L.A. Noire

I think the biggest problem is that they have to compress what they capture to get it to fit and work with the rest of the game. The uncompressed stuff that they get looks very good.

SommerMatt wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

That's...pretty nifty.

Is there much buzz yet about what actual gameplay will be? From what I've seen so far, it looks like this would work best as a pretty old-school Detective Adventure game. Not point-and-click, necessarily, but with no real RPG elements, branching dialogue and (hopefully) no need for any crappy Rockstar shooting or driving mechanics.

I can't remember where I read this (might have been Game Informer), but someone described it as Phoenix Wright with crazy realistic graphics.

If that gets confirmed, this becomes so very do want for me, at the top of my most anticipated list for 2011 (along with The Last Guardian...if that actually happens).

I wonder if this is the same tech they used to make Jeff Bridges young in Tron. I get the same body-face disjunction from the LA Noire trailer as I did from Tron.

Hypatian wrote:

Actually, the term had currency in computer graphics circles at least fifteen years ago, as I recall hearing it then.

Agreed. It's been discussed for a very long time.

I'm quite excited about this.

Until Roger Ebert wrote about this three years ago, no one in the internet world had ever used this phrase before.

I've been aware of, and used the phrase, for at least ten years. It's coming into common use now because the PROBLEM is coming into common view these days, even on desktop computers.

Back when it was actually coined, which was something like two decades ago, it was a supercomputers-only problem.

Malor wrote:
Until Roger Ebert wrote about this three years ago, no one in the internet world had ever used this phrase before.

I've been aware of, and used the phrase, for at least ten years. It's coming into common use now because the PROBLEM is coming into common view these days, even on desktop computers.

Back when it was actually coined, which was something like two decades ago, it was a supercomputers-only problem.

According to that Wiki page I linked to, it was originally a robotics term from 1970, which in turn goes back to some psychiatry papers from 1906. So yeah, it's old

MannishBoy wrote:
Malor wrote:
Until Roger Ebert wrote about this three years ago, no one in the internet world had ever used this phrase before.

I've been aware of, and used the phrase, for at least ten years. It's coming into common use now because the PROBLEM is coming into common view these days, even on desktop computers.

Back when it was actually coined, which was something like two decades ago, it was a supercomputers-only problem.

According to that Wiki page I linked to, it was originally a robotics term from 1970, which in turn goes back to some psychiatry papers from 1906. So yeah, it's old :)

Yeah, it's been around since a Japanese scientist coined it in the 70s. And yeah, I'm sure some people used it since then. 99% of the people on the internet who use it now, however, never heard of it (or used it) before THE POLAR EXPRESS came out.

The flip side of the whole "UV" thing is that once representations get good enough, the "valley" disappears and the perceptions return to normal, human empathic levels. As technology gets better, we're certainly going to achieve said return to positive emotional response, and I contend that the tech used here is a step in that direction. Maybe it's not perfect, but it looks pretty decent to me.

There are really only two paths you can follow if you subscribe to the whole UV theory-- NEVER try to get past the valley, or power your way through it (with some possibly awkward middle steps). Other than that, I don't really know where the discussion lies, which is another part of the whole "pet peeve" thing for me.

I still wonder how Final Fantasy: Spirits Within did it so well in 2001 and still hasn't been equaled in movies. I know it's tougher for games to render in real time though, so it's forgivable.

Something definitely looks "off" in the in game footage. It's not the faces, which really are astoundingly good. But the clothes and the world are not lifelike, and the lifelike faces sitting in the very synthetic world creates a disjoint. Humans are pretty good at buying into a consistent level of realism. The shots of the rendered heads on their own were brilliant, but I found it immediately unsettling when placed in the scene.

I'll buy it regardless, because I'm a big Ellroy fan, but it's a concern.

I think the uncanny valley is a good representation of the Pareto principle (80:20 rule), you get most of the effect for little work, but the last bits cost more and more. Rockstar obviously think it's worth the cost for them.

The one thing about the uncanny valley discussion I think we need to remember, is that it's probably less noticeable in game.

Probably in game you won't be looking at it quite as closely because you are actively involved in the game, not sitting back and looking at the details. Also, it may initially seem glaring but you will adjust as you play.

SommerMatt wrote:

Yeah, it's been around since a Japanese scientist coined it in the 70s. And yeah, I'm sure some people used it since then. 99% of the people on the internet who use it now, however, never heard of it (or used it) before THE POLAR EXPRESS came out.

It's been in gaming discussions since back in Half Life days, though. Just because we weren't there doesn't mean we weren't approaching the issue and discussing it.

It's not a new gaming term at all. Just because you didn't recognize it being used doesn't mean it wasn't.

But I remember it prior to Polar Express in non-gaming graphics discussion.

DudleySmith wrote:

Something definitely looks "off" in the in game footage. It's not the faces, which really are astoundingly good. But the clothes and the world are not lifelike, and the lifelike faces sitting in the very synthetic world creates a disjoint. Humans are pretty good at buying into a consistent level of realism. The shots of the rendered heads on their own were brilliant, but I found it immediately unsettling when placed in the scene.

I'll buy it regardless, because I'm a big Ellroy fan, but it's a concern.

This. I think the contrast between the faces and the static hat and clothes models is noticeable.

Definitely. Once they put good work into one thing, you notice the next, and there's a big long list you can make.

One thing I'm wondering about is whether is about the consoles. Realistically, they're only going to get the sales they need on the consoles, but currently they're the most performance limited platform, yet I admire what they're doing trying to get the best out of them. A whole load of conflicting influences on the game.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I still wonder how Final Fantasy: Spirits Within did it so well in 2001 and still hasn't been equaled in movies.

It didn't. The faces in FF looked good, but they were pretty bad at conveying any sort of emotion.

99% of the people on the internet who use it now, however, never heard of it (or used it) before THE POLAR EXPRESS came out.

And? It's the right phrase, describing a real effect.

You seem to think it's trendy and hipsterish to learn the correct term for something and use it? Does someone lose credibility for seeing the Polar Express, saying to someone, "gee, that kinda creeped me out", and then being taught about the uncanny valley?

Sorry, folks, I guess if you learned a word later than the serious nerds, you're just an irritating poser.

Oh, and I think, from looking at that footage, that it's going to suffer from trying to combine two separate mocaps... once with the actors doing real physical things, and then repeating the same lines in a chair where they can really scan the face. I think that's the disconnect we're noticing...the body and the face aren't quite in tune with one another.

I'm suspicious this technology won't fully work until they can do it all in one take.

It makes me physically angry that I cannot hold this game in my hand right now... WANT!!!

muttonchop wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I still wonder how Final Fantasy: Spirits Within did it so well in 2001 and still hasn't been equaled in movies.

It didn't. The faces in FF looked good, but they were pretty bad at conveying any sort of emotion.

I watched it again recently, the graphics were more convincing than most real actors. More recent movies of its ilk, like Beowulf, didn't even look good and were just as emotionless.

There's definitely some jankiness going on with how they blend to two mo-cap sources. Like the facial mo-cap is floating on top of the full body mo-cap's face. Their hats look really weird for some reason as well. Hopefully they can tighten that stuff up, because the overall presentation looks very intriguing.

I focused my attention so much on the faces that the rest didn't register, even after 3 views. I want this game.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

The one thing about the uncanny valley discussion I think we need to remember, is that it's probably less noticeable in game.

Probably in game you won't be looking at it quite as closely because you are actively involved in the game, not sitting back and looking at the details. Also, it may initially seem glaring but you will adjust as you play.

Except that the game is about noticing little things.

MechaSlinky wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

The one thing about the uncanny valley discussion I think we need to remember, is that it's probably less noticeable in game.

Probably in game you won't be looking at it quite as closely because you are actively involved in the game, not sitting back and looking at the details. Also, it may initially seem glaring but you will adjust as you play.

Except that the game is about noticing little things.

And beautiful women that will stab you in the back.

Atomicvideohead wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:

Except that the game is about noticing little things.

And beautiful women that will stab you in the back.

Particularly when you're busy... er... noticing things.

Ah, dames.

May is getting crowded

May 17th for the skimmers.

L.A. Noire Gameplay Series Video: "Orientation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yZ0T...

Scratched wrote:

L.A. Noire Gameplay Series Video: "Orientation"

[George Takei]Oh MY.[/George Takei]

I am really excited about this game.

Rockstar's recent marketing efforts have been excellent. The series of videos they released for Red Dead Redemption were very persuasive in getting me interested in a game I'd hitherto written off (more so than a series of flash-cut gore vignettes with an angry rock track would have, for example). They demonstrated the ambience, gameplay, graphics, music and sound of their games in an unpatronising and mature way. To a large extent, Rockstar let the games speak for themselves, which in turn speaks of confidence in the product, which is incredibly persuasive in itself.

I agree, DudleySmith.

RDR's 'Life In The West' video series was a fantastic marketing tool that not only presented the game in an intelligent way, but also treated me (the viewer) as an adult.

I've got a lot of respect for the campaign and it looks like L.A. Noir is following in the same steps.

Game looks pretty incredible at this point.

I want this game, if anything to support the tech behind the character performances.