Why Did LA Noire Get So much Facial ANimation love??

when something like this preceded it and in my opinion is more impressive...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luYqyrs7lL0

All are great actors by the way... and they have chemistry... but General Flying Fox is sickeningly good

That's a prerendered cutscene, which there is maybe 30 minutes of in Heavenly Sword. 60% of L.A. Noire is dialogue, and much of it is in real time. Also, Rockstar hyped up the facial animation, which made people focus on it more than normal. Also, it looks fantastic, no way around it. It also gets credit because the animation affects the gameplay during interrogation. You can judge emotions, see fear or uneasyness, etc.

That's a prerendered cutscene, which there is maybe 30 minutes of in Heavenly Sword. 60% of L.A. Noire is dialogue, and much of it is in real time. Also, Rockstar hyped up the facial animation, which made people focus on it more than normal. Also, it looks fantastic, no way around it. It also gets credit because the animation affects the gameplay during interrogation. You can judge emotions, see fear or uneasyness, etc.

brickdoctor

Exactly, LA Noir does it in real time. It was over hyped imo. I think the game was a testing ground for Rock Stars future titles. The large open world but nothing to do besides the main story and some side missions. The side missions also had proper facial animation, which limited the number of them due the use of memory of every facial movement. They sacrificed the quanitity of entertianment for qulity. An open world game today must contian things to do other than the main story...Thats where Mafia 2 failed

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

That's a prerendered cutscene, which there is maybe 30 minutes of in Heavenly Sword. 60% of L.A. Noire is dialogue, and much of it is in real time. Also, Rockstar hyped up the facial animation, which made people focus on it more than normal. Also, it looks fantastic, no way around it. It also gets credit because the animation affects the gameplay during interrogation. You can judge emotions, see fear or uneasyness, etc.

moej88

Exactly, LA Noir does it in real time. It was over hyped imo. I think the game was a testing ground for Rock Stars future titles. The large open world but nothing to do besides the main story and some side missions. The side missions also had proper facial animation, which limited the number of them due the use of memory of every facial movement. They sacrificed the quanitity of entertianment for qulity. An open world game today must contian things to do other than the main story...Thats where Mafia 2 failed

I actually think Mafia II and L.A. Noire did a great job with their open world. Niether game wanted to have a big sandbox environment with lots to do and plenty of side missions and optional activities. Both games used their open worlds purely for the story, since both are extremely story heavy games. They wanted to have the world which the story is set in be believable. It just felt real, felt authentic. It made you believe that the story was actually taking place in Los Angeles or Empire City, not a series of corridors with an urban backdrop. Mafia II's world felt like a Norman Rockwell painting, and that did wonders for the game in my opinion.

[QUOTE="moej88"]

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

That's a prerendered cutscene, which there is maybe 30 minutes of in Heavenly Sword. 60% of L.A. Noire is dialogue, and much of it is in real time. Also, Rockstar hyped up the facial animation, which made people focus on it more than normal. Also, it looks fantastic, no way around it. It also gets credit because the animation affects the gameplay during interrogation. You can judge emotions, see fear or uneasyness, etc.

brickdoctor

Exactly, LA Noir does it in real time. It was over hyped imo. I think the game was a testing ground for Rock Stars future titles. The large open world but nothing to do besides the main story and some side missions. The side missions also had proper facial animation, which limited the number of them due the use of memory of every facial movement. They sacrificed the quanitity of entertianment for qulity. An open world game today must contian things to do other than the main story...Thats where Mafia 2 failed

I actually think Mafia II and L.A. Noire did a great job with their open world. Niether game wanted to have a big sandbox environment with lots to do and plenty of side missions and optional activities. Both games used their open worlds purely for the story, since both are extremely story heavy games. They wanted to have the world which the story is set in be believable. It just felt real, felt authentic. It made you believe that the story was actually taking place in Los Angeles or Empire City, not a series of corridors with an urban backdrop. Mafia II's world felt like a Norman Rockwell painting, and that did wonders for the game in my opinion.

The problem is, however, that in both games we have these huge, wonderful worlds to explore and no real reason to explore them.

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

[QUOTE="moej88"]

Exactly, LA Noir does it in real time. It was over hyped imo. I think the game was a testing ground for Rock Stars future titles. The large open world but nothing to do besides the main story and some side missions. The side missions also had proper facial animation, which limited the number of them due the use of memory of every facial movement. They sacrificed the quanitity of entertianment for qulity. An open world game today must contian things to do other than the main story...Thats where Mafia 2 failed

worlock77

I actually think Mafia II and L.A. Noire did a great job with their open world. Niether game wanted to have a big sandbox environment with lots to do and plenty of side missions and optional activities. Both games used their open worlds purely for the story, since both are extremely story heavy games. They wanted to have the world which the story is set in be believable. It just felt real, felt authentic. It made you believe that the story was actually taking place in Los Angeles or Empire City, not a series of corridors with an urban backdrop. Mafia II's world felt like a Norman Rockwell painting, and that did wonders for the game in my opinion.

The problem is, however, that in both games we have these huge, wonderful worlds to explore and no real reason to explore them.

Once again, they're not there for exploring. We have games like Fallout 3 for that. They're a setting, and not to be taken as anything else.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

I actually think Mafia II and L.A. Noire did a great job with their open world. Niether game wanted to have a big sandbox environment with lots to do and plenty of side missions and optional activities. Both games used their open worlds purely for the story, since both are extremely story heavy games. They wanted to have the world which the story is set in be believable. It just felt real, felt authentic. It made you believe that the story was actually taking place in Los Angeles or Empire City, not a series of corridors with an urban backdrop. Mafia II's world felt like a Norman Rockwell painting, and that did wonders for the game in my opinion.

brickdoctor

The problem is, however, that in both games we have these huge, wonderful worlds to explore and no real reason to explore them.

Once again, they're not there for exploring. We have games like Fallout 3 for that. They're a setting, and not to be taken as anything else.

Agreed. "MAFIA II" and "LA" were very immersive, the driving and all of that was meant to just keep you in the story as apposed to load screens, etc. and to me, there was just right amounts of side stuff without making me feel overwhelmed with options (like "Just Cause 2" or "Red Dead" made me feel).

I don't have a ton of time to myself to play some of these sandbox games... I like to feel like I'm accomplishing things and not getting sucked into a game for four months in order to complete it and move on. I know I'm in the minority, so save the flaming. You play what you like, and I will continue to appreciate what I like in a game. I'm glad to have titles like "MAFIA II" and "LA".

:)

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

I actually think Mafia II and L.A. Noire did a great job with their open world. Niether game wanted to have a big sandbox environment with lots to do and plenty of side missions and optional activities. Both games used their open worlds purely for the story, since both are extremely story heavy games. They wanted to have the world which the story is set in be believable. It just felt real, felt authentic. It made you believe that the story was actually taking place in Los Angeles or Empire City, not a series of corridors with an urban backdrop. Mafia II's world felt like a Norman Rockwell painting, and that did wonders for the game in my opinion.

brickdoctor

The problem is, however, that in both games we have these huge, wonderful worlds to explore and no real reason to explore them.

Once again, they're not there for exploring. We have games like Fallout 3 for that. They're a setting, and not to be taken as anything else.

Right I get that, and yet it does not change my opinion. It's a waste of the game world they created.

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The problem is, however, that in both games we have these huge, wonderful worlds to explore and no real reason to explore them.

worlock77

Once again, they're not there for exploring. We have games like Fallout 3 for that. They're a setting, and not to be taken as anything else.

Right I get that, and yet it does not change my opinion. It's a waste of the game world they created.

Exactly, Mafia 2 had a buitiful city and the interactions were amazing. Having the content of a God Father Game would have benfited the game. Controlling areas, extorting money and etc.

L.A was phenomenal but after I finsished the game...I never touched it. Selling it is worthless, but I still pop Just Cause 2 every once ina while to fly around, control areas, complete races and etc.

In Mafia 2 and L.A they have created a world that u barely see anything from because ur jumping from Point A to Point B to complete the story.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

Once again, they're not there for exploring. We have games like Fallout 3 for that. They're a setting, and not to be taken as anything else.

moej88

Right I get that, and yet it does not change my opinion. It's a waste of the game world they created.

Exactly, Mafia 2 had a buitiful city and the interactions were amazing. Having the content of a God Father Game would have benfited the game. Controlling areas, extorting money and etc.

L.A was phenomenal but after I finsished the game...I never touched it. Selling it is worthless, but I still pop Just Cause 2 every once ina while to fly around, control areas, complete races and etc.

In Mafia 2 and L.A they have created a world that u barely see anything from because ur jumping from Point A to Point B to complete the story.

Yup. All the painstaking detail, all these real landmarks, this wonderfully recreated snapshot of that city in that time period, and you don't really get to take it in because you're ether at a crime scene/interview or in your car focused on not hitting any other cars as you move from one crime scene/interview to the next.