So I finally bought Skyrim...

Ah ah, my dear Nassano. You underestimate the common man's stupidity and need for simplicity.

There most definitely are those that enjoy 2 lines of dialogue over ten. And although they would not say it, they prefer less complex writings and thus in actuality do enjoy lesser writings more than their betters.
 
I have this idea that voice acting actually is killing dialogues. Particularly complex dialogues with several outcomes. If you think about it, voice acting is very expensive, particularly the way Bethesda is doing it (I guess), where they get people like Jean Luc Picard voicing the Emperah (of da speeece maahrines!!!), or Liam Neson beeing your father. The more those people have to talk, the more expensive the whole thing will be, and the same is true for any other voice actor. Not to mention it takes a lot of space, compared to something that is only written. Games like Dragon Age or Skyrim feel very limited compared to games like Planescape or even just Baldurs Gate. Because neither Dragonage nor Skyrim create the illusion of conversations. "Hey playercharactersnamehere, whats your opinion!" - "yes", "no", "neutral option". And I feel it also doesnt help that the writting in many RPGs today feels imature. Maybe I am getting old, I dont know it. But it feels like the games are made for toddlers. No seriously. They dont feel mature. Planescape Torment was mature in my opinion. Same for Fallout. Not because of the violence or sex or what ever. No simply because the characters feelt more realistic in what they could say. Characters like Dak'kon felt 10 times more complex then any character you would ever find inside a Bethesda game.
 
It's funny, I played Shadowrun Returns some time after it came out. It's a game with no voice acting whatsoever. I was already hours into the game when I realized I hadn't noticed that at all. Simply having everything be text makes for just as immersive a world as any with voice actors. At least for me.
 
Sure, the cost of voice acting is something, but in the same time, 90% of the games with voices use a limited number of actors to play most parts.

I think New Vegas does pretty well about the voice acting, even with accents.
The biggest complain about that game voice acting is that "patroling the mojave always make me wish for a nuclear winter". Every single member of the NCR, whatever if they are in town, in bed, in the strip, in the sewers, they all say that the first time you select them.

I didn't tried the Witchers games for now, but from what i've seen, it looks promising. Same for the Cyberpunk 2077.

I get the point of recording voice adding more limitation than text, but it shouldn't be an excuse for dev, to write dumb dialogs.
This is their fucking job to make good dialogs. It's not like they are indie develloppers that can't afford writters.
 
I have this idea that voice acting actually is killing dialogues. Particularly complex dialogues with several outcomes. If you think about it, voice acting is very expensive, particularly the way Bethesda is doing it (I guess), where they get people like Jean Luc Picard voicing the Emperah (of da speeece maahrines!!!), or Liam Neson beeing your father. The more those people have to talk, the more expensive the whole thing will be, and the same is true for any other voice actor. Not to mention it takes a lot of space, compared to something that is only written. Games like Dragon Age or Skyrim feel very limited compared to games like Planescape or even just Baldurs Gate. Because neither Dragonage nor Skyrim create the illusion of conversations. "Hey playercharactersnamehere, whats your opinion!" - "yes", "no", "neutral option". And I feel it also doesnt help that the writting in many RPGs today feels imature. Maybe I am getting old, I dont know it. But it feels like the games are made for toddlers. No seriously. They dont feel mature. Planescape Torment was mature in my opinion. Same for Fallout. Not because of the violence or sex or what ever. No simply because the characters feelt more realistic in what they could say. Characters like Dak'kon felt 10 times more complex then any character you would ever find inside a Bethesda game.

Yes and no. Badly used, voice acting does feel clunky and superfluous (hello Bethesda indeed, albeit they got a bit better in Skyrim). Well used, it's another way to round out a character.

I mean, I doubt anyone would accuse The Witcher games of having limited choice and consequence, or dialog options for that matter, and it's fully VA'ed. Dragon Age: Origins had VA for everyone but the PC and it worked very well indeed, hell some of favorite characters ever came from that game; voice acting didn't stop great characters like Morrigan, Loghain or the Sten from existing, hell one could say their respective voice actor's stellar jobs only added to the package, especially Loghain's who is one of the best in the business. Mass Effect is also filled with memorable characters, enough that it's the franchise's main draw for most of its playerbase.

And while the dialog wheel was a limiting factor previously, Bioware is learning to play around it, enough that it seems to be fairly unconsequential in the upcoming DA:Inquisition game. As for the rest, it's your opinion, but while I can get that Planescape is more mature than most games (to the point of taking it own sillyness a bit too seriously at times IMO but I digress), Fallout had its share of immaturity from game 1, and FO2 veers towards the absurd way more than any Bioware or CD Projeckt game.
 
Last edited:
compared to Planescape Torment or even Fallout? Sure. I love Witcher as game a lot, but compared to the "old" games it simply lacks the nuances that made those games really awesome in that part. Dont get me wrong, the Witcher is an excelent game. I just think if voice acting would be not so dominant in "modern" games, they could achieve a lot more in the writing department, because it would not limit the game development so much. And I am not simply talking about the quality of the voice acting. Its more about the costs, the limitations on space with the medium. Something that is merely a written text can be much longer compared to a fully voice acted character. Granted Planscape is rather some interactive book then just a role playing game, but it shows what was possible back then.

I am not hating voice acting, I like it actually. I think well done voice acting is a great thing for games. But has everything to be voice acted? Was it so bad in Fallout to give only major characters voices? Was it so bad in Baldurs Gate to have only a couple of lines voice acted? Particularly Baldurs Gate, in my opinion, had some of the best voice acting I have ever seen in a game as far as the German voice acting goes, those usually totally suck with games ... so much that I refuse sometimes to play a game with German voice acting. For some reason they get the same people that do voice acting in advertisement and stupid TV shows.

They are throwing millions in to this full - voice acting stuff while I would rather want to see them maybe getting 1 or 2 more writters.
 
Agree with Crni Vuk, plus here's a bit of technical writing craft detail about voice acting - spoken word and text aren't the same medium. Sounds strange and it's not neccessarily intuitive, but it's true. Again, this doesn't mean voice acting is bad or anything, but a "fixed" delivery of certain lines adds a "performance" component to the "art" side of it, making it essentially more simmilar to theatre than books. It requires less immagination to consume (or in fact less literacy, which doesn't mean less inteligence just less capability to translate text into meaningful images or emotions or experience with it). It also encourages "fixed" dialogues written in bulk and not all that easily adaptable half-way through development.

Not to mention that the costs associated with having a game with convincing voice acting don't stop at paying a bunch of people to say all those lines (increasing risk of hammy or uninspired delivery), but also animation and such. That's a lot of not just money, but development time, effort and staff going towards something which isn't in and off itself a guarantee for a better game. Not that written word can't be terrible, the new Shadowrun has some pretty terrible writing and pacing issues (there's good stuff, but some of it is godawful on a pure technical level).

Also, as years go by, I think that planescape writers, while very immaginative and cool, could've really excercised a bit of restraint and that it's quite a bit too textwall-heavy and having replayed it recently it suffers heavily from "the most lenghtly answer is always the one that gives the most XP" problem. The point-and-click/text-based-dialogue-adventure/RPG format really should've and could've developed past Fallout 1/2 and Planescape: Torment, there was A LOT of room to improve even stuff that makes them stand out among other games/RPG's. From the perspective of a writer with a practical mind, I have to say they weren't actually all that well written as much as groundbreaking.

One thing a dev team could invest in instead of voicework are in fact EDITORS. As in guys who are part of the team, not corporate executives or moral guardians, who help make the writing coherent, on level, and work with the writers. They're like bug-testers / pro beta testers for things with loads of text, and a more user and immagination friendly versions of producers (they ussualy have craft and artistic vision in mind instead of proffits).
 
Last edited:
Or at least proper directors in the voice acting room. You can see what effects this has when you compare the videos of interviews with skyrim voice actors and the one with new vegas voice actors. The difference is remarkable. In the skyrim video the actors talk about the difficulties of doing completely different lines after one another and don't talk all that deeply about the game or even their characters. In stark contrast to the new vegas video where the actors talk about how wonderful their characters are, how they found the voice for them, the acting, in a jolly mood.

If the voice actors don't know any deep knowledge of what they are saying, how can they act properly?
 
Last edited:
Or at least proper directors in the voice acting room. You can see what effects this has when you compare the videos of interviews with skyrim voice actors and the one with new vegas voice actors. The difference is remarkable. In the skyrim video the actors talk about the difficulties of doing completely different lines after one another and don't talk all that deeply about the game or even their characters. In stark contrast to the new vegas video where the actors talk about how wonderful their characters are, how they found the voice for them, the acting, in a jolly mood.

If the voice actors don't know any deep knowledge of what they are saying, how can they act properly?

Yeah, that's the big difference IMO. Good direction is paramount, more than the skills of the actor. I mean, for Skyrim Beth got some talent on board, but it seems a lot of it was wasted on Ahnold impressions and hammy dragons. I guess it doesn't help that TES is not character-driven, or at least anywhere near modern RPGs, thus having dedicated voice actors for each important character becomes a bit less feasible.

I do agree that as far as TES is concerned, they could have stuck to text and I wouldn't have cared at all. But a lot of people don't mesh 3D AAA games and not having voice actors, it puts them off because it feels ''cheap''. It was a complaint for Origins, too.
 
You know what NMA? I've come to a conclusion. It goes as follows:

I tried to like Skyrim. I really, really did. For 94 hours, I tried to have fun. But it didn't work.

Everywhere I turned, there was some stupid shit to ruin it. The leveled loot constantly reminded me there was no actual variety in the game; the lack of unique loot makes everything seem the same and worthless; the melee system is the most insanely uninspired shit I've ever seen and never have I been bored so much; the hitboxes are sloppy and constantly bewildered me (how did I hit that person from ten feet away, how did he hit me); the world is beyond unreactive and despite WINNING THE CIVIL WAR I remained as anonymous as in the beginning of the game; every location is identical and offers no challenge other than the same leveled enemies, and it goes on, and on, and on.

Skyrim's a worse game than Fallout 3. Skyrim's a shit.

I'm convinced this is the most amateur, dull, and boring game I've ever seen, and I'm amazed it's a AAA title, and it's absolutely fucking bonkers that it's popular when it's THAT DULL and THAT BORING.

Seriously, it's beyond amateur. It's beyond saving.

Please, tell me good games to play. I've ceased to have FUN with games since I tried playing Skyrim.
 
I must be a weirdo then, if I find something shitty or boring I surely don't waste 94 hours of my life with it.
 
Right. Well, if you *actually* read my post, you'd have noticed that I said I was trying to have fun. After about 30 hours, the flaws became obvious, then unbearable at about 60. to be more specific, I was trying to finish the main quest, being a fan of the TES games. I got... a bit more than halfway through? I was just trying to get a critical grasp of Skyrim.

I downloaded some mods to increase the lifespan. They were fun, but I don't think there's a lot that can save Skyrim.

Wait, make that 70 hours. I was playing on a friend's computer. He probably is responsible for maybe twenty of those 90. Steam, you know.
 
Last edited:
Okay, Okay....

I'm going to sound like the biggest hypocrite in the world, but....

I'm actually enjoying the game.

Now, before you criticize me and call me a hypocritical dickeating turbocunt, listen up.

I have installed quite a few visual and gameplay mods, most importantly: D.U.E.L, Frostfall and Realistic Needs and Diseases, and I think of it as an Action Game with RPG elements.


Just by thinking of the game as that, a lot of my criticisms have floated away, and with the mods I've installed, I'm actually having fun with the game.


So my advice, if you want to enjoy the game a little more, consider it an Action game rather than an RPG.

Just my two cents, as they say.
 
No one will call you a hypocrite just because you like the game. That would be more then stupid and silly. We would only get angry if you try to explain us how "skyrim is the bestest RPG in the world and you all dont like RPGs or you would LOVE skyrim to death!". Skyrim can be a very fun game. No doubts about that. But what you basically did was changing the game to suit your needs, changing the expecation you have doesnt make the flaws it has dissapear. Thinking about Skyrim as action game with RPG elements doesnt mean it's suddenly a better game as far as RPG games goes, just because we ignore the part where its not doing so well as RPG. If you get what I mean.

I must be a weirdo then, if I find something shitty or boring I surely don't waste 94 hours of my life with it.

To be fair though, its very very difficult to "stop" with games particularly if they are mediocre and not outright bad, like it is in the case of most of Bethesda games. I mean the main purpose of games is to be fun, and I would go so far to say that even Oblivion which is an absolute trash RPG, can be very fun. Walking out of that dungeon, whacking bandits, finding your first sword of prettiness, whacking some more bandits, getting your first skill points. That is fun. A lot of fun. It was for me at least. Its the most simple mechanic RPGs have to offer and thus it will give you the experience you are looking for, at least in the begining. Now, the further you get though, the more do you realize how dull it actually is, because the NPCs are bland and the quests very often boring and the gameplay repetitive. but you still stay in the game because you have the feeling that it might get better right around the next corner, or with the next bandit camp or the next ruin, town etc. Bethesda games are very good with that, creating this feeling of anticipation and fun in exploration. Because honestly, there is usually so much to explore! Only later do you realize that there is nothing inside those caves, ruins and buildings that is worth to be explored actually.

This has something to do with the nature of RPGs. How they work. And what people that like RPGs expect. If you take a shooter, then it probably doesnt take you long to decide if you like it or not, because the mechanics are so straight forward. Either you like the weapons and gameplay, or you dont. That simple. Sometimes you stick around because of the story, because its so awesome, but in general, if the mechanics are not really good and the story is bad, then you simply walk away. With RPGs this is a bit different. Sometimes a story and even the gameplay start to kick in HOURS after you got in to it. Your character is a weakling usually, so getting your ass handed over to you is more or less "normal", because you are supposed to gain power trough playing, getting beaten by the enemy very hard in the begining of the game while you, the player has nothing, is a well known and proven concept. This works even better if the story is revolving around a very powerfull force or vilain. Just to come back later, from the journey that gave you the experience and power to beat the odds now. The typical hero on his quest. I mean it would all start to fall apart if the story is trying to give you that sense of danger and doom, but your character could already beat everything on lvl1, but the villain always escapes you with a seemingly cheap trick, it would not simply feel very believable to have a villain like Sauron or Dragon beeing a Foe that talks about its powers just to be beaten right away in the first 10min. Like in a game with a type of villain you are fighting with, lowering his health to 5%, just so he can release this "uber-spell-of-power" that he never used in combat to throw the player at some wall so he has enough time to escape or trigger this "scripted" event where the player is suddenly in a weak position, because the story needs the player to be weak in this moment to progress. This all comes usually down to what a good story is and what kind of characters it needs.

So to make this not to long, it sometimes can happen that you play RPGs for many hours, just to realize how shallow the experience was in the end. Its because you dont throw RPGs away just because they are "slow" in the begining. Not as RPG gamer at least, because you know that many good RPGs need time to kick in. Take Fallout as example, or Planescape Torment. Those games dont unfold the complete gameplay or story to you right after the first 5 or 10 min of gameplay. Thats why you can still discover a lot of new things after years of playing. But Half Life 1 or 2 for example? You play trough them once, and that was it, its a very linear experience, not a worse experience, just a different kind of game.
 
Last edited:
It says a lot about the actual uality of the game when the best praise one can give without just cting the "Fun factor" is "Is really enjoyable once you mod the ever loving shit out of it".
 
Was that the mod where simply running drained your stamina so that you had to walk everywhere?

Yeah, I didn't like that.
 
Back
Top