399 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Baldur's Gate and similar titles

Dragon Age: Origins and other silent protagonist games

Dragon Age 2/Mass Effect series

Guess which one - and it is only just one of the three - I'm making fun of.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:25 .

[Leonia]

Morroian wrote...

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

100% with the OP on this, BG approach is the best one for me too. As to why some people can't live without VO, my guess is that their imaginative capability isn't up to the task of an esoteric recreation of the world as given through the words.

Is it really necessary to cast aspersions on those who like a cinematic approach. Both films and novels can be works of art, neither genre is superior to the other, both have strengths the other lacks.

Quoting this again for emphasis.

And hey, Icinix, your analogies have been both enlightening and entertaining tonight

Modifié par leonia42, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Baldur's Gate and similar titles

Dragon Age: Origins and other silent protagonist games

Dragon Age 2/Mass Effect series

Guess which one - and it is only just one of the three - I'm making fun of.

Bwhahahahahaha!!!!

Good one!

Modifié par Blastback, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:28 .

[orpheus333]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Baldur's Gate and similar titles

Dragon Age: Origins and other silent protagonist games

Dragon Age 2/Mass Effect series

Guess which one - and it is only just one of the three - I'm making fun of.

I'm guessing the one with the 404 Error

[upsettingshorts]

andyr1986 wrote...

I'm guessing the one with the 404 Error

Fixed.   When I went in and added "and other silent protagonist games" as not to single out DA:O, it broke my link.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:27 .

[Pedro Costa]

Why? Because I like *hearing* the characters. To me, having voiced characters adds to the immersion of the environment and adds to the realism of the characters themselves.



I understand there are people who don't simply care about it, but what I don't understand is why some of those feel that because they don't like it, nobody should like it nor should they even have it.

Don't like hearing them? Guess what, you *can* turn your sound off.

We, on the hand, wouldn't even have a *choice*.



I admit that I too skim through the dialogue after having watched it a few times, but thhose times that I watch it, it adds a lot to the world in my view, to my feel of immersion of the game that I'm role-playing.

[upsettingshorts]

Morroian wrote...
Is it really necessary to cast aspersions on those who like a cinematic approach.

It's a convenient substitute for having a point.

In order to honestly debate the relative merits of both approaches, you have to be able to admit the opposing view has some.  Those casting such aspersions are unlikely to be so capable.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:38 .

[Wulfram]

Turning the sound off doesn't give back the content and options lost because of voice over being included.



It doesn't, for example, allow Alistair to realise that he's not King, or let the original companions appear in the expansion.

[Leonia]

Wulfram wrote...

Turning the sound off doesn't give back the content and options lost because of voice over being included.

It doesn't, for example, allow Alistair to realise that he's not King, or let the original companions appear in the expansion.

How do you figure? Either you can read the dialogue or you can hear it but the content is exactly the same. Sure, the facial animations might help convey more emotion and tone, but the content itself, the words heard/read are totally the same.

Modifié par leonia42, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:37 .

[Icinix]

Awww. Double shucks!



and LOL at Cat in the Hat.

[AllThatJazz]

Hahahahaha at the Origins link. I love the Cat in the Hat!

One of the things for me, comparing BG with Origins, is that Baldur's Gate NPCs weren't fully voiced - their first line of dialogue was voiced (often generically so, in the case of minor characters), but not the rest; therefore the absence of a voice for the protagonist wasn't as noticeable. But in Origins, the fact that all NPCs (especially companions) did have full VO meant that, for me anyway, it was sometimes a little jarring to have a silent protagonist.

Regarding the suggestion that those who dare! to enjoy a voiceover have no imagination - well, I am quite capable of imagining a silent PC to have any one of a hundred accents and dialects, thanks. Doesn't relate to the fact that I enjoy a good VO. But then, you who really dislike VO could always turn sound off, subtitles on and then you get to imagine everybody's voice, not just the protagonist. It's an imagination party! I guess that's not the point either if the issue is that you just don't like a voiced PC.

The opinion is totally fair enough, and I think it's a genuine shame that games can't accommodate the preferences of all players; but please, please, don't try and make me out to be some kind of slack-jawed moron just because I don't share your perspective.

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Sir JK]

I personally prefer the full voiceovers in modern games (whereas in games like the baldurs gate series, Icewind dale series and such I prefer the partial or non-voiced alternative).

It has to do with the fact that words themselves are such as small part in human communication. In addition to words we use tone, body language and expressions to convey what we are saying. Not just words.

In a game like dragon age, that is fully capable of showing me the details of my character. I want the body language and expression to be shown. To give me a feeling of a real conversation. But body language and expression vary depending on the tone. So if I have those then the sentence has a tone, and if it has a tone then I want to hear it. So the lines must be voiced.

If there is no voice, then it would look downright silly with body language. If there is no body language... why bother showing me my character in a conversation?



It's not that I dislike reading. I absolutely love it. But when I read novels, stories and whatnot... the author does tell me directly or indirectly what tone the character uses (and I fill in the body language part myself). Games don't do that, they just give me the words. Just a tiny fraction of human communication. To me... getting as much as the media can possibly convey (which includes body language, expression, tone and words) is far more preferable.

[SteveGarbage]

There are plus and minuses to both approaches. I usually play with the subtitles on so I can read everything while listening. That way I get the dialogue on both levels and it really hammers it home. When I read I'm likely to skim and when I listen I'm likely to get distracted. This way I make sure I get it. Anyhow:

Text was fine and good back in the day when VO wasn't really an option and when characters were limited by designs. It would be strange to have a low-resolution sprite speak the same way it's kind of awkward to look at a fully detailed 3D model and have it stand there without saying anything (ala Warden). Imagine how awkward the game would feel if you're having a conversation with Alistair and he's gesturing with no voice to go along with it or if he's just standing there looking at you not doing anything while you're reading.

Voice over also allows the developer to deliver a more accurate personality of the character they want you to experience. In text, Alistair still comes off as a joking, sarcastic kind of guy with flashes of seriousness. But when you apply an appropriate VO, you really get that personality because you can hear it and the inflections that come with the dialogue. Is Alistair as funny without VO? Is Flemeth as foreboding without VO? Is Zevran as sleazy without VO?

Part of it is mechanical for a game like this, that it would be awkward to have a game with so many characters, so much dialogue without utilizing the voice. Games that don't have that same amount of interaction - Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, for example, can get away with it. But for a game that is built on story and built on good characterization, good voice over gives you another tool to hammer home a personality and solidify the plot through dialogue.

And if you don't think VO is an effective tool for achieving that goal, turn your sound off during the Landsmeet if you decide to make Loghain a Grey Warden then play it again with the sound on. Being able to hear the anger and malice in his voice adds so much to that scene.

[Edit] Sir JK above just kind of ninja'd my response, heh.

Modifié par SteveGarbage, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Wulfram]

leonia42 wrote...

How do you figure? Either you can read the dialogue or you can hear it but the content is exactly the same. Sure, the facial animations might help convey more emotion and tone, but the content itself, the words heard/read are totally the same.

Voice Over costs money, which means that in a voiceover game, dialogue costs money.  That means things are left out which might otherwise be in.  It also means they have to play games to avoid saying the players name and a few other things like that.

It also means that when they realise that they haven't properly accounted for Alistair still being in the party despite not being King, they can't fix it because they don't have the voice over.  And that having companions from the previous game in the new one costs more money.

[Xewaka]

There's another point about voiceover that should be mentioned. Localizations. In Mass Effect, for instance, the game was subbed to spanish, but not dubbed. Thus, all that emotion and tone inflexion is lost to most spanish players, who are not familiar with the nuances of spoken english.

However, it's arguably worse when the company does shell out the cash for spanish voice actors. They usually hire a grand amount of three (one adult male voice, one adult female voice, and Bart Simpson's voice for kids), who deliver the lines with the feeling and emotion of a deaf chair.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...
It also means that when they realise that they haven't properly accounted for Alistair still being in the party despite not being King, they can't fix it because they don't have the voice over.  And that having companions from the previous game in the new one costs more money.

While I accept your general point - that you believe the resources spent on voiceovers are better spent elsewhere - that's something that makes sense even if I don't agree with it.  The examples you cite are indicative of different problems, either in writing (continuity error) or quality assurance (import bug), so they have a solution that doesn't involve scrapping VO: Getting it right the first time.

[Nerevar-as]

Xewaka wrote...

There's another point about voiceover that should be mentioned. Localizations. In Mass Effect, for instance, the game was subbed to spanish, but not dubbed. Thus, all that emotion and tone inflexion is lost to most spanish players, who are not familiar with the nuances of spoken english.
However, it's arguably worse when the company does shell out the cash for spanish voice actors. They usually hire a grand amount of three (one adult male voice, one adult female voice, and Bart Simpson's voice for kids), who deliver the lines with the feeling and emotion of a deaf chair.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Besides the VO actor pool being so small you´ll have heard the same voices talking exactly the same in some other game, film or series.

To the OP, when they bring back race choice I´ll stop having problems with VO. It should not be at the expense of other features already in the game. I´m really curious at the plot reasons that prevent an elf/dwarf from being champion of Kirkwall, but allow an apostate Blood Mage. Does Hawke never use such powers when NPCs are around?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

I think some are missing the point that the issue doesn't lie with other characters being voiced, it lies more with the PC being voiced and in some ways limiting the role playing element of said character and making the player character far less personable. IMO anyway.

[_-Greywolf-_]

leonia42 wrote...

I don't think Dragon Age would be half as engaging or interesting without the voice-acting and the facial animations of the characters (which relies heavily on the voice acting). They'd be pretty static and boring NPCs without it. As technology improves, games evolve. It only makes sense for Bioware to move forward instead of standing still in the market.

That said, I still enjoy games without voice-overs immensely if they have a good story but every game is different. I love old-school RPGs a lot, but I also realise there are different ways to tell a story in a video game.

Many would argue that its the characters that brought Origin to life and what brought those characters to life more than their voices and animations?

If it's really bothersome for you, you can always turn off your speakers and just read the text (or alternatively, turn off-subtitles and just listen).

Funny thing is that I found the BG series much more interesting and engaging than Origins or Mass Effect ever were and as we all know the BG games had very little voiced dialogue, tell me how that works?

[upsettingshorts]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
Funny thing is that I found the BG series much more interesting and engaging than Origins or Mass Effect ever were and as we all know the BG games had very little voiced dialogue, tell me how that works?

Consistency and execution.

[Elvhen Veluthil]

leonia42 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

100% with the OP on this, BG approach is the best one for me too. As to why some people can't live without VO, my guess is that their imaginative capability isn't up to the task of an esoteric recreation of the world as given through the words.

Is it really necessary to cast aspersions on those who like a cinematic approach. Both films and novels can be works of art, neither genre is superior to the other, both have strengths the other lacks.

Quoting this again for emphasis.

And hey, Icinix, your analogies have been both enlightening and entertaining tonight

I am sorry if what I wrote sounds offending, I really didn't had that intention. What I wanted to say is that some people should use more their imagination (not connected to IQ or mental conditions, and sure not implying that mine is better that someone else) and stop being lazy, it gives a stronger experience with their games. Planescape: Torment for example went even further, describing things and situations in the dialogs, one reason why it was an unforgotten experience. I still don't like full VO though, because it affects other things also.

[upsettingshorts]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...
I am sorry if what I wrote sounds offending, I really didn't had that intention. What I wanted to say is that some people should use more their imagination (not connected to IQ or mental conditions, and sure not implying that mine is better that someone else) and stop being lazy, it gives a stronger experience with their games. Planescape: Torment for example went even further, describing things and situations in the dialogs, one reason why it was an unforgotten experience. I still don't like full VO though, because it affects other things also.

Coulda fooled me.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

There certainly isn't any point for voice-overs. No ser, no. None at all. Bioware just have a huge budget for this game, so it went to hiring voice actors and thus keeping them from unemployment.

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

While I accept your general point - that you believe the resources spent on voiceovers are better spent elsewhere - that's something that makes sense even if I don't agree with it.  The examples you cite are indicative of different problems, either in writing (continuity error) or quality assurance (import bug), so they have a solution that doesn't involve scrapping VO: Getting it right the first time.

Yes, but errors probably always will occur, so the lack of ability to fix them is a problem with VO.

It's also related to another problem, which is that it's very limiting for mods

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

Voice Over costs money, which means that in a voiceover game, dialogue costs money.  That means things are left out which might otherwise be in.  It also means they have to play games to avoid saying the players name and a few other things like that.

Let's suppose you're right - VO has a a large cost and that means less content. Why do you think the content will be critial path content at high value instead of low-value side-quest garbage like the Mage Collective or The Chanter's Board?

...And wait, when you say they have to leave out names, are you talking about NPC VO now and not PC VO?

It also means that when they realise that they haven't properly accounted for Alistair still being in the party despite not being King, they can't fix it because they don't have the voice over.  And that having companions from the previous game in the new one costs more money.

Have you ever worked in QA for a game? A friend of mine did, and he told me one big problem with QA is when someone takes the path less beaten. At least where he worked, they did not bug test each module equally, and each outcome equally. So you have misses like this not because of cost, but because QA effectively drop the ball.

Also, seriously, you're against all VO in-game?