The closest thing we have now is cleverbot, and that doesn't even talk... you might be waiting a while :/Piorn said:
I gotta agree though, procedurally generated voices for stuff that happens in game would be awesome.
Poll: Should games have less voice acting.
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I gotta agree though, procedurally generated voices for stuff that happens in game would be awesome.
Depends on the game, if a game is going to have voice acting, they better put some resources into it and make sure its GOOD voice acting- if you really think voice acting isnt an important part of a game, you have clearly never played Portal or Bastion.
Howeveer, having voiceacting in the first place does place some limits on the game, modern RPG's tend have a lot less diologue than they used to, presumably due to the cost of making every conversation a damn novel. If having voice acting is going to reduce the amount of diologue in a game, then i'd say keep it text based.
Howeveer, having voiceacting in the first place does place some limits on the game, modern RPG's tend have a lot less diologue than they used to, presumably due to the cost of making every conversation a damn novel. If having voice acting is going to reduce the amount of diologue in a game, then i'd say keep it text based.
They're not exactly RPGs, but Fire Emblem and Zelda have no voice acting and they seem to do just fine. Hell, Metroid was better without voice acting (but we can also blame the developers who just half-assed it). And do we want to have Gordon Freeman say anything? Just saying, sometimes actions really do speak louder than words ever could.jonyboy13 said:
(Granted, some games work better with voices, my argument is that not all games need it to be a good game. In fact, some are just fine, or better without them).
If we are going to talk about acting in games, then a lot more is lacking in motion capture than in voice acting. As an acting student myself, I cringe whenever I watch a good vocal performance in a game spoiled by terrible accompanying visuals. I also believe that there is huge untapped potential in games that can capture an actor's entire performance rather than just their voice. Andy Serkis, of Gollum fame, has made it an ambition to set up a school specifically to teach actors successful motion capture techniques. So, as long as game developers pay actors to act and not just speak into a microphone, then the future of acting in games looks bright.
YES. Less voice acting means more dialogue options, or more time and money spent on gameplay than Voice actors.
I remember when the WWE series of wrestling games went to voice actors. now, instead of open-ended story modes you get six "Road to Wrestlemania" modes which are fully voiced with limited branching.Soviet Heavy said:
This is a pet peeve of mine, as voice options limit a lot of things in games. Doesn't mean they're all bad, but the more options, the more they have to cover. That means more dialogue options, more time voice acting, more money on the voice actors.
I'm seeing the primary argument by people saying "Less Voice Acting" is that the money will be put to something else then.
I point to this:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/2330071199.shtml
You will likely remember this from a while back. The voice actors of GTA IV complained that the amount of money that they made from the game was $100,000 for fifteen months worth of work and motion capturing. The cost of the game: Approx. $100,000,000. What in the world would that extra amount be able to give you that would make it worth cutting out the voice acting?
That voice acting work is also one of the highest paid out, so the $100,000 back for your team to put elsewhere is going to be a high ball number.
I point to this:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/2330071199.shtml
You will likely remember this from a while back. The voice actors of GTA IV complained that the amount of money that they made from the game was $100,000 for fifteen months worth of work and motion capturing. The cost of the game: Approx. $100,000,000. What in the world would that extra amount be able to give you that would make it worth cutting out the voice acting?
That voice acting work is also one of the highest paid out, so the $100,000 back for your team to put elsewhere is going to be a high ball number.
Voice acting is part of polish. Getting rid of it "for extra polish" doesn't make any sense, that's like cutting a game's length to extend it.
Minecraft is a brilliant game with practically zero voice acting.
Dragon Age is a brilliant game with spectacular voice acting.
Some games benefit from it, others don't, as with any gameplay feature. The key is not decreasing or increasing the amount of voice acting used, the key is to identify when it is important, and how important it is.
Dragon Age is a brilliant game with spectacular voice acting.
Some games benefit from it, others don't, as with any gameplay feature. The key is not decreasing or increasing the amount of voice acting used, the key is to identify when it is important, and how important it is.
While i do miss the more complex old games like Ultima Underworld, and dont see that as particularly possible in today's market, i think most games would suffer if not for the voice acting they have. I have gotten used to not having to read walls of text to advance the story and want it to stay that way.
Except quick time events... those are more a detriment then a bonusBocaj2000 said:
Personally though, games need to focus a little less on how they look and more on they're gameplay, a lot of games seem to be short because most of the disc is taken up by the assets for the game, leaving not a lot of room for the rest
well considering i absolutely loathe all half life games...Seventh Actuality said:
kinda redundant there.
and while cutscenes aren't detrimental like i said, they can really get across an emotional moment or change the course of the main plot when need be (as of recent, the uncharted games do this alot.)
I'm saying no although I guess I'm bias since most games I've bought has no voice acting (therefore I want more of it).
Voice acting is an important part of many games. I think you're underestimating its benefit. All this post basically amounts to is asking us if we think voice acting is as unimportant as you do, and I simply do not. If you're looking at video games from the perspective of "It's a game, not a story, and if they do less on story and acting we get more game," I can see where you're coming from, but I think that perspective is also a horrible, anti-progressive way to look at the medium. From the perspective of one who respects and loves video games as an art form, voice acting should be no less a priority than other areas of the game, as should any other part of the design. It's all important, and should all be given focus.
Voice acting lends immersion to a game; not in a complex way, but in a simple one. Especially now that we have such advanced graphics, it's simply weird to see a character moving or talking, but needing to read the text and hearing no words. It's beneficial from an artistic perspective, and as such is very important to the medium. Not to all games, of course, but in no way should we undervalue it.
Voice acting lends immersion to a game; not in a complex way, but in a simple one. Especially now that we have such advanced graphics, it's simply weird to see a character moving or talking, but needing to read the text and hearing no words. It's beneficial from an artistic perspective, and as such is very important to the medium. Not to all games, of course, but in no way should we undervalue it.
Absolutely not!
For me, voice acting is a vital part of immersion. I hate silent protagonists and NPC's. I feel, that without a voice, characters have no personality and they just feel like lumps of pixels that get in fights.
Also I sure as shit wouldn't like to read through games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Skyrim.
For me, voice acting is a vital part of immersion. I hate silent protagonists and NPC's. I feel, that without a voice, characters have no personality and they just feel like lumps of pixels that get in fights.
Also I sure as shit wouldn't like to read through games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Skyrim.
First of all, I don't mind quicktime events. It adds interactivity to what would otherwise be a cutscene. It makes the player feel more powerful and that they have earned the kill instead of watching the same repetitive cutscene over and over. Just because Yahtzee hates it does not mean that it has no purpose.MiriaJiyuu said:
As for the coding- you have no idea how little space coding takes up. If the gameplay falls short it's because the designers didn't properly plan it, not because of time and resources.
So what? They didn't like some things. I would rather see a game try to do too much than not do enough. The fear to add things is what's slowing down this industry. We should focus on progress more than sales and popularity. Also, whoever believes that dumbing down graphics or that cutting other resources would improve gameplay is extremely nieve.Professor James said:
People didn't like Manet at all. Critics hated him as well as the public, but he single-handedly changed the world of art.
I'd rather have no voice-acting than bad voice-acting, unless it's the rare so bad it's good comedy stuff.
Most voice-acting in games is bad. Then again, so is most of the dialogue game writers can come up with.
Generally it would be better if games had less story, VOs included, with a just a handful of exceptions. I can do alot with merely a premise.
Most voice-acting in games is bad. Then again, so is most of the dialogue game writers can come up with.
Generally it would be better if games had less story, VOs included, with a just a handful of exceptions. I can do alot with merely a premise.
Depends what type of game you;re going for really. If you're managing the budget on a Saints Row game then gameplay comes before story, if you're a Bioware employee then it's the other way around. The question is too general.