Who is still opposed to Voice Acting?

Yes, I do suck at explaining things properly.

In any game, the things that the player focuses on at any one time are the gameplay, music and graphics. As you play the game, you listen to the music and look at the graphics. The only times that you don't focus on these are when you aren't actually playing the game, which is also the time you "experience" Voice Acting. Surprisingly, "not-playing" the game actually takes up a very small minority of the total amount of time spent playing a game.

Originally Posted by Senap

You could say that about any element really.

I mean, why should Nintendo even bother improving the 3D graphics and add nicer textures when they clearly don't contribute to the gameplay? Or take orchestrated music, which we both think should be in Zelda Wii; How does that contribute to the gameplay? High pitched violins won't help me slay that monster!

Music and graphics do more to enhance gameplay than VA, as gameplay is experienced at the same time as music and graphics, and without them, gameplay would feel dramatically different, whereas VA is experienced at a different time to the gameplay.

Basically, good graphics and music complement the gameplay, adding more to the overall experience that VA ever could.

Originally Posted by Senap

So, here's the thing: Zelda is no longer a small and relatively unknown series that only needs good gameplay to survive. There are newer fans that expect a lot more from the game such as the story and as good graphics as possible. Now there are some fans (me included) who think it's time to introduce VA, and it's not for the heck of having VA or just because everyone else is doing it. It is because it does help tell the story quite a bit.

If you really think that a good story and a good way of telling it is so important to helping Zelda "survive", you must be really close-minded.

Originally Posted by Senap

Heck, I'm playing Call of Duty 4 right now and they talk all the time in that game. All the freaking time. But there are no cutscenes to speak about, all they say is relevant to the story and actually helps you understand what the heck is going on. It is much more immersive hearing the characters speak than having to read their dialogue. On top of that, if you somehow don't understand what they're saying, it is nicely subtitled at the bottom of the screen.

Great! Now I have to focus on the VA and the text!!! As if reading wasn't hard enough already...

IMO, it's actually less immersive having a voice appear whenever you talk to someone, and it's trying to be heard over the tonnes of background noise at Hyrule Castle Town. But that's just me, hombre

Originally Posted by Senap

There some things (ingredients or elements) that just need to be in a game nowadays if you want to attract more people than the core fans. Let's face it. the core fans alone won't help Nintendo make money, they need to attract all those other gamers as well or even non-gamers who also look for good graphics, music and story. It does feel like Nintendo is making a serious attempt to revamp the gameplay and focus on it. Even though the gameplay is vital for any game, it is just not enough for an adventure game. You need all the other stuff as well.

"People other than the core fans?" If anything, it's the core fans that are whining about wanting a deeper story and VA to go with it. In fact, it was these people who ruined TP, because they wanted a "realistic Link" in a game with a "deep story", and TP's story was arguably one of the deepest stories in the Zelda series, no matter how badly it was told.

Tell me, how many of those "non-core" people are whining about how Wii fit doesn't have the best graphics? How many people are whining about how Mario Kart doesn't have an epic story? What about the fact that original orchestrated music is a minority in SSBBrawl.

Gameplay is all that a good game needs, and it is complemented by good graphics and amazing music.

Originally Posted by Senap

Look at Mario. Super Mario Galaxy has excellent graphics and awesome orchestrated music, but does it need those things to be a good game? No, absolutely not. But it does need those things to attract more people. And they need to attract those people so they can make more money. If they make more money, then they can make more Zelda and more Zelda makes me happy.

Mario Galaxy is the 6th best selling game on the best -selling console of this generation. As of now, it's sold about 1-2 million under Halo 3, which broke tonnes of sales records by itself due to massive hype and other things, and Halo 3 was released a couple of months earlier.

And Voice Acting and a good story is supposed to push it farther? It's supposed to make Nintendo more money despite the TMDS used up in the VA and the epic storyline?

As mentioned before, graphics and music accompany and complement gameplay, so yes, they are pretty damn important.

What are you on? It must be some good stuff

Good voice acting is refreshing. Bad Voice Acting is depressing.

I feel like it's probably inappropriate for Zelda, as it's the last line separating Link from the player. If Link speaks and thinks for himself, then he can no longer be the virtual extension of the player.

That said, I'm open to experimentation. Nobuyuki Hiyama does a great job in Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, and if you didn't know, he's the guy who does Adult Link's voice in OoT, Smash Bros, Melee, and Soul Calibur. It requires good writing, and generally, LoZ does have good writing.

Voice acting would probably do the series a lot of good if done correctly.

Originally Posted by IgnixMadax

I feel like it's probably inappropriate for Zelda, as it's the last line separating Link from the player. If Link speaks and thinks for himself, then he can no longer be the virtual extension of the player.

I think if they'd do VA like Midna had would be awesome. Not exactly words coming out but still VA. Link doesn't have to talk, just everyone else.

Originally Posted by Double A

stuff

I don't understand how you can think that music can enhance gameplay if you don't think that VA can enhance the story, especially when it is told through dialogue. It's like a reading the dialogue in a movie.

All these elements bring something to the table that makes the game good and interesting. Gameplay alone can't do it (anymore), neither can graphics, music or VA. Some elements may be more important than others (again gameplay), but that doesn't mean that the less important features should be excluded.

But you're right of course, at least about music and graphics being more important than VA. But then again, gameplay is more important than music and graphics - so by your logic, we should go back to the 8-bit era and get rid of fancy graphics and music altogether.

As for subtitles... if you find the concept of subtitles to completely destroy the experience, you could just turn them off. Most games have that option. Funny though, I thought you wanted to read.

About having problems hearing the dialogue... Seriously? Have you played any game with VA, or watched a movie?

Also, you don't think Zelda Wii needs a good story? Hello! We're not in 1984 anymore - ADVENTURE GAMES NEED STORIES!

Btw, what the heck is TMDS?

I think they should still have small voice samples (screams, gasps, etc.), but I don't think Zelda games should have full voice acting. It wouldn't feel right to me.

Originally Posted by Double A

LINK. WILL. NEVER. TALK. That is out of the question, VA or not.

RRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

Everyone in the game should talk in major cutscenes. Outside of that, you have regular grunts and text boxes. Text boxes in the voice acted cutscenes would also be shown.

I've honestly lost count of how many times I've said this. Everyone, get that ****ty dated idea out of your heads that 'you are Link' and 'he is a link to the player'. THAT'S AN EXCUSE LOL. Christ, nobody else would get away with that. Let the character speak.

You are not Link.

There is no way in hell you are Link.

If I was Link, the plot of Twilight Princess would have been drastically different. For a start, I wouldn;t have trusted Midna, and I couldn't care less about Colin. I'd probably have joined King Bullbo, and eventually Ganondorf, before killing Zelda, stealing the ToW, and then killing Ganondorf with my two pieces of the TriForce to unite the TriForce, and become the complete and ultimate dictator of the universe, my rule lasting into eternity.

But instead I had to do all the good stuff, and which as LINK, not me, but LINK panders to the wishes of Midna, and so on.

Link is a very different character to me. He looks nothing like me, his actions are very different to me, and his emotions are different to mine. The only games where I have ever truly felt I AM Link, are the original tLoZ, and LA, partly because Link actually did look like a younger me in both those games, and because my actions in those situations would have been much the same as Links. In every other game, Link has been a very different character to me, and not an avatar at all.

I'm with GK. Either a) Link should talk, or b) Zelda should be much more open-ended and Link should be customizable with gender options, but not talk. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Even if you aren't Link, I'm not sure I want Link to talk. It seems...wrong.

I fear Jak II will pop it's ugly head again.

Although Crabguy makes a fair point. Customization must be offered if they keep with this viewpoint for Link.

...Although, you could approach it another way, and say that Link is supposed to represent an Archetype as opposed to you or an actual character. In which case, I could see how making him Mute would be a design choice.

That makes sense in a Legend viewpoint.

I wouldn't like an archetype. You can't say "he's an archetype", without justifying what he's an "archetype" of. Link's only really an archetype of the other Links, which is appeal to tradition and would hold back the series.

I don't particularly mind whether a) Link speaks, or b) he (or even she) becomes customizable and the story becomes slightly less linear, and I'd be open to more suggestions, but the series can't remain as it is. After all, does Link really portray, say, a black forty year old man who prefer to be king of the world? No. Link is a white teen do-gooder, implying Link very definitely has a character. However, the developers are too bloody lazy to properly define that character.

I think he's an ARchetype of Hyrule's "Hero". THe Hero of Time, winds, Masks, etc. He's not a character, he's just Link. It's like Beowulf or Heracles or Sigurd or Gilgamesh.

The logic of "Tradition" holding back the series lacks any real evidence of so, it's just an opinion, so please stop stating it as fact. Come up with a real reason you can prove.

Beowulf isn't an archetype. He's Beowulf, a fully fleshed out character. Heracles isn't an archetype. He's Heracles, a fully fleshed out character. Sigurd isn't an archetype. He's Sigurd, a fully fleshed out character. Gilgamesh isn't an archetype. He's Gilgamesh, a fully fleshed out character. Link isn't an archetype (there's nothing he's particularly archetypical of, apart from perhaps the perfect Aryan ideal). He's Link, the least fleshed out, weakest protagonist of almost any mainstream series.

The logic of "tradition" not holding the series lacks any real evidence, so, it's just an opinon, so please stop stating it as fact. Come up with a real reason you can prove. See? Works both ways. And incidentally:

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.

Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. For instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in existing societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection. This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone.

You're kind of a dolt, so I'll spell it out for you:

All of those people don't represent characters, they represent traits. That is what makes them Archetypes. Beowulf is reckless and arrogant, within reason. Heracles is strong and dumb, and despite godlike strength can never overcome his fate. Sigurd is also a victim of fate.

Nothing about them is fleshed out, we don't actually know anything about them. We know they are strong, and some of them killed dragons. We know their notable deeds, but would we know how they would react when confronted with every single little problem? No, because they are representative of traits, as opposed to fully fleshed characters.

Boromir of LoTR is a fleshed out character. We learn about him and his wants and his problems and what he intends to do to fix them.

THe WIcked Witch of the West is Archetypal. She has no real explanation, she's just a witch who likes shoes.

Heracles is just strong and dumb. Sigurd is cursed by fate. Gilgamesh defies the gods and abuses his power.

I should also add that I never said that Traditionally the way it has been is the way it should be, you're putting words in my mouth.

I suggest you learnt the meaning of the word "archetype".

Noun Singular: archetype Plural: archetypes

archetype (plural archetypes)

An original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated; a prototype; the ideal example of something

Not all reckless, arrogant characters are based on Beowulf. Not all characters cursed by fate are based on Heracles or Sigurd. Nor is Beowulf always arrogant, or Heracles/Sigurd always unlucky.

Also, for the ones you've named, the reason we wouldn't know how they'd react to most situations is because they all feature in much older pieces of literature, where their characters are not often described in detail, and simply summarized by how they react to events.

And calling me a dolt is an ad hominem. I could call you a conceited twat with the mental intelligence of an amoeba, but I won't, because it has no relevance to waht I'm trying to say.

Of course not all of them are, that's a ridiculous statement and I never insinuated such.

I stated examples of comparisons I am making.

To suggest that Beowulf is not representative of an Archetype, an original model of which similar persons, objects, or concepts are derivative or emulated is ridiculous, and I suggest you pick up some related literature before you try to refute my points.

The kettle says the pot is black on the conceited issue, though me calling you a dolt had relevance to what I was trying to say, that you have no idea what you're talking about, and seem to have some sort of horrible itchy stick up your ass.

Also, I would argue the storytelling design that LoZ chooses to use is mimicking this "Much older literature".

For reference, try Flight of the Wild Gander, or Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

I'm done here. I admit defeat, Crab. Your liberal use of the internet, vague references and baseless comments have bested me. Consider yourself king of the internet today.

Originally Posted by Double A

Okay, I worded it wrong.

What I meant was that VA in a Zelda game would force too much focus onto the storyline, which is bad for a Zelda game, which is gameplay-centric as opposed to story-centric.

Also, the Time, Money and Disk Space required for good voice acting would be better used for a minor increase in the quality of gameplay. In Zelda, a small increase in the quality of the gameplay is tonnes better than the best voice acting.

I could be wrong...but didn't Wii Fit use voice acting? I don't think it was that story driven either. More instuctional, which is what I want.

I hate it when I'm in the middle of a fight and SOMEONE *cough*Navi*cough* makes a huge speech bubble appear on Link's face so that she can "warn" him that the "boat to the otherworld" is collasping! Well you know, by the time I read out what she was trying to say I was stabbed 3 times and then fell to my death.

I would be happy if only Link's partner had full english voice acting, everyone else could be mute as heck. I just think instructional things should be voiced, because it does drastically help gameplay. Course I don't wan't partners screaming out answers to everything, but if the ceiling is falling or the water is "not normal" I wanna know before I walk right into it!

I'm somewhat amused you want me to read the relevant literature, as I take Ancient Greek at school and have read parts of the original writings of Apollodorus as parts of a set text, and Heracles is most definitely not dumb, as you call him. He's a rather shrewd character, perhaps not as cunning as Odysseus, but certainly smart enough to trick Atlas, and figure an easy way to clear the Aegean stables. While I haven't read the originals of Beowulf, or the Volsunga saga, or the Epic of Gilgamesh (although that was transcribed into Attic Greek by some scholars, so I may get round to it sometime), I certainly have read translations, and with the exception of perhaps Beowulf, none of the characters you mentioned showed an particular conformity to an archetype. Even Beowulf's attatchments to a "reckless" archetype are tenuous at best, he's certainly cautious in his dealings with Hygd.

I think voice acting is definantly needed. My one condition is that Link remains a silent protagonist.

I just think instructional things should be voiced, because it does drastically help gameplay.

No, instructional things should not be voiced. To you have any idea it is when a character actually says out loud "push the control stick forward to move"?

If he remains a silent protagonist, as the vast majority seem to want, then my condition would be he MUST be more customizable. At the very least, gender option, but it should be ability to totally customise his / her looks.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

If he remains a silent protagonist, as the vast majority seem to want, then my condition would be he MUST be more customizable. At the very least, gender option, but it should be ability to totally customise his / her looks.

Not gender changes. Link has been male for over 20 years, you can't just go off an switch the gender. I think customizing looks is stratching it. I want the character to remain recognizable as Link. The most I'm willing to deviate on the main character is customizable clothing.

Zelda isn't Fable, the main character should be consistant, not some user created thing. That would be like choosing what gender Mario is gonna be at the begining of each game.