hit tracker

Rockstar Announces L.A. Noire For Switch, PS4, Xbox One, VR

Discussion in 'Nintendo Gaming News' started by GaryOPA, Sep 7, 2017.

By GaryOPA on Sep 7, 2017 at 11:08 PM
  1. 24,901

    GaryOPA Master Phoenix Admin Staff Member Top-Dog Brass

    Mar 18, 2006
    Design Eng.
    Tropical Island
    Home Page:
    The detective game L.A. Noire is coming to Switch, Rockstar said today, blowing the minds of Nintendo fans everywhere.

    It is also coming to the PlayStation, and Xbox One and special VR version designed for the HTC Vive, but it was the news that Nintendo Switch will get the failed studio game ported from its 2011 release, that blew the minds of all the loyal Nintendo fans everywhere.
    So what do you think about finally getting to enjoy the L.A. Noire game and all its amazing storyline on your Nintendo Switch?

    NEWS SOURCE: Rockstar Announces L.A. Noire For Switch, PS4, Xbox One, VR (via) Kotaku
    Last edited: May 23, 2018 at 10:06 PM


Discussion in 'Nintendo Gaming News' started by GaryOPA, Sep 7, 2017.

    1. 351

      DW360 Loyal Member

      Oct 31, 2010
      the game was good when i first played it but i dont think id want to buy a so called remaster when all it will be is the same game, same textures, same models but the graphic engine set higher than the ps3 version.

      and i have to PMSL that again nintendo fans are getting excited that it is getting a game that erm we played 6 years ago.

      makes me laugh because when you point out a reason for hating nintendo, its lacking support, they claim nintendo dont lack and that it gets the best support.

      id rather have the option to play todays games today, not 6 years later.... or i guess it would be ok if it had some ports as long as it was getting new titles that the other systems get.

      end of the day my problem has always been that when you buy a console you buy it to play games and that you find PS/XBX have a massive library of games to play yet you never have the option to buy said game on nintendo because youve had nothing new to play where as you have plenty on PS/XBX.... so your nintendo console sits there as an over priced paper weight.
    2. 561

      AlbedoAtoned Loyal Member

      Jul 13, 2011
      The fact that Nintendo fans are blown away that their console is getting a port (not even a remaster really) of a six year old game made for 10+ year old consoles (as of now that is) is what's mind blowing.

      What's more is that when it comes to this new version it's pretty easy to see which versions are good and which ones aren't. For instance, if like most gamers, you'd rather just play the damn game, the switch version is likely not for you. We already tried this motion control gimmick before, and the reactions have stayed largely the same since the novelty wore off 10 years ago. Basically, no motion controls is not a hindrance, nobody misses them really. And while people don't mind minimal use of them, they aren't a selling point and people tend to prefer as little as possible (none is ideal). But the full on motion controls that Nintendo and their fanboys think are great aren't very good.

      This isn't even a case of when a game is made with them in mind. Many times fans have said that you couldn't translate that to traditional controls. This is the case of a game being made for traditional controls, with no need for motion controls but yet them being tacked on.

      Other than that, there's no real reason to get this version over say the ps3 or 360 version. Those versions will not only control better, but are also a lot cheaper even when DLC is figured into the price. It makes no sense to pay $60 (and it will likely be that or close to it due to the Nintendo tax) for a port with worse controls.

      Now I've got the game on PC and it plays the game well enough on the max settings, but if I didn't I could still see a reason to get the other next gen versions, especially if you don't have the old versions since the graphics have been improved. I personally don't really care about the higher resolution and lighting though, I would be much more swayed if it was in 60fps or had an unlocked framerate that went higher.
    3. 6,613

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Jul 2, 2007
      I suspect the big reason why the Switch will 'get away' with certain things is the 'tablet hybrid' form factor.

      The other factor to consider is if they were aware of the SoC's capabilities (which we know from the Shield can handle seventh Gen games).

      That said, while I don't think people should really be impressed, I could understand people wanting a Switch version.
    4. 561

      AlbedoAtoned Loyal Member

      Jul 13, 2011

      Nintendo got away with most of this kind of thing with the Wii u and the Wii as well.

      And also, you kind of have a point about the hybrid factor, but I've seen how this has become more of an excuse. People aren't allowed to find a flaw with the Switch. Because x problem is either because the switch is a handheld, or it's because it is a console.

      The Switch has all of these problems because it tried and failed to get the strengths of a console and a handheld but in reality only got their flaws. So low power, low battery life, small storage capacity with no real path to add more other than through microsd cards (even though ssds would be far more economical in the higher range).

      But no matter how you slice it, the Switch is a platform that is trying to compete with phones, not consoles. That's the problem. Actual gaming wasn't really considered beause right off the bat, Nintendo said fuck digital gamers. Those who buy and play their games digitally weren't ever considered. And now with the whole mandatory microsd thing, even physical gamers on the system are getting a wake up call that Nintendo doesn't give a shit about them either. Nintendo fanboys almost always keep bringing up about how Nintendo doesn't compete with the other console devs and that is the crux of the problem. They bring up how the switch is better than a phone for gaming and while they could arguably make that, that's not really saying much. If Nintendo and their fanboys see Nintendo as competing with phones and tablets, they could make the argument that they get a game like L.A. Noir before phones do, but most gamers don't really give a shit. If you want a game like L.A. Noir or indeed most games, you wouldn't even consider phones. For most gamers, phones aren't good gaming devices due to the touch screens, and those that do often see them more as emulation devices especially if paired with a bluetooth controller.

      But regardless, few people buy them as gaming devices, they buy them for phone calls and for all of the other features they have. I have a tablet and I use it for a lot of things from browsing the web to listening to music on the go, to reading manga, some light gaming (though if I really want to play a game, I would rather do so on my pc, console or handheld). But I don't really consider it a gaming machine. I've got some emulators on it, but the touchscreen isn't really a good method for gaming so I don't normally play more complex games on it. Most of what I do is music and web browsing. The switch isn't competing with it. It can't do most of the things I can do on my tablet, it's desigend for gaming, but at the same time it can't really do that well either.

      It was obvious from the get go that trying to make a handheld as powerful as a ps4 or xb1 wouldn't work well. The battery life would last like an hour tops. So sacrifices had to be made, what they made is a system a bit more powerful than a last gen console. But anybody who played the last games for the system knows that while they had a good run, they couldn't handle the newer games well. Not even current gen consoles are doing well, why did Nintendo think that a handheld on par with a ps3 could.

      When the Vita came out, it was touted for how powerful it was. It could play games with almost the same visual fidelity of a ps3. Obviously it wasn't as powerful as a ps3, but it did have that air about it. But even then devs were smart to know that the vita was still a handheld. While the quality of the games were higher than the 3ds, it wasn't trying to run ps4 and xb1 games. It had a place alongside the ps4, it wasn't competing against it.

      The switch seemed to see the failrue of the vita and made all of the wrong conclusions about it. Depending on the context of the flaw, the switch is either a handheld or a console. Regardless though, it's trying to run games made for consoles and Nintendo doesn't have another console in this gen unless you count the abandoned wii u which had the exact same damn problems. If the switch was indeed a portable then it would be competing with the 3ds for the most part and that wouldn't go over too well. The portable crowd has often said it is too big to just carry around with you and too fragile.

      For all it is worth it seems best as a portable ps3. Which is kind of neat I guess, but it's not doing too well, the market has already played all of those games and paying $60 again isn't really in the budget The system clearly isn't made for newer games. Nintendo was naive when they said that only a few current gen games are over 16GB which is idiotic for more than one reason. I guess they were thinking of the ps3 when they said that, they certainly weren't thinking of 2016 or 2017 when they said that. But they also fail at understanding why games are so big. Namely, assets are getting bigger, and even when optimized they have to stay uncompressed so they can be read easier by weaker hardware.

      A lot of Nintendo fanboys think they have it all figured out, that devs should just use heavy compression like you can do on pc with your files, not realizing that even though programs such as 7-zip can compress files down quite a bit, the files won't really be useable by the game in that state. It's like teaching basic arithmetic to an infant. And some seem to think you can just use really lossy compression, which is mostly true, but while you can use lossy compression on a bluray movie to fit it on a cdr, the quality won't even come close to what it was before. You would have to be a fool to think all we need is more jpeg. It's possible to bring these types of things down in a sane manner without too much loss, but we shouldn't be having this problem in the first place. Nintendo and their fanboys said cartridges were more than enough and if the problem is that bigger cartridges are too expensive then Nintendo should have really thought about that and at the least subsidized their cost. Otherwise the only games that will fit are last gen games with no real visual changes.

Share This Page