Poll: Should games have less voice acting.

Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Seventh Actuality said:
gmaverick019 said:
nahh, maybe they can cut down on it a tad but cutscenes are absolute garbage without voices mostly, so that ruins that...
But CUTSCENES ARE THE DEVIL, remember? Half Life 2 said so!
well considering i absolutely loathe all half life games...

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.)
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
1
3
Country
UK
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).
 

Thaius

New member
Mar 5, 2008
3,862
0
0
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.
 

Kungfu_Teddybear

Member
Legacy
Jan 17, 2010
2,714
0
1
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
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.
 

Bocaj2000

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,082
0
0
MiriaJiyuu said:
Bocaj2000 said:
Wow, this question is fucking stupid. I can't believe that this is actually a discussion. Adding something to a game is NEVER a detriment to it.
Except quick time events... those are more a detriment then a bonus

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
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.

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.

Professor James said:
Bocaj2000 said:
Wow, this question is fucking stupid. I can't believe that this is actually a discussion. Adding something to a game is NEVER a detriment to it.
Many people would disagree with you. For one thing, some people hate things like QTEs and a lot of people disliked the boss battles in DE:HR. In addition, adding things cost 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.

People didn't like Manet at all. Critics hated him as well as the public, but he single-handedly changed the world of art.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
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.
 

Evil Top Hat

New member
May 21, 2011
579
0
0
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.
 

WhiteFangofWhoa

New member
Jan 11, 2008
2,548
0
0
veloper said:
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.
This. There's tons of ways to make it obnoxious ('BURN TO THE-BURN TO THE-BURN TO THE GROUND!') or immersion-breaking, so many ways that dialogue and delivery can go wrong. To paraphrase the recent Extra Credits feature on the Uncanny Valley, the gap between no voice acting and good voice acting is a very wide one, and falling into that gap can be more detrimental to the experience than if you'd never tried at all.

That said, it is an excellent way of lending flavour to a character, far faster than extensive dialogue or behaviour.

I find it strange how Metal Gear Solid, a game over 10 years old, has hours of voice dialogue and no lines that are really badly delivered. Silly yes, but not badly delivered.
 

MiriaJiyuu

Forum Lurker
Jun 28, 2011
177
0
0
Bocaj2000 said:
MiriaJiyuu said:
Bocaj2000 said:
Wow, this question is fucking stupid. I can't believe that this is actually a discussion. Adding something to a game is NEVER a detriment to it.
Except quick time events... those are more a detriment then a bonus

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
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.

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.

Professor James said:
Bocaj2000 said:
Wow, this question is fucking stupid. I can't believe that this is actually a discussion. Adding something to a game is NEVER a detriment to it.
Many people would disagree with you. For one thing, some people hate things like QTEs and a lot of people disliked the boss battles in DE:HR. In addition, adding things cost 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.

People didn't like Manet at all. Critics hated him as well as the public, but he single-handedly changed the world of art.
Actually I do know that coding takes up very little space, game development is actually my profession, I could've worded what I said a little better tho, I'd been up for some 36 hrs when I wrote it :p.

It is definitely because of time and resources, adding things and then making them work, making sure they fit in the game, among other things like testing and debugging take time, money and resources. Tho you are right, developers tend to be afraid to add things, better to stick with what they know then take a risk on what could be a lot of fun.

However, I don't mean they should dumb down the graphics, I just mean that graphics are great as they are, but developers seem to focus so much on advancing how nice their game looks and less on how fun the game actually is. Maybe that's just me though, I enjoy games that are just mindless fun, and miss when most games were fun and cartoonish and less of the more serious minded games that seem to dominate the industry.
 

Salakayin

New member
Apr 1, 2010
79
0
0
G-Force said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
zauxz said:
Absolutely not. Good voice acting is vital to immersion.
I'm sorry, but there were immserive TEXT BASED games.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not vital. That's like saying colour film is vital to good storytelling.
I do think good voice acting can elevate a game experience. I really don't think Bastion would be as enjoyable without the narrator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5FuG0H3x2k
Bastion would definitely not be quite the same without it's narrator, aye.

Some games can get along just fine without voice actin', and there are some pretty good ones of such. But no reason to make 'less' voice actin', because it has it's place. Some games can do without, and some games are awesome with. So not less, just knowin' when to do it correctly and well.
 

Death God

New member
Jul 6, 2010
1,754
0
0
I think that unless they have good voice actors, they should just leave it to text. A bad voice actor can ruin the feel.
 

ThePuzzldPirate

New member
Oct 4, 2009
495
0
0
It depends on how the game narrates it story, the problem with voice acting is that you have to do it right or don't do it all or you end up with a mess. People will complain about no voice acting but that is a far better complaint than bad voice acting.