LA Noire Tech Trailer

Pretty amazing if you ask me. It also would explain why it was delayed a couple years.

Discuss.

Pretty cool stuff, they used this motion capture thing for Black Ops also.
PS. This game looks like CSI: 1940s Style.

Hardline Pro wrote:Pretty cool stuff, they used this motion capture thing for Black Ops also.
PS. This game looks like CSI: 1940s Style.

but bo still looks bad

I think BO looks pretty good in the character models.

LA Noire looks like it's going to be a interesting game. Hopefully they can pull it all together and make it work. This technology has the potential to change how games are played, especially in the RPG, Action Adventure genres. Having to pay such close attention to character responses and body language could possibly bring you even deeper into the story. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

D: They finally made a way to add good lip syncing to games.

1940s cops eh?

Prepare to see M1 Carbines, Ithaca Model 37 shotguns and S&W Model 10 or Colt Official Police .38 Special revolvers.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:1940s cops eh?

Prepare to see M1 Carbines, Ithaca Model 37 shotguns and S&W Model 10 or Colt Official Police .38 Special revolvers.

Or prepare to see facial expression.

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:1940s cops eh?

Prepare to see M1 Carbines, Ithaca Model 37 shotguns and S&W Model 10 or Colt Official Police .38 Special revolvers.

Or prepare to see facial expression.

I won't be looking at them anyway.

You judge a game by facial expression, I judge a game by accurate portrayal of the firearms used. I can see good facial expression technology in video games improving so I don't have to worry about it. I have yet to find a game that can accurately portray all the firearms in the game, when using actual firearms not some Sci-Fi stuff like Halo.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:1940s cops eh?

Prepare to see M1 Carbines, Ithaca Model 37 shotguns and S&W Model 10 or Colt Official Police .38 Special revolvers.

Or prepare to see facial expression.

I won't be looking at them anyway.

You judge a game by facial expression, I judge a game by accurate portrayal of the firearms used. I can see good facial expression technology in video games improving so I don't have to worry about it. I have yet to find a game that can accurately portray all the firearms in the game, when using actual firearms not some Sci-Fi stuff like Halo.

You haven't played ARMA have you?

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:
Or prepare to see facial expression.

I won't be looking at them anyway.

You judge a game by facial expression, I judge a game by accurate portrayal of the firearms used. I can see good facial expression technology in video games improving so I don't have to worry about it. I have yet to find a game that can accurately portray all the firearms in the game, when using actual firearms not some Sci-Fi stuff like Halo.

You haven't played ARMA have you?

Even that has its faults. Since when do Germans use the Glock 17 as their main sidearm? Since when do the British use the 1911 as their main sidearm? When was the XM8 actually issued? Why does the RPK-74 have a 75 round magazine?

Even it has its minor faults.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

I won't be looking at them anyway.

You judge a game by facial expression, I judge a game by accurate portrayal of the firearms used. I can see good facial expression technology in video games improving so I don't have to worry about it. I have yet to find a game that can accurately portray all the firearms in the game, when using actual firearms not some Sci-Fi stuff like Halo.

You haven't played ARMA have you?

Even that has its faults. Since when do Germans use the Glock 17 as their main sidearm? Since when do the British use the 1911 as their main sidearm? When was the XM8 actually issued? Why does the RPK-74 have a 75 round magazine?

Even it has its minor faults.

I enjoy realism as much as the next guy but I think you are being a picky bitch.....just have fun.

mellow(802) wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

You haven't played ARMA have you?

Even that has its faults. Since when do Germans use the Glock 17 as their main sidearm? Since when do the British use the 1911 as their main sidearm? When was the XM8 actually issued? Why does the RPK-74 have a 75 round magazine?

Even it has its minor faults.

I enjoy realism as much as the next guy but I think you are being a picky bitch.....just have fun.

For once, I agree with you. Just play the game, MMC.

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

mellow(802) wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Even that has its faults. Since when do Germans use the Glock 17 as their main sidearm? Since when do the British use the 1911 as their main sidearm? When was the XM8 actually issued? Why does the RPK-74 have a 75 round magazine?

Even it has its minor faults.

I enjoy realism as much as the next guy but I think you are being a picky bitch.....just have fun.

For once, I agree with you. Just play the game, MMC.

There are very few games where I'll overlook these faults, but when they're this dumb, its just too ridiculous for me. There are only a few games I'll play even with their few mistakes when it comes to firearms, the Uncharted and CoD series. Even then, I still feel somewhat empty inside.

Most of the mistakes made are basic mistakes that should have never been made in the first place. Its like adding 2 + 2 and putting the answer as 7. Something that can be easily fixed but for some reason never gets attended too. Then, those of lesser intelligence who think they're "Special Ops Weapons Experts" start believing what they see and take it as fact.

Then there's the guys who have some basic firearm knowledge but aren't too sure on what they know. The "Special Ops Weapon Experts" read some of the comments made by these people and then the actual facts just get clouded until everyone thinks the M14 is semi auto only or that any Glock fires in full auto or even worse, the 5.56 NATO a.k.a. .223 Remington is a suitable cartridge for taking down people past 300 yards.

Sometimes "real life" gets in the way of having fun...............kind of like your sex life.

mellow(802) wrote:Sometimes "real life" gets in the way of having fun...............kind of like your sex life.

Maybe its because I'm too much of a realist. I mean, I still enjoy Sci-Fi games like Dead Space and Ratchet and Clank, but that's because I don't expect them to be realistic. Games that use actual guns and their actual names, I expect them to be like the real guns. If you don't wanna stick to how it is in real life, please name it something generic like "Assault Rifle" or "Autoloading Pistol" like Red Dead Redemption did for most of its guns.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

mellow(802) wrote:


I enjoy realism as much as the next guy but I think you are being a picky bitch.....just have fun.

For once, I agree with you. Just play the game, MMC.

There are very few games where I'll overlook these faults, but when they're this dumb, its just too ridiculous for me. There are only a few games I'll play even with their few mistakes when it comes to firearms, the Uncharted and CoD series. Even then, I still feel somewhat empty inside.

Most of the mistakes made are basic mistakes that should have never been made in the first place. Its like adding 2 + 2 and putting the answer as 7. Something that can be easily fixed but for some reason never gets attended too. Then, those of lesser intelligence who think they're "Special Ops Weapons Experts" start believing what they see and take it as fact.

Then there's the guys who have some basic firearm knowledge but aren't too sure on what they know. The "Special Ops Weapon Experts" read some of the comments made by these people and then the actual facts just get clouded until everyone thinks the M14 is semi auto only or that any Glock fires in full auto or even worse, the 5.56 NATO a.k.a. .223 Remington is a suitable cartridge for taking down people past 300 yards.

Except they're not "basic mistakes" as you say. The modelers have to work off of 2d blueprints, and what they make looks great to the naked eye. Just play the fucking game and stop nit-picking it to death.

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

For once, I agree with you. Just play the game, MMC.

There are very few games where I'll overlook these faults, but when they're this dumb, its just too ridiculous for me. There are only a few games I'll play even with their few mistakes when it comes to firearms, the Uncharted and CoD series. Even then, I still feel somewhat empty inside.

Most of the mistakes made are basic mistakes that should have never been made in the first place. Its like adding 2 + 2 and putting the answer as 7. Something that can be easily fixed but for some reason never gets attended too. Then, those of lesser intelligence who think they're "Special Ops Weapons Experts" start believing what they see and take it as fact.

Then there's the guys who have some basic firearm knowledge but aren't too sure on what they know. The "Special Ops Weapon Experts" read some of the comments made by these people and then the actual facts just get clouded until everyone thinks the M14 is semi auto only or that any Glock fires in full auto or even worse, the 5.56 NATO a.k.a. .223 Remington is a suitable cartridge for taking down people past 300 yards.

Except they're not "basic mistakes" as you say. The modelers have to work off of 2d blueprints, and what they make looks great to the naked eye. Just play the fucking game and stop nit-picking it to death.

Why don't the modelers not just go get the actual gun they're putting into the game then? Or look at some videos? Anything can improve on this. If they're gonna make a game and sell it for 50-60$, I want it to be of excellent quality. I'm not gonna spend 60$ and just go, "Meh, Ok I guess", because then I will have wasted my money. For people who don't have to work for their money or just use someone else's money, its not problem. But when I have to spend my hard earned money, I spend it only on quality products. I don't settle for second best.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

There are very few games where I'll overlook these faults, but when they're this dumb, its just too ridiculous for me. There are only a few games I'll play even with their few mistakes when it comes to firearms, the Uncharted and CoD series. Even then, I still feel somewhat empty inside.

Most of the mistakes made are basic mistakes that should have never been made in the first place. Its like adding 2 + 2 and putting the answer as 7. Something that can be easily fixed but for some reason never gets attended too. Then, those of lesser intelligence who think they're "Special Ops Weapons Experts" start believing what they see and take it as fact.

Then there's the guys who have some basic firearm knowledge but aren't too sure on what they know. The "Special Ops Weapon Experts" read some of the comments made by these people and then the actual facts just get clouded until everyone thinks the M14 is semi auto only or that any Glock fires in full auto or even worse, the 5.56 NATO a.k.a. .223 Remington is a suitable cartridge for taking down people past 300 yards.

Except they're not "basic mistakes" as you say. The modelers have to work off of 2d blueprints, and what they make looks great to the naked eye. Just play the fucking game and stop nit-picking it to death.

Why don't the modelers not just go get the actual gun they're putting into the game then? Or look at some videos? Anything can improve on this. If they're gonna make a game and sell it for 50-60$, I want it to be of excellent quality. I'm not gonna spend 60$ and just go, "Meh, Ok I guess", because then I will have wasted my money. For people who don't have to work for their money or just use someone else's money, its not problem. But when I have to spend my hard earned money, I spend it only on quality products. I don't settle for second best.

You cannot model off of a video or even a real life representation. Unless you're insanely talented, you need blueprints. The models are excellent quality, you're just very nit-picky, you won't even allow for some customization. If you want 100% realism, go join the army.

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

Except they're not "basic mistakes" as you say. The modelers have to work off of 2d blueprints, and what they make looks great to the naked eye. Just play the fucking game and stop nit-picking it to death.

Why don't the modelers not just go get the actual gun they're putting into the game then? Or look at some videos? Anything can improve on this. If they're gonna make a game and sell it for 50-60$, I want it to be of excellent quality. I'm not gonna spend 60$ and just go, "Meh, Ok I guess", because then I will have wasted my money. For people who don't have to work for their money or just use someone else's money, its not problem. But when I have to spend my hard earned money, I spend it only on quality products. I don't settle for second best.

You cannot model off of a video or even a real life representation. Unless you're insanely talented, you need blueprints. The models are excellent quality, you're just very nit-picky, you won't even allow for some customization. If you want 100% realism, go join the army.

I don't a realistic Army experience, I just want the guns to be realistic. Also, if they wanted to "customize" the guns, then please don't use their actual names like I said before. Naming something something that is isn't is just wrong. Its like putting a horse head, pig legs, rooster tail, and deer antlers on a cow body (even removing the udder) and still calling it a cow.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Why don't the modelers not just go get the actual gun they're putting into the game then? Or look at some videos? Anything can improve on this. If they're gonna make a game and sell it for 50-60$, I want it to be of excellent quality. I'm not gonna spend 60$ and just go, "Meh, Ok I guess", because then I will have wasted my money. For people who don't have to work for their money or just use someone else's money, its not problem. But when I have to spend my hard earned money, I spend it only on quality products. I don't settle for second best.

You cannot model off of a video or even a real life representation. Unless you're insanely talented, you need blueprints. The models are excellent quality, you're just very nit-picky, you won't even allow for some customization. If you want 100% realism, go join the army.

I don't a realistic Army experience, I just want the guns to be realistic. Also, if they wanted to "customize" the guns, then please don't use their actual names like I said before. Naming something something that is isn't is just wrong. Its like putting a horse head, pig legs, rooster tail, and deer antlers on a cow body (even removing the udder) and still calling it a cow.

It shouldn't be.

Say someone shoves a CRT Stock on their M4, its still an M4, right. Or would you prefer that they called it, "Automatic Rifle", just because of the new stock?

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

You cannot model off of a video or even a real life representation. Unless you're insanely talented, you need blueprints. The models are excellent quality, you're just very nit-picky, you won't even allow for some customization. If you want 100% realism, go join the army.

I don't a realistic Army experience, I just want the guns to be realistic. Also, if they wanted to "customize" the guns, then please don't use their actual names like I said before. Naming something something that is isn't is just wrong. Its like putting a horse head, pig legs, rooster tail, and deer antlers on a cow body (even removing the udder) and still calling it a cow.

It shouldn't be.

Say someone shoves a CRT Stock on their M4, its still an M4, right. Or would you prefer that they called it, "Automatic Rifle", just because of the new stock?

Depends, if its a military game and its a soldier using it, it should look like the M4 that a soldier is issued from the military. If its some civilian with his "tacti-cool" customized M4, I couldn't care less. I expect the civilian to customize his M4 to ridiculous standards with flashlights/after market stocks/after market triggers/after market optics/after market rail systems/after market foregrips/after market muzzle brakes or flash hiders/after market magazines and whatever else you can add.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

I don't a realistic Army experience, I just want the guns to be realistic. Also, if they wanted to "customize" the guns, then please don't use their actual names like I said before. Naming something something that is isn't is just wrong. Its like putting a horse head, pig legs, rooster tail, and deer antlers on a cow body (even removing the udder) and still calling it a cow.

It shouldn't be.

Say someone shoves a CRT Stock on their M4, its still an M4, right. Or would you prefer that they called it, "Automatic Rifle", just because of the new stock?

Depends, if its a military game and its a soldier using it, it should look like the M4 that a soldier is issued from the military. If its some civilian with his "tacti-cool" customized M4, I couldn't care less. I expect the civilian to customize his M4 to ridiculous standards with flashlights/after market stocks/after market triggers/after market optics/after market rail systems/after market foregrips/after market muzzle brakes or flash hiders/after market magazines and whatever else you can add.

Civis aren't the only ones that customize their rifles. Soldiers do too. This is their rifle, there are many like them, but this one is theirs. Customizing them just makes it a bit easier to distinguish their own rifle

But still, you never directly answered my question. If someone adds a new stock or foregrip or something, should they just give it a generic name? Its still the same rifle, just with small differences.

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:
It shouldn't be.

Say someone shoves a CRT Stock on their M4, its still an M4, right. Or would you prefer that they called it, "Automatic Rifle", just because of the new stock?

Depends, if its a military game and its a soldier using it, it should look like the M4 that a soldier is issued from the military. If its some civilian with his "tacti-cool" customized M4, I couldn't care less. I expect the civilian to customize his M4 to ridiculous standards with flashlights/after market stocks/after market triggers/after market optics/after market rail systems/after market foregrips/after market muzzle brakes or flash hiders/after market magazines and whatever else you can add.

Civis aren't the only ones that customize their rifles. Soldiers do too. This is their rifle, there are many like them, but this one is theirs. Customizing them just makes it a bit easier to distinguish their own rifle

But still, you never directly answered my question. If someone adds a new stock or foregrip or something, should they just give it a generic name? Its still the same rifle, just with small differences.

Maybe I didn't say this clearly, but it depends where the rifle is being used. If it is a military M4, it should look like the stock military M4 that the military issues. If it is customized, it should also have military issued optics like ACOG optics or whatever else is issued. Of course it'll always be an M4, as long as the lower receiver still says M4 on it and the upper receiver has a 14.5" barrel. But these days, the name "M4" is being used by almost every AR-15 manufacturer to describe an AR-15 with a rail system, telescoping stock and 16" barrel.

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Depends, if its a military game and its a soldier using it, it should look like the M4 that a soldier is issued from the military. If its some civilian with his "tacti-cool" customized M4, I couldn't care less. I expect the civilian to customize his M4 to ridiculous standards with flashlights/after market stocks/after market triggers/after market optics/after market rail systems/after market foregrips/after market muzzle brakes or flash hiders/after market magazines and whatever else you can add.

Civis aren't the only ones that customize their rifles. Soldiers do too. This is their rifle, there are many like them, but this one is theirs. Customizing them just makes it a bit easier to distinguish their own rifle

But still, you never directly answered my question. If someone adds a new stock or foregrip or something, should they just give it a generic name? Its still the same rifle, just with small differences.

Maybe I didn't say this clearly, but it depends where the rifle is being used. If it is a military M4, it should look like the stock military M4 that the military issues. If it is customized, it should also have military issued optics like ACOG optics or whatever else is issued. Of course it'll always be an M4, as long as the lower receiver still says M4 on it and the upper receiver has a 14.5" barrel. But these days, the name "M4" is being used by almost every AR-15 manufacturer to describe an AR-15 with a rail system, telescoping stock and 16" barrel.

I understood you quite explicitly, and said specifically that soldiers customize their weapons too. I have personally seen soldiers training with CRT stocks at CPenn. IMO, these are still m4s.

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

MegaMonkeyChunk wrote:

Wheen Your Strange wrote:

Civis aren't the only ones that customize their rifles. Soldiers do too. This is their rifle, there are many like them, but this one is theirs. Customizing them just makes it a bit easier to distinguish their own rifle

But still, you never directly answered my question. If someone adds a new stock or foregrip or something, should they just give it a generic name? Its still the same rifle, just with small differences.

Maybe I didn't say this clearly, but it depends where the rifle is being used. If it is a military M4, it should look like the stock military M4 that the military issues. If it is customized, it should also have military issued optics like ACOG optics or whatever else is issued. Of course it'll always be an M4, as long as the lower receiver still says M4 on it and the upper receiver has a 14.5" barrel. But these days, the name "M4" is being used by almost every AR-15 manufacturer to describe an AR-15 with a rail system, telescoping stock and 16" barrel.

I understood you quite explicitly, and said specifically that soldiers customize their weapons too. I have personally seen soldiers training with CRT stocks at CPenn. IMO, these are still m4s.

Well, if the military issued them the stock or gave them the option to use the stock, then I would still consider a military M4. If its just some guy putting on the CRT stock, then its just like the guys who would take the grips of their military issued knives in WW2. Sure its still a knife, but its not the way the military issued it to you.