It depends. "Limbo" and "Braid" are fine without them, but storytelling is the main reason I play games, and my favourite developer is Bioware so... Nope. Sorry. I like my cinematics and voice acting just the way they are, thank you very much.
Removing Voice Acting and Cinematics to reduce the costs of video games.
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Never, quality voice acting and cutscenes are top on my priority when it comes to games I want to play.
I dont see the need for top level actors in top rated games, imho.
did matthew perry really have to do the voice of benny?
did samuel l jackson really have to be officer tennpenny?
personally I like the cinematics in games, but the voices, they can be lesser known voice actors.
lower end games you can do away with voice actors and cinematics entirely
did matthew perry really have to do the voice of benny?
did samuel l jackson really have to be officer tennpenny?
personally I like the cinematics in games, but the voices, they can be lesser known voice actors.
lower end games you can do away with voice actors and cinematics entirely
A) no if its an rpg then i want voice acting and cinematics and if its a rts or a rts grand stratagy hybrid game i want to hear my units talk.
B) I dont mind paying $6o as long as its a good game like mass effect 1 and 2 or the total war series or assassins creed or skyrim or a bunch of other game series i like.
C) They should take more time to make the game then it will be a more polished game as long as it does'nt take around 10 years or something.
B) I dont mind paying $6o as long as its a good game like mass effect 1 and 2 or the total war series or assassins creed or skyrim or a bunch of other game series i like.
C) They should take more time to make the game then it will be a more polished game as long as it does'nt take around 10 years or something.
I'd say yes to all of them. If losing voice acting and cinematics would give me more polish in other areas - be it level design, less bugs, more varied gameplay, etc. then I'd sacrifice them in an instant. Granted, some games really do need voice acting - others mentioned Mass Effect, as an example - but for the most part they're few and far between. I'd really have no problem reading instead of listening, especially given that I read faster than people speak.
Voice acting plays a very big role in a game's ability to tell a story with emotion. Think of games like Portal, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and replace voice acting with text boxes. So much of the game's greatness lies within there.
Cinematics on the other hand are completely useless in gaming. They remove immersion or show you something you'd rather be experiencing than the game. In game cinematics are more than enough.
Would I play a game without either for a more polished experience? Absolutely. But this implies that costs are being diverted over saved as more time is spent on other area's of the game. Also, the game that fits the above template are largely Zelda, Metroid and Mario games, most of which are still amazing to this day.
Personally, I wish the cost of games were simply broken up into single player and online pass costs. I wish I could buy a game like MW3 on day 1 for $30.00 and have no online access while other people pay $30.00 for online ONLY. Of course, I'm a minority in that opinion.
Cinematics on the other hand are completely useless in gaming. They remove immersion or show you something you'd rather be experiencing than the game. In game cinematics are more than enough.
Would I play a game without either for a more polished experience? Absolutely. But this implies that costs are being diverted over saved as more time is spent on other area's of the game. Also, the game that fits the above template are largely Zelda, Metroid and Mario games, most of which are still amazing to this day.
Personally, I wish the cost of games were simply broken up into single player and online pass costs. I wish I could buy a game like MW3 on day 1 for $30.00 and have no online access while other people pay $30.00 for online ONLY. Of course, I'm a minority in that opinion.
I don't have a problem with the price of games. They're a luxury item... not a fucking blood right. If you can't afford them, then you can't afford them. You don't have a right to play games, nor do businesses have some kind of bound obligation to ensure you can buy them. The most ironic thing of it all is that if you adjust for inflation, then games are cheaper now than they ever have been. Ah, how people just love to *****.
But on topic, I don't know. There are tons upon tons of reasons why modern games have such high budgets, and voice acting and cinematics are only one minor part of it. I honestly doubt removing those would do much to assuage the massive budgets. I doubt it would even chip off half a million for most games. Not a good way to combat rising budgets, to me honest.
But on topic, I don't know. There are tons upon tons of reasons why modern games have such high budgets, and voice acting and cinematics are only one minor part of it. I honestly doubt removing those would do much to assuage the massive budgets. I doubt it would even chip off half a million for most games. Not a good way to combat rising budgets, to me honest.
Yes, yes, and F*CK YES.
Games were perfectly fine with scrolling text and 16 bit sounds to make it seem like people were talking.
I've never thought voice acting was all that important. And its not like you need a cut scene every 5 minutes.
Sure, completely removing both might not be a smart idea. ((Perhaps only party members or important characters have voices? Not every tom, dick and harry on the street.)) And cut scenes can be good for telling story. ((But spread out so they actually feel important.))
I think thats why FF13 was kinda boring. It was a constant stream of cut scenes, and "auto-battle" to make it feel more like a cut scene.
Voice acting and cut scenes have a place in video games. But if its going to cost me an additional 30-40$, i dont need it.
Games were perfectly fine with scrolling text and 16 bit sounds to make it seem like people were talking.
I've never thought voice acting was all that important. And its not like you need a cut scene every 5 minutes.
Sure, completely removing both might not be a smart idea. ((Perhaps only party members or important characters have voices? Not every tom, dick and harry on the street.)) And cut scenes can be good for telling story. ((But spread out so they actually feel important.))
I think thats why FF13 was kinda boring. It was a constant stream of cut scenes, and "auto-battle" to make it feel more like a cut scene.
Voice acting and cut scenes have a place in video games. But if its going to cost me an additional 30-40$, i dont need it.
D:
It's a toughie. Grew up with games that didn't have voice acting or cinematics, yet I've grown so accustom to it that I don't think I would like to play a game without it.
Well actually, I could play a game without cinematics. It's beautiful, yes, but that's about it. But voice acting? I like hearing the game talk to me...
Anyway, I guess I could give it up for a more polished game. Lemme just shed a tear though.
It's a toughie. Grew up with games that didn't have voice acting or cinematics, yet I've grown so accustom to it that I don't think I would like to play a game without it.
Well actually, I could play a game without cinematics. It's beautiful, yes, but that's about it. But voice acting? I like hearing the game talk to me...
Anyway, I guess I could give it up for a more polished game. Lemme just shed a tear though.
I am entertained by your reference to Skies fo Arcadia, because the voiceovers were not dropped from that game because of time or money, but rather because it was a dreamcast game already taking up 2 disks of space and adding full dialogue would have made it 3 or 4.Ace of Spades said:
Also on the note of Skies of Arcadia, for the time, that was a lot of cinematics.
Anyways, yes to all questions circumstantially. Game value is totally dependant on gameplay, a good game doesnt need voices and cinematics. Those things are just flare and polish themselves. And since most blockbuster games lately try to sell themselves on flame and polish, you can't really take them out of there.
But the games we play for weeks on end are not the cinematic single player games. Think of the amount of weeks lost to CoD multiplayer, as opposed to single player, where the biggest change is the loss of story, cutscenes, and dialogue.
Now think of any multiplayer or arcade style game where you have cutscenes and dialogue every time you play a round, and realize how annoying it is to be interrupted like that
Pretty much what I'm saying is that I need voices and cutscenes in games that play like 40 hour movies, but I prefer them out of everything else.
I could go without voice acting. Some of my favorite characters are in games with voice-acting only used for tiny signature moments of dialog. Examples:
Phoenix Wright: "OBJECTION!"
Agent Kahn, EBA: "Agents are.....GO!!!!"
Derek Stiles: "I WILL save this patient!"
See, for me, voice acting has the most potential as compared to text. But it can also be a lot WORSE than text. If you don't have highly talented voice actors, don't go for voice, because a good text system can work out very well.
See, in Phoenix Wright, they have some special kind of text-scrolling system. For starters, they have "blips" as people talk that actually change for female characters to a slightly higher-pitched blip. Plus, the person scripting the text in the game's system can change the rate of someone's speech, make someone pause mid-sentence, shake the screen or play a sound effect to indicate something loud, ie "You WHAT!?? How did he get away!?" Plus, all the characters have a number of "expressions" they can switch between to indicate their feelings on something. The end impression gives off a lot of "nonverbal" communication that would otherwise require voice acting. And it leaves a big impression on fans. Heck, I missed it in Ghost Trick.
Phoenix Wright: "OBJECTION!"
Agent Kahn, EBA: "Agents are.....GO!!!!"
Derek Stiles: "I WILL save this patient!"
See, for me, voice acting has the most potential as compared to text. But it can also be a lot WORSE than text. If you don't have highly talented voice actors, don't go for voice, because a good text system can work out very well.
See, in Phoenix Wright, they have some special kind of text-scrolling system. For starters, they have "blips" as people talk that actually change for female characters to a slightly higher-pitched blip. Plus, the person scripting the text in the game's system can change the rate of someone's speech, make someone pause mid-sentence, shake the screen or play a sound effect to indicate something loud, ie "You WHAT!?? How did he get away!?" Plus, all the characters have a number of "expressions" they can switch between to indicate their feelings on something. The end impression gives off a lot of "nonverbal" communication that would otherwise require voice acting. And it leaves a big impression on fans. Heck, I missed it in Ghost Trick.
It depends on the game.
On one hand, you have Dwarf Fortress.
On the other, you have Mass Effect.
Blanket "Gaming should do this" statements are generally good ideas about half the time.
On one hand, you have Dwarf Fortress.
On the other, you have Mass Effect.
Blanket "Gaming should do this" statements are generally good ideas about half the time.
Conversion to 3D? poor controls? horrid gameplay. While Sonics voice acting wasn't brilliant, I honestly don't believe that it was the nail int he coffin.Tim Mazzola said:
Just out of curiosity. When is voice acting or cutscenes totally uncalled for? I can see this in games that have no real plot but in video games that are largely story based... I don't see when they can be uncalled for. Also, no before you say it, I don't believe Voice acting and cut scenes equal story, though I don't see many reasons for them to be excluded from games that are story based.Tim Mazzola said:
No, though it does help reinforce the stories and the characters of a video game. As said in my previous posts, its hard to convey emotions through text. Even here and now reading this you have no way to know whether I'm writing this with a calm, nonchalant tone or in an angered raging tone. In books its much different as you can spend a page or two establishing tone and attitude which just wouldn't work in a video game. You can do a whole lot with tone, it help builds context and can reinforce a character or situation. Actions are often louder that words if you catch my drift. Taking out voice acting simply, for what seems to be, the sake of it... Its just as restrictive if not more so.Tim Mazzola said:
I don't see how ripping out voice acting or cutscenes and replacing it with a system used around at least 10 years ago (if not longer), mostly done for budgeting and technical limitations of the time, is going to evolve the medium. Seems more of a step backwards to me. Though I imagine I'm a silly conformist idiot who can't think out the box...Tim Mazzola said:
a) Would you Play a current gen AAA game with no Voice acting and no cinematics?
YES.
b)Would you be willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a lower video game release price?
Not quite. Not having voice acting or cinematics certainly wont break a game, however if the game itself works better with both those features, than I'd be willing to pay any price. It all depends on the game itself.
c)Would you Willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a more polished game?
Of course, whats the point of having cinematics and voiced characters if the game isn't all its cracked up to. If sacrificing them means I'll end up with an overall better game, than yes.
YES.
b)Would you be willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a lower video game release price?
Not quite. Not having voice acting or cinematics certainly wont break a game, however if the game itself works better with both those features, than I'd be willing to pay any price. It all depends on the game itself.
c)Would you Willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a more polished game?
Of course, whats the point of having cinematics and voiced characters if the game isn't all its cracked up to. If sacrificing them means I'll end up with an overall better game, than yes.
a) Would you Play a current gen AAA game with no Voice acting and no cinematics?
Depends on the game, but it would turn me off from it. I have played games from the past with no voice acting like Final Fantasy which I appreciated. Cinematics are also something I have forgone in games like Half-Life.
b)Would you be willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a lower video game release price?
No, I'd happily pay for a shiny bright $60 game with all the bells and whistles of a AAA title
c)Would you Willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a more polished game?
Mmmm maybe, probably not, if a game isn't polished it wouldn't matter who the voice actors are and how flashy the cinematics are, the game wouldn't life up to my standards.
I find that voice acting creates a more immersive gaming experience. To your point, books use imagination to visualize the unfloding story. Video games, like film, use visuals to tell the story. Hearing voices come out of characters mouths rather than reading text at the bottom of a screed while characters flap their gums interferes with the suspension of dis-belief.
As I stated earlier, I have played games with no voice acting in them, but they were older games on older systems like Gameboy Color and Playstation. I equate that to the silent film era, the time period before voice acting would be commonplace in movies. As soon as "talkies" were introduced in the 30's, the silent films all but vanished or became obsolete. I think the same thing has happened with gaming, now that voice acting has made it's way into the mainstream, the majority of titles will have it.
Depends on the game, but it would turn me off from it. I have played games from the past with no voice acting like Final Fantasy which I appreciated. Cinematics are also something I have forgone in games like Half-Life.
b)Would you be willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a lower video game release price?
No, I'd happily pay for a shiny bright $60 game with all the bells and whistles of a AAA title
c)Would you Willing to sacrifice Voice acting and cinematics for a more polished game?
Mmmm maybe, probably not, if a game isn't polished it wouldn't matter who the voice actors are and how flashy the cinematics are, the game wouldn't life up to my standards.
I find that voice acting creates a more immersive gaming experience. To your point, books use imagination to visualize the unfloding story. Video games, like film, use visuals to tell the story. Hearing voices come out of characters mouths rather than reading text at the bottom of a screed while characters flap their gums interferes with the suspension of dis-belief.
As I stated earlier, I have played games with no voice acting in them, but they were older games on older systems like Gameboy Color and Playstation. I equate that to the silent film era, the time period before voice acting would be commonplace in movies. As soon as "talkies" were introduced in the 30's, the silent films all but vanished or became obsolete. I think the same thing has happened with gaming, now that voice acting has made it's way into the mainstream, the majority of titles will have it.
