Female vs. Male Voice Actor

[Dr Fallout]

Or Liam Neeson...

 

[Spacemunkey]

I came across this cut content from the interview with Piper and I want to know why this wasn't the game we got. Even the male va comes across as as sincere in the interview.

 

[Hassknecht]

I came across this cut content from the interview with Piper and I want to know why this wasn't the game we got. Even the male va comes across as as sincere in the interview.

You said it, it was too good. They had to keep the quality constant, and since most of the game sucked they had to cut out the few good parts to keep it all at an even level.

 

[Walpknut]

Those cut lines still suck. Not that the things they didn't cut out are any better tho.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I agree. I have NEVER, EVER seen a video game that was improved when it made a transition from text based, unvoiced dialogue to a voiced protagonist.

I sorely disagree. Not personally - I absolutely do not like these kind of changes, DA: Origins dialogue was tenfold better before the voices - but in the big picture, you can't really expect everyone to have enough depth of imagination to make silent dialogue "immersive" for them. They have to be considered too - just because a majority is more prone to liking garbage doesn't mean it's right to ignore them entirely. I am in complete approval of the idea of ruining a party for a smaller group of people (including myself) so that more people can join in.

It's why I hate the idea that "casual gamers" are given less care about by the majority of gamers. They have as much right to be treated, acknowledged and marketed towards as other gamers. The term "accessible" has been made the toxic buzzword of the generation for the industry thanks to corporations that overuse the word for advertising, but I think the genuine act of a good developer trying to make a series more accessible for a larger crowd, not for money, but in hopes of inviting more people into the hobby of gaming, is a very good thing.

I'm going to get a lot of disagreements here... aren't I?

 

[Walpknut]

Casual gamers are the most pandered to crowd. Not everything has to be castrated just because they exist, they already have more than enough games to choose from while people who enjoy indepth RPGs continuosly have less and less.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Casual gamers are the most pandered to crowd. Not everything has to be castrated just because they exist, they already have more than enough games to choose from while people who enjoy indepth RPGs continuosly have less and less.

1. Don't want a world full of only in-depth RPG either. That would be dull. Variety is a good thing.
2. I agree that there's too much pandering today, but I approve of pandering done not for the profit but to introduce more people to gaming out of hopes to make its communtiy larger and more varied.
3. I know we're all bitter about Fallout 4, but really? Not every game being streamlined counts as it being "castrated".
4. I've had many people tell me gaming was better before it started becoming mainstream. It is the opinion I disagree with so much I cannot put it into words. Everything is improved when there's more people involved. Well, nearly everything.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

I'm going to get a lot of disagreements here... aren't I?

Yes, you probably are. But I have no interest in explaining why dumbing down games is bad.

There are now far more dumbed down mass produced/mass marketed video games for the demographic you are talking about than there are games for people who prefer silent protagonists and immersive, well-built fictional universes. If anything, people who prefer immersive, well-constructed fictional worlds are neglected for people who prefer more SHOOTY SHOOTY BANG BANG crap because they have little time, interest, or capacity to engage in deeper forms of video games.

That's ok, because sometimes we have a lot of work to do and do not have time to invest ourselves in 120 hours of a great RPG and would rather play a first person shooter or whatever, but now the games we EXPECT to be deep RPGs are turning into Borderlands/Fallout 4, and that is not ok. Pretty soon, we will have to settle solely for indie/Kickstarter games for deep RPG worlds.

Fallout 4 is more of a disappointment than Dragon Age 2 and that is saying a LOT considering how many environments were recycled in Dragon Age 2, how bad the writing was, how you only had one (I repeat, ONE) city to explore, how even Inon Zur claimed DA 2 was rushed in order to capitalize on the success of the first game, and how the combat animations were transformed from a gritty, realistic animation to over the top mages shooting fireballs between their legs like some kind of cartoon.

RPG fans are tired and weary of RPGs being turned into every other simplistic, badly written shooty-shooty-bang-bang game out there. You don't see this with any other genre. You don't see Call of Duty putting out an isometric top-down RPG, but you do see Fallout 4 being a Borderlands clone that has zero RPG or dialogue.

They even tried turning XCOM into a first person shooter. Rest assured, if it can be turned into an FPS, people will try it, and major titles are starting to become indistinguishable from each other.

1. Don't want a world full of only in-depth RPG either. That would be dull. Variety is a good thing.

In what universe are you living where there is a golden age of RPGs that have overrun the generic FPS market? It is the exact opposite of that situation. There is no variety in gaming. We are forced to go with Indie/Kickstarter RPGs like Underrail because AAA studios are not making any. Witcher 3 is the exception not the rule.

 

[Walpknut]

Nobody here is clamoring for a world of only rpgs, no idea how that's even a point of argument here. More variety is not achieved by castrating every genre until it becomes an unrecognizable blur of action shooters, which is what is happening right now. We are actually all about variety because we want more OPTIONS, we don't want to replay old games to get in depth experiences we want new of those and that doesn't affect in any way the enjoyment of the "casual" consumer who just wants borderlands.

"Everything is improved when there's more people involved." actually no, the only thing that has improved in games is graphic quality, games releasing in an incomplete or broken state has become more and more common nowadays even on Big company titles, gameplay has gotten simpler and safer on big releases instead of becoming more interesting. The more people involved in something the less risks they can take and the more dilluted things become. Not to mention how predatory the gaming industry has become against it's costumers.

 

[MercenarySnake]

1. Don't want a world full of only in-depth RPG either. That would be dull. Variety is a good thing.

Like all of those first person shooter and third person shooter popamoles being released? Yeah variety is good and I think it's a good thing but the video game market of today is something I would hardly call "filled with variety".

2. I agree that there's too much pandering today, but I approve of pandering done not for the profit but to introduce more people to gaming out of hopes to make its communtiy larger and more varied.

1. As long as that pandering doesnt castrate a good game series.

   3. I know we're all bitter about Fallout 4, but really? Not every game being streamlined counts as it being "castrated".

   Comparing Fallout 1 and 2 to Fallout 4...yeah that shit is castrated. I mean didn't the lack of skills, lack of dialogue, lack of choice and consequence, FPS kill things gameplay, and repetitive quests not show you what it really is?

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Comparing Fallout 1 and 2 to Fallout 4...yeah that shit is castrated. I mean didn't the lack of skills, lack of dialogue, lack of choice and consequence, FPS kill things gameplay, and repetitive quests not show you what it really is?

Comparing Fallout 3 to Fallout 4, Fallout 4 looks dumbed down. Forget 1 and 2, it doesn't even hold up as an RPG compared to Fallout 3.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

With the exception of a small collection of older, difficult games including stealth games, cRPG games and others, the games I play make me by all means and definitions a casual gamer. I don't want corporate mass-produced crap over and over either, I just think that they should exist to an extent just because they're good at serving the casual crowd a gateway into better games. They're the majority right now, though, and I can see why that's unacceptable.

I would never have discovered the older Fallout games if not for Fallout 3. I like to see people go through that same process. I wish to see more people go through that same process. This is the one thought that rings the most in me - if we have to make the gaming more inaccessible in exchange for getting good games back, I don't think it is worth it. I'll elaborate on the hows and whys if people want me to, but I simply think it's just selfish.

I'm not even talking about just Fallout 4. I'm talking about gaming as a whole.

because they have little time, interest, or capacity to engage in deeper forms of video games.

Well, they would, if it they seemed more engaging and seemed less like an unintuitive and impenetrable waste of time. Which we know they aren't. I just want more people to know it.

All of the above - please stop confusing me for defending the ruination of the industry by companies like EA. You can clearly tell that's not the point I'm making.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

if we have to make the gaming more inaccessible in exchange for getting good games back, I don't think it is worth it.

All of the above - please stop confusing me for defending the ruination of the industry by companies like EA. You can clearly tell that's not the point I'm making.

I think the issue for me is that this post reads as "stop thinking i'm defending dumbing games down...here's why games should be dumbed down."

I wish to join you in this alternate universe where RPGs are a majority of the gaming industry and where well-written dialogue and stories are the rule rather than the exception, and where FPS/Borderlands fans are having their games turned into cRPGs rather than the other way around.

Fallout 4 does not have to be a hardcore cRPG that alienates the so-called "casual" fans in order to please RPG fans. Fallout 4 cannot even stand toe to toe with Fallout 3 in terms of depth and immersion.

 

[MercenarySnake]

I'm in no way against you, I'm just saying since when has pandering to a wider audience been a good thing? Yes and I know there are many examples that not even I may know about.
My examples are:

Thief 1 and 2 > Thief 3 becomes more accessible to people through catering to consoles bringing shorter levels, etc > Thief 4 only brought the series to further ruination due to pandering.

System Shock 1 and 2 > Bioshock pandered to a wider audience by being released on consoles like removal of its predecessor's features > Bioshock 2 does same thing > Bioshock Infinite continuing the trend even though I'm not sure why the fuck it even exists.

Fallout 1 and 2 > Fallout 3 started pandering > Fallout 4 went full force with the removal of many key features of the Fallout series.

Now my examples are not by any means perfect but I just wanted to back up my claim showing that pandering is thrown into a more negative light.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

This post reads as "stop thinking i'm defending dumbing games down...here's why games should be dumbed down."

I wish to join you in this alternate universe where RPGs are a majority of the gaming industry and where well-written dialogue and stories are the rule rather than the exception, and where FPS/Borderlands fans are having their games turned into cRPGs rather than the other way around.

So far, several people on NMA seems to like this universe you have just described. If that world exists, I don't want to live in it. I want to be in the alternate universe where there is something for everyone. I'm not being realistic with my point, I know. But simple games and games with depth should both exists. Simple games are underappreciated because they serve as a gateway into playing games with depth. Let me put it this way. I do not approve of turning Syndicate into an FPS. I approve of games like Destiny existing even considering how lacking in depth and how repetitive it is.

NMA posters wanting that world is exactly why I brought this up. I don't want a world where cRPGs get turned into FPS games. I don't want a world where FPs games get forcibly turned into cRPGs either. I want these to co-exist. Then there's something for everyone. And that's a good thing.

I'm in no way against you, I'm just saying since when has pandering to a wider audience been a good thing? Yes and I know there are many examples that not even I may know about.
My examples are:

Thief 1 and 2 > Thief 3 becomes more accessible to people through catering to consoles > Thief 4 only brought the series to further ruination due to pandering.

System Shock 1 and 2 > Bioshock pandered to a wider audience by being released on consoles > Bioshock 2 does same thing > Bioshock Infinite continuing the trend even though I'm not sure why the fuck it even exists.

Fallout 1 and 2 > Fallout 3 started pandering > Fallout 4 went full force with the removal of many key features of the Fallout series.

Now my examples are not by any means perfect but I just wanted to back up my claim showing that pandering is thrown into a more negative light.

Your examples are all correct and I know from the start that my argument was weak - except I wasn't trying to argue a point, I was just sharing an opinion. But let's put this into perspective. I'm definitely younger than a lot of people here. I discovered System Shock through Bioshock. If I had never played Bioshock, I probably wouldn't have been convinced that System Shock was a game worth playing. Consider the same with Fallout 3 and the older, original ones.

I don't like the concept of dumbing down an existing series as a way for companies to further ruin a series, as is being demonstrated now everywhere. I like the concept of simplifying certain mechanics to allow more people to get into games first, which would be followed with them liking games with more depth later, as has never been demonstrated.

If Black Isle had, in some crazy alternate timeline, made the conscious decision to make the real Fallout 3 as dumbed down as new XCOM is to old XCOM, for the sake of wanting more people in gaming and NOT in the interest of more profit, and people reacted badly anyway, that's where I see the mindset of gamers from before my time being wrong.

 

[Spacemunkey]

So I wonder why Bethesda isn't adding in more RPG elements into Doom to appeal to a wider audience, unless it's just more of a case of they don't care much about the Fallout IP.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

So I wonder why Bethesda isn't adding in more RPG elements into Doom to appeal to a wider audience, unless it's just more of a case of they don't care much about the Fallout IP.

Oh, of course they don't. Fallout 4's the direct antithesis of the reason why simplification should exist. If it introduces more people into gaming, like it did me, and serves as to lead them into playing good games, that's fine. If it stands to take advantage of mindless hordes to burn down once great series for more and more cash than company owners ever need, then that's fucked. I can see why it's easy to confuse the one with another, and I really have no better way of explaining my point in words, sorry.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

So far, several people on NMA seems to like this universe you have just described. If that world exists, I don't want to live in it. I want to be in the alternate universe where there is something for everyone. I'm not being realistic with my point, I know. But simple games and games with depth should both exists. Simple games are underappreciated because they serve as a gateway into playing games with depth. Let me put it this way. I do not approve of turning Syndicate into an FPS. I approve of games like Destiny existing even considering how lacking in depth and how repetitive it is.

NMA posters wanting that world is exactly why I brought this up. I don't want a world where cRPGs get turned into FPS games. I don't want a world where FPs games get forcibly turned into cRPGs either. I want these to co-exist. Then there's something for everyone. And that's a good thing.



Your examples are all correct and I know from the start that my argument was weak - except I wasn't trying to argue a point, I was just sharing an opinion. But let's put this into perspective. I'm definitely younger than a lot of people here. I discovered System Shock through Bioshock. If I had never played Bioshock, I probably wouldn't have been convinced that System Shock was a game worth playing. Consider the same with Fallout 3 and the older, original ones.

I don't like the concept of dumbing down an existing series as a way for companies to further ruin a series, as is being demonstrated now everywhere. I like the concept of simplifying certain mechanics to allow more people to get into games first, which would be followed with them liking games with more depth later, as has never been demonstrated.

If Black Isle had, in some crazy alternate timeline, made the conscious decision to make the real Fallout 3 as dumbed down as new XCOM is to old XCOM, for the sake of wanting more people in gaming and NOT in the interest of more profit, and people reacted badly anyway, that's where I see the mindset of gamers from before my time being wrong.

The XCOM thing I have seen. I discovered Fallout and System Shock through Fallout 3 and Bioshock as well.

Some people think the XCOM reboot is too simplified, "dumbed down." But I think they are great games that provide a reasonable compromise between accessibility and complexity that you might be trying to explain.

 

[Spacemunkey]

Oh, of course they don't. Fallout 4's the direct antithesis of the reason why simplification should exist. If it introduces more people into gaming, like it did me, and serves as to lead them into playing good games, that's fine. If it stands to take advantage of mindless hordes to burn down once great series for more and more cash than company owners ever need, then that's fucked. I can see why it's easy to confuse the one with another, and I really have no better way of explaining my point in words, sorry.

I'm trying to get on you or anything, I'm just tired of AAA devs using the excuse of "appealing to a wider audience" as a reason to gut/dumb down a franchise.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

It's fairly simple though. A lot of people out there don't really like reading, so if your film requires reading subtitles you're going to lose a lot of your potential audience. So it's understandable that AAA publishers aren't going to throw $50m+ at a game with as much reading as Planescape: Torment in it anymore, and that's fine since those sorts of games don't really benefit from huge budgets anyway.

Where Bethesda really deserves criticism regarding the dialogue in Fallout 4 is more nuanced than "they switched to a voiced protagonist and that's inherently bad". It's actually multiple independent things that Fallout 4's dialogue system does poorly.
- What you choose to say or not say rarely makes any sort of difference in either what happens or how you are perceived.
- You have fewer distinguishable choices in dialogue than contemporary AAA RPGs (Fallout 4 has at most 4, Mass Effect could do up to 8 including some options that lead to sub-menus).
- It's often very difficult to figure out what you're going to say based on what you choose ("Is that a sarcastic yes or a sarcastic no?")
- On top of that the writing isn't especially strong (I mean, in Dragon Age 2 at least Sarcastic Hawke is kinda funny, the Sarcastic Sole Survivor is just an asshole for no reason a lot of the time.)

The issue with voiced dialogue is that it's much more expensive to produce compared to text. That doesn't mean you have to do it badly, and if you're making the sort of game that has a nigh unlimited budget there's no reason not to put a reasonable portion of that into writing and voice acting (especially if "talking to people" is supposed to be a major component of your game.)

The issue about "I want to be able to imagine my own character instead of this person" is sort of a baseless complaint when we're talking about a game that wants to tell a specific story about a specific person. Nobody complains that Geralt or Adam Jensen don't sound like they imagine them to, after all. The problem Fallout 4 here has is that it couldn't really decide whether it wanted to commit to being that sort of game, so it abruptly switches tone from "I wonder what's over there" to "I have to find my son, it is *the* most important thing" and they didn't take steps to try to synthesize those two things, they just did one and then the other.

There's a lot Fallout 4 can learn from other games about how to do a voiced protagonist in an RPG; the odd thing is that all those games came out before Fallout 4 did.