Also playing LA Noire. Very nice atmosphere though I of course know neither the late 40s nor L.A. but still, it´s quite enjoyable. I am having problems with the questionings though.
Now it´s not that I can´t tell when they´re lying, my english is good enough for things like that, it´s linking the lie to a piece of evidence. Like the very first lie in the tutorial with the woman in the shoestore, there´s no relation between what she says and the evidence presented to prove that she was lying.
I don´t get it. The same thing happens later in the first traffic-case too.
 Spoilers! |
You know Mr. Morgan bought the Pig because the reciept was in the back of the car but that doesn´t mean he was at the scene, again, no relation. He might´ve bought the pig, put it in the trunk, drove the car back to the suspect and left while forgetting the reciept. He´s involved, no doubt, but there´s no proof whatsoever that he was at the trainyard. |
Am I expecting to much logic here or is my own logic just flawed?
Linear Mode
