157 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

In terms of budget, I'd be curious about how much player VO eats into the budget of other aspects of the game? Certainly player VO and all of the variations in it cannot be a cheap thing to implement. We know DA2 is going to be shorter than Origins, but how much of the reduced quantity of content in DA2 is due to having a voiced PC?

[Hurrrr]

Koffeegirl wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

I think a lot of the problem is that while movies have grown gradually, video games have grown exponentially. Compare a games in 1985 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 2005 to 2010.

Games generally certainly didn't grow in quality consistently over that period.

4 of my top 5 games all-time came out before 2000.

I think that we're coming back to the notion that everyone has their own opinion about the quality of games - it's certainly not an objective measurement.. Of my top five games, two came out in the 90s, one came out in the year 2000, one in the mid 2000s and one is a release from this year.

What games would those be?:innocent:

I want a coffee after reading your name 0.o

Can you get me a sandwich as well?

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Good thing we did all that work to make combat better, then!

That's a value judgment.

You made combat more reactive.  You made combat different.  You (or anyone else) cannot reasonably say you made it better without appealing to some standard of measurement.

Sure I can. I think it's better.

I also think hard and fast measurements of fun take all the fun out of it, and that "being reasonable" also takes the fun out of it.

[ShrinkingFish]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sure I can. I think it's better.

I also think hard and fast measurements of fun take all the fun out of it, and that "being reasonable" also takes the fun out of it.

"Being reasonable" takes the fun out of everything.

[Mike Laidlaw]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
"Being reasonable" takes the fun out of everything.

Especially internet forums.

[Blastback]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Good thing we did all that work to make combat better, then!

That's a value judgment.

You made combat more reactive.  You made combat different.  You (or anyone else) cannot reasonably say you made it better without appealing to some standard of measurement.

Sure I can. I think it's better.

I also think hard and fast measurements of fun take all the fun out of it, and that "being reasonable" also takes the fun out of it.

Dude, careful, that last part is to easy to take out of context and use as justification to go screaming round the forums.

[Chibi Elemental]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...
"Being reasonable" takes the fun out of everything.

Especially internet forums.

you are my new best friend!

[David Gaider]

Blastback wrote...
Dude, careful, that last part is to easy to take out of context and use as justification to go screaming round the forums.

I've yet to see anyone around these parts needing additional justification to do that.

[ShrinkingFish]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...
"Being reasonable" takes the fun out of everything.

Especially internet forums.

Especially internet forums!

[Chibi Elemental]

David Gaider wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Dude, careful, that last part is to easy to take out of context and use as justification to go screaming round the forums.

I've yet to see anyone around these parts needing additional justification to do that.

Its the interwebs.
Normal person + audience / no concequences = total f ******

[ShrinkingFish]

David Gaider wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Dude, careful, that last part is to easy to take out of context and use as justification to go screaming round the forums.

I've yet to see anyone around these parts needing additional justification to do that.

Point to Mr. Gaider.

+10 Approval

[lv12medic]

David Gaider wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Dude, careful, that last part is to easy to take out of context and use as justification to go screaming round the forums.

I've yet to see anyone around these parts needing additional justification to do that.

BZZZAP!

The Gaider-bolt strikes again.

Anyways... having no justification IS justification on these forums. 

[Blastback]

lv12medic wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Dude, careful, that last part is to easy to take out of context and use as justification to go screaming round the forums.

I've yet to see anyone around these parts needing additional justification to do that.

BZZZAP!

The Gaider-bolt strikes again.

Anyways... having no justification IS justification on these forums. 

Well, more like anywhere on the web.

"You heard it Mod, license to blow things out of proportion, straight from the dev"

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
so we, as developers, will pick our battles.

I think you guys may want to rethink how you phrase things on the forums. Naysayers can and will use anything you guys write against you.

Why? That's exactly what happens. You make choices and you go with your gut.

If I have to self edit to the point where I'm too terrified to say anything, I might as well not post.

And you shouldn't have to be terrified, I think people appreciate it when the devs tell us things straight up. I'd rather get an honest "we didn't have the budget to do what we wanted" rather than a "this is working as we intended" in regards to things like the conversation system in Awakening or how meh Witch Hunt ended up being considering it was somewhat meant to clear up the Morrigan factor when in actuality it comes no where close to doing so.

In otherwords keep doing what you're doing rather than taking the Gaider condescending route.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 24 septembre 2010 - 01:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I also think hard and fast measurements of fun take all the fun out of it

Then how do you know if something is fun?

and that "being reasonable" also takes the fun out of it.

If it matters, measure it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Brockololly wrote...

In terms of budget, I'd be curious about how much player VO eats into the budget of other aspects of the game?

Too much.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

In terms of budget, I'd be curious about how much player VO eats into the budget of other aspects of the game?

Too much.

Spot on

[Sylvius the Mad]

JohnEpler wrote...

I think that we're coming back to the notion that everyone has their own opinion about the quality of games - it's certainly not an objective measurement.. Of my top five games, two came out in the 90s, one came out in the year 2000, one in the mid 2000s and one is a release from this year.

Really?  Nothing from the '80s?

Those 4 I mentioned were 1985, 1992, 1998, and 1999.

I left out the fifth because I've never really nailed that one down.  Right now I'm leaning toward Wasteland, which was 1988.

[ErichHartmann]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

In terms of budget, I'd be curious about how much player VO eats into the budget of other aspects of the game?

Too much.

Games would never evovle if you were a developer.

Graphics?  Nope, too expensive.

Voice overs?  Nope, too expensive.

Storyline?  Nope, writers are too expensive.

Shall I gone on?  Nope, too expensive.

[Brockololly]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

In terms of budget, I'd be curious about how much player VO eats into the budget of other aspects of the game?

Too much.

Games would never evovle if you were a developer.

Voice overs?  Nope, too expensive.

With respect to player VO specifically, I don't see that as an evolution thats especially conducive to creating a better video game.  A better cutscene or a better movie? Sure. I just don't think that the trade off you make in terms of sacrificing content and player choice is worth it in exchange to listen to some voice actor take away player agency  just so the player VO character can read some speech.

Player VO may be an evolution for cutscenes or for your buddy watching you play the game, but IMO, it does nothing to enhance my experience in playing a video game.

Modifié par Brockololly, 24 septembre 2010 - 02:25 .

[SafetyShattered]

Oh come on Bioware not even a hint. If you tell me I will be your best friend

[David Gaider]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
In otherwords keep doing what you're doing rather than taking the Gaider condescending route.

Oh, is that where I am?

Here I thought I was driving down Entitlement Way. Well no wonder.

[MKDAWUSS]

JohnEpler wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

I think a lot of the problem is that while movies have grown gradually, video games have grown exponentially. Compare a games in 1985 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 2005 to 2010.

Games generally certainly didn't grow in quality consistently over that period.

4 of my top 5 games all-time came out before 2000.

I think that we're coming back to the notion that everyone has their own opinion about the quality of games - it's certainly not an objective measurement.. Of my top five games, two came out in the 90s, one came out in the year 2000, one in the mid 2000s and one is a release from this year.

Quality may be subjective, but techology isn't. Games that were revolutionary 15 years ago now barely pass muster on a commercial scale.

[SteveGarbage]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

In terms of budget, I'd be curious about how much player VO eats into the budget of other aspects of the game?

Too much.

Spot on

Maybe not as much as you might think. Here's a little research to throw at you guys:
The Screen Actors Guild rejected a contract that would set rates for voice actors. That contract would have offered $800 for a four hour session for non-essential characters up to 20 characters doing 300 words of more dialogue
 and the same rate for up to three plot-advancing characters.

Mass Effect 2 had 90 voice actors doing 546 characters speaking more than 31,000 lines of dialogue. Dividing that out evenly, each actor would take about 6 characters doing 60 lines of dialogue. Assuming all of those were a this SAG rate and every one of those characters was plot-advancing (which they're definitely not) and each did at least two four-hour sessions, that would only be $144,000. Even if each of those actors was getting paid for 40 hours of recording time (which seems high) that would only be $720,000.

Also noted in the article - although the SAG is an organized group of people with bargaining power, there's nothing to say a developer couldn't go out and get some no-name actor and pay them much less.

In this article this voice actor who does some large roles only makes about $30,000 per year working on video game voice acting. Even if he got that from just one game (not from one game) take that $30,000 times 90 voice actors in Mass Effect 2 and even that's only $2.7 million overall for all those voice actors.

Michael Hollick, who provided the VA for Niko in Grand Theft Auto IV (a game with an overall budget of $100 million!!!) received $100,000. That's the lead. Even if there were 90 voice actors in that game and all of them received $100,000, that would be $9 million in a game with a budget of $100 million. That's less than 10 percent even if every one of those voice actors made as much as the lead.

So I think you people really overestimate the amount of money that voice acting costs and the amount of DA2's budget (which I estimated earlier at $20-30 million) that it eats up. Even if DA2 had 100 voice actors who all raked in $25,000 (which sounds obscenely high), that's $2.5 million and probably around 10 percent-ish of the entire budget.

I think people fail to understand that voice acting isn't a big money business. Adding VO for the main character obviously adds a lot of dialogue to the game, but even if that VO made the same as GTA's lead VA of $100,000, that's still only one half of 1 percent of a $20 million budget.

So, too much? I doubt it. Really in the grand scheme of things, you're only adding one, albeit very large, chunk of voice acting. But most of the VO is already there in Origins for every other character except for the main. I mean compared to Origins, the VO portion of Dragon Age 2 is maybe, $50-150,000 more? That's not that much at all.

I know that's a text wall, but for those of you who powered through it, thanks for reading!

[Brockololly]

MKDAWUSS wrote...
Quality may be subjective, but techology isn't. Games that were revolutionary 15 years ago now barely pass muster on a commercial scale.

But are saying that a game must be technologically revolutionary now to be commercially successful? Look at WoW- hardly that impressive visually or technologically. Look at Farmville. Look at any number of Nintendo games.

A game need not be technologically impressive to sell well.