D
DArtagnan
Guest
I largely agree Kefka, but some people really do seem to favor text in many cases. As much as I might find that puzzling - there it is
Let's get back on topic now!
Let's get back on topic now!
I don't see how you can compare the two, one is only delivered with written text, if books where so amazing and everyone thought that was the best way to experience something, there would be no point in movies or tv shows. Games are both visual and auditory and interactive. The majority of people prefer voiced dialog because it natural, you see a person and you talk to them and they talk to you, it just makes senses. Written dialog was a limitation of the times, just like black and white film or silent film, we have moved beyond that and I am very happy. I hope to further improved tec to make game experience like TES even more immersive, more like the holodeck. Perhaps one day we can have voice work and unlimited dialog, that would be awesome, but its one step at a time.
You should just speak for yourself. Pretending to know what the majority prefers isn't going to strengthen your argument. If voice acting ever evolves to the point where every character has a unique voice that's well done, then you can try to claim it's objectively better. Right now it's a mixed bag any way you look at it.
unique voices for every character certainly isn't any closer to that either. That's just something you - subjectively - think is highly important..
I won't bother trying to prove it, though. If you really think there's a chance the majority prefers text-based games - then I won't get in the way.
Really? So if it were possible for every NPC to have their own voice it wouldn't be better than having to hear the same voices being recycled?
That's about as subjective as the sky being blue, but you're free to believe whatever you like.
Of course you won't, because you know that's not possible. But then you're always the first to remind us that everything is subjective anyways.
I really couldn't care less what people "prefer" though. My original point was that voice acting hasn't necessarily made gaming better. It was Kefka who decided to introduce the "well the majority prefers" debate as if that somehow means it's better.
Objectively better? That can't be proven. But I agree with Kefka that spoken dialogue is a natural and positive evolution in gaming.
In fact, I think it's a bit silly to argue otherwise - but I don't expect that would stop someone like you
When did I say that spoken dialogue isn't a positive evolution? Again, I'm talking about the pros and cons as it is "right now".
I think it's funny that your opinion means so much to you that you would attempt to place words in my mouth while managing to include a childish insult at the same time.
Hypocrisy is something I've come to expect from you, so it doesn't surprise me that you would mention something about dragging this out when you're doing exactly that. Especially since you decided to reply to something that was obviously intended for someone else.
I'm amused that you keep going back to "the majority prefers" thing though, rather than discussing the actual pros and cons of the subject.
Oh, yeah - it's not like you've been dragging this out at all - now is it In fact, you never do, right?
I don't think I could match your level of dishonesty and hypocrisy even if I tried. But I think I can deal with the accusation
I'm just pointing out how you're being silly - because you don't seem to understand what I'm actually saying. Again, you're saying Kefka is pretending to know something by saying the majority prefers voice acting.
Clear? While certain knowledge is obviously impossible, it doesn't take much connection to reality to understand that most people actually DO prefer voice acting today. Not to say that means it's a better thing - but that's not what you were being silly about.
Nah.. I think it's a little more obvious this time. You clearly stated above that it was time to "get back on topic", but then you decided to reply to a post that had nothing to do with you.
I also doubt there are many here who are involved in these types of circle jerks as much as you seem to be on a weekly basis. I'd even say many of us have come to expect it.
I'm amazed on how fixated you are with that one statement. You've managed to turn it into your main point even though it actually has very little to do with the original topic. My intent was only to point out how using the "majority prefers" angle is usually just an effort to obtain the upper hand in a debate. We'll just go ahead and say I'm silly for saying it though.
I don't reply based on personal relevance - but based on topic relevance. The topic was spoken versus text-based dialogue, and I considered it a done deal until you came back.
So yeah, after several people asked to get back on topic, you dropped back in and you had to have the last word as always. That's one bit of hypocrisy..
I'll go ahead and let you have the last word.
You should just speak for yourself. Pretending to know what the majority prefers isn't going to strengthen your argument. If voice acting ever evolves to the point where every character has a unique voice that's well done, then you can try to claim it's objectively better. Right now it's a mixed bag any way you look at it.
I think we've went in enough circles for now though.
All this talk makes me wonder if there a group of people that thought sound with films was not so great, that color film was bad(I know many directors took there sweet time getting interested in it) or any other "innovation" when it comes to creative media.
You should just speak for yourself. Pretending to know what the majority prefers isn't going to strengthen your argument. If voice acting ever evolves to the point where every character has a unique voice that's well done, then you can try to claim it's objectively better. Right now it's a mixed bag any way you look at it.
I think we've went in enough circles for now though.
I'm going to pretend you didn't just compare voice acting in video games to the advent of cinema sound and color television.
Sure fully voiced dialog, also 3d graphics, I think those are major steps forward in gaming, similar to films have sound or being in color.
I agree
I clearly remember when voice acting started to appear as more than a novelty in games like Wing Commander and System Shock - and it was like night and day.
It has been a tremendous step forward - and today I have a hard time enjoying games that are text-based, no matter how good the writing is.
Text-based dialogue in games today is almost exclusively about budget constraints - and not an artistic choice.
I find it surprising that anyone would argue otherwise, actually.
Ask Nintendo about this. You know. Nintendo. The biggest and most successful video game developer in the world. They have been highly resistant to using voice acting for anything except character-originated sound effects. Almost none of their games use voice acting for dialogue, and it has nothing to do with budget, as some of these games are among the highest selling games of all time. They argue that voice acting creates a barrier between the player and the character, even in more RPG-ish leaning games such as the Zelda series.
Of course, you could respond, "Well, that's Mario and such. Of course those games don't need dialogue to be immersive." However, that's exactly my point. If you have a game that is openly emulating movies, with a linear storyline, a strong emphasis on narrative and the like, then voice acting might be appropriate. However, that doesn't mean it's always necessary or even positive. Simply put: games aren't movies, so not all games will be improved by the same things that improve movies.
You could argue that, at the least, RPGs might gain more from voice acting than other genres, but, again, it depends on the type of RPG. A Bioware-esque RPG might gain from it, but a game that focuses on being dynamic or claustrophobic or incredibly large and varied may not. Sometimes, the introduction of voice acting might be preferable, but, as you implicitly note, it might take too much budget for the good it does. However, since voice acting necessarily imposes more of a structure on a game than text, voice acting may actually be a -bad- thing for RPGs hoping to emphasis dynamic or procedurally generated content. It all depends on what you're looking for and what your vision is.
For what it's worth, I enjoy plenty of games with voice acting and plenty without it. Avernum 1's newest remake was my most played RPG of 2012 despite having no voice acting and little in the way of graphics. (Let me note here that this was my first Spiderweb game, and I don't exactly have a deep history with indie or hardcore PC RPGs. This was a very pleasant surprise!) However, recent games like Dragon Age Origins, Skyrim, and Fallout New Vegas are also personal favorites.
As in the previous discussion about Dark Souls, I think designers should focus on the essence of a game rather than checking boxes off on the cover. Use voice acting when it makes sense, but don't waste the resources or limit a game's dynamism when it doesn't.
I tend to agree. The poster below you mentioned certain kinds of games where voices acting is not dominant. And while I don't tend to play games like that(mostly rpg's for me) I can see how voice acting would not a have a big impact in those games. But I was speaking strictly of games like GTA, Most rpg's or any other narrative heavy game with a lot of personal interaction.
As for Dark Soul's, I think an easy mode would be a nice addition. Many artistic mediums these days are subject to a wide ranges of uses very different from the original vision. Photoshopping, modding, music sampling like used in a lot of rap music or just people do there own versions of songs, etc, there are group that dramatically edit movies for certain kind of Christan audience.