Yeah. And she was Bastila in KOTOR and Naomi Hunter in MGS.quack35 said:She voiced Shepard in Mass Effect, right? She was awesome.scnj said:While she's not a celebrity I'd also like to mention Jennifer Hale while I'm here. She's lent her voice to dozens of games (Metal Gear Solid, Mass Effect, Metroid Prime, Syphon Filter, Killer7, KOTOR etc) and I've yet to hear a bad performance from her.
He really, really does.lava_lamp said:morgan freeman needs to narrate a game
I can imagine the following.lava_lamp said:morgan freeman needs to narrate a game
Valid point. Although fame usually is accompanied by talent, talent isn't necessarily accompanied by fame. To get good voice acting a gaming company doesn't have to pay an arm and a leg, although if they are paying good money for a big name they should get one who is talented. I believe Bethesda has done that so far with Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson.D_987 said:Yet there are a large number of actors that are famous due to their talent. I realize there are some Megan Foxes out there - those that have no talent but will earn millions because she's what people claim is "attractive". Yet the majority of big names are there for a reason; so I feel the two, "fame" and "talent" generally go hand in hand.Fireproof217 said:First of all, if a game company is going to cast a big name in their game, it should be for a rather substantial role. All three of the parts that you referenced in your post were relatively small (Jackson was a little larger). I do believe that it does boost sales of a game when some gamers find out that Captain Jean-Luc Picard is in Oblivion, however its not needed. If you can find a voice actor who will do a credible job, than who needs a big name? The problem with that is that there are so many examples of no-name voice actors who have done particularly bad jobs.
So I think game companies should go after talent before fame, however fame might still sell more.
Making a claim has to do with something subjective. Megan Fox IS attractive, therefore there is nothing subjective about it. You are right about her acting ability though.D_987 said:I realize there are some Megan Foxes out there - those that have no talent but will earn millions because she's what people claim is "attractive".
Its entirely subjective - we see certain attributes as attractive due to a media image. This is obvious due to the things humans in different countries or in what previous centuries have looked for and claimed to be attractive.paypuh said:Making a claim has to do with something subjective. Megan Fox IS attractive, therefore there is nothing subjective about it. You are right about her acting ability though.
Megan Fox's attractiveness is VERY subjective. I find her features too harsh and angular and her tattoos absolutely vile. I prefer very soft-featured sandy blondes, preferably from Slavic or Baltic countries---hard to figure a way that Megan Fox could be less of my type.paypuh said:Making a claim has to do with something subjective. Megan Fox IS attractive, therefore there is nothing subjective about it. You are right about her acting ability though.
Wait christopher lee was in kingdom hearts 2? I will go buy this game now.kageyukai said:Christopher Lee as Diz (Ansem the Wise) in Kingdom Hearts 2 was a good one. Mark Hammil As Gojo Majima in Yakuza and The Joker in Arkham Asylum.
Celebrity children are truly my pet peeve.Broady Brio said:Celebrities are Celebrities for a reason, beacause either they are good at their job or in some cases, they nicked from their parents who were good at their job. (A certain Disney singer comes to mind.)