Why have voiced protagonist?

[seriousray888]

I just wanted to point out (even if obvious to some) that not having the protagonist voiced will not automatically allow for more conversational player agency at all, especially if you still have voice lines for the NPCs that are actually voiced. Agency, the way I see it, means how much the player can impact something through actions or words. Having actually impactful choices is what I would say is the actually interesting part, and I have the feeling and hope that Cyberpunk 2077 might be able to provide that. I'd certainly rather take that than many more lines that, hyperbolically speaking, in the best case allow me to let me express some character traits (like sarcasm) that however will essentially never make any difference to the actual narrative. True, when it comes to basically saying the same thing but in a somewhat different way (e.g. accents) then having only one "voice" might be a bit of a bummer for some, but certain modifications that work with the same samples (whisperiness, pitch...) would in theory still be possible, up to simply completely switching off the protagonist's voice. Of course one could in theory also provide multiple more different voices.
But personally I like female V's voice the way it is.

 

[SigilFey]

I just wanted to point out (even if obvious to some) that not having the protagonist voiced will not automatically allow for more conversational player agency at all, especially if you still have voice lines for the NPCs that are actually voiced.

This is a very good point. I'm not sure anyone has really made that distinction in words. The argument for player agency in conversations, numerous possible outcomes, and complex connections will be limited greatly by the inclusion of any voiced dialogue.

It may take me several hours to completely write a quest dialogue with 5 possible endings. It will take additional days or weeks, not to mention additional staff, equipment, tens if not hundreds of man-hours, and thousands of dollars to record just the NPC dialogue for that one quest.

The argument for massive amounts of player agency through dialogue is really the argument that ranges from text-only at the extreme agency end and fully voiced at the extreme cinematic end.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I just wanted to point out (even if obvious to some) that not having the protagonist voiced will not automatically allow for more conversational player agency at all, especially if you still have voice lines for the NPCs that are actually voiced.

I disagree. To a point. It is of course a matter of what the developer does, if he actually uses the resources right and writes the additional lines and responses accordingly (like completely different personalities, ethnicities, even dialects and languages), but...

Firstly, you can look at it from a point of comparison. If you take two of the most talkative characters of the game, the male and female protagonist, and convert all those voiced lines into NPC responses, how many lines would that make (even if it is not 1:1 ratio)? 20,000***? More? That's quite a lot. Obviously even having voiced NPC's limit that, but if simple math goes, the compensation can still be hefty in terms of additional character expression.

I mean, nobody does "exactly" that of course. Nobody "converts PC lines into NPC lines". These decisions in games like this are made very early on and budgeted as per intent. But you can still make the sort of what if estimate.

***(I base that number on a recollection of Bethesda boasting that their Fallout 4 protagonist had 11,000 lines of dialog back then, correct me if I'm wrong; and I do believe CP protagonist has more, so I'm probably even underestimating)

 

[SigilFey]

I disagree. To a point. It is of course a matter of what the developer does, if he actually uses the resources right and writes the additional lines and responses accordingly (like completely different personalities, ethnicities, even dialects and languages), but...

Firstly, you can look at it from a point of comparison. If you take two of the most talkative characters of the game, the male and female protagonist, and convert all those voiced lines into NPC responses, how many lines would that make (even if it is not 1:1 ratio)? 20,000***? More? That's quite a lot. Obviously even having voiced NPC's limit that, but if simple math goes, the compensation can still be hefty in terms of additional character expression.

I mean, nobody does "exactly" that of course. Nobody "converts PC lines into NPC lines". These decisions in games like this are made very early on and budgeted as per intent. But you can still make the sort of what if estimate.

***(I base that number on a recollection of Bethesda boasting that their Fallout 4 protagonist had 11,000 lines of dialog back then, correct me if I'm wrong; and I do believe CP protagonist has more, so I'm probably even underestimating)

I don't think that you're addressing quite the same issues, actually. By "player agency through dialogue", it means is the versatility in the contextual reactions of the characters, the number of outcomes possible, etc. (not just the tone of voice that characters speak with.)

So, if I'm developing an RPG that is text based, I have a lot more leeway to grow really complex dialogue trees. After all, it only takes written text to build them, and that means no time being spent on other parts of production. I'm free to write in a discussion that has 8 responses per junction, each with their own emotional or contextual response, and 25 different branches leading to 10 different nuanced outcomes.

If I intend to voice that dialogue...I'm going to need to cut it down. Every line needs to be recorded. That means paying actors, sound technicians, buying or renting studio space and equipment, paying editors, doing motion capture perhaps... All of a sudden, there's just no feasible way to have the dialogue be that expansive. Doing so would come at the cost of other aspects of the game. Now, my dialogue tree gets cut down to 2-3 responses, only 4 branches in the conversation, and only 2 possible outcomes.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I don't think that you're addressing quite the same issues, actually.

Not exactly perhaps, but I think it all comes together in the end.

What I meant with the comparison, was... Well, it’s kind of a thought excercise. Like...
You have two games that are exactly the same and have exactly the same on all accounts otherwise, but the other one is fully voiced and the other will use the portion of the resources, that would otherwise go to PC voicing, to increase the amount of NPC responsivity in dialog and more varied set of choosable unvoiced lines for the PC. How much variety would you get? It’s obviously not 1:1 in that 1 spoken PC line would convert to 1 new NPC response. But it would still do much.

A sort of a ”what if” scenario.

 

[SigilFey]

Not exactly perhaps, but I think it all comes together in the end.

What I meant with the comparison, was... Well, it’s kind of a thought excercise. Like...
You have two games that are exactly the same and have exactly the same on all accounts otherwise, but the other one is fully voiced and the other will use the portion of the resources, that would otherwise go to PC voicing, to increase the amount of NPC responsivity in dialog and more varied set of choosable unvoiced lines for the PC. How much variety would you get? It’s obviously not 1:1 in that 1 spoken PC line would convert to 1 new NPC response. But it would still do much.

A sort of a ”what if” scenario.

Ah -- that's where I think you might be misinterpreting the production process. If I have 2, identical games, and I want to increase the variety of emotive responses used by NPCs, that won't simply just "happen". I will need to direct and rehearse that for each scene. Again, additional time. Whether it's a small amount of dialogue or a great amount of dialogue, creating that level of performance automatically increases the time and money it will take.

You are correct that such responsiveness can be worked in with resources that otherwise would have gone to the Player Character's voice -- yes. And that will be significant. But! It still limits the agency that can occur, as likely the same amount of resources will be spent on that level of production (as opposed to just text, at the other extreme). And I don't think that much added variety will really be achieved.

Plus, we've already seen this approach used in many games, most notably key scenes in Baldur's Gate 1&2, Oblivion and Skyrim, Fallout 3&4, Dragon Age, etc. None of them exactly set any records for player interaction. (I'd argue they were great games, and some of them told excellent stories or created fantastic scenes...but none of them really offered revolutionary dialogue. Not even "for the time", either. In fact, I'd say that one thing the original Baldur's Gate did a little poorly was create rather linear plots. Hardly the equivalent of older, more open-ended games like Ultima or Darklands.)

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

If I have 2, identical games, and I want to increase the variety of emotive responses used by NPCs, that won't simply just "happen".

Yeah. It won't. I'm aware of the production process (as much as a layman can). The example, the thought excercise, is hypothetical, not literal. A kind of an analogue.

Obviously it all needs to be done according to "the book", the whole nine yards. There's directing and rehearsals for the actors (so it is for the PC actors too), there's recording and mixing (so it is for the PC's too), there's designing the scenes (obviously). And whole lot more. Some things overlap, and that's what I'm thinking about.

"If" they used the same budget from the get go and "if" they had allocated the resources as explained... A whole lot of "if"s and that's the point.

It's a hindsight "what if they had done this instead of that" thing. And it's that because I do not have the knowledge to explain "it all".

You are correct that such responsiveness can be worked in with resources that otherwise would have gone to the Player Character's voice -- yes. And that will be significant. But! It still limits the agency that can occur

You admit it would be significant, and I have admitted it would still be limited. I'm not speaking for anything crazy or comparabilities to what a fully text based game could do. But if you put a "But! It will still be limited" after a "And that will be significant." referring to how much could be done, I suppose the question is, if "significant" wouldn't be enough, what would?



Ok, that did came out a bit messy. If it looks like gibberish, just say it and I'll try to do something about it.

 

[SigilFey]

Yeah. It won't. I'm aware of the production process (as much as a layman can). The example, the thought excercise, is hypothetical, not literal. A kind of an analogue.

Obviously it all needs to be done according to "the book", the whole nine yards. There's directing and rehearsals for the actors (so it is for the PC actors too), there's recording and mixing (so it is for the PC's too), there's designing the scenes (obviously). And whole lot more. Some things overlap, and that's what I'm thinking about.

"If" they used the same budget from the get go and "if" they had allocated the resources as explained... A whole lot of "if"s and that's the point.

It's a hindsight "what if they had done this instead of that" thing. And it's that because I do not have the knowledge to explain "it all".

Absolutely! And I think it's a fun discussion. Of course, we don't want to follow "the book" too closely -- that's the polar opposite of innovation. But it's also necessary to avoid obvious pitfalls.

Writing = creating worlds in a matter of hours in the audience's mind. Anything one can dream up can be expressed in text in no time flat, and more or less "on the cheap". I can create wonders while lounging in my chair with nothing but a cheap laptop.

Audio / Visual Production = ...well...we have a rule of thumb in Stage / Film: "1 hour of work for every single person in the cast and crew for every 30 seconds of finalized production." (And we don't have developers to worry about in stage or film.)

Hence, I can write 5 minutes of great quest dialogue and scenework in perhaps 3 hours. And I'm the only person that needs to be paid. If they decide to turn that into an audio/visual experience, and my cast and crew are 30 people, I now need to pay every single salary/wage for 10 hours of work...that's 300 man hours...plus overheads...and I get 5 minutes of finished product.

It's utterly huge.

You admit it would be significant, and I have admitted it would still be limited. I'm not speaking for anything crazy or comparabilities to what a fully text based game could do. But if you put a "But! It will still be limited" after a "And that will be significant." referring to how much could be done, I suppose the question is, if "significant" wouldn't be enough, what would?

Ok, that did came out a bit messy. If it looks like gibberish, just say it and I'll try to do something about it.

It's kind of a messy concept! My philosophy on how to make some strides in this department is to find the balance between both extremes in a new way: create an enormous amount of agency through dialogue -- and voice everything.

The trade off would be: short game. In the tune of 5 hours for a complete playthrough. (So, we'll obviously need a new trick.) Every, single scene would have wildly branching dialogue, incredible amounts of cause-effect decisions, and prominently displayed gameworld reactions. But -- getting the "whole story" would require numerous playthroughs as very different characters. Only by exploring "all sides of the conflict" (metaphorically and literally speaking) would the player truly understand the whole story. From a story-telling angle, I think this would lend an enormous amount of energy to the dramatic action.

If that were the approach, production could be based upon "retro-progressive" installments.

Spoiler: Slightly off-topic, but expounding on how this would affect writing / voice:

So, say the macro plan would be 3 games in total. Call it: Wide-World 1, 2, and 3.

• Wide-World 1 would introduce the ability to experience the first "episode" of the game. Say, a war between 2 kingdoms. Play as a Warrior, Mage, or Rogue. There are a total of 3 hours of dialogue recorded, and 6 different "Player Character" personalities to choose from. However, in one, complete playthrough of the game, ~5+ hours of gameplay, players would only ever experience about 30 minutes of all performances.
• In order to get the "whole story" of episode 1, players would need to not only play each character, but play each character for all sides: Side A, Side B, and neutrally (not choosing a side). That's the only way to see all possible dialogue / performances / scenarios / outcomes.
• Wide-World 2 would introduce not only a new story, but introduce a new character class as well: say, the Cleric. Now, to get the whole story, players would need to play through episode 2 as all possible characters, in all possible scenarios, but also go back and play "episode 1" as the Cleric for Side A, Side B, and neutrally. So each installment also goes back to the prior episodes and explores the old events from new points of view with totally unique pathways. (Consider the new characters for subsequent episodes to also be "expansions" for the prior games.)
• And so forth...

Ultimately, this formula should work great, as you're basically offering very different play experiences between classes, a consistent wealth of unprecedented dialogue interactions, with everything voiced...in bite-sized bits of only 5 hours. Replayability fills in the biggest gap, still allowing each player to experience each episode for a total of ~50+ hours, including all playthroughs: Good Warrior, Bad Warrior, Neutral Warrior, Good Mage, Bad Mage, Neutral Mage, Good Rogue, etc.

Inherently, this will wind up "covering the same ground repeatedly" to an extent, but each pathway through the game would be completely unique. Friends and allies from the last playthrough would become dire enemies along a different path. You'd visit totally different areas of the world. You'd experience the "final battle" from totally different perspectives each time. Etc. Familiarity with the gameworld could effectively be used as a contextual bank to consistently surprise the player and evolve the depth of the plot.

Lots of writing- and acting-candy potential, too. The biggest challenge would be building an overall plot structure in advance, so one doesn't find oneself trying to ret-con things as one develops the next characters / episodes.

Such an approach would inherently mean only 3 hours of total recorded dialogue per title. That's extraordinarily minimalistic when compared to most AAA releases. Should allow for a lot of leeway to offer things: like several, different actors used to voice the "Player Character". Now, not only do you choose "male/female", you get a choice of different vocal qualities, personalities, etc., and you still get "text-like" branches in the dialogue.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

In the tune of 5 hours for a complete playthrough.

That is a bit on the short note. Even if you could play it 20 times through with somewhat different dialogs each round, the sheer amount of repetition in every other respect would pile up enormusly because there's not really all that much there.

My idea, instead of trying to maximize the dialog branches, would be to try and gamify the dialog situation (in a manner of speaking) and make social character be more than the character who has the most lines to pick from.

I don't think you necessarily need huge dialogs that branch out in 20 different directions and lasts several minutes every time. I think it might actually be more effective, if the convos - in general - were shorter and more dependent on systemic approach on how you say what you say. Rather than trying to depict a "real" conversation with a lot of fliff fluff. You need some of that fliff fluff, but I think far less than usual.

The point should be on gameplay across the board. In and out of dialog. And I don't mean that nuDeus Ex thing here, where you have to guess what the other party wants to hear in a set piece situation, but rather something more organic. Something where you still have the checks as usual, and lines without checks, but where you also control the tone of your (silent) character... and possibly even gestures, and you get responsiviness accordingly. Needs a bit more thinking before getting in the details, though.

I suppose what I mean, in the end, is a system where you have less dialog per NPC, but more NPC's with dialog and more reactivity and responsiveness to your build per NPC on average (and yes, sometimes even disallowing dialog is reactivity).

Not to mention what all else could be done on the social side of gameplay outside of dialog. Not going there right now, but I might try and find an old post where I made a point about this.

 

[SigilFey]

That is a bit on the short note. Even if you could play it 20 times through with somewhat different dialogs each round, the sheer amount of repetition in every other respect would pile up enormusly because there's not really all that much there.

My idea, instead of trying to maximize the dialog branches, would be to try and gamify the dialog situation (in a manner of speaking) and make social character be more than the character who has the most lines to pick from.

I don't think you necessarily need huge dialogs that branch out in 20 different directions and lasts several minutes every time. I think it might actually be more effective, if the convos - in general - were shorter and more dependent on systemic approach on how you say what you say. Rather than trying to depict a "real" conversation with a lot of fliff fluff. You need some of that fliff fluff, but I think far less than usual.

The point should be on gameplay across the board. In and out of dialog. And I don't mean that nuDeus Ex thing here, where you have to guess what the other party wants to hear in a set piece situation, but rather something more organic. Something where you still have the checks as usual, and lines without checks, but where you also control the tone of your (silent) character... and possibly even gestures, and you get responsiviness accordingly. Needs a bit more thinking before getting in the details, though.

I suppose what I mean, in the end, is a system where you have less dialog per NPC, but more NPC's with dialog and more reactivity and responsiveness to your build per NPC on average (and yes, sometimes even disallowing dialog is reactivity).

Not to mention what all else could be done on the social side of gameplay outside of dialog. Not going there right now, but I might try and find an old post where I made a point about this.

It would be completely unlike anything else on the market. That would sort of be the point.

As for repetition, I don't think so. I look at it this way:

Blockbuster films lauded as instant classics that "change people's lives" and are still talked about 50 years later...are only about 3 hours long. Length is not a necessity.

What I'm discussing, too, is the plot only. Not the other aspects of the game. The point is, the design of the game would be for multiple, different playthroughs. That would be advertised openly. As in, players don't create just one character in this game, they create nine successive characters -- each of whom plays their own role in the world. Each "storyline" might begin in a totally different part of the gameworld, go to unique locations that appear only in that plotline, interact with certain characters and achieve certain results that no other character can achieve. Not linear, but a test of role-playing. Get players to play both the "heroes" and the "villains" and the "common folk".

The plot, being maleable, can be used to surprise players. More or less along the lines of: "There is no 'best' answer." Instead, the game would be an exploration of ideals, goals, and methods...then living with the outcomes.

And there's still gameplay itself. I'd like to go back to RPG roots with something like that. Very unique character classes with decided strengths and weaknesses. Carefully hand-crafted environments for different portions of the game. Not so much "open world" as open gameplay. Areas might be smaller, but goals are clear, and methodology for achieving them offers numerous options based on RPG elements -- not action game elements.

In a sense, I would like to challenge players to recognize the same scenes...even if it's the third time they've seen it.

But the major point is that such bite-sized playthroughs would allow for massive versatility in dialogue / outcomes. And it could all be done in voice.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Blockbuster films lauded as instant classics that "change people's lives" and are still talked about 50 years later...are only about 3 hours long. Length is not a necessity.

...

I get what you're going for, especially since you mentioned "stage/film" earlier, but I don't really think the comparison here is valid. We approach these mediums from different angles, and we must because the mediums themselves are so very different (and should be, to boot... games should not try to be movies). Games are interactive, you need to invest into them physically and mentally, while with film you only do it mentally.

And if you had, what, nine different character archetypes with different playthroughs for 5 hour mainquest... I'm not sure there could ever be content that'd be equal to "an instant classic 3h movie"; let alone 45 hours worth of it (what's that... 15 3h movies... ). But this paragraph is nitpicking and beside the point.

I agree that the amount of recorded dialog is not really an issue, but what you describe kinda leads me to the next thing...

I do like your idea, it would probably make a fun game. But. There's always a "but" with me... I do have a beef with voiced protagonist (obviously) and the impression that what you are describing kinda sounds like Age of Decadence. Not a bad game, that, but there is a problem with its handling the different character classes. As while it has a good amount of reactivity and unique content, it forces the player into a very specific road with the class selection and punishes (or even disallows) thinking outside of the box and getting too creative.

That's why I'd much rather have more open classes, plethora of skills to choose form and freedom to mix and match (up to a point, so that the classes do not loose their meaning).

I'd not tie the main story too tightly with the character, but rather set up intermediate goals to reach -- or, obstacles to pass what ever way the player can with his character. Kind of like, think about being left off at a huge foreign city penniless and clueless, and you are told that during the next three months you need to get a vaccine, a fake ID, 10,000 units of the local currency and then travel to another city. So, you have to start thinking what to do first, how do you get fake ID? What vaccine? How could you possibly get 10,000 whatev-bucks? And what other city?

You learn, that in order to get a vaccine, you need to get fake ID, and to get a fake ID, you need money, and to travel you also need money. So money is where you start and move on from there. Your approach to the problem is completely free. You learn new things along the way, and you make new acquaintances along the way... all depending on your chosen approach.

And maybe, if you're lukcy or resourveful, you manage to travel away without the money or the vaccine (but what happens when you get to where you're traveling...?).

That's a pretty simple scenario, but according to those lines would be something I'd try to do. The main story kinda writes itself every time you play the game because you are never told to go from A to B to C to D.

But I got carried away (as usual...) and this reeeally veers off from the topic of dialog....

 

[mithosaurion151]

[Sard Edit: Nope].
[mithosaurion151 Edit: Disagreeing with moderation practices is against policy. Stay safe everyone.]
It would be madness to expect this company to cater to the whims of a minority group on a project intending to be sold.
So... Yeah. I guess this is the price of gaming being so mainstream.

It's hardly any game devs fault though for cashing in on that.
Operational costs alone demand it, to say nothing of remaining competitive.
With luck, a robust modding community will form around the game after launch.
Then everyone can have what they want.

 

[reidyboy102998]

Oh man, haven't logged on here in forever!

I like having voice protagonists in games. Adds more to the character you roleplay as. Interactions between NPCs are important, and if done right can really benefit the story. I hope the partner interactions will be good.

I've been playing tons of Fallout 4, and the partner's AI always disappointed me. I'm sure the AI will be like Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite, actually killing enemy NPCs, and grabbing ammo/guns/health items for your character.

 

[Nefla]

[Sard Edit: Nope].
It would be madness to expect this company to cater to the whims of a minority group on a project intending to be sold.
So... Yeah. I guess this is the price of gaming being so mainstream.

It's hardly any game devs fault though for cashing in on that.
Operational costs alone demand it, to say nothing of remaining competitive.
With luck, a robust modding community will form around the game after launch.
Then everyone can have what they want.

Sadly modders probably can't change what I'd want changed, especially story/dialogue elements. Plus only those on the PC would be able to use the mods.

 

[BluPixel]

I'm glad we have a voiced protagonist. I seem to never connect with a character that is not voiced acted. I've tried numerous Rpgs with mute protagonists and never cared to finish them (except the first fragon age)

While non voiced characters have more dialogue options and freedom in the way you want to portray them, they also tend to have, in my opinion, no charisma due to theim being a blank slate with no "focus" in the writing.
Intonations and emotions put into a line, like actors do in a movie, play a big part in how I perceive and connect to a character. You don't have that with voiceless RPGs which make them less memorable for me.
It's a minor detail but it also breaks my immersion when everyone speaks and you, the hero, is the only one mute.

There's a reason 90% of modern RPGs have voice actors. It's more appealing to a majority of people and also because it would be suicide for CDPR to not do voice acting since it's considered as the standard now.

 

[IndifferentEmpathy]

It may take me several hours to completely write a quest dialogue with 5 possible endings. It will take additional days or weeks, not to mention additional staff, equipment, tens if not hundreds of man-hours, and thousands of dollars to record just the NPC dialogue for that one quest.

The tech is in the works to have machine learning generate voice overs from text by using voice actor and celebrity voice samples. Not sure what will happen with VO industry then, guess the talent will have to license their "voice likeness". At least this would solve huge issue with mods as they cannot expand existing dialogue due this limitation.

As for recognizing your voice or arbitrary text input, well that is another and far more difficult problem.

 

[TheMaster100]

I'm just disappointed with how limited the dialogue options are and how awful Male V sounds like in the current build.

 

[Sardukhar]

I'm just disappointed with how limited the dialogue options are and how awful Male V sounds like in the current build.

Nomad male V sounds okay....ish. Sure, not my V, but, ah well. Fem V I feel has more spark and will be my Streetkid playthrough.

 

[Nefla]

I'm just disappointed with how limited the dialogue options are and how awful Male V sounds like in the current build.

Me too and I wish they had prioritized dialogue options over VA but that wouldn't suit the shooty shooty bang bang people who hate "reading games" (like my dad who coined that term).

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

With luck, a robust modding community will form around the game after launch.
Then everyone can have what they want.

Not seeing how it will be possible to add social stats or a Rockerboy background.