6 réponses à ce sujet

[QuiTamGogh]

For the purposes of this discussion, assume that you are the omnipotent demi-god-corporate-director-in-charge-of- stuff for a video-game design company.  Unfortunately, omnipotence comes with a price: budget allocation and spreadsheets.  Not only that, but you get to make the end-all, be-all decisions regarding game design -- how did you hypothetically get this sweet gig!? 

At some point, when your moving numbers around on that spreadsheet, you have to make a choice: do I put more numbers in the "voice-actor salary" cell or the "items/quests/dialogue/game mechanics" cell[s]?  

Here's the question I pose to you: how do you decide and why?


 

[QuiTamGogh]

Here's my answer:

I cut voice acting in favor of "the rest."  Don't get me wrong, I love good voice acting (see, e.g., Dragon Age: Origins), but in all honesty, I play video games with the sound turned down most of the time to avoid annoying my spouse.  So get this: I actually read the dialogue most of the time, and it really isn't that bad -- in fact, it's just like gaming has always been for me.

Obviously, I'm in the minority as to how I actual enjoy the video-game product, and I fully understand that the little word "video" preceding game implies "sight and sound"; however, I could always accept fewer lines of acted dialogue in favor of more content, especially questing.

This certainly isn't a knock on Bioware's insistence on having every line acted -- it's Bioware's product, so its people need to feel happy with the outcome.  So I'll stop this uber-long post with this observation: this is ultimately an aesthetic choice, which means I'm asking for your subjective opinion. 

[Archdemon Cthulhu]

Depends, if you can find talented voice actors who aren't pricey you can end up with a lot better work than simply paying for a name. Fallout 3 paid huge amounts for Liam Neeson, but he wasnt in the most of the game and furthermore wasn't even that good, and most of the voice-acting was poor in FO3, but say, games like the Prince of Persia games or Batman: Arkham Asylum got good, talented actors that weren't super pricey and they were still well voice-acted.



It's about smart spending, get good value for your money.

[Seagloom]

I like voice acting. It can add to a scene in a way that simply reading text does not. A talented voice actress or actor can just bring a character to life. Leliana for example, is my current favorite and as much as I like nearly everything about her, some of her lines are made significantly better because of her accent.



That said, I would drop voice acting from the budget in a heartbeat if it meant those resources could be funneled into the writing staff and lead to even more in-depth interactions across the board. Unfortunately that is unlikely to ever occur. Most people seem to be prefer voice acting, to the point an unvoiced protagonist in Dragon Age is considered a step backward. All I want is story and interaction, and lots of it. The Baldur's Gate approach of voicing a few lines here and there struck a good balance by letting me hear enough from the characters to get a feel for their personalities in ways text alone cannot convey, but that wouldn't go over well now.

[QuiTamGogh]

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...

It's about smart spending, get good value for your money.

I completely agree.  My real question is whether to you voice acting is worth the necessary content reduction.  Unless the voice actors, programers, directors, &c. all agree to work for free, every voiced line in the game is going to take some amount of money, which you could have redirected to content.

Everyone agrees that voice acting is good, but I'm still unconvinced that it's good enough to warrant a substantial allocation of talent, time and money.

Seagloom wrote...

The Baldur's Gate approach of voicing a
few lines here and there struck a good balance by letting me hear
enough from the characters to get a feel for their personalities in
ways text alone cannot convey, but that wouldn't go over well
now.

I agree with this too.  I'll admit that a game with less voice acting is probably going to appeal to a much smaller market than one that is fully voice acted.  In fact, you'll see a lot of game designers (and artists of all kind) use to completely contradictory statements:

1.  "We make the games we want to make, sorry if you didn't like 'X'" and
2.  "Yeah, we would love to make a game about 'X' or using 'X', but no one would buy it -- so why bother?"

Would Fallout III have sold as well if Bethesda had retained Interplay's isometric view and turn-based combat?  Almost certainly not.  Would it have been a better game?  I think so.  I loved Fallout III, but I think Fallout I & II are better.

[Mordaedil]

Sometimes voices get across a tone that text alone cannot...



Though I love NWN and it's mostly voice-less flavor. Done right, it can even carry over a bit of intent with it, which isn't possible in games like Mass Effect.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

This is an unreal trade-off. Game mechanics, quests, content are going to take a whole lot longer to implement than voice acting - therefore they are also more expensive (unless you hire some superstars to breathe the words into the micro). Voice acting is also something that you should easily be able to get your sponsor to understand, because it a) has a high value on the market and is simple, quick and cheap to add. The only thing it is not is space saving on the released DVDs.