Voice acting vs text : V - Skyrim

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:26 pm

Yes, book vs film is a good anology. The text heavy rpgs like the baldurs gate series, planescape torment, morrowind, some final fantasies are textbook examples of immersive rpgs without voice over...rpgs should go back to imaginative storytelling, not realistic presentation.

How is it a good anology when video games are an audio/visual experience and books, by their very definition, only exist in text format to begin with? It is a terrible anology because the two things do not have enough similarities to bear the comparison out. Books cannot transcend the text formula

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:57 am

I prefer text as well since it does not limit the amount of dialogues, lore, story and the like so drastically. Planescape Torment is a great example of what can be done without the added costs of voice acting.

I could hug you for this post. PS:T is my all time favorite RPG, though it goes against most of what I expect in an RPG. That game had so much story and text that added to the game plot and how I could have an effect on the story and plot states, that not having what I demand most in RPGs, just simply didn't matter. It also helps that Chris Avellone was the main writer, and their are few to match his skills as such.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:18 am

Funny thing is even vocals are scripted.Preference aside vocals are just spoken word.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:00 am

"But it removes narration", he says while glaring in your eyes. "In previous games, there weren't just the spoken words." he pauses, gazing in abstraction; you aren't sure, whether he tries to remember how it was back then or if he just tries to find the right words. "Facial animation still lags behind" he finally continues, "body language even more so. And without that we're just talking to puppets." He pauses shortly, then adds. "Looked at it that way, text based dialogue added much more soul and drama to a conversation, than crudely animated faces and bored voice actors ever can." Crossing his arms, the old man stares at you with a gaze that doesn't tolerate any back talk.

Videogames have this ability. Skyrim doesn't play to its strengths, but games available right now do this. L.A. Noire is a recent example, in which inflection, body language and facial expression are well developed in conversation, and have real tangible meaning, leading the player to make correct- or incorrect- decisions based on what they believe the NPC to be doing. It even lends itself to allowing the player to decide if the NPC is lying or hiding something.

That concept is still not fully mature but is effective and viable. The fact that Skyrim didn't use a similar system doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also :

"Looked at it that way" was an idle typo, and a maddening one for the player, if, as you suggest, text is supposed to convey more appreciation for the situation, as now the player is rudely drawn away from the narrative and left to ponder the typo.

The ability to use effective body language and animation to back up VA in videogames is here right now, and it beats text with a stick.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:58 pm

How is it a good anology when video games are an audio/visual experience and books, by their very definition, only exist in text format to begin with? It is a terrible anology because the two things do not have enough similarities to bear the comparison out. Books cannot transcend the text formula

You don't have an imagination?? Books are irrelevant here anyway (don't know how that got into this really). We are talking video games where there are visuals, sounds, nice graphics and other NPCs that talk. It doesn't necessarily make it a better game if the PC has to show his/her face and expressions while voice acting as well. Most times, IMO, it is jarring because the inflection/tonality and the expression didn't fit the context of the conversation. I am not at all saying that VA is wrong and those who prefer it are wrong, it is a choice after all and that is fine. I just have my preferences from well over 3 decades of gaming. I will admit though, that I did enjoy the first mass Effect very much, in spite of the fact that it was all voice acted. The story is good, that it didn't matter to me and the writing was well done. Mass Effect 2 though, not happening as much with me.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:40 pm

I'd miss all the voice acting, but it has limited the dynamic potential of quests pretty substantially. Hopefully it will get better, but until then it tends to hamstring both the developers (who cannot feasibly voice-act all the possible reasonable reactions to a given quest, so only voice act two) and modders (who are trying to create quests without having ready access to voice actors). Morrowind, I felt really did do it well. I miss getting directions and trying to find things. Others do not, and that's fine, and I didn't mind in Oblivion because both "camps" had the option there; I could turn of quest markers and still get directions, while people who liked hovering arrows had them. Skyrim, however, has begun the process of reducing the option that I like, leaving only the hovering arrows.

Text-based dialogue would make dynamic directions doable!

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:24 am

The sounds of other NPCs, creatures and even the ambient sounds have been in games going on 20+ years now, that is nothing new. You're adding those in as if they are being excluded in text only game, what most are meaning is for the player character being a silent protagonist, that is all.

No, I am not making that point or using that underhanded trick. Unfortunately you have missed my point. My point is that with the NPCs being mute, they are very notable for their lack of voice. It stands out as an omission, since logically when everything else makes noise, people should too. A wolf can make a sound with it's throat, but a Master of the Voice cannot?

I agree, it certainly does add more to movies since the inclusion of sound and color. But, movies are not interactive either, so they are not relevant. Even if they were, it still wouldn't be reflecting me and what I think I would be doing with the interactions.

The point was not that since movies are interactive, they lend themselves to comparison with video games. I clearly pointed out that videogames and movies were audio/visual experiences, and similarly to movies using voices for actors, video games benefit from the feature. I did not make mention of interaction with either medium

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:10 pm

Funny thing is even vocals are scripted.Preference aside vocals are just spoken word.

True, if in the literal sense. But, are those spoken words uttered in the tonality you would use and express as your perceive the conversation, or is it that of one that never can change no matter how you take the conversation? I personally would rather leave my little voice in my head to do the acting :smile:

.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:32 am

"But it removes narration", he says while glaring in your eyes. "In previous games, there weren't just the spoken words." he pauses, gazing in abstraction; you aren't sure, whether he tries to remember how it was back then or if he just tries to find the right words. "Facial animation still lags behind" he finally continues, "body language even more so. And without that we're just talking to puppets." He pauses shortly, then adds. "Looked at it that way, text based dialogue added much more soul and drama to a conversation, than crudely animated faces and bored voice actors ever can." Crossing his arms, the old man stares at you with a gaze that doesn't tolerate any back talk.

Hardly...

This "Planescape Torment" style, more book-like writing you've shown and used in a few video games seem more pretentious than natural really.

Reading "pauses shortly" have a completely different meaning than hearing said pause in the voice.

And thank you, I'd rather have my own idea what feelings said actions give to me rather than being told about.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:00 am

You don't have an imagination?? Books are irrelevant here anyway (don't know how that got into this really). We are talking video games where there are visuals, sounds, nice graphics and other NPCs that talk. It doesn't necessarily make it a better game if the PC has to show his/her face and expressions while voice acting as well. Most times, IMO, it is jarring because the inflection/tonality and the expression didn't fit the context of the conversation. I am not at all saying that VA is wrong and those who prefer it are wrong, it is a choice after all and that is fine. I just have my preferences from well over 3 decades of gaming. I will admit though, that I did enjoy the first mass Effect very much, in spite of the fact that it was all voice acted. The story is good, that it didn't matter to me and the writing was well done. Mass Effect 2 though, not happening as much with me.

I have the same amount of years in experience with the subject as you. Mutes that have the ability to make words appear in my mind do not make the grade for me

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:47 am

How is it a good anology when video games are an audio/visual experience and books, by their very definition, only exist in text format to begin with? It is a terrible anology because the two things do not have enough similarities to bear the comparison out. Books cannot transcend the text formula

They are two different media but you can mix. See the rpgs i mentioned. Those games are narrated well and you can tell they didn't have to hold back, they wrote a lot, and good quality too. As a consequence i remember them as some of the best storytelling experiences i had on the computer, and they're classics for a reason: they combined the advantages of a book with fantastic visual art and epic music.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:34 am

The ability to use effective body language and animation to back up VA in videogames is here right now, and it beats text with a stick.

Yes, but there is only a handful of games that use it. The main issue is still the amount of dialogue, especially alternative lines depending on player choice. The less dialogue there is and the less freedom the player has, the more resources can be spent to make that dialogue realistic.

If you want to compare it with movies, then text based dialogue was theatre. Right now we are in still in the silent movie era, a crude technology with the potential to be better and more dramatic. In terms of storytelling not yet on par with the old technique, but already more suitable for the masses.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:00 pm

They are two different media but you can mix. See the rpgs i mentioned. Those games are narrated well and you can tell they didn't have to hold back, they wrote a lot, and good quality too. As a consequence i remember them as some of the best storytelling experiences i had on the computer, and they're classics for a reason: they combined the advantages of a book with fantastic visual art and epic music.

<_< That has nothing to do with what I said!

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:05 pm

No, I am not making that point or using that underhanded trick. Unfortunately you have missed my point. My point is that with the NPCs being mute, they are very notable for their lack of voice. It stands out as an omission, since logically when everything else makes noise, people should too. A wolf can make a sound with it's throat, but a Master of the Voice cannot?

Please, do not use ad hominem as I wasn't trying to deceive or use an "underhanded trick" while you then condescend. I understood you perfectly and my previous reply reflected that. I however will not throw that back at you in the same tone since you missed my point :smile:

Anyhoo, note that I stated NPCs do talk and there are sounds by other NPCs. I only referenced the player charaacter (my character, the main character) being silent, that's all. There haven't been but maybe a few games since the late 90s where no character talked. The games you are describing where no one talks is going back a long ways to Daggerfall and before.

The point was not that since movies are interactive, they lend themselves to comparison with video games. I clearly pointed out that videogames and movies were audio/visual experiences, and similarly to movies using voices for actors, video games benefit from the feature.(<---- my emphasis) I did not make mention of interaction with either medium

That's not how you described when making comparison, when games are interactive and movies are not, they are not mutually inclusive, even in the context of how you put it. Yes, both are visual experiences, but games are that + interactives. VA is simply a preference, that's all, and I won't decry those who prefer it. But, my point is, that a VA using expression visuals for the PC (main character) is simply not me doing it and most times, it doesn't fit the tone of the conversation that I may get in the context of how I experience it. Using VA while having to add the PC visuals, takes away gaming content and story interaction because of development time. Skyrim did fine using the SP. Dragon Age: Origins did awesome sticking with the SP. If you're saying that those who'd rather use their imaginations to the text are not getting the real deal, then I don't know what to say to that, other than you are wrong for telling others that your style is better because it works for you.

EDITED for clarity.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:28 pm

Yes, but there is only a handful of games that use it. The main issue is still the amount of dialogue, especially alternative lines depending on player choice. The less dialogue there is and the less freedom the player has, the more resources can be spent to make that dialogue realistic.

If you want to compare it with movies, then text based dialogue was theatre. Right now we are in still in the silent movie era, a crude technology with the potential to be better and more dramatic. In terms on story telling not yet on par with the old technique, but already more suitable for the masses.

Yeah, no.

Mass Effect, Dragon Age already uses cinematic storytelling, while still giving the player a load of choices. Different lines may appear differently depending on your past actions, all of them in voice.
An even older example would be Deus Ex, that is well known for its alternative path, it is also fully voice acted and lines differed depending on your actions.

And no, there were no more player choices with text dialog before in Morrowind or Daggerfall, your answers were always around "yes" and "no".

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:35 am

Voice acting requires voice actors, it requires lip syncing, it requires more animations and there is a limit as to how much can be done.
Text-based dialogue does not need voice actors or lip syncing, less money and resources are spent and more time is given to write more dialogue.

Say they have a voice actor doing a dialogue for one character, then when he's done with the voice acting the writers realize that there is a dialogue branch that could have been great to have but since the voice actor is now paid and done his part he is off to do other stuff and they might not be able to rehire him or cannot afford it because it goes over the budget.

With a text-based system they can at any point just edit in more dialogue options or edit a flawed dialogue response, they could even patch the dialogue in, or use the DLC's to flesh out the characters of the main game.
But with voice actors and more animations a lot more money and resources must be spent.

That is how voice acting limits the dialogue.
Oh and not to mention that since there are so many characters in the game and they only have a certain budget a lot of characters will sound alike.

But to remain impartial, voice acting makes for greater "imm?rsi?n" and it looks and sounds a lot better than just text does.
Problem with voice acting is bad voice acting, either the actor's voice, accent, how the line is read compared to the context ofthe situation or the line itself.
But with good voice acting a game feels a lot more... Polished, I suppose.

So using voice actors sacrifices how complex and vast a dialogue system can be if the game has like 200 characters to talk to, but it also makes for a much better gameplay experience visually.

I look at it this way:
It's either great visuals or great gameplay, do you want a game to be great visually? (it does not mean you're a graphics [censored]) Or do you want it to focus on the gameplay and sacrifice certain aspects?
I choose the latter.

I suspect that the decision to voice act everything (or almost) is responsible for the short and poorly developed guild/faction quests, for all the reasons given in the above post. Because the made the decision to do so much voice acting they really didn't have the choice/resources to do a better job. I don't really have anything against voice acting, but with our current technological limits, if you want an engaging story line and excellent character development, you have to go with text.

The decision to do dominantly voice acting had sever limiting effects on the final product; choices have consequences, much as in real life.

Cheers!
Argenthart

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:01 am

I will cite neverwinter nights, the original. it had a TON of dialogue, because a lot of it was not voiced.

I don't mind voice acting. l like it. and I realize that it is odd for some to be voiced and others dialogue not voiced

but the TRADE OFF for less voice overs is more dialogue. imagine all the cool coversations we COULD be having if they did not have to waste time, money, and energy and voice dialogue for all of it.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:13 pm

Yes, but there is only a handful of games that use it. The main issue is still the amount of dialogue, especially alternative lines depending on player choice. The less dialogue there is and the less freedom the player has, the more resources can be spent to make that dialogue realistic.

If you want to compare it with movies, then text based dialogue was theatre. Right now we are in still in the silent movie era, a crude technology with the potential to be better and more dramatic. In terms on story telling not yet on par with the old technique, but already more suitable for the masses.

Ineffective implementation of a technique- in anything- racing, engineering, writing, videogame development- does not prove that more resources are needed. It proves that it needs to be done better. The addition of resources is an approach, granted. But the concept of 'throwing money at problems', while easy to understand, does not bear itself out in industry nor does it prove to be the answer in this case. The idea that more money, time, resources, data size, etc must be used to make VA better in Skyrim is not proven by anyone in this thread. It is an assumption. Somebody will say "duh, more dialogue equals more data, stupid', and my response will be: why is more dialogue the answer? That's a one dimensional approach

Also, making the parallel with silent movies to a game in which I hear people talking is an idea that I simply can't agree with :huh:

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:16 am

I have the same amount of years in experience with the subject as you. Mutes that have the ability to make words appear in my mind do not make the grade for me

Exactly, it's all about preference, but it doesn't make it so for everyone else because it is yours. There's no right or wrong way for those who like the style that they do :smile:

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:43 am

OP, I kinda agree with you, I just have mixed feelings about it.

*Good* voice acting can really improve the immersion in the world. But bad voice acting sounds like crap and actually ruins immersion, because you can tell it was spoken by some actor trying to make a foreign accent and utterly failing...

Also, sound vs. text takes up a lot more space, and thus limits the actual amount of dialogue they can put in the game. I do miss the days of text-based dialogue, when you could actually carry on a legitimate conversation with NPCs who gave you detailed, in-character responses instead of trite one-liners and such.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:32 am

I will cite neverwinter nights, the original. it had a TON of dialogue, because a lot of it was not voiced.

I don't mind voice acting. l like it. and I realize that it is odd for some to be voiced and others dialogue not voiced

but the TRADE OFF for less voice overs is more dialogue. imagine all the cool coversations we COULD be having if they did not have to waste time, money, and energy and voice dialogue for all of it.

There would be no more cool converstation.

There were none in Morrowind, just 5 more ways to ask about "rumors" so everybody in the world will repeat the exact same line.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:08 am

Um, there are cool conversations in Skyrim? With whom? Like, people...99% of NPCs in Skyrim have nothing to talk about except one or two very short topics...

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:30 am

Please, do not use ad hominem as I wasn't trying to deceive or use an "underhanded trick" while you then condescend. I understood you perfectly and my previous reply reflected that. I however will not throw that back at you in the same tone since you missed my point :smile:

I didn't. You have, unfortunately, missed what I said again. I am not being condescending to you. Your replies to me continually indicate you're not getting what I'm posting.

You feel that I said you were deceiving or using a trick. I did not say that.

I said that I did not do it. Me. Not you.

No, I am not making that point or using that underhanded trick.

Please read my posts before you accuse me of things, and please forgive me if I do not respond you you anymore.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:09 pm

Personally I would love to have text instead of voice acting because of the increase in dialogue quality and bigger variety. But this is 2011 and unfortunatly having a none voice acting big game like this would hurt sales a lot i think

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:57 pm

I will cite neverwinter nights, the original. it had a TON of dialogue, because a lot of it was not voiced.

I don't mind voice acting. l like it. and I realize that it is odd for some to be voiced and others dialogue not voiced

but the TRADE OFF for less voice overs is more dialogue. imagine all the cool coversations we COULD be having if they did not have to waste time, money, and energy and voice dialogue for all of it.

This^ so much! I'll give you an example how true your words are. Dragon Age: Origins had over 1m words written for the dialogue in the game, used a silent protagonist, though at times you could see the SP in conversations making expressions and gestures. Dragon Age 2, had 400K words, more cinematics and a VA with cinematics that had some very jarring reactions that didn't fit, for my expereinces. They did this so they could add faster over the top combat. The game turned out to be about (on average) 20 hours shorter to play and also had much less player agency, something that I have to have a lot of in an RPG. Interestingly, Mass Effect used the VA very well, but the story was top notch (as per usual with Bioware games).