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

No man, no-one would ever buy an RPG without full PC voice acting and over the top cinematics. Please ignore that skyrim sold like a billion copies. Clearly you cannot make a successful RPG without choices OP personally likes, because he represents the will of the people unlike us dirty DnD players. Please also ignore how popular 5e is, it's clearly just not viable for a company to make dnd anymore, only disgusting convention goers enjoy that sort of stuff.

Not in response to you, but I also really don't like the "well you can just not use it!" argument in regard to VA, because that's not at all how it works. Voiced dialogue restricts options, something I and a few others have already explained in this thread, just muting the voice doesn't change that.

I'm honestly not sure what OP aims to get out of this discussion when he's just outright ignoring posts and going "no you're wrong" to people who put effort into their replies to him.

Uh. Yeah. That game. The one where the character says coo. That was a very... umm... experience.


If I understand this correctly, I think it's a nice idea.

They could have a setting that allows you to choose whether the player character is fully voiced, or partly voiced, or not voiced at all.

I have spoken.

Oh most definately. Then you got people from places like South Boston, and you can't understand practically ANYTHING they say no matter the race. But your reply is exactly what I was saying, although yes sometimes you can get a good idea from speech what race a person is, the majority of times you will be wrong.

Actually, I have made it a point to respond to most people that quoted me. But unlike you, I don't usually resort to just posting something to try and insult someone. But then again, posting stuff just to tear it down seems to be your MO anyways , so before you try accusing someone of "no your wrong" you may want to look at your own post history in regards to talking down your nose at ANYONE that may have something positive to say about the game, or happen to not parrot what you want or believe to the core.

But hey, I guess you issues with certain mechanics etc are all based on your unlimited amount of experience in game development and game theory right? That is why something you care about enough to counter argue is perfectly legit, where when it is in regards to VA, something that is important to MY play, that is just really doesn't matter...right?

You picked up what I was laying down quite perfectly.
Toggle option:
1. Your avatar is a mime.
2. Your avatar will speak once in a while.
3. Your avatar will have a lot to say about pretty much everything.

Maybe they could have some levels between those settings, but you've got the basic idea.

what I thought it's just not finished yet our character talks from time to time and sometimes in multiplayer dialogue too I hope they won't just stop doing it. It would be annoying as hell if people want not voiced character then there should just be a button to remove player voice there done everyones happy don't just try to remove content if you don't like something.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You outright said to a dude not that long ago "I'm not going to respond to all of your post, but no you're wrong on xyz" in so many words. I feel like people have articulated the issues with VA fairly well, and talked about why going "just don't use it lol" isn't a great argument, as well as pointing out lots of successful games without PC VA.

It's cool if you do like it, nobody is saying you can't or that it's wrong to want it, but I don't get the point of making a thread if you're not going to engage fairly with the people who reply to it, is all.

The problem with this fixation on "true RPG games" is that the genre label has no real definition. It's an aesthetic. An RPG video game is just something that feels like an RPG video game.

Strictly speaking, if we say that an RPG is about "roleplaying", then The Sims is a better roleplaying game than 99% of RPGs, and it's generally not classified as an RPG only because it has the wrong aesthetic and the wrong target audience.

If you go by strict definitions, Baldur's Gate has never been an RPG. Rather, it's a story-driven tactical combat game in a fantasy setting with minor roleplaying elements.

If you're going to fixate on the definition of "RPG" then I challenge you to give me a definition of the genre that doesn't lead to the conclusion that The Sims is the definitive RPG series.

I feel as if you responded to the wrong post? I didn't mention "true RPGs" or give a definition of what makes something an RPG?

True, but Witcher 3 sold over 28 million copies, DOS2 sold like what, a couple million copies? I mean don't get me wrong, that was around what the Original Witcher game sold, but that was in like 2014. Each game release by a studio, they are pressured to top their previous games sales. The more production you put in it, whether you agree or not, helps with those sales (well lets be honest, as much as it hurts me it backfired for CP2077. But that game was still damn good on PC, the screwed the pooch on previous gen consoles).

Not exactly. I think you're continuing a theme here.

You're lumping Baldur's Gate together with Skyrim (a fantasy open-world first-person action adventure sandbox with little actual roleplaying once you're finished with the character creator) and D&D (a pen and paper RPG) to me shows that you're a little too fixated on the concept of the RPG. These games have very little in common in practice.

Yes, I understand the systems and lore for Baldur's Gate are taken from the pen and paper D&D -- but systems and lore are not the game.

I'm not comparing the games, I'm using Skyrim to show that you can have an insanely successful release (well beyond what pretty much any dev could ever dream of having) without player VA, or a focus on extravagant cinematics. CRPGs in general are a fairly niche genre so there isn't really a huge, explosive success to compare to that way. Kingmaker and DOS2 both had restricted VA I'm fairly sure, but neither were big in the casual market the same way TES games are.

I wasn't making an argument about quality at all, simply financial success. The argument that you need PC VA for a game to be mainstream successful just doesn't really hold up, and fallout 4 adding VA doesn't seem to have been a crazy huge resounding successful decision either, though it did sell well. People don't really seem to care that much about silent protags, from what I can tell sales wise.

I like how your answer is basically: ''You are wrong''. Without any arguments to back it up. Love it.

Minecraft was even more successful and it also didn't have voice acting and cinematics. Why wouldn't that be a more convincing example?

Skyrim is just a completely different genre of game. There's no point comparing them in this respect. Neither Minecraft nor Skyrim nor Baldur's Gate are RPGs. Roleplaying is not the primary focus in any of these games.

That said, I'll provide what I think would be a fair literal definition of a roleplaying game: a game about designing your own character and exploring/roleplaying that character through social and story interaction. By that definition Baldur's Gate 3 is a stronger RPG than any of its earlier instalments.

In the end, when you find a game on Steam that's tagged as an RPG, it doesn't mean anything about the actual gameplay. It's just a marketing buzzword.

Anyway, BG3 is a story-driven game with roleplaying elements (NPCs reacting to your fantasy race, etc). It's really in the context of that genre that we need to consider the importance of voice acting.

I'm not interested in arguing about what makes a true RPG, particularly not with someone who thinks BG isn't an RPG. I don't know why you chose me to pick this fight with to begin with, but if you're going to rule out everything but a super specific niche of RPGs with no real consistent criteria (hence BG not being an RPG while BG3 is) you can just use the success BG3 has already has a proof that you don't need PC VA to be successful.

I fully agree. Bioware's later works were natural evolution of what Bioware wanted to achieve, not delution of it, as I initially saw it as.

Still, Bioware was smart enough to know that if they want to have movie-like-presentation (Mass Effect, Dragon Age2) they have to limit and define the character. Early Bioware design did override player roleplaying choices via chosen-one plot, but they didn't conflict with them. In their games role-playing is mostly the illusion, but that's an illusion that works anyway. Child of Bhaal/Raven/Spirit Monk identity override our own, but it doesn't conflict with it. I played through BG1&2 many times and imagined by PC as very varied characters - and it always works. And "imagined" is the key word here (unlike lets say Fallouts that allowed for much wider in game expression and reactivity) but it worked.

BG3 is in danger of being nothing - not providing interesting narrative or competent direction on its own, and contradicting choices it allows players to make for presentation sake.

Every RPG is about a balance between authored content and allowing players to fill the blanks. Adding a voice to a blank slate character, seems to me like creating an unnecessary conflict between the two. Maybe if the VO is varied and strong enough it could work. I just doubt it will/would be.

You might need to reread my comment. I said BG3 -- like all BG games -- is first and foremost a story-driven game. The original BG had roleplaying elements in it. No question about it. In particular, I would point to the character creation and your ability to romance companions. But there's little beyond that.

Furthermore, working from my definition of roleplaying, BG3 has more roleplaying elements than the original BG because there is a much greater level of social and story reactivity to your roleplaying choices.

Again, I'm open to the idea of there being a better definition of roleplaying, but I challenge anyone who disagrees with my definition to provide a better definition, and then explain how The Sims does or doesn't fit into that definition.

I'm completely comfortable with the idea that The Sims is an RPG under my definition. That's not my favourite game, but I'm not trying to put the genre on a pedestal.


So do you feel they'd be satisfied if the definition of an RPG would be: a story-driven game with a Blank Slate protagonist you can project onto?

If that's the definition, at least it excludes The Sims. Doesn't exclude Half-Life though. lol.

Honestly, I think they're happy with the term RPG being nothing more than a shallow marketing gimmick. It means an RPG is just whatever they want it to be.

Well, not quite. BG1&2 still allows for variety of player expression - defining sex, race, class, romance, dialogue choices, keep to reflect our profession of choice, a very basic alignment system. Still, those are very basic, but I will take it for 2000.

And I still categorise Mass Effect or Witcher3 as RPGs, just different RPGs with different focus (although, playing Witcher3 did feel to me like playing BG2 for the first time. I will agree with you that BG at its best was a story driven adventure with roleplaying bits in it).

No matter what’s your definition of an RPG I still believe that if as a developer you don’t plan on defining and characterising your protagonist, then recording his/her VO is not the best idea. Just let player fill the blanks, instead of filling blanks with something not very good.

In my view, one of the best games in recent times that actually fuses story-telling and roleplaying with roughly equal weight is Disco Elysium. In that game you don't get to customise your appearance (beyond choosing your clothes). You don't get to create your own backstory either. You definitely weren't given a blank slate.

What you get to do is character creation by selecting your starting stats, and those starting stats have a very substantial social/story impact in the game. Your stats literally have verbal arguments with each other to help you with your decision-making and this has a profound impact on the feeling you have as you play the game.

It's actually an example of a game with an unvoiced protagonist though. lol. He's almost like a empty vessel for these internal personalities to assert themselves onto.

It actually never bothered me in that game that there was an unvoiced PC and many unvoiced NPC lines. But I think that was an example of a game that was just really well written and presented in a manner that the lack of voice lines was practically invisible to me.

Additionally, I thought it was impressive that Disco Elysium is all basically just one game -- unlike Baldur's Gate which essentially has two main gameplay modes: the combat game mode and the story/adventure mode.

Anyway, I think Larian's decision to go cinematic with its dialogue will make it more difficult to get away with voiceless dialogue.

I prefer non-voiced in a game where you aren't a set character. Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 you were Sheppard and Hawke. I've just replayed Dragon Age inquisition and after going through my standard starting 20 different characters until I settled on one it started grating on me that they all sounded the same.