| richardhutnik said: So, then another question here is whether story is best to be the driving point for a game, or is it something that merely adds value to games, that can help? If it is the later, then would the things best be served by just doing enough of a story to make the game work? How much is gained by a game, if you hire a-level actors to read the lines and spend a ton of money to have Anthony Hopkins do hours of dialog in a game? I remember how Zero Punctuation guy complained how Liam Neason (sp) only did a brief bit of dialog in Fallout 3. Would the game been better served if he did a LOT more dialog? |
Well it depends on the gamer imo. for me, i love to play a game for a compelling story, FF, MGS, Prince of Persia, Assassins Creed 1, and the action just makes it more worthwhile.
but generally i think a lot of gamers these days dont appreciate that type of game, i think a lot of gamers are teenagers or kids, who just like to play GTA for action, sandbox, or MW2 for playing with their friends. so imo it wouldnt make a difference if well paid actors, ie Liam Neeson had longer parts in games. people just dont play them for that, they would skip the dialogue and they would skip the cutscenes.
but you dont need to hire household names for voice acting, theres some phenominal actors out there that do a great job. the best example i think of is Mass Effect 2, imo this game will win igns game of the year. but its only sold what 2mil units in 11 months, so its a diachotomy of providing a phenominal peice of fiction that will appeal to niche market, or making some mindless shooter that will generate millions in revenue. thats what i think anyway.
