LA Noire for PC is the ultimate shabby console port

[hlhbk]

First let me say I picked up LA Noire on PS3 release day and loved it. That being said during my playthrough my PS3 died and I had to pickup a slim. This happened around the time that the PC version was announced. After listening to Rockstar say that it would not just be a port and would include all DLC I decided to wait to start another play through.

I guess after the crap Rockstar pulled with the terrible port of GTA IV and not releasing RDR for PC I shouldn't be shocked but the port is just terrible. See below:

1.The game is capped at 30 FPS due to the face tech, which is bad enough.

2.They didn't work on making the game full screen at higher resolutions (1920x1200 and during the cut scenes take about haf the screen up with huge black bars on the top and bottom, and there are black bars during gameplay).

3.Terrible pop in with buildings and such while driving.

4.The worst offense by far is that the game is so unstable. I can be driving where stuff is loading at a fast pace and stay at a steady 30 FPS, but I might be running after someone and the game drops down to an unplayable 5 FPS.

Honestly if this is the quality we can expect from Rockstar bringing their games to PC I just hope they stop making PC games. Say what you want about other devs and publishers forsaking the PC, but none are worse than Rockstar.

[Bite]

I understand why they don't port games that much, considering the amount of people who complains...

The game runs flawlessly for me, and I don't have a monster rig, merely an ATI 5750 and a decent AMD 2 X4 Phenom 620, kind of outdated already, but I can run the game fine, both on 1280x720, the game constantly runs on 30 FPS for me, it only slows down when I've got something else running on the background.

It seems most people forgot what GTA IV was on launch, it was a total disaster, this game is definetly not, besides, what's the point of ALWAYS bringing up the GTA IV topic? GTA IV has been fixed and runs pretty well now anyway.

And about the black bars on top & bottom...that's even in the console version, it's how cutscenes are presented, seriously, people lately is just looking for any reason to complain... ._.

EDIT: My bad, the other resolution my PC can handle is 1440x900 for this game, not 1280x1080, only realized just now.

[Ausguy]

I havent had any issues...touch wood.
My only gripe is the annoying sync at the start. Sync DLC??? WTF?? Ive either got it already or I dont, no need to check everytime I start the game.

[Deadly_Target]

I do not own this game yet, but from what I hear it's a fairly decent port. I've also watched many YouTube videos of it and the game seems to run absolutely fine on high resolutions.


It seems most people forgot what GTA IV was on launch, it was a total disaster, this game is definetly not, besides, what's the point of ALWAYS bringing up the GTA IV topic? GTA IV has been fixed and runs pretty well now anyway.Yeah, GTA IV was quite a mess at launch, but Rockstar Toronto patched it up very well. The game really doesn't deserve all the crap people give it. They added so much exclusive content to the PC version; like heavily improved multiplayer, a customizable radio station, and in-game video editor. There's also tons of minor gameplay improvements.

Saying the entire game is one of the worst console ports ever is a mass exaggeration.

[Megumeru]

4 words:

it.can't.be.installed.

that's all. The download is still stuck at 90%, and I've pretty much given up on it

[LoboFHmod]

Saying the entire game is one of the worst console ports ever is a mass exaggeration.

In some aspects is a terrible port and in others shows a better face.

It's capped to 30 fps, huge drawback, I own the game in PS3 too and the experience was far from perfect: abrupt framerate drops and screen tearing. In PC works better, indeed, but a framerate cap is never good news.

The textures are washed out, why?, because Team Bondi never had PC in the their plans and Rockstar Leeds didn't upgrade them enough.

The FoV is obnoxious, I finally solved my installation problems and the game will be sitting untill the guys at widescreen gaming forum release a FoV fix (http://widescreengamingforum.com/forum/forums/gaming/requestdiscuss-game-solutions/18152/la-noire-any-chance-fix?page=1#comment-234778) already on the works. I will be playing Skyrim meanwhile, I can't stand this kind of omissions.

But in the other hand has something really interesting, we can customize the size of the HUD, something other developers could do in this world of enormous console icons.

[hlhbk]

I understand why they don't port games that much, considering the amount of people who complains...

The game runs flawlessly for me, and I don't have a monster rig, merely an ATI 5750 and a decent AMD 2 X4 Phenom 620, kind of outdated already, but I can run the game fine, both on 1280x720 and 1280x1080, the game constantly runs on 30 FPS for me, it only slows down when I've got something else running on the background.

It seems most people forgot what GTA IV was on launch, it was a total disaster, this game is definetly not, besides, what's the point of ALWAYS bringing up the GTA IV topic? GTA IV has been fixed and runs pretty well now anyway.

And about the black bars on top & bottom...that's even in the console version, it's how cutscenes are presented, seriously, people lately is just looking for any reason to complain... ._.

Wow you are so obviously a Rockstar fanboy and apologist its not even funny. Lets count the ways....

1. You make excuses for Rockstar when their game is crap on PC. I love the game on consoles but it's horribly optimized and obviously they didn't spend any time on making the best possible experience for the PC even though they promised us they would.

2. GTA IV still runs like crap for me. I have an i7 950 3.0 GHZ ATI 5850 and 4 GB RAM machine. It's rediculous that a game released in 2006 still can't run correctly on modern pc's. Why bring up the GTA IV topic? BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH TERRIBLE PORTS!

3. Reread my comments about the black bars. They are not visable during anything but cutscenes on the consoles, and they don't take up 1/2 of the screen combined. So again READ MY COMMENTS BEFORE BLINDLY DEFENDING ROCKSTAR!

You want to see a game that was lead on consoles, came out for PC day 1 and is awesome on PC? Take a look at Skyrim. Also another recent one that while it wasn't released same day was Sonic Generations. That is how you port to PC!

[xxhellspawnedxx]

@hlhbk
My experience of the game, the two hours I've played of it anyhow, was nothing by amicable. It ran smooth as cream on ultra settings, no FPS drops, props "popping" into view, screen tearing, CTDs and so on.

Granted, my computer is pretty up-to-date: Slightly overclocked i7 920 CPU, slightly overclocked GTX 580 graphics card, 12 gigs of RAM.

Your problems could be the result of a number of factors:

Have you set the game up in accordance with your level of hardware? Lots of applications crash when you try to push it to run at a level your computer simply can't handle.

Do you have your OS on a separate high-speed hard drive, and have you recently defrag'ed your computer? These two factors can make or break a games performance - If your harddrive is cluttered and the files are massively fragmented across the drive, it may cause both instability and FPS drops, as data retrieval takes considerably longer.

Then, of course, there's the question of viruses, outdated drivers, conflicts with other software running at the same time as the game or overheating hardware (doing high-end gaming on a computer with a stock CPU fan, for instance, is a bad idea).

So, before you go slamming the game because of performance issues, make sure you've cleaned out your own house first, figuratively speaking.

As for the 30 fps cap, you don't seem to realize how big a part of the game is actually just the facial animation data. Several dozens, or perhaps upwards several hundred, of fully motion-captured conversations, that takes quite a bit of memory. Having it at 60 FPS would probably have made the game at least 50% bigger, upwards 25 gb. It's self-explanatory why they wouldn't want that, with it already being twice or three times as large as most AAA titles to date.

@Lobofhmod:
What do you mean the textures are "washed out"? Usually when you use that phrase, you mean they are too bright, like on an over-exposed photo, which can't be a case of it being made for consoles. TVs and Monitors have roughly the same gamma settings by default.

If you mean that they're low-res, then I have to ask where. From what I've seen, apart from two or three textures, like the bullet wounds you see on your character and the blood in the car on the first mission as a detective, they're all really high-res, especially for a console port. If they just up-sized the blood textures, I'd be completely content with the texture resolution.

[hlhbk]

@hlhbk
My experience of the game, the two hours I've played of it anyhow, was nothing by amicable. It ran smooth as cream on ultra settings, no FPS drops, props "popping" into view, screen tearing, CTDs and so on.

Granted, my computer is pretty up-to-date: Slightly overclocked i7 920 CPU, slightly overclocked GTX 580 graphics card, 12 gigs of RAM.

Your problems could be the result of a number of factors:

Have you set the game up in accordance with your level of hardware? Lots of applications crash when you try to push it to run at a level your computer simply can't handle.

Do you have your OS on a separate high-speed hard drive, and have you recently defrag'ed your computer? These two factors can make or break a games performance - If your harddrive is cluttered and the files are massively fragmented across the drive, it may cause both instability and FPS drops, as data retrieval takes considerably longer.

Then, of course, there's the question of viruses, outdated drivers, conflicts with other software running at the same time as the game or overheating hardware (doing high-end gaming on a computer with a stock CPU fan, for instance, is a bad idea).

So, before you go slamming the game because of performance issues, make sure you've cleaned out your own house first, figuratively speaking.

As for the 30 fps cap, you don't seem to realize how big a part of the game is actually just the facial animation data. Several dozens, or perhaps upwards several hundred, of fully motion-captured conversations, that takes quite a bit of memory. Having it at 60 FPS would probably have made the game at least 50% bigger, upwards 25 gb. It's self-explanatory why they wouldn't want that, with it already being twice or three times as large as most AAA titles to date.

@Lobofhmod:
What do you mean the textures are "washed out"? Usually when you use that phrase, you mean they are too bright, like on an over-exposed photo, which can't be a case of it being made for consoles. TVs and Monitors have roughly the same gamma settings by default.

If you mean that they're low-res, then I have to ask where. From what I've seen, apart from two or three textures, like the bullet wounds you see on your character and the blood in the car on the first mission as a detective, they're all really high-res, especially for a console port. If they just up-sized the blood textures, I'd be completely content with the texture resolution.

I work in IT and am well aware of all of that. Nothing is running except for Steam, no viruses or spyware, all drivers up to date, and the drive was defragmented yesterday.

[xxhellspawnedxx]

You want to see a game that was lead on consoles, came out for PC day 1 and is awesome on PC? Take a look at Skyrim.

Skyrim has it's share of problems, both graphical and technical. Bugged out NPCs, very consolified controls, overall low-res textures - horribly low-res at certain places, odd water shaders, atrociously low-res shadow maps, odd blood effects, constant CTD's, lots of places where you fall off a ledge and get hopelessly stuck and have to replay from an earlier point... Just to mention a few.

Luckily, you can fix most of the graphical issues by tweaking the skyrimprefs.ini file and downloading a couple of third-party apps, but this isn't thanks to the developer in any sense, but to the community.

In the spirit of your own statement against undeserved developer-hugging, isn't it about time that you apply that to your own opinions as well?

[Cyzthur]

I thinks its a great game but it appears the port has some issues considering the amount of complaints on the forums. The biggest problem Ive encountered are random and brief fps drops from a stable 30 to as low as 5. It occurs inexplicably and although it dosnt ruin the game it should be fixed.

[xxhellspawnedxx]

I work in IT and am well aware of all of that. Nothing is running except for Steam, no viruses or spyware, all drivers up to date, and the drive was defragmented yesterday.

Well, clearly, with several people vouching for the game being stable on their systems, the problem is on your end rather than on the games end.

While you may disagree with some of the choices they've made, they've made them for a reason, as I explained about the 30 fps lock. I can agree to the oddity of not making the graphics scale up further than 1080p (Though, in a way, this is logical, as barely any TV goes higher than this, and it being a console game originally, can just be chalked up to a question of maximizing profit).

[MarkcusD]

You guys get so hung up on this stuff that you're going to miss the fact that this is a great game. The studio that made it was closed so yeah it's a port.

[xxhellspawnedxx]

I thinks its a great game but it appears the port has some issues considering the amount of complaints on the forums. The biggest problem Ive encountered are random fps drops from a stable 30 to as low as 5 fps. It occurs inexplicably and although it dosnt ruin the game it should be fixed.

Mate, the amount of complaints are quite unproportional to the amount of problems this game has. I think, with the absolute disaster the GTA IV port was, people start out with the fairly heavily biased opinion that "It must be ♥♥♥♥, because it has the Rockstar stamp on the box!" and they overplay the small faults it has ad infinitum.

[xxhellspawnedxx]

You guys get so hung up on this stuff that you're going to miss the fact that this is a great game. The studio that made it was closed so yeah it's a port.

^THIS!

[TheTurnipKing]

I havent had any issues...touch wood.
My only gripe is the annoying sync at the start. Sync DLC??? WTF?? Ive either got it already or I dont, no need to check everytime I start the game.
"Synchronising" is presumably the game keeping your saves and stats right with Rockstar Social Club and/or Steam Cloud.

As for the DLC, I assume they mean "checking for new DLC".

It does seem a tad redundant, since this is supposed to be the "complete" version of the game, and it seems unlikely that they have any more DLC planned for any version of the game at this juncture.

Maybe it could be disabled in a patch, and re-enabled if they actually decide to do more?

[Bite]

Wow you are so obviously a Rockstar Hammer Legion Member and apologist its not even funny. Lets count the ways....

1. You make excuses for Rockstar when their game is crap on PC. I love the game on consoles but it's horribly optimized and obviously they didn't spend any time on making the best possible experience for the PC even though they promised us they would.

2. GTA IV still runs like crap for me. I have an i7 950 3.0 GHZ ATI 5850 and 4 GB RAM machine. It's rediculous that a game released in 2006 still can't run correctly on modern pc's. Why bring up the GTA IV topic? BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH TERRIBLE PORTS!

3. Reread my comments about the black bars. They are not visable during anything but cutscenes on the consoles, and they don't take up 1/2 of the screen combined. So again READ MY COMMENTS BEFORE BLINDLY DEFENDING ROCKSTAR!

You want to see a game that was lead on consoles, came out for PC day 1 and is awesome on PC? Take a look at Skyrim. Also another recent one that while it wasn't released same day was Sonic Generations. That is how you port to PC!

Woah LOL talking about dumb answers; can you get ANY of your facts right?

Sorry but I have an ATI 5750 and GTA IV runs on a constant 50 frames with everything maxed out, and with a silly AMD 2 X4 Phenom 620...not that great really, and uhhhh GTA IV came out in 2008, wanna get even more facts wrong? :rolleyes:

Funny how the black bars are only visible during cutscenes on the PC aswel ;)

And no, Skyrim was not developed entirely for PC, matter of fact you can see how Skyrim got held back alot for being on consoles, even developers admit that they couldn't work as much as they wanted on the graphic side of the game on PC since they wanted "equal versions" (Regardless, PC version is obviously in this case the better one, and a greatly done job indeed.), a good example of a game that was made thinking on PC would be The Witcher 2, I mean, considering it's ONLY available for PC right now...

And on a sidenote, liking a game, and defending it because it works inmediatly makes me a Rockstar undercover agent? so if someone disagrees with you, they're ♥♥♥♥♥? hmm, rather Interesting & amusing.:cool:

[LoboFHmod]

@Lobofhmod:
What do you mean the textures are "washed out"? Usually when you use that phrase, you mean they are too bright, like on an over-exposed photo, which can't be a case of it being made for consoles. TVs and Monitors have roughly the same gamma settings by default.

If you mean that they're low-res, then I have to ask where. From what I've seen, apart from two or three textures, like the bullet wounds you see on your character and the blood in the car on the first mission as a detective, they're all really high-res, especially for a console port. If they just up-sized the blood textures, I'd be completely content with the texture resolution.

Y mean the second, yeah, specially noticeable in the faces skins. Of course ths is a huge sandbox and I was not waiting for Crysis photorealistic textures, even in consoles the resolution of textures was never stellar, but at 1080p is more eyesore.

Don't get me wrong, as soon as we get a FoV fix I am sure I will enjoy the game as I've enjoyed it in my PS3, it's a very moody game with the best acting ever, but they could get more with the PC technology.

In any case you are right GTA release was way more dramatic, this game is in way better shape.

[Bite]

Y mean the second, yeah, specially noticeable in the faces skins. Of course ths is a huge sandbox and I was not waiting for Crysis photorealistic textures, even in consoles the resolution of textures was never stellar, but at 1080p is more eyesore.

Don't get me wrong, as soon as we get a FoV fix I am sure I will enjoy the game as I've enjoyed it in my PS3, it's a very moody game with the best acting ever, but they could get more with the PC technology.

In any case you are right GTA release was way more dramatic, this game is in way better shape.

The game isn't a sandbox at all actually, it faetures an open world, but you can't decide the path of the story, you can merely fail at it and change it, but it's basicly not a sandbox at all.

And just wondering but, isn't FoV mostly a problem during FPS games? I just don't see how it could affect a Third Person view game.. :confused:

[hlhbk]

Woah LOL talking about dumb answers; can you get ANY of your facts right?

Sorry but I have an ATI 5750 and GTA IV runs on a constant 50 frames with everything maxed out, and with a silly AMD 2 X4 Phenom 620...not that great really, and uhhhh GTA IV came out in 2008, wanna get even more facts wrong? :rolleyes:

I don't buy it. I have a better system than yours and am lucky to get 35 FPS in GTA IV.

Funny how the black bars are only visible during cutscenes on the PC aswel ;)

Um how about reading my post before responding???? I said that the black bars were visable DURING GAMEPLAY if you have your re♥♥♥♥ion anywhere above 720p.

And no, Skyrim was not developed entirely for PC, matter of fact you can see how Skyrim got held back alot for being on consoles, even developers admit that they couldn't work as much as they wanted on the graphic side of the game on PC since they wanted "equal versions" (Regardless, PC version is obviously in this case the better one, and a greatly done job indeed.), a good example of a game that was made thinking on PC would be The Witcher 2, I mean, considering it's ONLY available for PC right now...

Again READ MY POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND!!!!!!! I said that Skyrim was and I quote " lead on consoles, came out for PC day 1 and is awesome on PC". Do you know what lead on consoles means? Please enlighten us!

And on a sidenote, liking a game, and defending it because it works inmediatly makes me a Rockstar undercover agent? so if someone disagrees with you, they're ♥♥♥♥♥? hmm, rather Interesting & amusing.:cool:

I have given proof that LA Noire is a TERRIBLE PORT! You are trying to defend what you can't defend!

[TheTurnipKing]

Again READ MY POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND!!!!!!! I said that Skyrim was and I quote " lead on consoles, came out for PC day 1 and is awesome on PC". Do you know what lead on consoles means? Please enlighten us!
However, it's worth noting that Skyrim is based on the TES engine, which powered Oblivion and both Fallouts. They've had a lot of practice making this engine work smoothly on all platforms - previous releases were not quite as smooth as Skyrim, as I recall.

This is the first (and quite probably only) release of the technology underlying L.A. Noire on any non-console platform. Sadly, malfunctions are to be expected when any engine developed for a fixed hardware platform hits open hardware like the PC. It's a fact of life and early slipstream patches have already fixed quite a few issues in the game.

[hlhbk]

However, it's worth noting that Skyrim is based on the TES engine, which powered Oblivion and both Fallouts. They've had a lot of practice making this engine work smoothly on all platforms - previous releases were not quite as smooth as Skyrim, as I recall.

This is the first (and quite probably only) release of the technology underlying L.A. Noire on any non-console platform. Sadly, malfunctions are to be expected when any engine developed for a fixed hardware platform hits open hardware like the PC. It's a fact of life and early slipstream patches have already fixed quite a few issues in the game.

I am sorry when a game is delayed by MONTHS it should be in MUCH better shape than this at release.

[samzala]

Playing at 1920x1080, I do not see any black bars during gameplay other than cutscenes. Quit your hollering boy.

[LoboFHmod]

The game isn't a sandbox at all actually, it faetures an open world, but you can't decide the path of the story, you can merely fail at it and change it, but it's basicly not a sandbox at all.

And just wondering but, isn't FoV mostly a problem during FPS games? I just don't see how it could affect a Third Person view game.. :confused:
Yeah, I used sandbox as an open world synonym but conceptually it is not a sandbox. I meant open world game.

Narrow FoV's are more unconfortable in FPS but TPS are also affected, for some gamers it's simply uneasy to look the world though a telefoto, no matter the view.

[DJ Cryotek]

Some games, mostly console ports, only support 16:9 aspect ratio. So if you are 1080p etc. you are fine, but if you have a 16:10 like me (1920x1200) you will get small black bars.

And I'm totally fine with that. It's how the game is meant to be presented, it's a minimal difference, and it's no different than how most movies still have black bars on HDTVs. Because there is a certain amount of "directing" done in games when there are in-game cut-scenes and such, using the 16:9 (at least for those) makes a lot of sense.

[trek554]

Woah LOL talking about dumb answers; can you get ANY of your facts right?

Sorry but I have an ATI 5750 and GTA IV runs on a constant 50 frames with everything maxed out, and with a silly AMD 2 X4 Phenom 620...not that great really, and uhhhh GTA IV came out in 2008, wanna get even more facts wrong? :rolleyes:

Funny how the black bars are only visible during cutscenes on the PC aswel ;)

And no, Skyrim was not developed entirely for PC, matter of fact you can see how Skyrim got held back alot for being on consoles, even developers admit that they couldn't work as much as they wanted on the graphic side of the game on PC since they wanted "equal versions" (Regardless, PC version is obviously in this case the better one, and a greatly done job indeed.), a good example of a game that was made thinking on PC would be The Witcher 2, I mean, considering it's ONLY available for PC right now...

And on a sidenote, liking a game, and defending it because it works inmediatly makes me a Rockstar undercover agent? so if someone disagrees with you, they're ♥♥♥♥♥? hmm, rather Interesting & amusing.:cool: sorry but that is a load of crap. there is no way in hell you stay a constant 50 fps in GTA 4 with all settings maxed using a 5750 and Athlon X4. I have played and tested the game on numerous systems way better than yours and know that is 100% BS. there are spots where max settings can bring a gtx570 and oced i5 down into the 30s.

[Bite]

I have given proof that LA Noire is a TERRIBLE PORT! You are trying to defend what you can't defend!

I guess I find it hilarious how everyone pretty much tells yous "It's fine, it's a problem at your end" and you pretty much keep on complaining lol.

I really can't say much if all you're going to answer is stuff like "IT'S NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!! >:/"

GTA IV on PC is not a horrible port anymore. Fact.

L.A Noire on PC is not a horrible port on PC since launch, having few problems here and there, but nothing much. Fact.

So stop complaining; you're complaining over nothing. :eek:

sorry but that is a load of crap. there is no way in hell you stay a constant 50 fps in GTA 4 with all settings maxed using a 5750 and Athlon X4. I have played and tested the game on numerous systems way better than yours and know that is 100% BS. there are spots where max settings can bring a gtx570 and oced i5 down into the 30s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hty7cdCnXjw there you go kind Ser, a benchmark with a system similar to mine, user gets 25-50 FPS while not recording recording, in my case it stays at 40-50 FPS most of the time.

Just to point out, I do not like to have every single option on 100, options like Vehicle Density I rather keep it around 50-60, and I usually play at a resolution of 1270x720, which is quite light and makes performance run easier, other than that, everything is set on the highest option but the shadows, so yeah, perhaps not on "max" settings but that way it looks a hell of a lot better than how it looked when it came out.

[trek554]

I guess I find it hilarious how everyone pretty much tells yous "It's fine, it's a problem at your end" and you pretty much keep on complaining lol.

I really can't say much if all you're going to answer is stuff like "IT'S NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!! >:/"

GTA IV on PC is not a horrible port anymore. Fact.

L.A Noire on PC is not a horrible port on PC since launch, having few problems here and there, but nothing much. Fact.

So stop complaining; you're complaining over nothing. :eek:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hty7cdCnXjw there you go kind Ser, a benchmark with a system similar to mine, user gets 25-50 FPS while not recording recording, in my case it stays at 40-50 FPS most of the time.

Just to point out, I do not like to have every single option on 100, options like Vehicle Density I rather keep it around 50-60, and I usually play at a resolution of 1270x720, which is quite light and makes performance run easier, other than that, everything is set on the highest option but the shadows, so yeah, perhaps not on "max" settings but that way it looks a hell of a lot better than how it looked when it came out.so you don't actually play at max settings like you claimed plus you use a very low res. you also now admit its not a constant 50 fps. you should have never made your silly claim in the first place. and if you were to admit the full truth, you hit the 30s at some point too.

[Bite]

so you don't actually play at max settings like you claimed plus you use a very low res. you also now admit its not a constant 50 fps. you should have never made your silly claim in the first place. and if you were to admit the full truth, you hit the 30s at some point too.


If you wanna get technical, I can play it on max, yes, but I simply don't like it, I lower the vehicle density because it's annoying to be in such a crowed Liberty City, and I don't keep shadows on max because some trees's shadows start to disappear, even then I get a stable 40-50, reason why I change them is because of personal preference, rather than technical issues, as for the resolution, 1280x720 isn't "very low" at all, it's certainly not the best but neither low, I can play it on 1440x900 just like I do with L.A Noire, which I claimed from the start, but then get an averrage of 35+ FPS.

So I take it you were feeling like Cole Phelps there? lol

Take it for what it's worth, you're welcome to come down here to my house and check the game for yourself if you want, if you're such a tech expert you should know that every game out there runs completly different on every system, even if they all run by similar standarts, you can see ATIs 4750 running certain games better than an ATI 5870, it all depends on each rig aswel.

Narrow FoV's are more unconfortable in FPS but TPS are also affected, for some gamers it's simply uneasy to look the world though a telefoto, no matter the view.

Makes sense, though I've never had this problem, when I play any FPS I feel like it all looks the same, but I do know some people who fell ill because of the terrible FoV of games like Dead Island or Black Ops, guess it really comes down to each gamer.

[trek554]

1280x720 is most certainly considered a very low res for modern pc gaming. even the average grandma that has bought a monitor in the last 6-7 years would have a higher desktop resolution than that. 1440x900 is 16:10 and 1280x720 is 16:9 so why would you play at different aspect ratios? using a resolution below native looks awful enough so at least use the correct aspect ratio for your monitor.

[Bite]

1280x720 is most certainly considered a very low res for modern pc gaming. even the average grandma that has bought a monitor in the last 5-7 years would have a higher desktop resolution that that. 1440x900 is 16:10 and 1280x720 is 16:9 so why would you play at different aspect ratios? using a resolution below native looks awful enough so at least use the correct aspect ratio for your monitor.

For some reason it looks oddly tall when I play on 1440x900, maybe that's the way it's meant to be for my monitor but I just don't like it, characters just look like they got their height augmented in a bad way; then again I remark again, I play with those settings out of personal preference.

And lol your grandma is awesome then. :cool:

[xxhellspawnedxx]

I have given proof that LA Noire is a TERRIBLE PORT! You are trying to defend what you can't defend!

You've given proof that you think so, based on primarily on your own unfounded opinion, to a minor part on your experience, that's about it. You've also proven that you have no idea what proof actually means, in any meaningful context. Learn the basic concepts of debating before you try it, please.

Furthermore, when you say "read my post", that should actually mean people haven't read your post and are strawman'ing your position, rather than them not blindly, whole-heartedly agreeing with you. Because, low and behold, your opinion seem to be the underdog here, face it. Yet again, learn how to debate properly instead of wasting your own and everyone elses time with pointless accusations.

[flarp]

its a great game, i just wish it was better optimized

[Megumeru]

wish some of us could play it...

[Vivar]

First let me say I picked up LA Noire on PS3 release day and loved it. That being said during my playthrough my PS3 died and I had to pickup a slim. This happened around the time that the PC version was announced. After listening to Rockstar say that it would not just be a port and would include all DLC I decided to wait to start another play through.

I guess after the crap Rockstar pulled with the terrible port of GTA IV and not releasing RDR for PC I shouldn't be shocked but the port is just terrible. See below:

1.The game is capped at 30 FPS due to the face tech, which is bad enough.

2.They didn't work on making the game full screen at higher resolutions (1920x1200 and during the cut scenes take about haf the screen up with huge black bars on the top and bottom, and there are black bars during gameplay).

3.Terrible pop in with buildings and such while driving.

4.The worst offense by far is that the game is so unstable. I can be driving where stuff is loading at a fast pace and stay at a steady 30 FPS, but I might be running after someone and the game drops down to an unplayable 5 FPS.

Honestly if this is the quality we can expect from Rockstar bringing their games to PC I just hope they stop making PC games. Say what you want about other devs and publishers forsaking the PC, but none are worse than Rockstar.

Excellent post. You just defined in a clear an concise way what Rockstar and specifically L.A. Noire are on PC

[Teh_Saccade]

1.The game is capped at 30 FPS due to the face tech, which is bad enough.


TV is 32fps.
The PS3 version runs at this too...


2.They didn't work on making the game full screen at higher resolutions (1920x1200 and during the cut scenes take about haf the screen up with huge black bars on the top and bottom, and there are black bars during gameplay).


Set up your graphics card, using the control panel, to always stretch the display to full screen at whatever resolution. That ensures no matter what, you won't get the letterbox.


3.Terrible pop in with buildings and such while driving.


This is graphics drivers - look at what happened with RAGE and MafiaII. The texture popping can be fixed. Update your drivers and set them up correctly.
If you have to, you can just force the game to display with certain settings for AA and stuff - it's no big deal. I'd rather have fast texture loading and very, very slightly more pixely lines. Or you can just turn them off in the game settings and lower the resolution to one that your card and PC can actually handle, instead of a higher resolution than I use even at work!!!


4.The worst offense by far is that the game is so unstable. I can be driving where stuff is loading at a fast pace and stay at a steady 30 FPS, but I might be running after someone and the game drops down to an unplayable 5 FPS.


See above - the game runs okay - it might just be the fact you're asking it to demand more from your computer than your computer can really handle. Shading, in particular, is something that you can lower dramatically without really even noticing the difference...

I don't care what rig you have, mate, or how good you say it is or how well it does with other games. If you're having problems with running things on Insane settings, either earn loads of money so you can afford the best rig, and keep it updated every month to the best rig, or try to play the game on not-quite-so-insanely-high settings that you rig can handle without breaking a sweat.

I don't like giving opinions on things, because the internet is full of people who do that enough already - but - if you're gonna slate something and provide "proof" that it's bollox:

A good scientist works to disprove his theories before concluding them :)


Honestly if this is the quality we can expect from Rockstar bringing their games to PC I just hope they stop making PC games. Say what you want about other devs and publishers forsaking the PC, but none are worse than Rockstar.

At least they released it man... But yea yr right man: It would've been nice if they'd've spent a little extra time - like Batman Arkham City - to improve the game to match the awesomeness of the PC.

[SoulNefarious]

I still don't understand why everyone is complaining about the 30fps cap. Yes, it's lower than most PC games, but if I get to experience the console experience without creating issues, I'll gladly take the fps cap.
If the face tech really requires 30fps to work correctly and look right, then I'll gladly take the trade off.

However, would've been nice if that was announced lol

[isolated1]

I would grudgingly accept a 30 fps cap if it didn't drop all the time. And GTA4 PC was a decent port, LA Noire, however, is awful. I just hope Rockstar Leeds aren't porting GTA5 to the PC or if they are, they do a better job.

[Kaixx]

The game runs well for me on a Q6600 2.4GHz, ATi Radeon 4980, 4GB RAM. Play it at 1680 x 1050.

May be a bad port for you but someone is always going to have problems with a PC game.

A lot of people complain when they port a game then a lot of people complain when they refuse to port Red Dead Redemption because they say it would be too hard to port with the engine they used for it. People will never be happy.

[Gonville]

There are worse ports out there - GTAIV when it was first released was godawful, though to Rockstar's credit they have done a reasonable job sorting that out over the years. If you want to try a really poor port, download Saints Row 2 (ironically, one of the primary issues is the lack of a frame rate cap. Capping it at 30 would have made the game playable).

There are issues with people above min specs being unable to play the game, but these seem par for the course for any PC game, with the almost infinite variables that PC's can have - the number of people on the forum having issues is probably due to the popularity of the game; click on any forum for any game you're going to find some people with issues, even if the game is a PC only release. Rockstar, to their credit (as seen with GTAIV) tend to continue supporting their games, and do try to solve problems.

One also has to bear in mind that Team Bondi initially anticipated that the game would be a PS3 exclusive; Rockstar's influence as publisher was probably the catalyst that ensured that it was released on Xbox and PC; it does, of course, explain some of the issues (such as the 30 fps*), but complaints about this issue should focus around the (now defunct) developer, rather then the publisher.

Having a go at Rockstar for the frame rate seems a tad silly, unless you expect them to spend millions rejigging the facial capture and rehiring the actors to redo it.


*though that was also borne out of limitations of technology, largely the fact that the facial capture was developed for film (usually 24fps) use.

[Verwandlung]

I guess after the crap Rockstar pulled with the terrible port of GTA IV and not releasing RDR for PC I shouldn't be shocked but the port is just terrible. See below:

1.The game is capped at 30 FPS due to the face tech, which is bad enough.

2.They didn't work on making the game full screen at higher resolutions (1920x1200 and during the cut scenes take about haf the screen up with huge black bars on the top and bottom, and there are black bars during gameplay).

3.Terrible pop in with buildings and such while driving.

4.The worst offense by far is that the game is so unstable. I can be driving where stuff is loading at a fast pace and stay at a steady 30 FPS, but I might be running after someone and the game drops down to an unplayable 5 FPS.

Honestly if this is the quality we can expect from Rockstar bringing their games to PC I just hope they stop making PC games. Say what you want about other devs and publishers forsaking the PC, but none are worse than Rockstar.

1. I don't care about the 30 FPS cap with this game, it's not a FPS and there is barely any fast action. Sure it would be better if there was no fps limit but it doesn't bother me personally.

2. I agree there is no excuse for doing this, unfortunately it seems to be fairly common practice these days (Ubi did this again in AC Brotherhood...)

3. I think terrible is a bit of an exaggeration since I have seen far worse offenders but it could be better ofc.

4. Runs perfectly smooth on my system.

All in all this is a much better port than GTA IV so IMO R* is going in the right direction and shouldn't stop releasing their games for pc. (Nobody is forcing you to play their games btw.)

[JockScot]

The game to me was released to make more money for Rockstar as the sales of the PS3 and X-Box 360 were not very good. It seems to me a straight port from console and very little was done for the PC version.

[TwwIX]

Let's get real, guys.
It's a good game but it's definitely another sloppy port from Rockstar.
Blurry textures, fps cap, poor optimization and lots of pop up. The only reason why we got a PC version is because the console versions didn't meet their sales goals. If they really gave a ♥♥♥♥ about the PC user base, they would have released RDR by now.

[ShadyGuy]

1.The game is capped at 30 FPS due to the face tech, which is bad enough.

Seeing as LA Noire isn't much of an action game this isn't a biggie, in my opinion.


2.They didn't work on making the game full screen at higher resolutions (1920x1200 and during the cut scenes take about haf the screen up with huge black bars on the top and bottom, and there are black bars during gameplay).

I think this is a stylistic choice rather than having to do with a console port. The game emulates a cinematic widescreen style common to noir films.

3.Terrible pop in with buildings and such while driving.

Funny, I never noticed any pop-ins at all.

4.The worst offense by far is that the game is so unstable. I can be driving where stuff is loading at a fast pace and stay at a steady 30 FPS, but I might be running after someone and the game drops down to an unplayable 5 FPS.

Never noticed this at all either. Maybe your system specs are a bit too low for the game?

Honestly if this is the quality we can expect from Rockstar bringing their games to PC I just hope they stop making PC games. Say what you want about other devs and publishers forsaking the PC, but none are worse than Rockstar.

And here's me hoping that they'll bring Red Dead Redemption to pc. It's a pipe dream, but I don't own a console. :-/

As for being bad at porting, I can probably name a couple of other companies with a worse track record than Rockstar.

[Durzel]

Good God this game is so poorly optimised. 4.6Ghz Intel i7-2600k rig with Tri-fire HD6990 and HD6970, and I don't even get a constant 30fps in 2560x1600. Ridiculous. I get at least that in Battlefield 3 100% of the time on ULTRA settings.

I know the game isn't all about the FPS but 30 FPS is jarring to me, it looks jerky.

This will teach me to get sucked into a Steam sale for a game I really should've bought on my PS3 instead. Console port through and through, and a shocking one at that.

[barabajagal]

Is the game a perfect port? No it isn't. It would be a miracle if it was!

I've been pc gaming ever since the days of CP/M and DOS. This I've learned: whether the game is a pc exclusive or a port, pc gamers will almost always have to tweak their software and hardware to make a game run right. Although frustrating at times, it's a burden we bear in support of our hobby.

As I get older I find I have less time for my hobby so a game has to grab and hold my attention for me to play it and hopefully complete it. Aside from its short-comings, LA Noire is one such game that does just that. It's great entertainment and an easy recommendation especially considering it's only twelve Washingtons and three peices of silver.

[Devnant]

Also fell for the discount trap. I even own the game on the PS3 but thought it was ok since at -75% it would be cheaper than buying DLC for the PS3.

Man... I'm shocked at the terrible and inconstant performance. It just runs much better on the consoles.

[Durzel]

Is the game a perfect port? No it isn't. It would be a miracle if it was!

I've been pc gaming ever since the days of CP/M and DOS. This I've learned: whether the game is a pc exclusive or a port, pc gamers will almost always have to tweak their software and hardware to make a game run right. Although frustrating at times, it's a burden we bear in support of our hobby.

As I get older I find I have less time for my hobby so a game has to grab and hold my attention for me to play it and hopefully complete it. Aside from its short-comings, LA Noire is one such game that does just that. It's great entertainment and an easy recommendation especially considering it's only twelve Washingtons and three peices of silver.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a good example of a recent game that quite possibly was a console port on the PC but was done well enough that it wasn't noticeable at all. It ran well at launch, the graphics were spectacular on PC and the control system was re-orientated towards keyboard & mouse properly.

You're essentially defending an intentionally shoddy conversion on the basis that "you're too old to care". Not a particularly strong argument really.

The core of LA Noire is a good game (obviously) but that does not excuse the standard of the PC version. 30 FPS cap, a control system poorly transferred and textures that look practically the same on "high quality" does not a good console port make.

[trek554]

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a good example of a recent game that quite possibly was a console port on the PC but was done well enough that it wasn't noticeable at all. It ran well at launch, the graphics were spectacular on PC and the control system was re-orientated towards keyboard & mouse properly.

You're essentially defending an intentionally shoddy conversion on the basis that "you're too old to care". Not a particularly strong argument really.

The core of LA Noire is a good game (obviously) but that does not excuse the standard of the PC version. 30 FPS cap, a control system poorly transferred and textures that look practically the same on "high quality" does not a good console port make.lol, what world do you live in? Deus Ex HR is well known for its stuttering issues. the game was also a little buggy as you would lose the firing sound on the rifle at some point once it was fully upgraded. and for some reason something would randomly trigger a lower walking speed which required restarting the game to fix. there was also one mission where you were supposed to read the pocket secretary but was bugged. a simple google search will show those issues were the norm.

and you must not play many modern games if you think HR's graphics are spectacular. in many spots the game has horrible color banding and dithering. the sky looks looks like 8 bit color and the cut scenes are pretty bad too. it has horrible animations and the faces look worse than an old game like HL 2. again those issues were well known too.

[Wazgrel]

Say what you want about fps cap, resolution stuff etc, I played the game on PS3 and now replaying it on PC, and all I can say is none of this bothers me, I'm still enjoying the game. And I don't have any issues with running it. FPS almost never drop below cap. It runs at highest settings with AAx2 and resoution at 1920x1200 smoothly.
My specs:
Windows 7 Ultimate, 32-bit
Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz 3.00 GHz
4GB RAM
PCIE 16x Asus 1024 Mb GeForce GTS450
Hard drive is 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black
I'm glad to replay it with new cases, and glad to also own the game on PC. I think you guys just nitpicking it for no real reason.

[Murwaz]

I bought the game 2 days ago and so far the game has been running well. Only thing that I have noticed is cars disapearing infront of me. Mostly the ones I drive and park when I then jump in to anther one they just go up in thin air. And weird graphical glitches over people's mouths.

My system is brand new and fairly high specs so it has no problems there.

i5 2500k running at stock speed. 16 gb ram, GTX 570 graphics card. The machine is only 2 weeks old. There might be a few more issues but nothing major.

But I do understand why people are tired and become angry at developers.
I constantly feel more or less ripped off from buying games, because there is major issues with almost every big title these days. And sure its hard to make them run perfect on every system variation, I get that. But when it seem obvious that they have been sloppy. Like I got Saints Row 3, the game is awesome, I love it but god damn its stupid. Enemies never ever stop respawning. And weird steering and camera angels... Drives me nuts.

Skyrim, there I guess I have been lucky, it ran great on my old AMD X2 2.9 Ghz with 4 gb ram, and HD 4770 and it runs superbly on this system I got now. But same there, there is tons of stupid problems, NPC's saying the same ♥♥♥♥ all the time, wich is a thing we see in most games I guess. And I'm not gonna drag it all up, you all know what I mean, things that make the game feel just stupid. Why bother put all the stuff in if its gonna be halfassed and just immersion breaking. (263 hours in skyrim..<3 )
Dont think I have had any CTD or anything excpet for with one patch but that was fixed a few hours later.

I run all of these games tho on absolut max settings.

Run Crysis 2 with Ultra texture pack and DX11 aswell on max. And that game aswell, A.I being so stupid at times... after 10 - 15 years of A.I programming in games, shouldnt it become abit better by now? :P

Rant over. Be safe! xD

[stillmatic07]

I don't understand the people defending this game, maybe they got a perfect system config that assimilates with the game.

FOR THE REST OF US, this game runs like a two legged spider.

I can run CRYSIS on ULTRA with 40FPS.

Q6600 3.6ghz
GTX570SUPERCLOCKED

My GPU usage maxes out at 15%, when GOOD games like Metro2033 run at 98%, where I get 50FPS on MAX settings.

Please, stop trying to defend this POS.

[trek554]

I am nearly 3 hours into the game and have not had a single technical issue aside from the slightly irritating 30 fps cap. that's using a 2500k and gt570. and sorry but you don't average 50 fps in Metro 2033 on "MAX settings" with a gtx570.

[stillmatic07]

I am nearly 3 hours into the game and have not had a single technical issue aside from the slightly irritating 30 fps cap. that's using a 2500k and gt570. and sorry but you don't average 50 fps in Metro 2033 on "MAX settings" with a gtx570.

570 superclocked, 40 is my overall average but I definitely get 50 average on some maps. You still haven't addressed the issue of this being an awful console port for most players... or do you think we should have a tally?

[trek554]

570 superclocked, 40 is my overall average but I definitely get 50 average on some maps. You still haven't addressed the issue of this being an awful console port for most players... or do you think we should have a tally?what do you want me to say? it works perfect for me or I would be complaining too.

[stillmatic07]

what do you want me to say? it works perfect for me or I would be complaining too.

You don't need to say anything. Congrats on the smooth gameplay.
However, Rockstar needs a SERIOUS patch to fix performance issues, just as they did with GTA, then I'll be satisfied with this hyped purchase of mine.

Until then I'll enjoy something playable.

[barabajagal]

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a good example of a recent game that quite possibly was a console port on the PC but was done well enough that it wasn't noticeable at all. It ran well at launch, the graphics were spectacular on PC and the control system was re-orientated towards keyboard & mouse properly.

You're essentially defending an intentionally shoddy conversion on the basis that "you're too old to care". Not a particularly strong argument really.

The core of LA Noire is a good game (obviously) but that does not excuse the standard of the PC version. 30 FPS cap, a control system poorly transferred and textures that look practically the same on "high quality" does not a good console port make.

There's no argument in my statement at all. If you're a pc gamer and have been one for as long as I have been, this is the norm. You can't expect a developer to test the game on every desktop and laptop and hardware combinations out there in the wild. I'm not defending their intentionally shoddy conversions, I'm saying its a fact of life. "Ship it now and patch it later" is the mantra. I empathize with the original poster. He made some good points. He's simply warning other players who might be considering the game for the pc about the game's short comings on the pc. I appreciate his input, but the issues he listed haven't been enough to prevent me from purchasing and thoroughly enjoying the game on my fairly high end rig. If the game is fun and entertains me then I'm in. LA Noire, a great port, no, but fun and entertaining on the pc, yes.

[Smatticus]

@hlhbk
My experience of the game, the two hours I've played of it anyhow, was nothing by amicable. It ran smooth as cream on ultra settings, no FPS drops, props "popping" into view, screen tearing, CTDs and so on.

Granted, my computer is pretty up-to-date: Slightly overclocked i7 920 CPU, slightly overclocked GTX 580 graphics card, 12 gigs of RAM.

Your problems could be the result of a number of factors:

Have you set the game up in accordance with your level of hardware? Lots of applications crash when you try to push it to run at a level your computer simply can't handle.



i run an i7 2600, 8gb of ram and an xfx 5870 and I have frame rate drops. i REALLY don't think it's the hardware here. the game plays smooth one second and then decides to drop to 10fps the next. i shouldn't need to lower the settings especially when i can play rage, skyrim, the witcher 2 and pretty much EVERY other game at 1920x1080 with the same settings and not have any issues. but i tried anyway just to be certain and sure enough every time it comes out of a cut scene there's a random drop in the fps that just kills the game for me.

[TriggRNC]

The game runs well for me on a Q6600 2.4GHz, ATi Radeon 4980, 4GB RAM. Play it at 1680 x 1050.

May be a bad port for you but someone is always going to have problems with a PC game.

A lot of people complain when they port a game then a lot of people complain when they refuse to port Red Dead Redemption because they say it would be too hard to port with the engine they used for it. People will never be happy.

Runs fine for me on exactly the same set up apart from a GTX560 SC.
Having a better rig than someone doesn't necassitate that a game will run better than someone with a worse rig, Probably due to the amount of compatibilities and intangibles. It may be good for the ego but nothings guaranteed

[Winijaw82]

I don't think so. This is a way better port than GTA 4. It runs much smoother, at least it does for me.

[vampman05]

I've only just found this out that even tho i have these specs

win7 32bit sp1
quad core
4gb ram
560Ti (290.53 drivers)
1920x1080

(doesnt matter what make/model etc)

i was getting stuttering etc and performance problems. After reading up and finding out about the command lines over at rockstar and on another forum. I then started putting in the command line of -str in both steam AND the launch box and now running on "quality" without any stutters (apart from Alt+tab)

the url is here for more command lines
http://support.rockstargames.com/entries/20605987-full-list-of-pc-command-line-parameters-for-l-a-noire

hope this helps some people as this game is really good and i'm enjoying it more with the full quality on and seeing what the game is SUPPOSE to be like :)

[Eek!]

Really pleased the -str command is working for so many people. I just wish it worked for me ;).

[mrbud420]

First let me say I picked up LA Noire on PS3 release day and loved it. That being said during my playthrough my PS3 died and I had to pickup a slim. This happened around the time that the PC version was announced. After listening to Rockstar say that it would not just be a port and would include all DLC I decided to wait to start another play through.

I guess after the crap Rockstar pulled with the terrible port of GTA IV and not releasing RDR for PC I shouldn't be shocked but the port is just terrible. See below:

1.The game is capped at 30 FPS due to the face tech, which is bad enough.

2.They didn't work on making the game full screen at higher resolutions (1920x1200 and during the cut scenes take about haf the screen up with huge black bars on the top and bottom, and there are black bars during gameplay).

3.Terrible pop in with buildings and such while driving.

4.The worst offense by far is that the game is so unstable. I can be driving where stuff is loading at a fast pace and stay at a steady 30 FPS, but I might be running after someone and the game drops down to an unplayable 5 FPS.

Honestly if this is the quality we can expect from Rockstar bringing their games to PC I just hope they stop making PC games. Say what you want about other devs and publishers forsaking the PC, but none are worse than Rockstar.



first off you should get a better computer before you start whinning about a game you cant play. my computers a monster and i never ever dropped to 5 fps ever ever ever with quality settings for all graphic details. plus the game is capped at 30 for a reason just like you stated the facial motion will be ♥♥♥♥ed if you ran at 60 fps. and if its that big off a deal there is another post with a fixed exe to run 1920x1200 and all other resolutions without the bars so stop ♥♥♥♥♥ing and do some homework idiot.

win 7 64x sp1
AMD Phenom II X6 3.2 ghz
16gb ram
dual HD 6670 1gb DDR5
seagate 1.5TB hard drive
corsair HX1000W psu

built by me not store bought and i did own la noire for the 360 when it was first released and just purchased this on steam christmas sale and i am way happier with the pc version but thats prob. just because my pc is 10x better then a 360 and ps3

[trek554]

first off you should get a better computer before you start whinning about a game you cant play. my computers a monster and i never ever dropped to 5 fps ever ever ever with quality settings for all graphic details. plus the game is capped at 30 for a reason just like you stated the facial motion will be ♥♥♥♥ed if you ran at 60 fps. and if its that big off a deal there is another post with a fixed exe to run 1920x1200 and all other resolutions without the bars so stop ♥♥♥♥♥ing and do some homework idiot.

win 7 64x sp1
AMD Phenom II X6 3.2 ghz
16gb ram
dual HD 6670 1gb DDR5
seagate 1.5TB hard drive
corsair HX1000W psu

built by me not store bought and i did own la noire for the 360 when it was first released and just purchased this on steam christmas sale and i am way happier with the pc version but thats prob. just because my pc is 10x better then a 360 and ps3

you think a 6670 qualifies a monster card? lol, that's a low end card and its not even remotely close to 10x faster than the 360 either. funny how you call him an idiot though...

[halobolola]

Love this game on PC.
Dont have an idea what it is like on console, but flawless playing, i only had one problem with it so far, which is i left an area and the game refused to load, so i drove over invisible roads, and buildings unloaded, until my pc crashed HARD
other than that no problems. yes it is only 30 fps, but i am fine with that.
no idea what you mean with black bars, as it only happens during cutscences which other games also do.

[daniu]

It's not a good port at all, and not even for technical reasons, game runs smooth for me.
The control scheme is horrible; who would ever put "horn" on the keyboard so you can't reach it properly while driving? The control itself sucks too; there are two "action" buttons - "e" and left mouse -, the car adjusts into the lane by itself (which is utterly pointless with a device as precise as the mouse), and running around on foot is more than sub-par. Often enough you have to take a step or two to be able to turn around, after fiddling around with the more intuitive means to do that ("a"/"d" and mouse movement).
This all stems from the game coming from console; I never encountered this kind of clumsy control from a native PC game, APB comes to mind right now.

Aside from all this, LA Noire in itself is not a good game at all.
It puts its presentation over player experience (not being able to cancel cutscenes or even own actions), exploring the city is hardly rewarded but disincenticised by punishing driving damage, its "puzzles" solve themselves and the outcome of a case relies mostly on the very last decision of the player (instead of on overall performance). I'm glad I only paid 12 Euros in the Steam sale, it's not worth more.

[Shaun239]

I love the guy who says the game runs amazing when he's only playing at 1280x720.

"Hey guess what dudes, Arma 2 runs amazing on my machine! I've got it maxed at 640 x 480! All you guys complaining must have crap machines!"

Also, yeah, the game isn't really that good. The open world was just a waste of development time - it looks horrible and it serves no real purpose for the game. The characters aren't really that special - apparently expressing doubt to the main character means to go bat♥♥♥♥ on them. Its also not really Noire...and the black and white setting is pathetic - like they just added a photoshop filter to the game. It makes you feel like your missing out rather than add to the atmosphere. Even the Saboteur actually looked decent in black and white with effort paid towards lighting and shadows etc and that game was completely broken.

To be honest, I'd rather they'd ported Red Dead. At least that game is good.

[Charu]

I love the guy who says the game runs amazing when he's only playing at 1280x720.

Don't see a problem with that resolution, nor probably did the guy you're mentioning. Is it because it produces more jaggies that you scoff at him for saying it's amazing? I don't know, in my opinion, jaggies really don't bother me or low resolutions.

Then again, my hardware, or rather GPU, is sort of between middle to low quality now a days. So I'm forced to use that resolution for some games. It's not too bad looking, I can still turn most options on to max because of this resolution. Beats that than turning on the same options with more pixels to render.

[mojoes]

Really pleased the -str command is working for so many people. I just wish it worked for me ;).

Thanks, I just installed the game, and it went from beeing unplayable at low to a stable 30 FPS with all on max@1600x1200 resolution.

On a Core2Duo@3.2Ghz, GTX460, 4GB Ram.

[scmnorcal]

It makes me feel bad when someone comes here to criticize a game with points that are facts and it turns into a flame war. I find it selfish when people post things about how their game runs flawless when many people with better systems have serious problems. It makes me think shill.

I have a good system I built and it dominates games that are much more demanding. My computer is not even under load and I have a constant tear across the middle of the screen as well as shaking objects. My FPS are fine but the graphics are not optimized for PC's especially high end PC's. The only thing I am getting from this thread is some advice given by Mark Twain. "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

Win 7 64
Asus p8p67 pro rev 3.1
i7 2600K @ 4.3Ghz
8Gb 1600 Mhz DDR3 RAM
560 Ti OC 1Gb
Kingston Hyper X 120GB SSD

I feel your pain hlhbk. I love Steam and I have almost 200 Steam games. So far, almost every one of them has either worked great right away or only needed minor tweaking. Then there are a few games like this one. Tweaking doesn't seem to help much and it creates other problems. I guess I could just run at low resolutions and turn down the graphics options but it just doesn't make sense. My computer is not even close to max load which makes me think it is more an optimization problem. If it worked better on high end PC's then I think it would be a great game. I just think some people are used to seeing a certain level of fidelity and performance out of their PC and this title does not deliver.

[BC2 Cypher]

I love the guy who says the game runs amazing when he's only playing at 1280x720.

"Hey guess what dudes, Arma 2 runs amazing on my machine! I've got it maxed at 640 x 480! All you guys complaining must have crap machines!"

Also, yeah, the game isn't really that good. The open world was just a waste of development time - it looks horrible and it serves no real purpose for the game. The characters aren't really that special - apparently expressing doubt to the main character means to go bat♥♥♥♥ on them. Its also not really Noire...and the black and white setting is pathetic - like they just added a photoshop filter to the game. It makes you feel like your missing out rather than add to the atmosphere. Even the Saboteur actually looked decent in black and white with effort paid towards lighting and shadows etc and that game was completely broken.

To be honest, I'd rather they'd ported Red Dead. At least that game is good.

Game runs great for me.

And I'm playing at 1920x1080 at max settings. No FPS drops, stuttering, black bars or crashes.

I do like Red Dead better as well, but this is still a really good game. And it has a really long single player (25+ if you have all the DLC cases).

It has a great story, great acting, great soundtrack and style to fit the genre and decent gameplay.

I think the city looks good. The graphics aren't like BF3 or anything but they're decent. Waht the game lacks in texture resolution and graphical effects, it gains with level of detail.

The city has so much detail to it and I still like driving around in it.

Also I found this awesome quote by someone regarding the face animation technology they used in the game.

I like that Rockstar allways has the interest to advance gamedesign to higher levels through improving more important aspects such as animations rather then jumping on the graphics race bandwagon. I hope more and more producers realise that games are art and that they can achieve profit through innovation in the right areas rather then milking the graphics hype machine.

Couldn't have said it better.

[psylocyber]

I'm not trying to be a "hater" or overly critical. I paid $5. I got my money's worth. With the rave reviews and all the hype I just expected better gameplay.
I can live with the graphics, but I can barely call this a "Game" using the "mostly useless" keyboard & mouse as controllers. I can't believe there's not a way to transfer controls to a different medium (key&mouse) without losing 80% in the translation. Especially when Fighting or Moving under Cover, I could (almost) randomly hit the keys and get the same precision of movement.
Even accepting that, the points requiring truth/lie determination are often set after witness OPINIONS rather than FACTUAL statements and can NOT be judged truth/lie the same way as a statement. Many questions only available on certain suspects even though relevant for many. Constantly having to prove a "lie" accusation without access to much observed evidence, especially the log where a suspects contradicting testimony would prove the "lie".
Anyway, I wouldn't B so critical if I hadn't read so many "Great" reviews regarding the case solving aspects of this game.

[dixieflatline07]

I don't buy it. I have a better system than yours and am lucky to get 35 FPS in GTA IV.



Um how about reading my post before responding???? I said that the black bars were visable DURING GAMEPLAY if you have your re♥♥♥♥ion anywhere above 720p.



Again READ MY POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND!!!!!!! I said that Skyrim was and I quote " lead on consoles, came out for PC day 1 and is awesome on PC". Do you know what lead on consoles means? Please enlighten us!



I have given proof that LA Noire is a TERRIBLE PORT! You are trying to defend what you can't defend!

Yikes... someone is a little grouchy.
You haven't proven anything. LA Noire has worked flawlessly for me since the first time I've played it. Still works flawlessly.

30fps is a little annoying, but I knew about that long before I purchased it. I'm not getting any of the other issues you are talking about.

Nor am I having trouble with GTA 4... I haven't for about a year now. They fixed the game up very well. I'm running an i5, ATI Radeon HD 5650, DX11, Windows 7 x64, 4gb RAM at 1600 x 900. Hardly a super rig.
Runs LA Noire flawlessly at High to mid settings, GTA 4 maxxed.

In fact, the only R* game I've ever had a problem with on the PC is Max Payne 3. But R* support fixed my problem in about a week (damn elusive driver for my laptop).

I'm sorry you're upset. And yes -- R* isn't exactly known for making the world's best ports. LA Noire is far from perfect, but you're making the game out to be unplayable.

[ZeeSpah]

LA Noire is far from perfect, but you're making the game out to be unplayable.

It is for some of us. I still haunt this forum in hopes they might fix whatever the heck is wrong with it for me and others, but I somehow doubt that'll ever happen. :D

[Bluewave256]

Sarcasm mode ON:

Hey guys I've a monster PC like:

E4300 @ 2 GHz
ATI 4350 512 MB GDDR3
2 GB DDR 333 MHz Samsung
Asrock P4P48
Maxtor ATA-66 50 GB
generic brand 200 watt PSU with 10 ampere on the +12 volt line

And you what, my game runs smooth like butter, works like a charm <insert stupid english american comparison here> at 320x200 in mode 13h. :cool:

Sarcasm mode OFF.

The truth is the game is badly ported. I understand my PC is old:

E6750 @ 3,2 GHz
Geforce GTX 560 Ti OC 1 GB GDDR3
2 GB DDR2 800 MHz Corsair XM2 CL4
Gigabyte P31-S3G
Western Digital Caviar Black 500 GB SATA-III 6 Gb/s
Corsair GX 700 watt with 50 ampere on the +12 volt line

And every ♥♥♥♥ing game works very well apart Deus Ex 3 Human Revolution that has that shader streaming stuttering problem that wasn't there before some last patch.
I can even use ugrids 9 on Skyrim without slowdowns and crashes.
But this game is slow, but if it was slow always I would think it's ok because maybe my PC doesn't go too fast but sometimes it goes with all maxed out at 30 fps average and then without a reason it drops at 15 fps that obviously renders the game unplayable.

But the worse thing is the next week I'll buy a new PC:

i5 3570k @ 3,4 GHz stock that I'll overclock at 4 or 4,2 GHz with a dedicated overclocking fan+heatsink
Gigabyte Z77-UD5H
8 GB DDR3 2133 MHz G-Skill Ares F3 CL 9
SSD SATA-III 6 Gb/s Corsair Force GT 60 GB
Noctua CPU cooler NH-U12P SE2

And I think it will go slow like a nail anyway. So don't say the game's a good port. It isn't.

And sorry for my english but I'm not a native speaker.

[BC2 Cypher]

Sarcasm mode ON:

Hey guys I've a monster PC like:

E4300 @ 2 GHz
ATI 4350 512 MB GDDR3
2 GB DDR 333 MHz Samsung
Asrock P4P48
Maxtor ATA-66 50 GB
generic brand 200 watt PSU with 10 ampere on the +12 volt line

And you what, my game runs smooth like butter, works like a charm <insert stupid english american comparison here> at 320x200 in mode 13h. :cool:

Sarcasm mode OFF.

The truth is the game is badly ported. I understand my PC is old:

E6750 @ 3,2 GHz
Geforce GTX 560 Ti OC 1 GB GDDR3
2 GB DDR2 800 MHz Corsair XM2 CL4
Gigabyte P31-S3G
Western Digital Caviar Black 500 GB SATA-III 6 Gb/s
Corsair GX 700 watt with 50 ampere on the +12 volt line

And every ♥♥♥♥ing game works very well apart Deus Ex 3 Human Revolution that has that shader streaming stuttering problem that wasn't there before some last patch.
I can even use ugrids 9 on Skyrim without slowdowns and crashes.
But this game is slow, but if it was slow always I would think it's ok because maybe my PC doesn't go too fast but sometimes it goes with all maxed out at 30 fps average and then without a reason it drops at 15 fps that obviously renders the game unplayable.

But the worse thing is the next week I'll buy a new PC:

i5 3570k @ 3,4 GHz stock that I'll overclock at 4 or 4,2 GHz with a dedicated overclocking fan+heatsink
Gigabyte Z77-UD5H
8 GB DDR3 2133 MHz G-Skill Ares F3 CL 9
SSD SATA-III 6 Gb/s Corsair Force GT 60 GB
Noctua CPU cooler NH-U12P SE2

And I think it will go slow like a nail anyway. So don't say the game's a good port. It isn't.

And sorry for my english but I'm not a native speaker.


It's not a very good port no, but I've seen a lot worse.

It's very playable at least if you have a good enough system.

[Bluewave256]

It's not a very good port no, but I've seen a lot worse.

It's very playable at least if you have a good enough system.

I hope you're right. But I think it'll go slow anyway because of my lack of luck.

I think the game use mainly much CPU and secondly RAM and HDD.
So I think one need very very fast CPU, many GBs of very fast RAM and a very fast HDD like a SSD to overcome the many bottlenecks that a lazy port without any standard PC optimizations has.

And a good CPU cooler and a good case because sometimes the temperatures slow down the games. I think.

Anyway with my current PC even with everything set to performance, with every optimizations in the Nvidia control panel and the SSAO, FXAA and AF set to "off" the game goes slow. Certainly there's a difference in terms of speed because the game now go in certain places at 30 fps average but in another places it go down to 15 again.

And FXAA sucks like hell. It blurs the textures and give worse results than MSAA 4x.
Another console thing. :(