Also playing LA Noire. Very nice atmosphere though I of course know neither the late 40s nor L.A. but still, itīs quite enjoyable. I am having problems with the questionings though.
Now itīs not that I canīt tell when theyīre lying, my english is good enough for things like that, itīs linking the lie to a piece of evidence. Like the very first lie in the tutorial with the woman in the shoestore, thereīs no relation between what she says and the evidence presented to prove that she was lying.
I donīt 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 doesnīt mean he was at the scene, again, no relation. He mightīve bought the pig, put it in the trunk, drove the car back to the suspect and left while forgetting the reciept. Heīs involved, no doubt, but thereīs no proof whatsoever that he was at the trainyard. |
Am I expecting to much logic here or is my own logic just flawed?