Support NeoGAF

[Perkel]

So it's official there is no voices?

I think most people will be disappointed because they were looking forward to an old school Fallout game and are getting more than they bargained for.

Hope you guys have fun with your top down, turn based, text only rpg!

Well you didn't play fallout 1 or 2 then... because both of them were top down turn based and text only (almost).

And it's perfectly fine. Will even double or triple dip to support devs when they release is in form you mentioned not even considering that i have already paid for kick starter.

I've done that for first Witcher and i can do that easly more to show support for devs who care about proper cRPG

 

[zkylon]

The game will probably play close to X-COM, I suppose. Don't mind that at all, since I've never gotten around playing any pre-Infinity engine era RPGs.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Reading is becoming a lost skill

 

[Wildesy]

So it's official there is no voices?

I think most people will be disappointed because they were looking forward to an old school Fallout game and are getting more than they bargained for.

Hope you guys have fun with your top down, turn based, text only rpg!

You say this like it's a bad thing, when in reality it's exactly why we funded it in the first place

 

[DiscoJer]

Hope you guys have fun with your top down, turn based, text only rpg!

I will. That's exactly why I'm so excited about it.

 

[AstroLad]

Definitely stoked that they're seemingly staying away from stupid new-gens "polish" like VA and stuff. Pour my money into things that actually improve gameplay thanks. (Some nice portraits as well to stay true to the original's awesome portraits.)

 

[Bomber Bob]

What's wrong with text based challenging rpg?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

AFAIU, the amount of money pledged after $1.5m is going to determine things like voice overs and better presentation in addition to the core design being expanded, deepened. With over 31 days from now to receive pledges, and at the current rate, it seems that $1.5m will be hit inside of a couple days or so, leaving another twenty-eight or so days to go for $2+m. At that point, VO sounds possible even if it might be limited in quantity if not quality (as in known talent). If you want VO (that will surely be optional if it is recorded), then pledging and then expressing your wishes for it in the forum should be the priority. Me, I want more text and for it to be repeat-resistant as well as dynamic and context-based.

 

[dude]

So it's official there is no voices?

I think most people will be disappointed because they were looking forward to an old school Fallout game and are getting more than they bargained for.

Hope you guys have fun with your top down, turn based, text only rpg!

We will, thanks for caring!

 

[Almighty]

So it's official there is no voices?

I think most people will be disappointed because they were looking forward to an old school Fallout game and are getting more than they bargained for.

Hope you guys have fun with your top down, turn based, text only rpg!

Isn't that what Fargo has said from the start? I haven't been following this for more then a day or two, but I was pretty sure he's been clear that most likely there will be no voices at all and at best you will get barks that are voiced or maybe a handful of voiced characters like Fallout.

Also it was my understand that the fans(aka the people funding this) were the ones who told him don't bother with voices we would rather have more choices and deeper dialog then voice acting in the game.

 

[Jon of the Wired]

While I wouldn't object if awesome VO fell out of the sky for free, it's really the last thing I would want them to spend money on.

 

[Zeliard]

AFAIU, the amount of money pledged after $1.5m is going to determine things like voice overs and better presentation in addition to the core design being expanded, deepened. With over 31 days from now to receive pledges, and at the current rate, it seems that $1.5m will be hit inside of a couple days or so, leaving another twenty-eight or so days to go for $2+m. At that point, VO sounds possible even if it might be limited in quantity if not quality (as in known talent). If you want VO (that will surely be optional if it is recorded), then pledging and then expressing your wishes for it in the forum should be the priority. Me, I want more text and for it to be repeat-resistant as well as dynamic and context-based.

I still think it would be extremely effective - both gameplay and resource-wise - for the devs to simply have certain lines voiced for the most important characters, and that's all. The good majority of dialogue shouldn't be voiced. Once you have a sense of a character's voice, that's all you really need. You'll find yourself reading all of their lines in that voice. A game like Planescape: Torment which was heavy on text did this brilliantly (didn't hurt that the voice actors there were magnificent).

When you read a book, you're largely imagining what a character sounds like, and often times there isn't even a hint of what they might sound like. With a game like this, you can hear snippets of a character's voice and delivery and that's more than you ever get in a book.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I still think it would be extremely effective - both gameplay and resource-wise - for the devs to simply have certain lines voiced for the most important characters, and that's all. The good majority of dialogue shouldn't be voiced. Once you have a sense of a character's voice, that's all you really need. You'll find yourself reading all of their lines in that voice. A game like Planescape: Torment which was heavy on text did this brilliantly (didn't hurt that the voice actors there were magnificent).

When you read a book, you're largely imagining what a character sounds like, and often times there isn't even a hint of what they might sound like. With a game like this, you can hear a snippet of a character's voice and that's more than you ever get in a book.

Right, I agree. All you need to do is establish the character upfront with enough of that character imbued into the performance and the writing specifically crafted to epitomize this personality via this one recording and the rest of the unvoiced text to follow will take on that voice. It's like establishing a shocking event to measure out the max on-screen violence amount in the front of a horror movie only to keep everything afterward in the film off-screen as to play on the audience's knowledge of how far things go...intensifying the imagined killings based on those early thresholds set. Lead to conclusions with only implication and suggestion, and the player should follow that seed with something much greater and more personal and, perhaps, more relatable than what the writer/designer has planted.

 

[JoseJX]

I still think it would be extremely effective - both gameplay and resource-wise - for the devs to simply have certain lines voiced for the most important characters, and that's all. The good majority of dialogue shouldn't be voiced. Once you have a sense of a character's voice, that's all you really need. You'll find yourself reading all of their lines in that voice. A game like Planescape: Torment which was heavy on text did this brilliantly (didn't hurt that the voice actors there were magnificent).

When you read a book, you're largely imagining what a character sounds like, and often times there isn't even a hint of what they might sound like. With a game like this, you can hear snippets of a character's voice and delivery and that's more than you ever get in a book.

I completely agree. I wouldn't mind quick vignettes with voice acting to set a tone, but I'd much rather have text for the rest. Fallout 1 & 2 did that really well I feel with the log text which felt a little like those paragraphs in the original Wasteland book. They really helped to set the tone without being overbearing like a voice acted cutscene might.

 

[Beautifully Shaped Monsters]

Btw here's Tim Cain's GDC 2012 presentation on Fallout for anyone who missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa5IzHhAdi4

I really enjoyed that.

One thing from the presentation re all this voice stuff, although he may or may not be trolling.

Fallout's animated voiced heads which, I feel, were very good at establishing the characters. Something like that (not necessarily animated since that seems a bit redundant) I feel would be perfectly ok, although not a deal breaker at all.

Tim also said that they were a hit with the players.

Edit: to sound less beaten and better put across my point.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

They really helped to set the tone without being overbearing like a voice acted cutscene might.

Yup. It really cuts down the possibility that the player will dislike or be taken out of the experience by finding the performance uneven or poor. Polish that one first important and introductory line or paragraph, then don't risk any more to upset that one tone-setting recording.

 

[Erethian]

The only way I see this as having really meaningful voice work is if they get people to work for free or they get somewhere around 3 million in funding.

 

[BlueTsunami]

If voice acting makes it in, maybe implement VA at points where subquest story threads end. As others have already stated I'd rather have a very broad choice system instead of being lower scale to keep costs down due to VA.

 

[duckroll]

The only VA I would want would be for starting conversations. Basically just have one line for each major NPC, so when you initiate dialogue, the greeting line is voiced. That's more than enough. I don't want complete voice acting for any sequence because on a limited budget it would either result in inconsistent presentation (some dialogue options have voice, some don't), or the desire to create consistency would result in less variation in dialogue based on your action and choices. Both are bad.

 

[Pachterballs]

I think it's bizarre some of you associate the game with bizarre color palettes one thing to note all Color palette is limited by the screens back Then were Limited and you couldn't do more I think they should do whatever it is to make it look like a modern version of the game and look good and not wacky colored

I personally don't see post apocalyptic world as being colorful. What's they should focus on is adding lots of detail; what is broken debris glass bits of metal everywhere to create a world that is dense and destroyed and reflective of the climate

 

[Pachterballs]

I really enjoyed that.

One thing from the presentation re all this voice stuff, although he may or may not be trolling.

Fallout's animated voiced heads which, I feel, were very good at establishing the characters. Something like that (not necessarily animated since that seems a bit redundant) I feel would be perfectly ok, although not a deal breaker at all.

Tim also said that they were a hit with the players.

Edit: to sound less beaten and better put across my point.

The talking heads I had no doubt because they looked great and it was semi 3-D and they would have set expressiveness to the faces and it added more to the people that mattered in the world more so then generic NPC 123

That was a very clever thing for fallout to do the fact that you can tell when you meet someone that this person is going be vital to the story it's great

Please stop trolling here. Most know exactly what they're getting into because:

a) we have actually played these games in the past

b) paid attention to the interviews and pitch comments

Good.

 

[Zeliard]

Another thing about text is that it is highly efficient, certainly much more so than voice acting or a cutscene. And it's not only for gameplay or financial reasons; when you limit voice acting and cinematics you can throw whatever amount of lines at the player and they can imbue them with their own imagination, which often makes it much more powerful than it could have otherwise been.

One well-written paragraph can easily and very effectively replace a cutscene, the latter of which typically takes far more time and money to create. When you're on a budget, as in this case, it's a no-brainer.

Chris Avellone has said in the past that he would have preferred in retrospect to have replaced some of the text in PS:T with cinematics, and I've always deeply disagreed with that notion. Text allows you to throw a great number of sensations at the player and evoke responses that you simply can't otherwise, and that isn't even taking into account the gameplay ramifications as far as player choice in dialogue.

Cutscenes are certainly not all bad and they have their place, and heavy voice acting can often add great enjoyment to a game, particularly in the adventure genre. But for titles that are heavy on branching dialogue and/or story paths, going largely with text is probably always going to be a better idea, for myriad reasons.

 

[Minsc]

The only VA I would want would be for starting conversations. Basically just have one line for each major NPC, so when you initiate dialogue, the greeting line is voiced. That's more than enough. I don't want complete voice acting for any sequence because on a limited budget it would either result in inconsistent presentation (some dialogue options have voice, some don't), or the desire to create consistency would result in less variation in dialogue based on your action and choices. Both are bad.

What's it cost these days to get say 30 minutes of dialog voiced? That should probably be more than enough for the entire game, and it'd probably be more ambitious than a single line.

Actually the only game that immediately comes to mind with the one line of voiced dialog for the majority of characters is Betrayal at Krondor (this is almost exactly what you're describing), and I enjoyed it what that added to the game, so maybe it could work as you say!

Edit: for comparison I tried finding some numbers on Oblivion / Skyrim since I remember them being pretty high, searching turned up Oblivion having around 50 hours of recorded dialog and more than 60,000 lines of recorded dialog for Skyrim, which I agree would be totally detrimental to this project.

 

[BlueTsunami]

The only VA I would want would be for starting conversations. Basically just have one line for each major NPC, so when you initiate dialogue, the greeting line is voiced. That's more than enough. I don't want complete voice acting for any sequence because on a limited budget it would either result in inconsistent presentation (some dialogue options have voice, some don't), or the desire to create consistency would result in less variation in dialogue based on your action and choices. Both are bad.

Hmmm, that actually does sounds like a better way to add some depth to each NPC which would impact the game world much more.

 

[Brak]

I think it's bizarre some of you associate the game with bizarre color palettes one thing to note all Color palette is limited by the screens back Then were Limited and you couldn't do more I think they should do whatever it is to make it look like a modern version of the game and look good and not wacky colored

Woah run-on sentence. Periods are your friend.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

The big thing, to me, is that when I'm into a game, I read and act as fast as I think, which leads me to read lines and skip ahead to the next one well before the dialogue has finished. I do this with first playthroughs all of the time...even ones with voice acting I like listening to. I find cinematics and overlong voice a chore, so, being extravagant with these production values is a waste even if I can appreciate the objective value added. Just give me text and I'll rip through that faster and come out of it having a much more expanded, more detailed recollection of that information than one which is played out in a passive, visual way. Once you start acclimating yourself to more text than visual feedback for the way you receive the game's important information, your brain will probably start to shift toward craving reading the book over watching the movie.

 

[Pachterballs]

Woah run-on sentence. Periods are your friend.

sorry. it was dictated on the ipad3. I normally don't post like that

listening to the Matt Chat interview now with BF. cool. Going to watch the FO2 GDC one next.

 

[dude]

It's not that I want the colors to be exactly the same - I think most people don't want it to use only 16 colors or something... It's just that we don't want the game to look like any other Post-Apocalyptic game out there, especially since the original had such interesting colors. As was mentioned in the last pages, I'd love for something reminiscent of Gamma World.

 

[Varna]

It's not that I want the colors to be exactly the same - I think most people don't want it to use only 16 colors or something... It's just that we don't want the game to look like any other Post-Apocalyptic game out there, especially since the original had such interesting colors. As was mentioned in the last pages, I'd love for something reminiscent of Gamma World.

Been watching the Let's play series and it honestly reminds me a lot of New Vegas. That game has a ridiculous amount of color especially coming from F3.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Well you didn't play fallout 1 or 2 then... because both of them were top down turn based and text only (almost).

And it's perfectly fine. Will even double or triple dip to support devs when they release is in form you mentioned not even considering that i have already paid for kick starter.

I've done that for first Witcher and i can do that easly more to show support for devs who care about proper cRPG

Fallout 1 and 2 were isometric and had voice acting. Big difference

 

[duckroll]

Fallout 1 and 2 were isometric and had voice acting. Big difference

I really think you're just trolling this thread now. I'm not even sure why you continue to post here when you're just intentionally trying to be misleading, inaccurate, and uninterested.

 

[Anticitizen One]

I really think you're just trolling this thread now. I'm not even sure why you continue to post here when you're just intentionally trying to be misleading, inaccurate, and uninterested.

I'm not trolling. Seriously there is a difference between top down view (wasteland 1) and isometric RPGs (like the old school fallouts). I don't see how I am being misleading? Concerning voice acting I was honestly expecting it to be like fallout 1 where some npcs's are voiced and the rest is text based. Still supportive of the game thou because I do like post apocalyptic games and am a huge fallout fan. If previous posts came off rude then I apologize. I was just venting frustration.

 

[dude]

I'm not trolling. Seriously there is a difference between top down view (wasteland 1) and isometric RPGs (like the old school fallouts). I don't see how I am being misleading? Concerning voice acting I was honestly expecting it to be like fallout 1 where some npcs's are voiced and the rest is text based. Still supportive of the game thou because I do like post apocalyptic games and am a huge fallout fan. If previous posts came off rude then I apologize. I was just venting frustration.

VO is Fallout was very, very minimal. It was barely even there...

 

[duckroll]

I'm not trolling. Seriously there is a difference between top down view (wasteland 1) and isometric RPGs (like the old school fallouts). I don't see how I am being misleading? Concerning voice acting I was honestly expecting it to be like fallout 1 where some npcs's are voiced and the rest is text based. Still supportive of the game thou because I do like post apocalyptic games and am a huge fallout fan. If previous posts came off rude then I apologize. I was just venting frustration.

I'm not sure what you are even arguing about. Nothing about the game has been confirmed or locked down. In fact, not only has no development began, but inXile won't even be getting a single cent until over a month from now. This game does not exist until they get money to start making it. They're definitely getting the money now, but they don't know how much it will be, nor do they have it yet.

The game will likely be isometric, because Fargo has already said he is in favor of that personally. No one said there would be -no- voices, but that's a pretty low priority for the project. A million dollars isn't a lot of money, and it can be put towards working on much more worthwhile parts of the project rather than immediately adding voices into the game. I wouldn't consider the amount of voices in Fallout and Fallout 2 to be substantial in any way.

 

[Erethian]

I'm not trolling. Seriously there is a difference between top down view (wasteland 1) and isometric RPGs (like the old school fallouts). I don't see how I am being misleading? Concerning voice acting I was honestly expecting it to be like fallout 1 where some npcs's are voiced and the rest is text based. Still supportive of the game thou because I do like post apocalyptic games and am a huge fallout fan. If previous posts came off rude then I apologize. I was just venting frustration.

Fallout 1 had a budget of 3 million.

This game isn't going to get a budget of 3 million.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Fallout 1 had a budget of 3 million.

This game isn't going to get a budget of 3 million.

It might. Double fine did it.

 

[duckroll]

Fallout 1 had a budget of 3 million.

This game isn't going to get a budget of 3 million.

Well, to be fair, it would definitely cost less than 3 million to make a game like Fallout 1 in today's context. A lot of the tech is much cheaper now, and artists are much more experienced in getting the same or better results with less effort. Fallout 1 was also a sort of development clusterfuck, which made it more expensive than it should have been.

I see no reason why Wasteland 2 will not be able to have extremely similar production values to Fallout 1 honestly.

 

[bonesmccoy]

I'm not trolling. Seriously there is a difference between top down view (wasteland 1) and isometric RPGs (like the old school fallouts).

Come on, man. Have you really looked into this? Or read through this thread/Fargo's recent interviews?

Here's a quick list for visual comparison between Wasteland's perspective, GTA's perspective, and Fallout's perspective. This kind of thing has helped me navigate the terminology.

Wasteland

GTA 1996

Fallout

 

[FunkyPajamas]

I kind of remember Fallout 2 having voice acting for at least some characters. There was an aborigin guy with a bone through his nose which I seem to remember talking.

Not saying Wasteland 2 needs VA, just that F2 did have some of it.

If voice acting will be in the game, I would rather we had a narrator to introduce key elements (first visit to a town or other event types) instead of character voices.

I can do without, to be honest.

edit: Baldur's Gate did it perfectly, in my opinion.

 

[Erethian]

Well, to be fair, it would definitely cost less than 3 million to make a game like Fallout 1 in today's context. A lot of the tech is much cheaper now, and artists are much more experienced in getting the same or better results with less effort. Fallout 1 was also a sort of development clusterfuck, which made it more expensive than it should have been.

I see no reason why Wasteland 2 will not be able to have extremely similar production values to Fallout 1 honestly.

Oh yeah, they can definitely do a lot more with the same amount of money than they could back when Fallout 1 was made. At least when it comes to graphics.

I was more making the point that game development is a lot more expensive than people think, especially when it comes to something like voice acting which isn't the sort of thing that gets that much cheaper as technology improves.

 

[duckroll]

Oh yeah, they can definitely do a lot more with the same amount of money than they could back when Fallout 1 was made.

I was more making the point that game development is a lot more expensive than people think, especially when it comes to something like voice acting which isn't the sort of thing that gets that much cheaper as technology improves.

Right, which is why voice acting should be the last thing that is considered in terms of adding value to content with extra money raised over the target budget. Putting an extra 250k into development without considering adding substantial voice acting to the game would get us quite a bit more in terms of meaningful content, rather than putting that money towards paying for studio recording time, a voice director, and casting a handful of roles to voice lines.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Voice acting isn't that high but isn't that low either. I'd say it's about where it should be.

 

[Zeliard]

Well, to be fair, it would definitely cost less than 3 million to make a game like Fallout 1 in today's context. A lot of the tech is much cheaper now, and artists are much more experienced in getting the same or better results with less effort. Fallout 1 was also a sort of development clusterfuck, which made it more expensive than it should have been.

I see no reason why Wasteland 2 will not be able to have extremely similar production values to Fallout 1 honestly.

Grim Fandango was also released the same year as Fallout 2 and had 3D art and full voice acting at a budget of $3 million. I think Double Fine and inXile can efficiently budget 2-3 million these days into something very solid.

If inXile knocks out much of the voice acting they've already saved themselves a huge amount of money. It's possible if not likely the devs themselves may take a pay cut if they think it'll benefit the game, or if they expect good returns with post-release profit.

 

[Pachterballs]

adding to the price of fallout; 3 million. with inflation; how much would that cost now? I honestly don't see the budget extending very far if its 1.5-2 miilion. I think posters need to temper their obsevations.

Anticitizen One seems to want a different sort of thing then what WL2 should be; (realtime, for real??) etc el so he's always just going to be stupid regarding the sequel anyhow. I'm just going to ignore him.

 

[duckroll]

Voice acting isn't that high but isn't that low either. I'd say it's about where it should be.

It's pretty much at the bottom of meaningful content there though. The only things lower than voice acting are:

- more non-voice audio (????)
- better special effects (explosions!!!)
- 8-bit gag version of the game

The rest have nothing to do with actual game content.

 

[Fjordson]

I'm not too concerned about full VO. Having it occasionally to highlight certain NPC's (like Fallout) could be neat, but meh.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

It's pretty much at the bottom of meaningful content there though. The only things lower than voice acting are:

- more non-voice audio (????)
- better special effects (explosions!!!)
- 8-bit gag version of the game

The rest have nothing to do with actual game content.

And I would agree that the things ranked above it are probably better investments, but I'd certainly take a little more voice acting and dialog over the three you named and an iPad port of all things.

 

[Pachterballs]

re: money stretching from my last post:

say staff:

edited:
50k/staff/year
x18 months

75k over the project/staff = 20max (for 1.5 million)


Kickstarter + amazon takes 8% . 1.5 million = 1.38

Then you have expenses...etc - rent/power/sundries/tea coffee


The money isn't going to stretch far.

edited.

 

[akira28]

I still can hardly believe we're getting a Wasteland sequel. I mean..I used to comb boards for clues about the Mean Time game, in hopes of getting that bootleg alpha some people said was floating around. So great. Computer gamers, I love you.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

re: money stretching from my last post:

say staff:

50kx12 x 30 (say 30 people on it) - that's 1 year and its 1.8 million dollars already. It all depends on team size; what they want out of it. Or 2 years with 15 people on it.

Kickstarter + amazon takes 8% . 1.5 million = 1.38

Then you have expenses...etc - rent/power/sundries/tea coffee


The money isn't going to stretch far.

I'd have to assume Fargo knows what he's talking about when he makes budgetary promises. Maybe it won't take 30 people and maybe not all of them will be making 50k off the job. I imagine that a lot of concept artists do work on a contractual basis.