Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General The importance of PC voice in RPGs

DE is an excellent spiritual successor to Torment. I am looking to update later this year - I hope it will address the underwhelming 2nd half of the game to make it as good as it can be.

I was thinking about DE as it's an interesting one - especially with full VO patch incoming. When we get to control Harry he is a blank slate - whenever you accept his past is up to you. That's why RPGs loved the amnesiac trope after Torment - you keep a cake and eat it too.

As far as VO is concerned DE should be an interesting one - I don't expect Harry to be voiced, but I assume that his his skills will be. That should give Harry "a voice" while it still being dependent on what character you built.

Well, there are different ways of handling that. DE uses systematically simple dice system to simulate everything - and considering it barely has combat it works alright. The problem is that it is content dependent - system is so basic and it requires writing and clever implementation to make it work - unlike a full on combat system, that once finished can provide more hours of systemic fun. That is visible in 2nd half of DE where hand crafted content is more spread out and overall weaker - resulting in far, far weaker game as the result.

BG1&2, PoE1&2, Kingmaker - do have a bigger seperation between different systems - combat, dialogue, exploration. PoE1 here is the weakest with the three being very seperated with little skill overlap between each of three gameplay pillars.

Larian, honestly, is doing quite well here. Especially D:OS1&2 smartly used the same skills for combat and exploration making the whole thing more intertwined - dialogue was just part of the quest, rather then main way pf progressing the quest. In BG3 so far the division seems slightly more pronaunced as well, though it is still not as constrained as those previous games I mentioned. I was disappointed though, to have no reaction when I nicked the idol from druids (I did use exploit to not trigger hostility, though it would be nice if the game still recognised that the idol was not there). I didn't trigger the "steal the idol" quest, so that might have something to do with it. Though that is a problem that dates back to D:OS2 - in spite of freedom the game chooses, the reactivity seems to be tied to specific quest progression rather then what you actually do. For example in D:OS2 I killed both the Shadow Prince and the Mother Tree and game failed to recognize it, as the quest didn't complete. That's a big "nono" if you design systemic game like that. I should make a post about that.

As far as "RPG-ness" goes I still think Tim Cain's RPGs (Fallout1&2, Arcanum, Bloodlines) are kings when it comes to mixing playstyles and character builds into quest design, allowing for dramatically different progression and gameplay style depending on your character build.

Sims actually has a lot more roleplaying elements in some aspects than say Mass effect or Witcher, no joke. There is quite a bit you can learn from Sims, it IS an RPG, a sandbox RPG without a metaplot.

In my view, there are two main varieties of roleplaying, social / life / dating sims with self-insert characters such as Animal Crossing & The Sims for parasocial roleplaying and choice and consequence games such as The Witcher, Dragon Age and Telltale games for story roleplaying. It's the latter that I'm more enthusiastic about, but squeezing in some of the former is nice too. It's nice to be able to customise your appearance and form parasocial relationships with the characters as you navigate the story, and it's also nice when the social relationships also impact the narrative.

(RPG is often also used to refer to games with leveling mechanics but screw that definition.)

It's really only in the context of a game with strong social sim elements that I accept the argument that there is a benefit to having the player-insert character (if any) unvoiced because the social simulation itself would create a sense of personality that the voice acting would struggle to keep up with. Like, it's hard to imagine that The Sims would be improved with proper voice acting. That is to say, it would be better with voice acting, but only if the voice acting could capture the nuance implied by the simulation, which would be a LOT to ask.

However, in a C&C game, it's very helpful to telling a story if the characters have compelling personalities. If you aren't doing a good job of creating a sense of personality via the social sim elements, then voice acting should only add to the experience. I really think it helps a story when you can feel that your avatar is actually invested in it. I can't imagine any way The Witcher 3 would have been a better game if Geralt were instead a Blank Slate with no personality.

I would certainly argue that because Baldur's Gate has always been very story-driven that it makes much more sense for it to lean hard into the C&C genre. That doesn't mean it can't also become more of a social sim, but I don't think that this should come at the expense of its storytelling.

No. Sims are not RPGs. They are literally simulations. You can choose to role play your simulation, but that doesn't make the simulation a roleplaying game.

I could be playing Sim City and I guess that's a role playing game because I am role playing the mayor?

Clearly you have a better grasp on the concept of the RPG than I do.

I really need your help. Please help me with this:

• provide a clear definition of the RPG video game genre actually is
• explain why a social sim game with a player avatar is excluded from that definition

---
When we talk about roleplaying in the context of the tabletop or LARP or sexual roleplay or anything else, we're talking about creating imaginary characters with imaginary social relationships and stories. What single-player video game better facilitates that than a social sim such as The Sims?

I didn't argue that social sim games are always roleplaying games. But all it takes is adding a player avatar to a social sim and you have a roleplaying game. It's a very fine line and The Sims straddles both sides of that line. There are many different ways to play that game.

City Builders or Flight Sims are not social sims. They're simulating jobs; they're not simulating social relationships. (It's possible for a game to do both though -- eg Harvest Moon and its genre of Farming Life Sims.)

The issue is that you are actually rejecting the things that make RPGs RPGs in favour of trying to classify everything as an RPG.

there is really no discussion to have with you on this.

I don't think whether a silent protagonist fits or not has much to do with the genre. If the game is in first person or the NPCs are not voiced either, silent protagonist works fine. But if everybody else is voiced and there are cutscenes showing your characters, it's weird to see them standing around with this :| expression while everyone else is making gestures and showing emotions. Tav feels very stiff and lifeless in conversations compared to the companions.

I would agree. Non-voice top down is good. Non-voice FPS is good (aka. Fallout3/New Vegas). Animated silent movie-like third person is awkward. I suppose my issue, that I see those close ups as detrimental in case of BG3 as well, so adding VO would be just pushing it in the wrong direction - fixing a problem created by a bad design. I would rather add it as it is, and deal with awkwardness of third-person Bioware face, rather then have another misguided layer of overproduction on top.

Meh, Larian will do what they want to do. No stopping them now.

Lol he is actually giving you well defined arguments on what is classified as an RPG, but you can't counter so you say there is no discussion. Personally, I find Ayvah's arguments interesting. He also makes excellent points in regards to the personal bias of some in their definition of what is RPG.

I responded to everything besides where the poster was spouting tripe about what is, and isn't a true RPG (I think it was the last 3 responses in his list.. Basically typing some purist crap that I had no interest in engaging in. Besides that, I responded to every other point.

No, they are implying that every game would be a role playing game because you "take on a role" ... We call that a "blanket statement" in critical circles. They are a logical fallacy.


Role Playing Games are a specific genre of game. Just like Simulations are a specific genre of game.

D&D was unique at its time for BLENDING the two. One of the first, and probably the most successful, game to do so. Instead of being the general of your strategic tactical army, you were one of the soldiers or adventurers. Of course there is overlap. Just like there is overlap between Suspense and Horror genres ... but they still aren't the same thing.

The key difference is LITERALLY IN THE NAMES OF THE GENRES.

Simulation SIMULATES action in an autonomic way that the player adjust to achieve a desired outcome. The player has direct control over ALL actors that work towards that outcome. Simulations aim to portray a fantastical series of events in a modern presentation or setting.

Role playing does not simulate action, the player takes direct action. They do not have control over any actor but their own. You PLAY A ROLE - importantly, of your own creation.

You are right that I wouldn't call Witcher a role playing game. It's an action Adventure game. You do not choose or create your character. You are given one.

I totally agree with this. That is basically my whole point here. It is just really off setting to have great VA from all the companions, only to then have a silent protagonist. Add to that, that sometimes the MC actually speaks. If people want to project themselves that much on their character (which if that is their way of enjoying the game I say go for it), they can always implement a option to mute the MC.

I just wish if people wanted that, they were at least just upfront about it rather than come up with the argument "Oh VA work is so much more expensive, and so much more work" which in todays development realm, is not true. Just own it, say I don't want it, it is not my jam. But we have no idea what the budget process is, or any of that. I just don't understand why people would want to try and nullify one players enjoyment, and how the play their character if they LIKE quality voice work, to somehow justify their own preferences when a simple solution would be to provide it, then offer a way to mute it.

I would still call it a roleplaying game. I think C&C games are an extension of the concept of roleplaying, plus the Witcher games have had many social elements such as hairstyles, and the dating sim mechanics that were definitely meant to be a bit parasocial.

I think character creation is definitely an RPG mechanic, but not a necessary one. Sometimes you're just given a character to roleplay as and I think that's fine.

I don't think that's quite it.

I think that if you've already read the entire item of dialogue while selecting it, then by the time you make the selection, you've already kind of seen the line play out in your head. Having it spoken aloud again is a bit redundant at that point.

However, some lines of dialogue don't really benefit from a choice. For example, when you meet Astarion, he tricks you into looking for a "brain thing". After agreeing to look around, your character spends several seconds gazing around at the bushes without speaking a word before seeing a wild boar and expressing silent shock. There are other points in the conversation where Astarion says something, apparently expecting a response. The camera cuts to your blank expression for a moment, and then it cuts back to Astarion and he just continues talking. These are awkward silences that in any other story would be filled in with some kind of chatter.

Maybe another way to help with this would be to pop up a dialogue prompt with only one option so that the player character is still speaking? I felt this worked pretty well in Disco Elysium. (Still ought to be a bit of grunting when he wrestles you to the ground though.)

Still, I don't think there's any real downside to just having the game fully voiced. I quite liked the fast pace of the way dialogue choices were handled in Mass Effect & The Witcher 3 where you would preselect the dialogue based on the "idea" of what you want to say before seeing it play out in detail.

Depends on how you play. I only imagine scenes and spoken lines in my head if the game is isometric and not very detailed. If the graphics are realistic and the game has 3rd person cutscenes, it feels more like an interacting movie and I expect my PCs to express themselves onscreen as well as any other character. I may pick the written line but my character still has to say it to make the scene "complete", not sure if I'm explaining it in a way that makes sense.

The way conversations are executed now, Tav feels like a self insert plopped into the story and not a seamless part of the game world. It's so jarring to me that I'm ready to sacrifice some RP options (if the voices don't fit some types of characters) to have full voice acting.


Yeah, having full voice acting for Tav but being able to disable it in the settings seems like the best compromise.

Still, whenever factual or not (who knows what is a cause and what is an effect), games with higher production value, including full VO and more work intensive presentation, also a more constrained and restrictive when it comes to player choice, game's reactivity etc. It was bad and didn't work before, why would it now? Of course, there is always a chance that Larian will do full character VO, and there will be enough choice to support roleplaying and will overall, be simple superb. I had my doubts when Witcher3 went openworld, as storydriven game like that didn't seem like a good fit. Turns out it was easily the best on of the series, using openworld in a way that was beneficial to it. Maybe Larian can do the same with VO - but that would be the first one. (again, not that VO is bad in itself).

I always imagine gnomes to have a higher pitched and fast paced voice, and orcs a low, resonant voice. Tieflings look like they have a sly, croaky voice. That's the thing with having a silent PC, you can decide what they sound like in your head. Taking that away by hiring a voice actor is a big blow to roleplaying and immersion

I always associated higher pitched and fast pace voices to Kender.

Despite the fact that the gnomes on Krynn literallytalklikethisandaredescribedashavinghighpitchedvoicesandkenderareclearlydescribedashavingchildlikevoicestospecificallydifferentiatethemfromgnomeswihtinthatuniverse?

While I prefer to have a voiced protagonist in many cases, I don't mind having a mute character in this case. I imagine it would cost a ton of money to get someone to voice the number of lines that we tend to see, especially with multiple voices to choose from.

Honestly, I'm just happy to see that the character has facial expressions and reactions. Sure, the expressions could use some tweaking but I prefer that far more than the thousand-yard stare the protagonist has in a game like Dragon Age: Origins. At least my BG3 character feels like they're actually interacting with the world to an extent and aren't just a prop.

Aesir maybe you missed it, but we discussed the whole issue of cost for quite a few pages. It is not as expensive as you think. Generally, unless you are a big star, it usually is like $300/day. So it is more of a preference whether you want it or not, than to associate to cost. Not to mention, the facial animations of the PC over the companions is just terrible so I hope either way they fine tune those before they launch. It is a totally different environment in development than what it was for DAO (although I agree the game does better than that game for interaction).