Quote:
Originally Posted by Siddhi
From what I understand (I haven't played the game) the interrogation system is supposed to be very good. It is not about simply wading through a whole dialog tree, selecting every single option, like most adventures. Based on how you do, there are multiple endings to a case.
|
L.A. Noire has a much too simplified interrogation system. You ask about a certain topic, and after hearing (and watching - there are tells if they lie) their answer, you have a whopping THREE choices: he's telling the truth, he's lying but you can't prove it and have to force him a little, or he's lying and you have the evidence to expose the lie.
Three options. That's it.
I prefer a whole dialog tree to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascovel
This looks like finally a good discussion on innovative games because it focuses on specific titles mentioned by the OP.
So let me ask you all a question - would you still consider them innovative, if they weren't mainstream hits and their popularity was limited only to the adventure games fans public?
|
Innovation has nothing to do with popularity. Ghost Trick was innovative yet Ghost Trick tanked in sales. Maybe all the prizes it won on sites like Gamespot will eventually make it sell a bit better, but it wasn't all that successful.
Fahrenheit / Indigo Prophecy was innovative as well, and I've a feeling it's more popular now than when it was first released. In part because of the success of Heavy Rain.
Good and innovative games tend to sell bad upon release. Probably
because they're innovative - people are afraid of change. But if the games are good, they'll stand the test of time...
Same goes for movies: Citizen Kane, a movie that was twenty years ahead of its time upon release, only got the recognition it deserved years and years later...
Innovation helps change the course of the future. But the innovator is rarely the one that gets the big bucks...
