Objecting Voice-acting
I had already in other posts voiced my complaint against voice-acting, without delving much into the reasons. I shall do so now, so that my whimpering grumbles are given some frame of reference. Also, it could prove beneficial to analyse how the voice-acting trend has evolved, what implications it carries, and whether it is a sensible thing or not to reclaim previous methods of narrative construction.
Before the objecting can begin, I have to make a disclaimer: I don't think all voice-acting is detrimental and ought to be removed so we all read huge chunks of tasty prose. As with pretty much everything in life, a balance has to be struck. Such balance would comprise all the benefits of characterisation by voice-acting without overwhelming game design or overshadowing player identification.
A character's voice is extremely definitory, not only for its particular texture, but also for the nuances with which the lines are read. Sometimes, a character's voice proves to be more powerful than any other traits he has been bestowed. It was the case of Garrus, whose voice made him the focus of attention of thousands of romance-inclined players; or Tali's, which I found particularly annoying due to its high-pitch and grating echo. It's a matter of taste, but decidedly significant in a character's appeal and general depiction.
Sometimes, voice-acting sets a particular tone for the story, not only the character. One of the things I enjoy the most of my adventure games is the construction of the main characters through their voices. I am particularly fond of the characters in The Book of Unwritten Tales, an adventure game which mocks the conventions of the genre and satirizes other games (with a pink-clad paladin who uses bubble-hearth. Loved it). In TBOUT, the skimpy elf is given a very British accent to depict her posh high-forest-class attitude. In adventure games there is no need for choice and consequence (at least, it was not the core element of both old and contemporary adventures), and the focus is placed on one immovable narrative that has to be peeled off from the coat of game mechanics: investigation, puzzles, exploration, etc. There is little room for hermeneutics. Identification with the protagonist is accessory, as she will be your vehicle into the narrative, not the tabula rasa into which you will project yourself. Even characters such as The Nameless One (Planescape: Torment), with such a pervasive background story, are subject to your roleplaying, your acting.
Indeed, the keyword is acting. We have to bear in mind that voice-acting is a manner of acting. In its absence, it is our ego the one which fills the void-text. When there is an alien -meaning "different from ours"- voice, the illusion of roleplaying perils. Moreover, if the text is voice-less, it will carry by nature more potentiality than the voiced one. Thus, any script for a play, unless provided with annotations, will be read differently depending on the interpretation of the actor. What we usually find to compensate for this formlessness of the dialogues in games are the descriptions of a character's voice, gestures or attitude. On many occasions we are not given such descriptions, especially when the line belongs to the PC; therefore, we imbue it with whichever tone we see fit. When there is a text describing the action that accompanies the lines, sometimes it is a gesture that could be rendered, more or less effectively, through animation and graphics. For instance, the Blackwell games, which actually have a top-notch voice-acting, had a hand-drawn portrait of the main character, Rosangela, smiling awkward and frighteningly; brilliant characterization.
But sometimes the written word is necessary. This same argument is valid for movies, especially for book adaptations. Nonetheless, the video game media allows for a much more seamless interaction between the written word and the audiovisual, and thus I consider that the argument is much more productive. We are not discussing which one is better, books or films, but rather how we can integrate into a neutral medium the best characteristics of both.
Literary descriptions allow for a more complex and subtle depiction of moods, gestures and environment, especially through the use of metaphors and comparisons. Depending on the description, an adaptation to the graphical interface can or cannot be made. For instance, you could easily translate a "She smiled" sentence into a gesture. Even a "She smiled wryly". But how can you convey "She smiled as if she had been trained for it, as a soldier has been trained to smother hers"? The metaphor serves the double purpose of detailing the image with more -imaginative- precision, and of attaching to it a certain undertone. In this case, stating that it is a mechanical smile, and associating it to a militaristic dehumanization. A translation into the visual could perhaps make explicit the unnatural quality of such a smile, but never the association that the comparison suggests. How can you translate an uneasiness, a longing for home, as in Eliot's "when the human engine waits / Like a taxi throbbing waiting"?
The old RPGs drew from the literary source much more than current games. The writing quality, in general, was better. I have argued how they benefited -and can continue to benefit from- the written medium. The nuances of literary expression in addition to a graphical interface with sound and music. The integration of all of these engender games such as Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment. Too much focus on the audiovisual, and we obtain Mass Effect, where the writing quality is poorer and there is much more reliance on the visual, sensationalistic aspects of games-as-movies.
Back to the topic of voice-acting, I believe that providing the protagonist with a voice is a bad idea in the context of RPGs. Along with many other things that Bioware did wrong, its voice-acting, although superb for FemShepard, had the fixation of reminding me that this was not my story. Coupled with the dissonance between the answer you seleced and what the character said, ME and DA2 felt more like an interactive movie than an RPG. And in the end I was proved right, because the choices, the core element that they were brandishing as the peak of roleplaying, were inconsequential. The choices provided a flavour. How do you prefer your Shepard, angry or sanctimonious? If Bioware wanted to tell me their story, why didn't they make an adventure game, for instance?
Yet another problem with voice-acting is the cost, and what it implies. Unless your budget is infinite, you'll prefer re-using some parts to recording entire scenes for different inputs. This doesn't happen to the same extent with written text. Although writing is a laborious endeavour, it is definitely less expensive and more flexible. I always cringe at the announcement of a fully-voiced RPG, because I know that there will be significant cuts made to dialogue in order to reduce costs for what I personally consider unnecessary: to have everybody in the game speak with their own voice, minor and major characters alike. I am thrilled to hear a major character speak, standing out from the crowd of voiceless characters. I don't think that hearing Space Janitor #3 is a particularly fascinating experience.
Click to share thisClick to share this
As a counter-argument, aren’t games a visual medium? And the natural pair to a visual medium is sound and voice. To take your argument to the fullest degree, it sort of implies that silent movies with subtitles are better than voiced movies. And I don’t think that holds.
As well, I don’t think you are looking forward enough. Right now we have to rely on recorded voice, and that produces limitations. But it’s entirely possible that we could eventually move to “generated” voices, especially if the writer starts writing in phenomes with mark-up (to indicate stresses, etc.) rather than text. At that point, the logistics of voice becomes equal to text, only voice is far more immersive and exists inside the world, rather than pulling the player out to an interface item like a chat box.
Finally, did you play Bastion? I think that game provides an interesting perspective on the use of voice in a game.
Rohan recently posted..[Pandaria Beta] First Look at Holy and Retribution
Films and video games cannot be equated to such an extent. Yes, games are a visual medium, but they are better defined by their interactivity. And for such feature, a communication between the player and the system is required, or else it becomes a cinematic experience. In the case of “traditional” RPGs, where the main focus is role-playing, assuming a particular role, the interactivity takes place mostly in conversations. These conversations, I have argued, need to reflect the choices of the player, plot-wise and role-wise. If the protagonist is given a voice, at least one of the elements, the role-playing, suffers. Greater emphasis on the personality of the character is placed, to the detriment of the player’s identification. If every character and conversation is voiced, there is a substantial added cost that ultimately impacts the extent of the writing, and creates situations in which lines are reused and the illusion of choice is broken after the second playthrough. On the other hand, the written word has its nuances that I consider that cannot be translated into visual terms. This is a preference of mine. Some people prefer movies to books, and it’s perfectly valid; although I would argue that movies require much less thought, less implication from the viewer, and that literature is much more beneficial in the stimuli it provides. Nevertheless, I enjoy some movies, as well as I enjoy many games that are not literary, or that are literary in content, but not so much in form, like Bastion. I had a review of that one, I believe… Yup, here it is: [Review] Bastion.
Perhaps in the *far* future, when some sort of virtual interface is designed and perfected, we will get rid of anything that bespeaks of virtuality. I’d be a happy denizen of those worlds. But, until then, I think that we can employ literature in this medium without compromising its audiovisual nature. It has happened before, with Planescape, Baldur’s Gate, the NWNs, etc. They integrated voice-acting for some characters, with fine narrative descriptions, visually stimulating landscapes, etc. What I am not convinced of is those games with fully voiced PCs, with too much emphasis on the phenomenal, à la Hollywood, and too little on the role-playing. Too much money on voices and cinematics and too little on content, depth, profundity.
In the case of “traditional” RPGs, where the main focus is role-playing, assuming a particular role, the interactivity takes place mostly in conversations.
See… I have no idea what you’re talking about vis-a-vis “traditional.” As in, traditional Western RPGs? Or are you making allusions to D&D here?
There is always this disconnect for me with your arguments because videogame RPGs, to me, have never been about roleplaying conversations. How many dialog options are there in FF6? FF7? Disgaea? Chrono Trigger? Hell, how many RPG main characters are mute?
The interactivity came not from the stories and conversations, but from the actual gaming bits, e.g. combat, figuring out the systems, equipping characters, and otherwise experiencing character progression. Even though playing the original Fallouts and Baldur’s Gates were refreshing (and hilarious), I never ever ever played as the main characters. I made decisions for them, I lived vicariously through them, but I was never them. Baldur’s Gate was a cinematic experience, with or without voice acting. Fallout was a cinematic experience, with or without voice acting.
Azuriel recently posted..Entitlement
As for the topic itself, there is one, crippling flaw in the reasoning: videogames aren’t books either.
Text can be worlds more descriptive, yes. I am reminded of one of my favorite throwaway passages from Discworld:
—-
“Look, I can explain,” he said.
Lord Vetinari lifted an eyebrow with the care of one who, having found a piece of caterpillar in his salad, raises the rest of the lettuce.
—–
How else could you express that eyebrow raise than in words? You can’t. You also cannot express that in a videogame either.
Where are you finding metaphors in RPG text descriptions? Is there a scrolling text narration going on? Are you reading intricately crafted descriptions by clicking on question marks ala Planescape? Text can absolutely express things that visuals cannot, but text is 100% non-interactive. Moreover, text you receive in RPGs is almost always going to be dialog, further limiting any possible expression. Nobody is going to be describing someone’s smile “like they trained for it,” except in some optional PC romance.
Voice acting is expensive, limiting, and all the things you described. But just like the iPod and iPad and iPhone, it isn’t going away. Games without voice acting these days feels deficient, and I’m not sure who is going to sit down at their computer ready to read a book instead of playing a game. I loved Planescape, but it was essentially a text adventure, which is only two steps above a (better written) Choose Your Own Adventure book + pictures. And I do not consider those RPGs.
Azuriel recently posted..Entitlement
My point was that text in videogames is potentially more imaginative than voice. Sometimes this potential is realized, like in the Sensorium part of the Planescape video game. Arguably, these Sensorium experiences could have been translated into images, but that would diminish their imaginative potential, as the experience was not univocal as images often are (unless in symbolic imagery). Still, I understand your position: most of the time, text is not employed in that way in video games. It perfectly could, but most of the time text was there to fill the gap when animation was deficient. Still, for me, even the ‘translatable’ texts carried some layers of meaning that would be missed in an animation, because those layers of meaning were my own. To clarify this: if you read a “she smiled” phrase, applied for instance to Fall-from-Grace, a character whose motivation was never entirely clear, you would interpret it in a different way, perhaps, than another person, and the smile would lighten up in your mind with a connotation which is different to somebody else’s, whereas if she just smiled in an animation, its meaning would be interpreted one way or the other (or, if animated with enough skill, remain obscure like The Mona Lisa’s).
To me, a “traditional” RPG is much more related to D&D, as you said. I consider RPGs the stories where I choose my character, the role she will play, and to some extent her background. In Planescape, although your character was provided to you, you could do this because The Nameless One’s final reincarnation was your interpretation of the character. In Mass Effect this is more diluted because Shepard is much more restricted by the morals that Bioware designed (Paragon-Renegade and its inbetween shades) and the voice-acting. On some occasions the roleplaying is not affected by this limitation, because the option you would have chosen is contemplated. On others, like when I killed Mordin and wanted to tell Garrus straightaway instead of lying to him too, there is no option. I had to follow the script. In more “traditional” RPGs, normally there are more choices, and more shades of grey, up to evil.
JRPGs are a different matter altogether. They are by mechanics something like an RPG, because of the level and classes, but they are usually more like an adventure with levels. They’re called RPGs, but I only call them such because of the habit and general acceptance of the term.
I guess it depends on your definition of RPG. To me, the most important aspect is their faculty to allow multiple paths and to design the hero on your terms, voice included.
PD: If we had to choose an entirely independent game which does not draw from cinema or literature, and which would have the potential to define the genre on its own, I would say that Bastion did it perfectly well. But I don’t know how many game genres could actually benefit from Bastion’s approach. The key is somehow merging mechanics and story, so that they create a feedback loop in which gameplay reinforces the story and vice versa.
Planescape came out 13 years ago, by the way. :)
It is somewhat interesting in that, thirteen years ago, I don’t think you would ever have someone define RPGs as “like D&D,” because there was simply… D&D and a few Western computer games that ever did something so indepth with choices at all. In other words, there was no such distinction as “JRPG.” It was simply “RPG.”
Azuriel recently posted..Review: Mass Effect 3
I guess you could also define RPG as a game genre in which you embody a particular character, no matter if it’s predetermined or if her choices are already taken, it is the role you assume. In that case we would have tons of games which are RPGs without actually being so, or without conforming to our instinctual interpretation of RPG. You could also define according to its mechanics, and ascribe any game with levels and such as RPG — that’s what is currently done. For me, the term comes naturally from my D&D experiences, pen&paper and computer-based. There are not so many D&D-inspired games, you’re right, but they strike to me as the most true to the genre.