-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Giant Bomb #7 | Hey There, Small Business Owner!
- Thread starter Patryn
- Start date
- Status
And Jeff
That "Liquiiiiiiid" line was embarrassing. He sounds like he really doesn't give a shit.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
Say what you will about the quality of Hayter's voicework, the dude seemed to give a shit when in the booth. Sucks that he's no longer the voice for BB but, hey, maybe he's in TPP.
I liked Hayter, he sometimes came off as a bit too much over the top but for me it always worked in MGS. Kiefer is just dull. The whole thing really wasn't a change for the better. I sometimes think we just have Kiefer for marketing reasons and Kojima having a hard on for having an actual movie star doing a voice in his game.
PS: All you guys don't know how to spell Kiefer.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Keifer ruins the whole thing. Such a shame Hayter isn't back.
With how little content there is in GZ, blocking these bonus missions from certain consoles is largely ridiculous. I'm sure there's plenty of people that played MGS on PS1 that only have an Xbox now. Even still, it's a dumb justification.
Re-recording Hayter's lines for this bonus mission seems to put the kibosh on that.
Re-recording Hayter's lines for this bonus mission seems to put the kibosh on that.
I fixed that by impersonating Hayter out loud while reading those lines.
SlowRevolution
Member
Yeah it's getting old. We don't know how it's going to work out, people being skeptical isn't unreasonable at all (people being excited is fine too). I'm all for people not being cynical/pessimistic all the time, but with stuff like this it just seems like people are afraid of looking back in a few years and finding out they were wrong.
Broder Salsa
Banned
Zomba13
Member
Speaking of MGS and Sutherland, I didn't really feel it. The MGS1 classic lines didn't sound as good, like they had no energy (and wtf is up with no "A Hind D? What's a Russian gunship doing here?").
That said, there really isn't enough lines from Big Boss in GZ to judge. Dunno if Big Boss just won't be as chatty now that they've got someone who costs more voicing him or if it's because GZ was light on story content.
Also, a lot of people always seem to bring up MGS4 as an example of Hayter being a bad VO but the voice was over the top gruff and throaty, more than normal, because snake was physically like 20 years older and an old man. Hayter put on a more gruff voice to get that across, that it was an old ass Snake.
That said, there really isn't enough lines from Big Boss in GZ to judge. Dunno if Big Boss just won't be as chatty now that they've got someone who costs more voicing him or if it's because GZ was light on story content.
Also, a lot of people always seem to bring up MGS4 as an example of Hayter being a bad VO but the voice was over the top gruff and throaty, more than normal, because snake was physically like 20 years older and an old man. Hayter put on a more gruff voice to get that across, that it was an old ass Snake.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I think Hayter definitely got more cartoony as MGS went along, but...so did MGS. It fit fine.
I started watching all the Peace Walker cutscenes last night after feeling the need to catch up on that story and to me it felt pretty clear that Hayter's a much better fit for the character, and dare I say it a better voice actor. Kiefer just doesn't have the range in his voice to pull it off. Hearing hayter again, man... sogood.gif
EmCeeGramr
Member
As a reminder, there's a tape n Peace Walker where a 39-year-old Big Boss reveals to Otacon's dad that he still sincerely believes in Santa Claus.
Are you referring to the comment on his tumblr? Because he's directly responding to a comment from notch. Here's the full exchange:
Question said:
Patrick said:
It seems pretty clear what he's talking about here. FWIW, I'm not sure the equity thing is all that common (though I did see it a couple of times), but the notion that kickstarter backers got screwed by this in general is quite common (and wrong, IMO).
BlastProcessing
Member
I'll bite. How so?
SteveWinwood
Member
So... metal gear.
funkystudent
Member
The real issue with MGS's voice acting has been the voice direction and script writing.
Everyone has gotten more and more hammy as the games went on. Hayter probably just got the most flack for it because he was the main guy.
I really like the acting in MGS1 for the most part though. Even the questionable accents of Naomi and Mei Ling are ok. Anything to Jennifer Hale not sound like Jennifer Hale.
Everyone has gotten more and more hammy as the games went on. Hayter probably just got the most flack for it because he was the main guy.
I really like the acting in MGS1 for the most part though. Even the questionable accents of Naomi and Mei Ling are ok. Anything to Jennifer Hale not sound like Jennifer Hale.
I hope to God Patrick isn't basing his article on the lunatics that expect some sort of return on this Facebook Oculus deal for backing the kickstarter. The main reaction that is prevalent is that of disappointment. Yes Oculus already had investors and millions but they had a small feel to the whole thing. People felt good rooting for this startup that was trying to change our industry in a radical way. Seeing them be bought by Facebook, who has had a very bad relationship with it's users and the treatment of them, is saddening.
It's not that different from Giant Bomb being bought by CBSi. In the short term it's fine but 5-10 years from now...
It's not that different from Giant Bomb being bought by CBSi. In the short term it's fine but 5-10 years from now...
funkystudent
Member
A indie kickstarter darling could send a box to shit to each of its backers and Patrick would probably think it was cool and creative. Being dismissive of everyone's concerns about Facebook is to be expected.
Patrick's modus operandi.
To be fair being smarter and more reasonable than the enraged masses is not a high bar.
Heh. Grumpy Jeff in full effect. It's pretty obvious Jeff never really cared much about Metal Gear outside of the novelty.
Also pretty funny Jeff and Vinny were ready to wrap it up, and I look down and see there's still an hour left in the quicklook.
I just think a meaningful analysis of the buyout requires a level of expertise in business and the companies involved that we haven't seen from him yet.
It's not expertise on the business end of the buyout that he needs if he's talking about the outcry from kickstarter backers. He needs only knowledge of those people and their comments, which makes anyone who reads neogaf qualified..
I think that for whatever reason Kojima is trying not to reference real world weapons/military vehicles in MGSV. All of the ones seen in GZ and TPP trailers are completely made up or based on a weird mishmash of real world items. It's strange given the attention to detail they had in all of the previous games. I wonder if they're trying to avoid licensing issues or if the artists just wanted to model something that wasn't an M16 or an AK.
I'm not sure this is necessary. There's probably an article about the disconnect between what people expect Kickstarter to be, and what it actually is. Without assigning blame on either side here, it's pretty clear that there's a fair number of people who feel screwed by Kickstarter over this. Why? Yes, by the letter of the offer people were given all the rewards they signed up for, but is there an implicit connection between backer and donator that was violated here? He could talk to some high profile backers, figure out what their complaints are and then discuss the perception vs. reality problem that seems to crop up with Kickstarter every once in a while.
I think it's interesting that some people feel betrayed. I think it's an useful discussion to have without degenerating into "Facebook sucks" or "you're idiots for expecting anything from Kickstarter". I personally gave just enough money to get a devkit. I got exactly what I paid for, and I don't feel cheated. People who gave $10,000 might feel differently. Without assigning blame, I think Patrick could write an article about why people feel this way and what it means for Kickstarter.
I also think there's something to be talked about here specific to Oculus. If Double Fine went and sold themselves off to a bigger company, would there be the same level of reaction? Or is it because this was a startup that people feel like they deserve more from them? Also, do people who are upset know about the previous VC investments? If so, were they upset about those?
I'm not saying Patrick will do a good job with all of this, because obviously I don't know, but I don't think you need to know about corporations or business to discuss the situation.
Isn't he doing the opposite of dismissing them by writing about them? Your attitude towards indie, kickstarters, and patrick only serves to expose you as a cynical rube.
He made a Twitter post about how he thinks the buyout is a good thing so I guess I just assumed that the article he then said he works write about it would be along the same lines as the tested article making an argument that it is a good thing.
LurkerPrime
Member
This is one of the few cases where business knowledge would actually be necessary, in my opinion. The future of the oculus depends on how much independence those guys are given. Palmer Luckey clearly understands this, given how much he's be trying to sell people on the idea that they still are in control. So a good understanding of how these sorts of buyouts play out seems like a pretty important part of having anything intelligent to say about this stuff.
And to answer one of your other questions, I doubt most people are mad because they didn't get any sort of equity, they're mad because I think most people support kickstarters with the attitude of "let's help make this idea a reality," not "let's help these guys get a ton of exposure so they can cash out before a final product is shipped."
I'm torn on this though, because if you think about it, the best case scenario for the people behind any kickstarter is exactly what happened with the rift. It's just that the oculus, as a product, is so far beyond anything else that's ever been on kickstarter, that this sort of thing hasn't happened before.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Just read Patricks article. A little long, but on point.
If you're writing about the future of oculus, yes business knowledge is needed. To specifically discuss the response, though? I don't think it's necessary.
Also, I didn't say and didn't mean to imply anything about equity, I was just saying that in my case, the transaction was obvious: money for a devkit. For people who didn't have this situation, the transaction is less clear. Yes, they clearly weren't buying equity, but what did they expect for their money?
HappenstanceUK
Member
Just finished reading Patrick's article. I thought it was fair and made good points.
The future of the oculus is the only thing that matters when discussing this. At the end of the day, I don't care who bought them if it results in an awesome product. The big reason people are mad because they believe selling to Facebook has ruined any future that product had. The whole "realities and ethics of kickstarter" subject has been pretty well worn at this point and it has very little to do with why this story is so big.
Yeah it would be nice to have a new mid week live thing now that Brad is done with Demon's Souls.
What does this even mean
It means it is one person's unresearched intuition and reaction to something that has no new information or insight into the topic. He didn't offer researched points as to why this buyout is good or bad, he didn't have any interviews with people who would know, he didn't report anything.
He gave his reaction to the situation which is on the level of a post you would expect to see from a level headed forum poster here like Stump.
Not all that useful for readers, for informational reasons or otherwise. It would fit better as an op than a stand alone article. Finely written and thought out, but doesn't show any real effort into delving into the story. He is just offering his opinion on a subject, like one would in a forum post.
That article is quite condescending in some parts and largely assuming people are angry because they don't understand Kickstarter. Maybe he could have talked to some actual backers or people developing for the Oculus Rift to get a little more insight.
I could imagine quite a few indie devs are not happy to support Facebook's hardware when they were initially supporting a promising start-up.
I could imagine quite a few indie devs are not happy to support Facebook's hardware when they were initially supporting a promising start-up.
They essentially are. Just from somebody who has a position to speak to more people directly. When it has no more research done than a forum post (the research seemingly consisting of reading other people's forum posts), it has no more value than a forum post. A fairly well written one, but it adds nothing to the discussion and provides no information.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed with the article. Patrick seems to think that most of the outrage (from the backers) comes from the fact that they don't get any money which I honestly don't think is the problem for most of them. Wether they are right or wrong is a completley different question obviously but just reducing it down to "You don't understand Kickstarter, don't complain now" seems....weird. Especially cause his articles are usally pretty good. I guess they can't all be bangers.
- Status