When it comes to RPGs that let your create your character would you rather your character be voiced or not voiced?
http://www.strawpoll.me/10273116
It really depends, but generally an unvoiced protaganist is easier to roleplay with. The impact of imagining how you say a certain sentence can make a huge difference compared to the awful system in FO4. I think the reason why Mass Effect managed to pull it off so well was because they generally had a very neutral voice not to difficult to relate to.
Not voiced.
>allows for more lines, since you don't have to worry about your voice acting budget
>this (potentially) translates into more actual choices, not Mass Effect style where you get 3 different options and they all lead to the same (voiced) lines
>easier modding (assuming the game allows modding at all), since fan voice acting is almost always goddamn awful
>better immersion - voiced characters always have a very pre-set personality because of the way they're voiced even without the limited lines. If they're unvoiced, you're free to imagine whatever you want
Generally speaking, no voice because it's often just going to be some faggy voice that you can't relate to that's going to mess up your roleplaying. Worst case example are games like Fallout 4. Something like Mass Effect gets a pass since you're already a half established character and predefined as a soldier with the same goal every time.
>>338402989
Not voiced
Voiced gives a certain atmosphere, and it's a nice addon for games that have RPG elements, but aren't role playing games essentially. Like Mass Effect, or Witcher. Where you play as a pre-established character, and given some amount of freedom over the said character's choices. No matter what you choose you'll be still Shepard/Geralt, just another aspect of them.
For real RPGs not voiced is still the way to go. All that money going to voice actors, and studio and whatnot can go into choices, attitudes, alignments, or just simply longer games, because they don't have to add a voice record for every remark.
>>338404006
>tfw my and many other anon's suspicions about voiced acting in Fallout would cause the dialogue and choices to be complete shit were right
>>338404289
Oh and let's not forget
Not voiced
>If I click "X" my character is going to say "X"
Vocied
>If I click "X" my character will most likely say "X", I can only hope it won't add "Y" and mention "Z" as well.
>>338404459
That was pretty obvious right from the get-go with the demo.
I'd rather no one be voiced. That way you can have more variety and dense dialogue with lots of info.
You're gonna have to inherently accept that if the character has a predetermined look and/or is voiced, you're taking away some of the roleplaying and self-insertion away of it already.
It can be done right, though. The Witcher 2 was a good example of this. Overall, though, non-voiced tends to be better.
>>338405687
Definitely true. Voice acting adds a huge burden to the budget and takes away how many lines can be written.
