- May 15, 2010
A good game doesn't need Hollywood voice actors to be a good game. Actually most of the voice production, aside from the animators attempting to sync cutscenes and code in-game face/voice sync, V/O isn't that costly in comparison to the rest of development. Unless of course you're using A-List Hollywood actors.Professor James said:If games had less voice acting, that would mean more time and resources too spend on the game. I'm not saying every game shouldn't have voice acting. But do you think that some modern games shouldn't have voice acting so they can focus more on polishing and extending the game.
Edit: For an added bonus, how much time and resources do you think developers should spend on graphics.
Look, to be honest, it wouldn't matter if a bad game cut the voice acting to spend that money on other areas of development. Its all about management, how each team works (or doesn't) together, how the corporate side is handled (meaning is the guy running the show shouting down at the devs to "do what everyone else does" or is he allowing them to innovate and create with moderate direction rather than an iron fist).
Not many games would be as fun without the v/o. Reading a wall of text can make or break a game, esp. if the game is speech/story heavy. Imagine if the Soul Reaver series didn't have voice acting, rather it made you read each speech sequence sentence by sentence without being able to skip?