L.A. Noire: What It Could Mean On PC

Dammit, Sergeant! PC gaming is *dead*, and I mean to find out who's responsible!
So what should PC gamers expect from L.A. Noire? Well, for a start they should expect a strange hybrid of a point adventure game, a GTA-free roaming driving game with on-foot pursuits and shoot-outs, all hung on an arduous, sometimes perplexing interrogation game. But what else? And what could be fixed? What should be fixed? And what about Red Dead Redemption?

There’s lots of things to think about.

L.A. Noire is a fascinating game in many ways. L.A. Noire is a flawed game in many ways. It is, of course, ideal fodder for the PC, as all Rockstar’s games are. They are, after all – with their living cities and hybridised action sequences – based on a legacy of PC gaming design ideals that has given the past two console generations the life and depth that have made them so popular. What’s remarkable about L.A. Noire, however, is that it seems to be roughly based on quite another PC genre: point-and-click adventures.

L.A. Noire is a procedural police drama set in the 1940s. The lead character, as in most of the recent Rockstar games, is a man with a past – a war hero who wants to see his police career unfold by the book. Needless to say, things don’t go entirely according to plan for the poor fella, and it’s down to your to plod him through an unsettling tale of criminal and emotional adventures in the Californian city.

Anyway, such context is beside the point, what’s important is that much of what you do in L.A. Noire is wander around crime scenes, waiting for the vibration of your gamepad. Quite how this will be articulated in the PC version, I’m not sure, but presumably it’ll need a new visual cue for the feedback-free mouse-keyboard population as they fail to vibrate over the evidence of bloodied bodies, discarded murder weapons, and irrelevant period beer bottles. The solution shouldn’t too difficult, of course, because these sequences are remarkably similar to point-and-click games of decades past where you are asked to search a pre-rendered scene for clues. Think Police Quest in super hi-fidelity graphics, and you’re (more than) half way there. The only real difference here is that you get to walk around a bit, and can go up to your crime-fighting chum to shrug in real-time 3D space.

So far, so re-imagined, but the bit which is challenging for most people is the interrogation. This sees you sit down with a suspect and ask them questions. The issue with this is that you actually don’t ask them questions, at least not as you might in an RPG, but instead pick from an initial list and try to guess the logic of what follows. Your character asks something, and then you get to decide whether the response to it was a truth, or a lie, or whether it should be “doubted”. The distinction between what is a lie and what happens if you doubt the answer isn’t made clear, but it actually resides in what evidence you have. If something is a lie and you can prove so because of the clues you’ve previous collected, then your cross-examination is a success. If you pick the wrong clue, or they’re not lying at all, then you just seem incoherent.

Essentially what this means is that the game plays out near-perfectly if you get everything right. The cases make total sense, you get your man, and everything functions in a clockwork fashion. What the game struggles with is making your failure to pick up things cohere with what must happen for the case to resolve in one of a couple of predefined ways. Hell, Phoenix Wright’s cross-examinations run more logically.

I don’t expect the PC version will be able to fix any of this stuff, but perhaps elements of it can be tweaked so that the weaker cases, and the few loopholes where you either know something and can’t get at it in an interrogation, or where you don’t know something, but it comes up in the game in anyway, are smoothed over.

There are some things that the PC pass can do, however. L.A. Noire on the 360 rather does show the limitations of the hardware. The city is bustling, but remarkably low-res, and lacking in too much detail. It’s also remarkably boring. I mean, I know a lot of people would say that’s an accurate portrayal of 1940s LA, but accurate isn’t want gets the juices of the imagination flowing. We want atmosphere, and for the large part that’s not really delivered. The tech is occasionally breath-taking (those faces!) and often lumpenly average (the bodies they’re attached to!)

The level of detail scaling that made GTA4 possible even seems somehow less artfully dealt with in L.A. Noire, so perhaps a fresh pass on the graphics might spruce things up for PC. GTA4 was notoriously demanding on its PC specs, too, for various “technical” reasons, and, despite some work after release, it really only ever played brilliantly on high spec PCs. Hopefully the same won’t be true of L.A. Noire, but then PC specs are on the whole a little higher anyway, and this isn’t a game that makes enormous demands of pixel-shifting in the first place. If it doesn’t run okay on the average PC, then something’s definitely amiss at Cops ‘n Robbers HQ.

There’s also the Social Club stuff. While L.A. Noire seems less attuned to hijinks than GTA4, I suspect there’s still something in the whole movie sharing aspect of the game that could be tailored to this. Even more crucial to continued interested could be some – any! – official attention given to modding. A few bits and pieces turned up for GTA4, but as any number of people have mentioned, the scope for mods that L.A.Noire provides could be fascinating or even hilarious. That said, you’d need a state of the art motion-capture studio on your mod team if you intended to get those interrogation and dialogue scenes into your total conversion. Any modding will be to the outfits, the sprawling city, and the vehicles.

So to a more serious and crucial question for many of us: does the appearance of L.A. Noire on PC give hope the Red Dead Redemption – arguably the best of Rockstar’s past few years’ output – might make it to PC? I think not. It seems to me that these decisions are made a long time in advance, on the requirements of particular company financials, and on the basis of which studios are free to work on a fairly significant porting and re-optimising project at any one time. I suspect that this, as a project, is actually an easier one to deal with in terms of porting than RDR would have been. Whatever the reality of that stuff, the real decider is money: L.A. Noire might simply be on PC because of financial need.

It’s a shame. Red Dead Redemption is the most PC-spirited game I have played on a console. I’m amazed – genuinely amazed – and a little saddened that it has never found its way to our platform. Hopefully some benevolent spirit of game development will see to it that my judgements are wrong, but I don’t ever expect to see that game on my desktop.

Oh, and I suppose there’s no way to genuinely address that L.A. Noire essential misses out on many of the great Noir tropes of the past that its title appeals to (this is just a cop game set in the 1940s) but it could perhaps play with some lighting filters, throw in some Noirish shaders, just for the hell of it. As Comrade Cobbett points out, just enable a monochrome option does not a Noir experience make…


  1. Inigo says:

    And maybe we’ll all be able to flap our arms and fly to the moon.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      What are you actually objecting to there?

    • Inigo says:

      It took Rockstar 2 or 3 games to get the GTA 3 engine working right, GTA IV was a wreck and since LA Noire uses yet another engine I’m not holding out much hope for even a halfway decent port.

    • Quinnbeast says:

      GTA III looked and worked just fine out of the box for me.

      GTA 4 looked and worked just fine out of the box for me.

      Did I miss something?

    • Jeremy says:

      Yeah, GTA4 had quite a few issues for a lot of people.

    • Decimae says:

      I thought that LA Noire used the GTA IV engine.

    • woodsey says:

      “GTA 4 looked and worked just fine out of the box for me.

      Did I miss something?”

      The bit where you aren’t everyone? It was an atrocious port for the very vast majority.

    • UnravThreads says:

      @Decimae I don’t think it does. I’m pretty sure it’s on a Team Bondi in-house engine.

    • The_B says:

      Decimae – as much as many (including myself originally) thought it was the GTA4 engine as it’s remarkably similar, it is in fact, an entirely new engine created by Bondi themselves.

    • Pointless Puppies says:


      I do wonder about the people who keep saying GTA IV was “fine”. Under what standard? Out of the box, were you getting a solid 60 FPS? Were you able to turn draw distance to a reasonable value? Were you able to get anti-aliasing (which I know for a fact is impossible unless you use downscaling AA using ENBSeries)? Were you able to start the game without going through two different and equally contrived DRM schemes?

      “Fine” is a word with an extremely loose definition. Yes, you COULD say a game stuck in 20 FPS with no AA and graphics microscopically better than on console hardware is playable, hence “fine”, but do remember the PC gamer isn’t looking for that definition of “fine” at all. So please, don’t say it’s “fine” just because it runs, as if to dismiss other people’s claims that the game didn’t run nearly as well as they expected it to.

    • Baboonanza says:

      Gta4 was one of only 2 games I have ever encountered that I couldn’t play in 17 years of PC gaming. On a pc that had no problem running crysis. I’m glad it worked for some people but it really was a shit port.

    • Quinnbeast says:

      So it seems! They’re pretty angry about it too. Thanks for the straight answer.

      @Pointless Puppies
      If you’re going to get huffy about the use of the word “fine”, then you may wish to set some ground rules for “reasonable” when it comes to draw distance too. To answer your questions in order – my own (shurely it’s the only one that should really concern me), I’m not too bothered about OMGWTF fps so long as they’re stable and reasonably (that word again) smooth, yes, I guess not, and yes. I must have lower standards than most.

      When I asked “did I miss something?”, it was a genuine question. I didn’t realise it was such a raw nerve for so many people. I shall now return to my rock – I dare not oppose the angry masses any longer.

    • DigitalSignalX says:

      Does this mean “Wet” is a Bethesda game? I want that on PC almost as much as I do Red Dead Redemption. Also likely to never happen.

    • drewski says:

      GTA IV was “fine” for me on PC in that it worked and I enjoyed playing it.

      If you want to masturbate to graphics settings, that’s fine, but I think you’ll find the “vast majority” of people that are claimed to have found it to be a horrible port were probably spending too much time actually enjoying it to really notice.

      The vast majority of whiny internet messageboard posters, on the other hand…

    • Quinnbeast says:

      Indeed. If you have even a vague interest, the total number of copies shifted compared to the total number of complaints would suggest most people simply played the game without comment.

    • Dhatz says:

      gta 3 games had ridiculously obsolete engines and looked worse on pc, that is what i call fail. While IV had awesome engine and got performance in patches and episodes.

  2. Bhazor says:

    For the love of…

    It isn’t a Rockstar game. They’re just publishing it.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      And providing the tech, and producing, and directing the script? It’s a Rockstar game.

    • Bhazor says:

      Well that’s the first I’ve heard about Rockstar writing the script. If it’s true I apologise but according to the credits it was written and directed by Brendan McNamara, founder of Team Bondi.

      If it’s a Rockstar game based purely on their being a producer and providing an engine would you call Arkham Asylum an Epic game?

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Written, yes. And your analogy doesn’t stand up. I would call Bulletstorm an Epic game, as much as I am calling this a Rockstar one.

    • Kadayi says:

      Have to say Jim, Bhazor is right. It’s principally a Team Bondi game, with Rockstar being the publishers/helping hand.

      link to lanoirecredits.com

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      For Christ’s sake. *Obviously* I am not denying Team Bondi developed it.

      The point is: what is inaccurate about describing it as a Rockstar game? It’s absolutely Rockstar canon, with Rockstar producers calling a lot of the shots, and Rockstar tech underwriting the whole thing, and Rockstar publishing.

      It is a Rockstar game, developed by Team Bondi.

      So a Rockstar game.

    • Bhazor says:

      I just think credit (and blame) where its due and you and many other reviewers/journalists don’t even mention Team Bondi when talking about it.

    • Fwiffo says:

      Dohoho. even Jim isn’t above getting into an Internet Argument.

      This has both made my day and ruined all the preconceptions I had of the RPS folk being ivory clad PC journogods.

    • fluffy says:

      I have to say Jim is right. The Rockstar branding seems to confuse people a whole lot with the studios and production arm using the same name. Nobody is taking away the fact that Rockstar North makes GTA or that Rockstar San Diego makes Midnight club and RDR, just like Team Bondi made LA Noire. Rockstar Games stands for a certain kind of polish and storytelling and/or edgyness which is certainly the case with LA Noire. Without these qualities it would just have been published under the 2k Games label, like Mafia 2.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      @Fwiffo – you obviously don’t read enough RPS comment threads.

    • outoffeelinsobad says:

      Maybe they just get sick of the pedantry that goes on after every single article? And feel the need to defend themselves once in a while?

    • Monkey says:

      In Jim’s defence, i think in this piece he is referring to the bigger Rockstar beast, ultimately leading to everyone’s question, what about flipping Red Dead?!

    • UnravThreads says:

      @Jim That’s because Bulletstorm was completely an Epic game. People Can Fly are owned by Epic Games. Team Bondi aren’t owned by Rockstar, so it’s a different kettle of fish. The correct analogy would be like saying that Bulletstorm is an EA game simply because they published and likely had a hand in it.

    • mondomau says:

      Teambondi working on the development is not really relevant to the points Jim is making, he’s addressing the technology it’s based on (rockstar’s), the design decisions (made by Rockstar) and how it fits into the wider trend of sandbox games published by the same company (Rockstar!).

      The only reason to throw a hissy fit over the exclusion of Team Bondi’s name is if you are
      A.) a hopeless pedant.
      B.) a crusading keyboard warrior brimming over with righteous indignation over the ‘omitted credits’ scandal earlier in the year.

      Either way, you’ve cluttered up the first third of the comments section with pointless and inconsequential bickering. Well done.

      (I am aware of the hypocrisy.)

    • Navagon says:

      “So a Rockstar game.”

      I wonder how the new anal probe DRM is going to go down?

      Or rather up.

    • Monkey says:

      In Mortal Kombat voice – * Navagon wins *

    • WoundedBum says:

      So to clarify…is or isn’t this on Rockstar tech? The last I heard the engine was made by Team Bondi, not on Rockstar’s RAGE engine.

    • Bhazor says:

      Well I think the facial technology was done by Rockstar (I know they directed the mo-cap) but the rest is by Team Bondi.

      “Team Bondi’s L.A. Noire is one of the most ambitious Rockstar titles to date, featuring a massive open world and a groundbreaking animation system. It’s also one of the first Rockstar titles in some time that doesn’t use Rockstar’s RAGE engine, rather Team Bondi’s proprietary engine.”

      link to gameinformer.com

    • The_B says:

      Actually guys, the Facial Animation is Bondi’s sister studio, not Rockstar. However, Rockstar did have a big hand in developing the game too. The credits for the game in the manual – while incomplete – do credit various Rockstar studios supplying AI Programmers, Technical Directors, Tools Programming, Cut Scene Animators, UI Graphics Directors on top of members of the Rockstar ‘RAGE TECHNOLOGY GROUP’ – so to say it’s wholly either of them is entirely erroneous and pointless, as it seems they all had a hand in development duties, not just publishing and testing ones.

      And this PC version is being developed by Rockstar Leeds according to the press release. So again, implying Rockstar aren’t doing any development duties is wrong. Sam Houser is credited as Executive Producer. It’s a game wearing the Rockstar banner as a ‘Rockstar game’ developed as Team Bondi with help from Rockstar.

      tl;dr – Everybody’s right, including Jim.

    • T.K. Rose says:

      Hi, ex-Team Bondi developer here, hoping to shed a bit of light on the game’s development.

      1) L.A. Noire is built entirely on an in-house engine here in Sydney – the same goes for the MotionScan facial animation tech. L.A. Noire does not run on Rockstar’s RAGE engine.

      2) Team Bondi is an independent developer that isn’t under the umbrella of Rockstar Games’ studios. The creative vision and main bulk of the game was developed by Team Bondi – it is very much a Team Bondi game.

      However, Rockstar’s relationship with Team Bondi was definitely more involved than a typical publisher’s “We handle the press, marketing, logistics and money; you devs handle all that game-making guff”.

      The game was regularly reviewed by the Housers and other top Rockstar development heads; we had Rockstar staff on board at our studio towards the final stretch; Rockstar Leeds took care of the Street Crime mini-cases as well as providing code support for things like the population system and public transport system, amongst many other elements. Rockstar’s cinematics team helped out with the shooting the actors in LA. As mentioned on the lanoirecredits.com website, QA duties were handled by Rockstar’s many QA departments after the internal team at Team Bondi were let go.

      It would not be incorrect to claim that Rockstar’s mark is quite prevalent throughout the game.

    • Kadayi says:

      Rockstar Leeds are porting it. That’s not quite the same thing as develop tbh.
      Also yes personally I do think it’s important give credit, where credit is due. Fact of the matter is Team Bondi came up with the original concept of the game. Regardless of how much Rockstar may or may not have brought to the table in terms of money and technical investment (which is up for debate), the core DNA of the title inherently belongs to Team Bondi. Rockstar own the IP of Max Payne, but no one omits Remedy from the equation when discussing it as a franchise.

      Thanks for the clarification TK Rose. I wonder if mondomau is going to round you out for being a pedant though (the ultimate crime apparently). Heaven forbid anyone dare question another persons opinion.

  3. cairbre says:

    I enjoy rockstar games but they do seem very console focused as a company. I think they can’t be properly arsed but that might change if this game does well on steam but please no GFW or that social club nonsense I am not interest it signing up for yet another gaming ‘social’ platform.

  4. johnpeat says:

    I honestly think the only reason we’re seeing LA Noire is that it didn’t hit their sales targets so they’re scrambling to spread their losses.

    RDR did and so it’s far less likely to happen.

    Historically, GTA games (3 onwards) have been poor on PC anyway – I’m not sure why people care so much – esp for games designed with consoles in mind in the first place!?

    • Pointless Puppies says:

      Especially Rockstar games above all. Every single one of their games in recent memory has had a pretty bad port on the PC.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      That sounds about right to me.

      It’s amazing to me that game companies are willing to spend so much money developing and advertising these games that “only” 4 million sales is considered a minor disaster. Not a very smart use of resources there, guys.

    • skinlo says:

      GTA SA worked great! Although I did get it 2 years after it came out, so maybe I had the computer power to blast through any performance problems.

    • nofing says:

      What? Why would a company do that? Sure, the share holders want them to waste more money on porting a game, that didn’t sell well in the first place, instead of laying off the developers that won’t generate enough profit for them…. yeah sure…
      The only reason for them to do a port is, when it can be done fairly easily and the original game sold well enough, so they expect good sales on the PC as well.

      I think the chances for a Read Dead Redemption port are almost 0, because even if they did a port, would anyone still pay full price for a game that is already more than a year old? Not in these times, where a game is already half price after less than a month.

      Oh and yes the GTA ports were bad, but that doesn’t mean that all console ports are automatically bad. I’m really sick of all this “consoles are the reason for shitty games” nonsense. It’s not the consoles fault, it’s only the publishers fault, that don’t want to take any risks and only make games for the broadest audience possible.

    • Zelius says:

      I think it’s all a lot simpler than the above. My guess is, they’ve tried to port the RAGE engine before, which didn’t work out very well. Red Dead Redemption uses the RAGE engine, just as GTA IV and its episodes did, so they don’t want to go through the hassle of trying to optimise it yet again. L.A. Noire does not use the RAGE engine, and likely uses one that is more easily ported.

      It’s probably as simple as that.

    • Bluestar says:

      “Historically, GTA games (3 onwards) have been poor on PC anyway – I’m not sure why people care so much – esp for games designed with consoles in mind in the first place!?”

      Sorry but that’s just not true. Well except for GTA 4 which was fine after it was eventually patched.

    • noodlecake says:

      It sold really well in Britain. I don’t see why people care so much either. If you can afford a PC that can run games with nice looking modern graphics then surely you can afford an XBox 360. They’re a fraction of the price of a gaming PC. If you care about gaming that much then you may as well own a console too.

  5. Kadayi says:

    You’re probably right about RDR Jim, but I must admit I find the whole notion of a company eschewing a likely couple of million units sales in this day and age kind of bizarre tbh. Sure porting RDR might be a technical challenge, but with all the game assets already in place I wouldn’t of thought the pain would of been so severe as to make it an unprofitable venture.

    • Bhazor says:

      Especially now that PC piracy/sales won’t affect console performance this long after the fact. It might actually be a good way to reduce the number of second hand sales now that it’s no longer available new in shops.

      I think one issue that maybe holding it back was RDR’s focus on multiplayer and co-op. Something that didn’t go down to well in GTA 4’s PC release.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I for one would buy RDR again on pc even though I already own it on Xbox. I would love to see it in a high resolution with fancy shiny graphics.

  6. Po0py says:

    I will hold off the 360 version and give this a spin when it comes out on PC. If only to support the idea of more Rockstar games on PC. Seriously, what the hell were they thinking not putting RDR on PC?

  7. kwyjibo says:

    I posted this on the Sunday Papers thread, but their site went kaputt.

    Tom Bissell has interesting things to say about LA Noire – link to grantland.com

    • Beren says:

      Thanks for the link.

      That’s one of the better reviews of a videogame I’ve read.

      I have his book waiting for me in one of the piles around the house…. hmmmm.

    • LionsPhil says:

      interesting how it’s framed in the context of giving up games forever.

      while playing through the rest of L.A. Noire the following question was never far from my mind: How big of a problem is it that players can effectively screw up video-game stories?

      But I’m not sure that the mindset for philosophical navel-gazing is the best one to be playing a driving-shoot-bangs game in.

  8. Wulf says:

    I’m a big fan of noir and this is about a noir game as much as Super Mario Bros is a dissertation on gender equality. I’ve been a fan of games that appeal to the noir genre too, and Tex Murphy did so, so much of a better job than this. In fact, I urge anyone who hasn’t played a Tex Murphy game in their life to simply forget this exists and hop on over to GoG.com instead, to pick up the Tex Murphy catalogue of games. Especially wonderful was the Pandora Directive.

    I wouldn’t have been more apathetic and less mildly morose toward this game really had they left the ‘Noire’ off of the title. It’s just an old cop story, I can’t see anything ‘Noire’ about it. And besides, the best Noire was always, always about private investigators. Even Penny Arcade knew this with their Automata comic.

    None of Tex Murphy’s charm, none of the atmosphere or the more fantastic elements of those games, along with inferior game mechanics… what does this game have over Tex Murphy? Graphics? I’ve never bought a game for the graphics of it in m’life. Art direction, yes, but not graphics.

    • Wulf says:

      I will say, however, that I’m very much interested in and would very much like an RDR port.

    • DiamondDog says:

      They really shouldn’t of called it LA Noire, but I don’t think that should put you off trying it. It’s flawed certainly, but I’m still finding myself enjoying it in parts. I suppose it’s down to value for money, you might feel forking out for an OK game would be a waste.

      Red Dead is kind of just GTA4 with cowboys, in the way that the open world is limited and the story used to push you through it is the usual Rockstar nonsense. Which I’m fine with, I don’t mind a trashy story if it’s entertaining. Just don’t think it’s The Searchers or anything.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Have you not played the game then Wulf? That may explain your slightly humourous statement I can’t comment on because of spoilers.

      Having played it through I would agree it’s not a particularly good game. But it is very atmospheric, and has fantastic art direction.

    • Lilliput King says:

      Aren’t the graphics in this’un doing that face thing that couldn’t otherwise be done? Dunno how successful it is in that regard having not played it, but it seems to be the one thing everyone mentions when talking about the game.

  9. bowl of snakes says:

    Not sure why they didnt call “Lie” “Disprove”, and with the “Doubt” part, I wish they indicated what he was about to say somehow, it was unintentionally hilarious when you’d want to doubt an aspect of the story, and the guy starts pounding on the table “We’re gonna toss you behind bars you commie dirtbag!”

  10. westyfield says:

    This article has plenty of fine hats. I approve.

  11. Teddy Leach says:


    • Kaira- says:

      He does sound rather doubting, doesn’t he?

    • Teddy Leach says:

      He is the best, most subtle cop ever.

    • westyfield says:


    • Bhazor says:

      I’m hoping to play it through using no other option but lie. I just like the idea of playing someone who instantly accuses everyone of murder when they first meet.

      Seeing as what you do doesn’t effect the investigation it should be possible to finish the game that way.

  12. Tyshalle says:

    I found the game to be incredibly boring. I’m normally very good about reading people, but most of the time I found things to be pretty arbitrary when it comes to reading people’s facial expressions. Or maybe it was just the fact that the difference between “doubt” and “lie” is as big as the difference between “truth” and “lie”. But for the most part I didn’t feel like a detective at all. You’d walk around, pick up the various clues they left for you, and if it had anything to do with the crime it would let you know, if it didn’t, it would let you know. And there were several times I had personally figured out what was going on long before my character did, but there was nothing I could do except go through the motions.

    Very unimpressed.

  13. kwyjibo says:

    It’s a Rockstar game, so I’ll probably be able to get it on Steam.

    But it’ll still come with SecuROM.

    And I’ll have to install Games for Windows.

    And then I’ll have to install Rockstar Social.

    Console it is then.

    • LionsPhil says:

      That was pretty much my thinking when GTA4 was something like the price of a pint of battery acid down the pub on Steam.

      Except I don’t have a console so I gave them no money at all.

  14. CaspianRoach says:

    I’m not listening, I’m not listening, la la la, la-la-la, not gonna spoil the game experience for me, crafty RPS!

  15. TormDK says:

    Could someone inform me as to why we would care if it came to PC or not? I’m confused.

    • Salt says:

      If it comes to PC, then people who have a PC which meets certain technical requirements can play it on that PC.

      Why should we care, when faced with the seemingly insurmountable problems of the world I cannot answer. Why are we here, reading a website about PC games? It’s all a terrifying mystery.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Because gamers are bad people, who squander time on fun and frivolity while elsewhere in the world starving children with cholera try to suck moisture from rusty barbed wire.

  16. glix says:

    I am really crossing my fingers about RDR, I’ve been wanting to play it for ages, even after getting spoiled for the game.

  17. Iucounu says:

    What would go a long way toward fixing the interrogations would be being able to see what Cole is going to say for each option – the way Bioware used to do it. That way it would feel less like poking random areas of his brain and hoping for the best.

  18. Forceflow says:

    Here’s +1 hoping the tech scales better on PC than the GTA 4 engine.

  19. michaelkelleherthename says:

    Yes! RDR please. Look forward to trying L.A. Noir also. But RDR pleeease.

  20. empath says:

    IMO, the fix for the interrogation is dead simple. Keep all the same options, but give a hint of what specifically you are going to accuse them of lying about.

  21. WhatGravitas says:

    RDR becomes way too easy on pc. It’s just plain easier to point and click on all the cowpoke heads than to fumble with your controller in slow-mo.

    Does RPS need a proof reader? I’m cheap and have too much spare time…

  22. Olivaw says:

    I actually don’t know what the final line in this article is referring to.

    It couldn’t possibly be that the black and white option in LA Noire is lacking, because for someone to even think that would be crazy.

    That game looks fucking incredible in black and white, and has fantastic lighting.

    • Richard Cobbett says:

      It doesn’t and it doesn’t.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      I don’t see where the misunderstanding is coming from. Black and white is great and all, but it doesn’t mean the game bears much resemblance to film noir — something I hadn’t heard, since I don’t usually follow non-PC games. But now that I have heard it, I’m less excited for this port.

    • Olivaw says:

      The black and white filter doesn’t just remove contrast, it affects the lighting and the bloom and numerous other factors in the game to make it look like an actual black and white film.

      It looks absolutely drop dead gorgeous in this mode, and despite the fact that most of the game takes place during the day, it still looks like film noir.

      I really don’t know what’s wrong with it at all!

    • thebigJ_A says:


      Play it in B+W, very noirish. And so is the story, btw, once things get interesting in the middle.

  23. VelvetFistIronGlove says:

    An offshoot of point and click adventures.

    Set in a 3D world, which you walk around, collecting evidence.

    And you have to interrogate suspects, asking questions from your notebook, and try to prove they’re lying.

    In a noir setting.

    It’s Discworld Noir! There’s an LP here, if you want to see it in action.

    • Bhazor says:

      I haven’t seen a single review which mentions they copied the notebook mechanic from Discworld Noir.

      Probably my second favourite adventure game of all time but then I’m a sucker for Discworld .

    • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

      Well, you could just as well say that Discworld Noir copied it from Laura Bow.

    • Teddy Leach says:

      Oh my goggly aunt, that’s splendid.

    • Bhazor says:

      Well I guess you could argue Ultima and the Exile RPGs had a similar system where you could ask anyone anything through a parser. But whoever did it first was not LA Noire and I’d argue Discworld Noir is the the most famous predecessor to use the system.

      On a side note, yes Discworld Noir is splendid and is probably my most wanted GOG game.

  24. Wilfred says:

    I hope Red Dead Redemption turns up in the next year or else I expect a lot of PC players wont forgive Rockstar for its absence. Out of the two games I’d choose Red Dead Redemption over LA Noire and I expect a lot of PC gamers including Jim would make that call.

  25. Temple says:

    So did anyone like Gun on the pc -played on ps2 and liked it. Saw it again recently and had the urge to buy, so PS2 or pc?

  26. Wayward says:

    I’m not sure that the possibility of RDR is worth getting that excited about. Like GTAIV, it has a wonderfully designed and atmospheric world and some excellent writing, but like GTAIV I thought that it often failed to be a fun game.

    The horseriding, particularly enforced mission rides while listening to exposition, becomes deeply tedious. Combat consists of a snap autoaim supplemented by plentiful supplies of slow motion and healing medicine. Side-game tasks like cattle herding are mind-numbing. Yes, it all adds to the atmosphere to begin with, but by the time I’d reached the second phase of the game I wished I’d hit the ending. Trudging through the rest, particularly the nonsensical and unpleasant second act, is like munching nails.

    And the aggravating linearity of Rockstar mission design templates HAS TO GO. I am so sick of the Simon-says mission design that strait-jackets any invention; or bends the rules to make people immortal to a scripted point, or forces you to kill someone you should be able to to disarm.

    I don’t think it’s a bad game, but it’s not a great one either. It’s an atmospheric curio for Western-lovers.

  27. FieldOfTheBattle says:

    The more people buy L.A. Noire (especially on Steam) the more likely is the Red Dead Redemption port.

  28. Rii says:

    Read Dead Redemption is the only Rockstar game I’ve ever been even vaguely interested in, so it stands to reason that I’ll never have the chance to play it.

  29. Jimbo says:

    Think Police Quest after a bad case of Death by Console and you’re more than half way there. Beneath the surface, the game design underpinning LA Noire has very little in common with the game design underpinning old adventure games like PQ.

    PQ = Figure out for yourself how to proceed.

    LA Noire = We’ll lead you around by the nose, then either pat you on the head or chastise you based on whether or not you managed to correctly decipher our unnecessarily ambigous UI. ‘Haha no that wasn’t the arbitrarily correct approach! *CROSS!*’ It JUST stops short of having the Family Fortunes sound when you get something wrong too. Not that you sucking will stop the game progressing of course, you’re only a passenger on this ride.

    I loved PQ, whereas LA Noire just made me want to remove the disk and go find a burning train to throw it under.

  30. FunkyBadger3 says:

    LaBlack’s a flawed stab at greatness – totally worth it for the astonishing facial tech and performances though. RDR is an absolute masterpiece.

    Rockstar are the best big budget developers bar none.

  31. geokes says:

    I love how no-one cares about LA Noire and just want RDR

  32. Laurentius says:

    And yet I’d agree that this is actually not Rockstar game but Team Bondi, the fact it’s making to PC could be a point here. Personally I don’t expect RDR nor GTA 5 on PC.

    BTW I’m tired of bashing GTA4 on PC, for me it’s the best game ever created and if you have good enough PC the Liberty City is just both magic and technical masterpiece and to this very day no game came even close.

    • UnravThreads says:

      Technical masterpiece? Hardly. For everything it does right, such as the massive city, it does many things wrong.

      Yes, GTA IV is a very good game when it works, and the Episodes are the pinnacle of what DLC is, but to deny it’s got massive problems behind the scenes is blind. The specs were ridiculously bloated for a console port, the graphical issues were – and still are – problematic and the controls were at times beyond frustrating. I eventually gave up trying to fly the helicopter with KB+M and I went out and bought a 360 controller so I could do it. It goes in the pile of abysmal console ports with BioShock 2 and Saints Row 2, because it’s just so poorly optimised. R* didn’t help themselves by crippling it with DRM, either. GfWL is OK on its own (Although many would disagree, and rightly so), a proprietary system (RSC) is OK on its own, but together? No. That’s just not fair on the consumer, and it does affect the product in a negative way. More DRM/Protection = More resources being used = Less available to run the game = Poorer performance. When you add in that it also had SecuROM, even on the Steam version, you begin to see why it was so problematic for people.

      GTA V will come to the PC. Every other base GTA game has, why would V be different? Rockstar are still hosting community events on GfWL for it, so they’ve not abandoned the PC yet.

    • Thants says:

      I have a good enough PC and it’s still unplayable. With everything turned up I get 20 FPS and with everything turned down I get 22 FPS.

  33. mastorofpuppetz says:

    RDR was amazing, the most alive, beautiful open world ever created, with a good story to boot. Really made for PC, imagine the mODS. LA noire is derivitive, shallow and terrible really. Rockstar making a big mistake here. Amazed what they did on aging console hardware with RDR.

  34. mastorofpuppetz says:

    PS: GT4 has been great on PC for a long time and scales to modern hardware, Pc gamers cry for that when they get it they cry BAD PORT, BAD CODING. Very few games require the draw distance of a huge populated city. ON PC still one of the nicer looking games out. People need to stop whining about the GTA 4 bad port nonsense.

    • UncleLou says:

      I mostly agree – on modern hardware and max settings, GTA IV is a technical marvel up to this day. One of the most impressive games I’ve played, technically.

      And while I’ve played and finished RDR on the PS3, I’d buy it again immediately. It’s an amazing game, and deserves better than the PS3 version.

    • Thants says:

      GTA 4 is a terrible port. My computer isn’t the newest, but it can play any other modern game perfect fine. GTA 4 is unplayable. It’s probably the worst optimized game I’ve ever tried to play.

    • UncleLou says:

      I’ve played GTA IV to completion on an, at the time, decidedly midrange PC, and it ran and looked a lot better than the console versions did. That’s not my definition of a “horrible port”. Now I am not saying it didn’t have a few problems, but I have the suspicion that a lot of the complaints (similarly as with the first Crysis) came from people who moved all sliders to “max” and then complained that it wouldn’t run at 60 FPS.

  35. mastorofpuppetz says:

    Wayward is flat wrong RDR is a masterpiece of world design and story. PS: you can skip listening to conversations when you travel. Best open world game ever created bar none. Amazing game. You can spend ages just riding the country side doing random things like hunting, challenges, random encounters, Then there are the great mini games (Holdem five finger fillett,e tc..). Its way better then any other rockstar game.

  36. mastorofpuppetz says:

    Specs were not bad a tall, name 1 other game that has to render so much Ai and polygons in a large city?

  37. The Hammer says:

    Sign me up for the Red Dead Redemption crowd too! I’D LOVE TO PLAY IT.

    And I blame Jeff Bridges, the Coens and everyone else who made True Grit for that.

  38. Superbeing says:

    If they properly optimize the engine I’d be more than happy to purchase the game. I have (8gb Ram/ i7-2600k @4.8ghz/Radeon 6970 OCed/7200rpm Hardrive) and GTA IV’s engine still runs like crap for me though. So unless they spruce up erthang, I can’t find a justified reason to fork over my cash to Rockstar.

  39. Sunjammer says:

    The game will age horribly. The face tech is awkward and creepy, the body animations look out of place, the interview system is absolute shit and overall every part of it that is a game is bad.

    It’s a beautiful period piece though, and if i didn’t have to play the cases they’d make great little vignettes.

    • stillwater says:

      I agree – the facetech is wonky and it will age badly. But still, just one viewing of a video review of this game made me realise just how awful and primitive the facial animation is in every other game I’ve ever seen.

  40. Branthog says:

    As long as they don’t freak out about the install size (it’s something like 20gb on 360 and 38-50gb on PS3 – both of which are enormous for PC games), I’m sure they could seriously increase how the game looks. Unfortunately, it’s pretty meaningless when it’s going to come months after the game was initially released. I beat the game the day it was launched, so why would I give a damn what fixes and patches they release in the future or how they improve it on another platform?

  41. stillwater says:

    “As Comrade Cobbett points out, just enable a monochrome option does not a Noir experience make…”

    Not monochrome; greyscale. A monochrome option would make it look like a Macintosh Classic game from 1985, and would make your eyeballs melt. ;)

  42. rocketman71 says:

    GTA4 was an atrocius port, and came with so much shit and DRM over it that I didn’t even bother to buy it in the last Steam sale after trying it at a friend’s house.

    If LA Noire is going to be the same, I’m certainly going to pass. For RDR I could make an exception, but oh, THEN Rockstar thought they didn’t need our monies, did they?. So if they didn’t need them then, they certainly can’t ask for them now.

  43. RegisteredUser says:

    I really would rather have RDR with proper mouse aiming for PC.

  44. Vexing Vision says:

    I would buy Red Dead Redemption again if I could play it with mouse and keyboard.

    Oh yes. I would buy it again RIGHT NOW.

  45. adonf says:

    “Think Police Quest in super hi-fidelity graphics”

    Third nipple in HD? Sold!

  46. Grayvern says:

    The problem with LA Noire is that it essentially skips over elements that are key parts of it’s Inspiration. The game should have had 30% of the cases cut and replaced with some non interrogation, non fail conversations between characters.

    Also LA Noire’s Black and white option has significant changes to contrast and brightness so that it actually looks good, which would have meant that I would have avoided eye strain headaches from playing, if I wasn’t so stubborn as to want to play in colour.

    Also while the game will age from what I understand the original 3D scans which compose terrabytes of data could be reused with better graphics technology. Basically this is the best face tech you will ever need it’s more the conversion into the games engine that introduces flaws.

  47. manveruppd says:

    It is a spurious lie that PC UIDs don’t do vibration! Why, the teledildonics community were pioneers in the field, and their calls for Microsoft to incorporate vibration in their APIs went unheeded!