games did a great job of world building. They created a place that I wanted to explore. I definitely agree about building out on a sequel. The episodes of GTA4 I think gave the PS2 GTA fans a little bit of what they wanted. And of course AC2 is one of the best games ever made
Kintaro said:
I took "scam" to mean you felt mislead by the length of the game, not the quality. I enjoyed all the little stuff in RDR, but to each is his own
Neuromancer
Member
They need to figure out how to do Free Roam in the city/world as it exists in SP, and not an incredibly stripped down version. It was especially disappointing in GTA4; the city just felt so empty.Net_Wrecker said:
Ickman3400
Banned
Neuromancer said:
Saints Row 2 and 3 can get full co-op to work with 2 people but I don't know if they can go any higher than that. Granted, GTA and RDR are both much better looking and detailed than SR2. There's probably huge memory issues on the consoles to wedge in full support.
Angry Fork
Member
Only in the spiritual sense, it's definitely a new IP considering how different it is from the previous one. I think Rockstar themselves have mentioned this in an interview before i'll try to find it.TheEastonator said:
I honestly don't care much for the death match and generic kind of modes like that. Also I don't have anyone to play online with on consoles, joining a random room via matchmaking with people I don't know is just not fun for me at all. I can't have fun with strangers doing nothing but running around, I have to have some kind of goal, something to do while in multiplayer that isn't killing each other, and I have to do it with people I find interesting/fun like in a clan or whatever who are willing to do things as a team and so on. That just doesn't happen very often though.Dabanton said:
GTA4 for example should've had some kind of a stunt mode online like the PC multiplayer mods did. That could've been so much fun if they placed ramps in various spots and just lots of stunt stuff, but Rockstar didn't do that instead they made a bunch of modes that revolved around shooting people, it's just so boring imo. There's no narrative there's no reason for shooting anyone you just do it, that's why I can't get into MP on games like that. I wish GTA4 or Red Dead had stuff like in Assassins Creed 2 where you could kind of buy a town or area and upgrade it and so on, make it run hire blacksmith and bartenders or whatever and pay them accordingly, if they do a bad job or steal money from you then you can punish them etc. stuff like that. I want them to inject some kind of RPG elements into the game in order to make it feel like they have more substance and unique modes and so on during single player.
You get all this money in GTA4 and Red dead and you can't do anything with it except buy clothes and weapons, but by then you've beaten the game so why would you need either? You can't buy/manage property, you can't buy planes and fly them or just fun/weird stuff like bicycles or something. Also I think they should incorporate whatever you do in single player into the multiplayer, so if you have lots of money there and you do lots of stuff in SP then you're rewarded when you go into multiplayer and then the game can branch out into something more.