Removing Voice Acting and Cinematics to reduce the costs of video games.

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

As a Greek who speaks Japanese, neither language was used in Shadow of the Colossus. It sounded like a made up latin variation.



Dubs are useless, they never come close to the original, sure, some people will get them just because "reading is not fun" for some reason or other...but meh, not everyone is going to enjoy everything as it's supposed to be enjoyed. That's why crap like Transformers makes money.

 

[krazykidd]

Without these aspects how would the game tell the story? Sure you could argue that the game could tell the story without cinematics and tell the story while the character is in control but without voice acting there is no way you could tell a decent story.

Ever read a book? A game could be closer to a interactive book , than a interactive movie. A story doesn't need a voice to be told .And arguebly you could write a better story without voice actors, because theres no restriction. Voice actors have to be paid, more text means more money , so you gotta stick with what is ABSOLUTLEY necessary . With text that problem is non-existant.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I am fine with losing cinematics and voice acting doesn't add as much to the cost as you think it does. Nonetheless, I was never really bothered paying 60 dollars for a good video game.

 

[NightlyNews]

Here's a little cost-cutting measure that would actually make games better: when localizing foreign titles, DO NOT DUB!

I don't play games that aren't in my language. Sorry there is so many good experiences out there that are in my own, why would I buy something that is just text adventures with emotional gibberish over it.

Dubbing will get more buys from people like me who want to experience something different, but not make the game a chore.

... I hope that oozing arrogance was unintentional.

Languages are beautiful things, it's worth your while to explore those that aren't yours sometimes (I speak two fluently and am familiar with two more myself). It's just downright ignorant to dismiss languages that aren't your own as "gibberish", in my experience I strongly prefer to watch anything I can get my hands on in its original spoken language and read subtitles, because well, that version is how the artist(s) intended it to be seen and heard, and often times will indeed be the best (vocal) experience.

Not to mention that when you dub a game there still is a considerable chance that the "actors" picked can't act their way out of a paper bag, as last year's Arc Rise Fantasia and several other JRPGs featured on Unskippable can attest. So I'll take the original Japanese performance (or German, French or other countries with strong developers) over a weak dub.


And I'll just quote this for emphasis, it is indeed true that compared to film or even TV actors, voice actors are played surprisingly little and have to basically be constantly busy to try and get by.

There was no arrogance in my statement. There is no tone over the internet and to assume I am is kinda insulting.

I love movies and often watch films in their original language. I loved troll hunter and have seen the seventh seal etc in their original languages. But, in videogames I'm trying to accomplish something and the tax of reading while executing something honestly isn't worth the hassle. And if the game isn't challenging me in some way then it's not my kinda game and I wouldn't be playing it in any language.

Btw I'm fluent in Spanish and Cantonese. Language is beautiful, but one I haven't studied is just gibberish.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

Well it's not really a AAA title if they take out that kind of stuff. It's not important though and I actually tend to tend to go for cheaper games with lower production quality because I don't have a lot of money to spend on games. Voice acting is nice to have but whilst reading text can make it a little harder to be drawn into the world initially, it doesn't break immersion once you've got used to it. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "cinematics". Cutscenes I think should be avoided when possible anyway but epic scripted events can still take your breath away. Still, you don't the best graphics to pull that off as much as it helps.

It's harder for me to justify buying a game with more content but lower quality content. Bethesda, for example, manage to keep the voice acting AND deliver around 100 hours of gameplay (and also doesn't really have much in the way of cinematics, consequently). The game should be polished and full of good content anyway and I think that voice acting is a good way to make a good game great so why not include that?

 

[vivalahelvig]

I could play a AAA game without cinematics, for sure!
[sub][sub][sub]*cough* Half-life *cough*[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Sovvolf]

You know... When I was a kid, stuff like voice acting and cinematic cutscenes were a privilege, while I can go back and play games like that (I play quite a few retro games, including the many that didn't have stuff like that) I honestly don't want to go back to those times with current AA titles. Seems like a step backwards and pretty unnecessary. I can accept and play games with no voice acting and such from back a good few years ago because I accept the fact that they did it mostly because of budget and technical limitations. Indeed I also accept this with current budget titled or indy titles.

However AA titles, while its pretty relative to the game, genre and such... I'd have an hard time accepting a game like that. Maybe one or two games like that I'd be fine with but not for the whole gaming industry.

I know this is going to make me sound like a arrogant illiterate philistine but I don't play games to read waves and waves of text. That's what I reserve for books and internet forums. That and I find that it disrupts flow. When in the middle of a battle, I don't want to have to stop to read a text box when someone could just shout it over. I will say that I have done this for select games though, however this was mainly because they didn't have an English dub (Yakuza 3 and 4) or the English dub sounded ridiculous (Way of the Samurai 3). Even so, while I'm forced to read subtitles, these games did indeed have voice acting (which, while I'm not Japanese so it might be hard to tell, sounded pretty good) and it added a lot to the story, I don't think I'd have had the same emotional response from just reading text.

I will also add that I play games for the storyline just as much as I play them for the gameplay. I imagine if you don't play games for the story line then this won't really matter to you. Though if your going to take voice acting and cinematics from a video game for pragmatism when it comes to the budget... Why stop there? Why not take the music out too, and the textures?...

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

It's not voice acting and cinematics that ruin a game. It's CHEAP voice acting and cinematics that ruin a game. As long as the studios take the time and spend the money to get decent voice actors AND to have them properly directed (Valve, for example), the results are amazing. GLaDOS and Wheatley are a couple of the most original and endearing characters to come out of gaming in at least a decade. Without their expert voice-actors, they would have been a lot more lifeless (and Portal in general would have been lifeless).

So no, I don't think we should sacrifice voice acting and cinematics in a game if the developers want it. I think we should demand the games in general to be polished--with or without voice acting or cinematics. Because an unpolished game is going to be unpolished with or without them. If there is a giant pile of dirt sitting in the middle of a room, the room isn't going to be anymore clean by removing a lamp or a chair.

Text-based games work for some games, but now that we have voice-acting available as a tool of storytelling I think it would be stupid to up and ignore it now. If the game calls for it, then use it. Do what is best for the situation, and do it right. You wouldn't use your hand to get a nail into a board if you have a perfectly good hammer sitting right there. And at the same time, you wouldn't use a hammer to stick a toothpick into a sandwich.

 

[Subwayeatn]

a)NO, although i'd play a game without cinematics, never would i play a game without voice acting where voice acting would enhance the experience. Imagine the battlefield games with no voice actors. Or Left 4 Dead. The gameplay would be unchanged, but the atmosphere would be ruined.

b)Yes, if the game is still good after removing the 2.

c)Yes. (i'm looking at you, brink)

 

[Tim Mazzola]

Are voice actors even paid enough? As I understood it, even an amazingly talented lead (i.e. Jennifer Hale as female Shepard) was paid next to nothing. The rate I've seen floating around the internet is insulting, both to her contribution and her talent as well. The amount a video game actor makes would be financially negligible if it'd been for a third-rate informercial, yet it's still the industry standard.

Maybe I'm misinformed, but I would pay more for a game with high-quality storytelling and gameplay. Voice acting and cinematics are both crucial elements of storytelling, I don't know if I'd buy a game without them.

Standard rate for Freelance voice work is about 400$ a hour, minimum of 2 hours. I hear Bioware pays a lot more than the normal though, so have no fear Hale isn't hurting for cash. Kyle Hebert said he got about 1400$ for voicing Ryu in SF4(and all it's expansions and sequels). Most voice actors would kill to do a Bioware game, mostly because they pay more and there's tons of work for them.

OT: I would never trade VO and cut-scenes for anything. Without these, games like Mass Effect and a lot of RPGs would suffer.

... Uh, I'm pretty sure the OP isn't asking if we'd remove these features forever, that would be ridiculous. Imposing restrictions on ourselves doesn't help anything. I'm pretty sure he's just asking if a game did not have these things, would you still play it?

 

[Gaiseric]

No to all of these. Voice acting and story is very, very important for me.

I'm with the lobster on this.

 

[Signa]

Morrowind. Best game I ever played. Voice acting is minimal, and cinimatics? There is not even enough to count on my left hand.

So my answers is yes across the board.

And then came Oblivion. Sometimes I think it would have been better without voice acting. Well except the Emperor and Sheogorath, but besides that...

Well, if you're using Morrowind as your benchmark, Morrowind did have a fully VAed intro and daedra summoning. If those were the only two voices you cared about losing, they probably would still have been there had they followed Morrowind's selection.

OT: Yes to all with some obvious exceptions. Even games like Mass Effect could do with more text driven dialogue. I only say that because of a screen shot I saw showing Planescape/Baldur's Gate (can't remember which) with 8 or so dialogue choices in a conversation, and Dragon Age's 3. Even though ME's dialogue moves at the pace of a well directed movie, there is something to be said for the loss of choices. In a RPG, those choices define the expereince of the game, and throwing those choices away just so the player can go "hurp durp! I don't have to read!" doesn't make a better game.

 

[RagTagBand]

No, no and no. Perhaps the escapist is fond of games where story is kept locked in a separate room from gameplay, like puzzle games, or platformers, or Microsoft excel, But I quite like modern luxuries such as "Spoken dialogue" in my games and I don't miss times of yesteryear when story was delivered ad nauseum through a slowly scrolling wall of text.

What shall we cut next in this hypothetical situation? 3D graphics? The entire left side of the screen? Any sound at all? Hell i'm pretty sure Zork was done VERY cheaply.

 

[hazabaza1]

Probably not to all.
A lot of my favourite games would just not have the same impact without the quality of voice acting and/or cinematics. Persona 4, Dragon Age, Saints Row 2, all these games and more just wouldn't have the same personality and spark without the voice acting and cinematics.
And as has been mentioned, voice acting+cinematics=/= lack of polish.

 

[Slayer_2]

Sound is a HUGE part of a game. For me, that includes a moving soundtrack played at the right times in-game and out of it, great weapon sounds, and good, convincing voices. If someone dies and his squadmate says "man down" in a calm monotone voice, it is a huge detraction from the experience of battle. No voices is worse, I'll pay an extra $10 easy for VO's.

Besides which, even if AAA studios removed voice acting, I bet the prices would stay the same or even go up.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Have games be about games rather than imitations of Hollywood? Yeah that would actually be nice. I like games, and if I wanted to see an unskippable cinematic I'd go to the cinema and find one that didn't suck.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

... Uh, I'm pretty sure the OP isn't asking if we'd remove these features forever, that would be ridiculous. Imposing restrictions on ourselves doesn't help anything. I'm pretty sure he's just asking if a game did not have these things, would you still play it?

And I answered it.

short answer: no

long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Huh. Why not? I dunno, all the people here who are saying they wouldn't play a game without VAs and cutscenes are imposing severe restrictions on themselves.

All these people making the argument "I CAN'T IMAGINE MASS EFFECT 2 WITHOUT VOICE ACTING" aren't actually arguing their own point. Just because one game has no voice acting doesn't mean it will disappear from gaming. Whether one game has no VAs and cutscenes has nothing to do with others.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. VAs and cutscenes are like online multiplayer. They are often a waste of resources shoehorned into everything because it "has to be in everything" even when totally uncalled for.

Also, some people seem to be thinking "Voice acting and cutscenes" = "story." That is laughably ridiculous, restrictive, and insulting to gaming. It implies that video games will only ever exist as a shadow of other media, and will have to perpetually rely on antiquated methods of narrative delivery.

Personally, if someone refuses to play games just because they lack VAs and cutscenes, they're basically saying they want to medium to stagnate and never evolve.

Also, as one last point, I want to remind people. WHAT killed Sonic?

 

[Cenequus]

So theres a thread on the escapist that i found pretty interesting entitled : 'Price of Games Why whinge? Should their be a price Increase for games longer in development? ' which talks mainly about the prices of video games and several things that could and should influence them. That got me to thinking, would we as gamers be willing to play a game with little to no Voice acting and/ or cinematics? Now a days almost every game has wonderful ( and awe inspiring ) Cinematics and Great Voice acting, but the reality of the matter is , these things cost money ( ALOT of money ) .

Now money isn't an issue for all gamers . But let's just say a game has no Voice acting or Cinematics, the cost for developping said game will be lower, thus the price for the game on released SHOULD be lower also. Or on the other hand , if a game has no Voice acting or Cinematics, the time and money that would have been spent on those two aspects of the game , could be used on something else, like polishing the game , thus keeping the price the same , but having a better game, in the same amount of time.

So my question has 3 parts:

a) Would you Play a current gen AAA game with no Voice acting and no cinematics?

b)Would you be willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a lower video game release price?

c)Would you Willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a more polished game?


EDIT: For people that think that Voice acting takes away from Immersion , im guessing you guys don'T read BOOKS? you know that WALL OF TEXT between two covers that has a story , and a begining and an end? Books can be pretty immersive if you ask me , and no voice acting is required. Just an extra thought.

A game is not a book so no the example is bad. Also removing voice acting means you actually get a less polished game. Then again I'm reffering to what type of games I'm playing and I'm sure there wouldn't be any impact in lets say an FPS or puzzle game but those either rarelly have it or invest so less in that that it's not a problem anyway.

I'd say I'd remove voice acting and cinematics from Jrpgs so they won't be so annoying,and while it's half serious half joking,I'm sure it's only because I'm not into that stuff and other probably adore them just for that.

Point is a game only gets better with good voice acting(I doubt cinematic by itself are such a great time and money investment).