Who's doing the talking?

[samm]

voice over for pc is imo quite unimportant. the npcs however do profit a lot of characterization an personality. bis had done very well up to now (don't know about lionheart - and don't care, either), especially on iwd1. i've never played ps: t in englisch, but it was the only german spoken game ever whose voice over i've found really enjoyable.

[Dave Maldonado]

. . .why the main characters were unable to say their lines.  It's not like their were lots of choices, and the voice actor for each of them was already there to give some generic sound effects and battle cries.  Was it a limitation of time and money. . .

Correct. We considering such but it quickly became a moot point, one of many, many ideas simply dropped for lack of time and resources.

 

In the end, PC VO was done so late in the process that we had to go with what we got, which a number of us weren't happy with (Ysuran in particular). Things were too hectic for me to make that recording session, though I'm not sure my presence would have helped any.

 

All things considered, though, I'm quite pleased with how BGDA2's VO turned out.

 

***

 

The possibilities of the whole "dialog as a cut scene" where the entire sequence--PC responses included--is scripted have often intrigued me, but whether that's "appropriate" (whatever that means) for PC RPG's or not... that's a matter for debate.

 

There's also the idea of third-person PC responses, less "'Move it or eat my fist!'" and more "Threaten the guard," allowing the player to imagine exactly what he or she is saying or doing while getting the intended action across to the game... but that brings a whole new set of problems to the table. It's likely that there's a NWN module or something like that out there now... if not, I suppose one could be made as a sort of testbed for that mechanic.

 

-- Dave

[Monte Carlo]

David Warner's VO in BG2 was superlative and the dude managed to overcome the crumbiness of the dialogue through sheer talent.

 

Just my 2 CP.

 

Cheers

MC

[Karzak]

I hated irenicus, a mad ex elf mage that invented a machine that sucks bhallyspawn souls?

 

Yet can you deny that his voiceovers were done excellently? If you dont like his dialogue, could you recognise that his voiceovers *for* the, in your opinion, crappy, dialogue, were great? And if you dont even like the voice talent... pfeh, we just dont agree, do we.

 

I realise that the acclaim for Irenicus and his voiceovers are of course opinionated, but how else can you judge voiceover talent? Let me speak without examples then - some voiceovers in games are downright excellent as judged by most.

He might have been talented, I don't really know, because reading his dialog made me unwilling to listen to it.

 

No matter how good the voice, it can't make a crappy character with abyssmal dialog bearable to me.

[Mercer]

I'd have to say that voice over is probably the second-least important aspect of games, as far as what needs improvement. Frankly, I'd like an innovative story line and likeable/believable/sympathetic characters with nothing but text. Gads, read a book! No voice-overs there!

 

I have given up on RPGs almost entirely because, after looking at the box art for 30 seconds, I know who all the main characters are, and who the bad guy is, and which of the characters will betray me...I'm not sure how time travel will come in, but after about 5 minutes of game play, I'll have a pretty good idea.

 

Now, admittedly, the Blood Omen and Soul Reaver games are nothing without their Voice Overs, but they are action and puzzle games, NOT RPGs! The story is set in stone. Kain is a condescending ass. Razael is a self-righteous boob, and no matter what we make them do, they will remain such.

 

Anyway, next to "dazzling" us with "mind-blowing" special effects and "gorgeous" cutscenes, RPGs need voice-over help least of all. Ye gods, please! No more playing a 60 hour game to watch a 30 minute CG movie that, at best...is "Spirits Within" *shudder*

It's not the reading that gets me; It's the...well, just read Aaron's post again. I really enjoy a good fantasy novel. It's simply that reading a PC RPG today has none of the same joys.

 

To me, the interface is the biggest problem with "voice" in PC RPGs today, not whether or not there is VO work. And even if there was no VO in the Kain games they would still have a much better story than any PC RPG today. I think you would still hear the voices in your mind cause the lines are full of color and character. Character development is what makes a story interesting and engaging. And when the character/s are generic, the story is inescapably so.

 

Great VO makes a story better, but it doesn

[Mercer]

I know it looks long, but it really is worth reading. Trust me.

 

 

 

I prefer generic dialogue to canned-character-speaking, because I enjoy creating my own character and experiencing the game world through him or her.

[FrankK]

The alternative to allowing the player to choose from the several 'generic' options is to basically only allow them to respond within a few options based on their alignment.

 

Aribeth: "Pleeze save R NeverWint3rz 4 us"

 

Good: "Of course I will." or "I will do it, and we can discuss the reward later"

 

Evil: "I will do so, if only to prove how weak you are Aribeth" or "Yes, but only if you pay me 1 billion gold pieces"

 

The problem with that is that the player cannot 'choose their path' to good or evil. If the game BEGAN with open options, but later restricted them based on your earlier decisions (aka your alignment would only affect later dialogues) then I think maybe you have the best of both worlds.

[Mercer]

The alternative to allowing the player to choose from the several 'generic' options is to basically only allow them to respond within a few options based on their alignment.

 

Aribeth: "Pleeze save R NeverWint3rz 4 us"

 

Good: "Of course I will." or "I will do it, and we can discuss the reward later"

 

Evil: "I will do so, if only to prove how weak you are Aribeth" or "Yes, but only if you pay me 1 billion gold pieces"

 

The problem with that is that the player cannot 'choose their path' to good or evil. If the game BEGAN with open options, but later restricted them based on your earlier decisions (aka your alignment would only affect later dialogues) then I think maybe you have the best of both worlds.

I agree, and I think it is something to work towards, but I think it is a mistake to look at it in terms of alignment. I think that Looking at it in these terms, instead of what the character has actually done or said to specific people in a specific world, and categorizing characters this way, the DnD way, is largely the reason why we have what I see as failures in the system, and a lack of character in the execution.

 

When we actually play DnD (or, heaven forbid, a different rpg) do we think of each other as generic alignments? or as complex characters with personal motivations?

[Tigranes]

Frank, your idea is compelling; yet there is a limit to how this can happen. There are so many ways you can make your early choices... in the end, NWN OC suffered in that it was a linear (yet *still* crap! gah!) story where you HAD to save neverwinter, you HAD to be a hero, you HAD to walk on the seventh step of the staircase in Joe Beaver's house in the alleyway #3. So what do you do, if you still want to give multiple dialogue options? Loop, loop, loop. Reminiscent of a few BG2 dialogues but even more blatant and ridiculous.

 

The thing is, often lack of dialogue options - or plot linearity - can be forgiven if the author must use this to create a good story; and it helps to have many things set in stone (one of many reasons why novels generally have better plots than games). Unfortunately, NWN OC still sucked.

[Karzak]

Evil: "I will do so, if only to prove how weak you are Aribeth" or "Yes, but only if you pay me 1 billion gold pieces"

This is one of my pet peeves, why is asking to be paid always the evil option?

 

In the multiple path choices, evil is always written poorly, the evil dialog choice could be exactly the same as the good one for the betrayer who plans to gain her trust but betray her in the end.

 

Likewise a good PC might flat out refuse to ally with her for his own reasons.

 

This is where the current attampts at pseudo non linear plot progression fail, in the dialog.

 

If you include enough choices to cover smart evil and dumb good and greedy neutral etc..., you will have to include two extra CD's full of voice over audio.

[Atreides]

What would you think if dialogue options was affected/partially restricted by alignment so that there wouldn't be too much variance (character speaking way out of allignment)?

 

For example, say there are degrees of response, from 1 being Lawful good to 9 being most Chaotic evil, with 5 true neutral (halfway between the two extremes).

 

The player could start out at true neutral (pretend allignment is determined by actions alone), so they'd have a dialogue scale of 4 to 6 (chaotic to lawfull neutral). There'd be good to evil responses but they'd be mild (close to neutral). Of course the range could be wider (3 to 7?)but the main idea's the same.

 

If the player's allignment slips towards evil, the response range could shift closer to 9, 5 to 7 from 4 to 6. Eventually the range would shift up or down, but the effect would be something like a good paladin wouldn't say evil lines. This is what I meant by reducing variance and not speaking out of role. There'd be relatively good and bad responses, but nothing too far from your allignment. Eventually you could go to the other extreme, but gradually as your allignment changes.

 

True, it's restrictive but it could convey the idea that the player's getting more deranged/evil/good as the game progresses due to his/her actions that influence allignment.

[Karzak]

What would you think if dialogue options was affected/partially restricted by alignment so that there wouldn't be too much variance (character speaking way out of allignment)?

Ideally, dialog choices should hinge on starting alignment, race, charisma and intellegence (and sex in some cases). The problem is it gets pretty complicated pretty quickly, so unless you have 5 years to develop it....

 

One of the things I liked about NWN was that they did do dialog for stupid PC's and in some cases for races, they just didn't do it well.

 

And in HotU they seemed to drop the dumbed down dialog.

[Mercer]

What would you think if dialogue options was affected/partially restricted by alignment so that there wouldn't be too much variance (character speaking way out of allignment)?

 

For example, say there are degrees of response, from 1 being Lawful good to 9 being most Chaotic evil, with 5 true neutral (halfway between the two extremes).

 

The player could start out at true neutral (pretend allignment is determined by actions alone), so they'd have a dialogue scale of 4 to 6 (chaotic to lawfull neutral). There'd be good to evil responses but they'd be mild (close to neutral). Of course the range could be wider (3 to 7?)but the main idea's the same.

 

If the player's allignment slips towards evil, the response range could shift closer to 9, 5 to 7 from 4 to 6. Eventually the range would shift up or down, but the effect would be something like a good paladin wouldn't say evil lines. This is what I meant by reducing variance and not speaking out of role. There'd be relatively good and bad responses, but nothing too far from your allignment. Eventually you could go to the other extreme, but gradually as your allignment changes.

 

True, it's restrictive but it could convey the idea that the player's getting more deranged/evil/good as the game progresses due to his/her actions that influence allignment.

 

Well Atreides, in theory I think it would be fun. In practice....write me a story, no, even just three connected scenes and make them that way, with a flow chart for alignment parameters. I'll bet my left hand that you will not be able to write something that is interesting and engaging and still generic enough to work with all those archetypes. You'll find that it will be painfully lackluster, and the longer the story gets the more it will scream for depth and the more you will be unable to give it to it.

[Tigranes]

This is one of my pet peeves, why is asking to be paid always the evil option?

 

Because everyone knows that even if you don't ask for rewards, you always get rewards, and mean evil people who do ask for rewards actually get worthless gold instead of precious items or experience... *draws deep breaths*

 

Some things really suck in RPGs right now.

[Atreides]

True. One way I could imagine doing it is writing out 9 responses, scaled to allignment. The engine would display the range that's appropriate.

 

However, I agree that things would get sticky if you were to add in other variables such as stat, class, skill checks etc. Probably better to concentrate on a few things, or the stat, class, skill, race specific stuff.

[Atreides]

This is one of my pet peeves, why is asking to be paid always the evil option?

 

Because everyone knows that even if you don't ask for rewards, you always get rewards, and mean evil people who do ask for rewards actually get worthless gold instead of precious items or experience... *draws deep breaths*

 

Some things really suck in RPGs right now.

Maybe we could have an evil response to make it clear that the player'd expect the NPC to return the favour in the future. I'm not saying that the response should be a raving maniac saying "YOU OWE ME!!11", but it could be a subtle twist of words with a hidden meaning - something Senator Palpatine would do

 

Having friends in high places (and blackmailing them for power/position) > money.

[Karzak]

something Senator Palpatine would do

Exactly, that is what a NE mage might do, or a LE monk, as opposed to a CE barbarian.

 

Of course my NE fighter might ask for a rewardmore along the "personal gratification" lines from airyhead.

[Atreides]

I really want evil options to be smart (politics/manipulation/deceit to gain power, influence etc?) rather than just "could I pls have some more?".

[Tigranes]

Aye, all the dialogue needs to do is mask the options' underlying variables and scripting hoopla sufficiently (how many times have you seen the Thousand Variants of Give Me Money Or Die?), which would mostly mean that the dialogue itself would be of high caliber than, oh, NWN OC.

[Karzak]

Airyhead: Oh, Karzak, you must save neverwinter, even though you are but a first level newbie and the entire academy of seasoned heros was decimated by the enemy!

 

 

1. Worry not, for I am a true hero! The hordes of hades itself cannot sway my resolve or slow my hand as I smite down the evil whereever it may be!

2. OK, I guess it's the right thing to do, after all, I got this stone of recall, right?

3. Maybe, but let's talk money, I am a contractor after all.

4. Maybe, but lets see whats under that breastplate first! That's right, who's your daddy!

5. OK, because the plot demands it, but I would rather make a girlsuit from your skin and stick a moth in your mouth.

6. Of course, I will save neverwinter, and as I serve, so shall I be served, and served well when the time is mine!

7. Your joking, right?

8. You talkin to me?

9. Argh?

[Mercer]

True. One way I could imagine doing it is writing out 9 responses, scaled to allignment. The engine would display the range that's appropriate.

 

However, I agree that things would get sticky if you were to add in other variables such as stat, class, skill checks etc. Probably better to concentrate on a few things, or the stat, class, skill, race specific stuff.

no no no!!! You guys have it all wrong!! Story story story!!! Relationships, actions, reactions!! Throw away this inane system before it ruins every idea you ever come up with!!!

 

DnD is.... actually I should make a new topic for this. Check for it soon. DnD and Videogames.

[Atreides]

I get what you mean. Personally, I prefer story and interaction with the main NPCs, to the point that I'd pick story over open-endedness (both of the negatively correlated?).

[Aaron Contreras]

The problem with that is that the player cannot 'choose their path' to good or evil. If the game BEGAN with open options, but later restricted them based on your earlier decisions (aka your alignment would only affect later dialogues) then I think maybe you have the best of both worlds.

I think this would have worked brilliantly with KotOR. You really only have three alignments to support and you could really reward players who stuck 'true' to their alignment. Especially if the ability to change your alignment was severely limited past a certain point - if you were an evil bastard the entire first part of the game, you get one big shot in a dramatic plot moment to redeem yourself and end up 'balanced' if you played your cards right throughout the rest of the game.

 

Far more interesting and dynamic than the redemption story they implemented.

 

This could really even work in a D&D game - you slide towards a good, neutral or evil ending, with the law/chaos axis present in how you go about being a saint or sinner.

 

If Bioware makes games on one end of the spectrum (the Aribeth Conversation Loop) and Square has the other end of the spectrum....I'd like to see more stuff in the middle. Possibly an almost completely scripted critical path mixed with break points that allowed more free-form play. As Mercer mentioned way back, the designers create an appealing, awesome character and a sexy plot...but you get to determine what that character can do...and how they do it. I'm shameless about desiring the best of both worlds.

[Pax]

I prefer generic dialogue to canned-character-speaking, because I enjoy creating my own character and experiencing the game world through him or her.  When the dialogue is generic enough, I can add my own voice (it's a lot like reading a book, I'd say), and have the voice in my head read the line however I want.  I can interpet a generic line with whatever tone I desire.

So in other words, the story is so bad from going through the generic blender that you rewrite it yourself on the spot to enjoy the game.... I find it interesting that it is BECAUSE I have done that so many times that I have the opposite opinion from you.

 

Hey, no fair arguing against points I didn't make. I don't think the story has to be generic, because the story is seperate from the PC dialog choices. The information that the NPCs provides can be just as fascinating and enthralling as anything ever written, I just like generic PC choices to dig through it with. 'Cause you know what? It's the NPC dialog that I'm looking to read. I read the PC lines just long enough to sort through them. It's a method for interacting with the NPCs, and I prefer a choice on how to go about it.

 

-Pax

[~Di]

...I'm presuming that VO adds quality. ...

The presumption that VO in and of itself adds quality is flawed, in my opinion. It can add to the enjoyment of a game; it can also detract from it. VO work is, as has been discussed herein, extremely expensive. Games, like everything else these days, must budget resources. Judicious use of good VO talent can be of benefit to the gaming experience, but not by reducing that experience overall simply for the sake of it. Something must be given up for every decision to use VO in a game. Design time. Art time. Animation time. Something. The key is balance, naturally. That, and knowing what your target audience wants. Without pleasing your target audience, you and your 6-hour VO masterpiece will most probably be a marketing disappointment on a rather massive scale.

 

We definitely feel differently about this, cause I think MGS (the first, not the second), despite it's preachyness at time, is one of the greatest games of all time.