Owlcat's next game is an AAA title that will need full voice acting to compete with BG3

[Morality Games]

They gonna release an AAA budget games with RT level of bug on release, game will bomb because blue danger hairs care not about Eeastern Europe jank shit while their older fanbase will not buy it because it is designed for Critical Role crowd (WOTR already is, RT is one step back in correct direction with its own massive problem namely BAD gameplay)

Bam, bankruptcy

Calling it now

I assume that Owlcat post-AAA disaster would survive on crowdfunding life support, unless the power brokers in charge just decide to call it quits like the Troika heads did.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Solasta also had 6 janitors doing voicework. If Owlcat releases a game with VA in the level of Solasta, they'll be publicly mocked. Owlcat is probably in the place Obsidian was some time ago, at least in a more normie friendly atmosphere, while Larian is the new Bioware. Outside of the core niche of rpg players, I don't think anyone really noticed Solasta.

 

[MerchantKing]

Did Owlcat catch Western Brain Cancer completely? Does freedom really deprive people of the ability to basic logical thinking?

It's more like what's in the water supply that does it. At least that's what Mr. Jones says happened to your people. The chemicals in the water made the frogs gay.

 

[Roguey]

Tears of the Kingdom: Released in 2023, sold 10 million in three days, eventually sold over 20 million.

Okay and? Like I said, it's certainly possible to still have huge success without providing a fully voiced or massively cinematic experience. But it's not a question of whether it's possible, it's a question of whether or not you, your company, your investors or shareholders believe it's in the best interest to risk it.

When the vast majority of the industry do things a certain way, going against the grain carries some inherent risk. That risk can pay off, but do you wanna take that chance when fully voicing your game isn't that big of an expendiute anymore once you're stepping into 40-50mil production budgets? I'd say it's a stupid risk to take. Fully voicing games is a bigger part of the budget, when you're on a small budget, but seeing how Owlcats next game has a much larger team (and likely budget), fully voicing the game seems like more of an afterthought than something that is going to take away desperately needed resources. If the game ends up being shit, it's not because they blew a few hundred k on VA.

I don't see how it's a risk at all. Where's the list of AA-AAA failures that happened because they didn't have full voice acting? The expectations are entirely within their own heads.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Tears of the Kingdom is also a Zelda game. 'tendies will buy it anyway.

 

[luj1]

If I were in charge at Owlcat

I wish you were.

Owlcat are literally a bunch of westernised Slav hipsters with a buttplug up their arse. They are closer to Americans than Russians.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

I listened to the podcast. They are doing four projects with several different teams. Shpilchevsky also said they currently have four pitches with third-party rights holders (EDIT: this part I wrongly understood and translated! So here is the correct version) they not only work on other's IPs, but they also have four ideas for their own IP, and they don't know which one to work on yet. They also do publishing. When asked if their projects are cRPGs again, Shpilchevsky was very evasive, saying that they are interested in narrative projects with lots of complex systems. He said that they wouldn't mind making a narrative strategy game, for example. Asked what he thought about Disco Elysium, Shpilchevsky said that the Owlcat wouldn't do such a project themselves, because he doesn't like such games, that it's a lot of purple prose without complex systems, and he finds it boring and hard to play. At the same time, he realizes that Disco Elysium is "brilliant in its own way". And he said they're working as a publisher with one of the external teams doing a project in that style.

Spoiler

Inb4 it would turn out that this is a collaborative project between Avellone and Kurvitz.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

I listened to the podcast. They are doing several projects with several different teams. Shpilchevsky also said they currently have four pitches with third-party rights holders, and they don't know which one to take on yet. They also do publishing. When asked if their projects are cRPGs again, Shpilchevsky was very evasive, saying that they are interested in narrative projects with lots of complex systems. He said that they wouldn't mind making a narrative strategy game, for example. Asked what he thought about Disco Elysium, Shpilchevsky said that the Owlcat wouldn't do such a project themselves, because he doesn't like such games, that it's a lot of purple prose without complex systems, and he finds it boring and hard to play. At the same time, he realizes that Disco Elysium is "brilliant in its own way". And he said they're working as a publisher with one of the external teams doing a project in that style.

Spoiler

Inb4 it would turn out that this is a collaborative project between Avellone and Kurvitz.

Getting mogged by DE's writing is a sign of low intelligence really. It's like he just reads wattpad and doujins

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

I listened to the podcast. They are doing several projects with several different teams. Shpilchevsky also said they currently have four pitches with third-party rights holders, and they don't know which one to take on yet. They also do publishing. When asked if their projects are cRPGs again, Shpilchevsky was very evasive, saying that they are interested in narrative projects with lots of complex systems. He said that they wouldn't mind making a narrative strategy game, for example. Asked what he thought about Disco Elysium, Shpilchevsky said that the Owlcat wouldn't do such a project themselves, because he doesn't like such games, that it's a lot of purple prose without complex systems, and he finds it boring and hard to play. At the same time, he realizes that Disco Elysium is "brilliant in its own way". And he said they're working as a publisher with one of the external teams doing a project in that style.

Spoiler

Inb4 it would turn out that this is a collaborative project between Avellone and Kurvitz.

Getting mogged by DE's writing is a sign of low intelligence really. It's like he just reads wattpad and doujins

I don't consider DE a game at all, so I was pleased by what he said.

 

[Saark]

I don't see how it's a risk at all. Where's the list of AA-AAA failures that happened because they didn't have full voice acting? The expectations are entirely within their own heads.

The risk is in treading onto unknown territory, as no one has really done it before on a grand scale, especially smaller studios trying to barge into the AAA game, or unproven franchises. I agree that just because it's an industry standard, doesn't mean there's no alternative. I actually think that fully voicing a game is completely unnecessary.

But for many companies, the "evidence" exists in the form of games that aren't AA/AAA, where people, especially streamers and their viewers as well as redditors and other vocal minorities, which happen to be very important for marketing purposes, complain and even quit over the lack of voice acting. Like Rogue Trader. I personally doubt that the loss in sales is bigger than the cost of fully voicing games, but like you said yourself, the cost for fully voicing a game isn't obscenely high either and in a 50+ mil production, its a small chunk of it so companies just tend to allocate it instead of dealing with bad PR over "OMG NOT FULLY VOICED" by a bunch of retards.

 

[scytheavatar]

So many people are simply incapable of understanding why entertainment products that hit it big are able to do so. You can't just clone BG3 and make anywhere near as much money as BG3 did. Studios need to invest in games that are budget/revenue targeted for the *average* of the genre profits wise.

Hogwarts: Legacy using any IP but HP doesn't do near as well. Same for Baldur's Gate 3. If this had been just an actual Divinity game it wouldn't have had near the level of popularity and profit.

Fancy graphics and extensive voice acting put you in the AAA realm but they don't insure lightning in a bottle profits.

Owlcat will *never* play on the level of Larian, even with strong IPs like Rogue Trader or Pathfinder regardless. Sure getting rid of the genre mashups from the gimmicky Pathfinder modules they use will help. Maybe a 40% increase in sales total. But they still won't be playing on the level of Larian.

BG3 is big enough of a success that even selling 1/4 of it for Owlcat'a next game probably means outselling all of Owlcat's 3 games combined. I do think that Owlcat is expanding too fast but right now Owlcat is probably barely meeting the bar for revenue of $50 million that is for a successful AA game according to Shpilchevskiy. While the budget of their games is clearly constantly going up. So it's not like they are thriving and invincible as a AA company, one flop can very quickly wipe out all the profits they had made.

 

[behold_a_man]

But the TikTok and Snapchat generation doesn't care much for reading vast amounts of dialogue or ingame rule-sets by themselves, which is a problem in a 50+, potentially 100+ hour game.

Do they prefer to listen to some drivel? I'd expect them to skip voiced-over dialogues rather than listen to them. Listening should require a larger attention span than reading the same text. And if Owlcat wants to change the text if they go for full voiceover, then they might have a problem with the amount of unnecessary text they put in their games rather than with the voiceover itself.

 

[Saark]

Listening should require a larger attention span than reading the same text.

It should, but we're living in a society now where the typical gamer has an attention span of a gold fish. VA helps, because they now get aural and visual stimulation, instead of just visual. This typically allows the game to hold their attention longer, which is especially important when we're talking about fairly longwinded writing -- which Owlcat has a lot off. It's easier to listen to a character do a page full of exposition, if its acted out as well. Having lip-synced models of characters helps with this too, its just another layer of engagement, on top of allowing you to portray emotion in another way that is much easier to detect than doing it through descriptive text or voice acting.

We grew up with just descriptive text and had to imagine all of these things ourselves, because the tech wasn't there, but you can't really blame modern games for using these modern tools to hold onto peoples attention, because it is a lot easier to get distracted in this day and age, than it used to be 20+ years ago. Many people have something on a second screen, diddle with their phone, play with their pets or get regularly distracted in another way while playing a game, so having multiple sensory ways of engaging the player helps them stay focused on the game. Due to the combination of audio and visual stimulation of reading the text while hearing it, or just watching a character speak, their attention can be held longer, and if they drift off, they can always just read back the text anyway.

It's a travesty that this is "necessary" to keep many players focused on the game, but for a company like Owlcat who really enjoys writing way too much text at times, this process could help a lot with keeping players playing.

 

[Bastardchops]

Owlcat founder breaks down RPG budgets and Larian’s impact on genre: “We can’t invest $200 million to make BG3”​

https://gameworldobserver.com/2024/03/18/rpg-budgets-owlcat-cannot-invest-200-million-to-make-bg3

“We made all our games with partial voiceover, because 1) it’s expensive and 2) it makes the development process extremely difficult. Especially when you have one million words,” Shpilchevskiy said. “Looking at BG3, you understand: it is becoming a must-have feature, which doesn’t guarantee you success, but if you don’t meet that bar, your game is considered one that no longer fits into the right category. So it looks like we will have to do a full voiceover for our next games.”

Yes, motion capture, cutscenes with Hollywood grifters and 200 hours of content are also a must have for any cRPG that is to be made after BG3.
What a stupid cunt.

Was this kind of narrowminded thinking present and responsible for the Great Decline of the 2000s, after BG2 was shipped on a bunch CD's with cutscene animations (along with premature 3D mania and consoles, of course)?

Using his logic no good rpgs were made before Dragon Age.

 

[behold_a_man]

because it is a lot easier to get distracted in this day and age

I always get distracted while listening, which is not the case when reading. I can't get the fixation on voiceovers, as I would expect them to appeal to people with a longer attention span - so usually older gamers, I think.

Having lip-synced models of characters helps with this too, its just another layer of engagement, on top of allowing you to portray emotion in another way that is much easier to detect than doing it through descriptive text or voice acting.

Inability to do anything (which is almost always the case during a cutscene) is now considered 'engaging'?
I want to act, not watch a movie. I would expect people with a short attention span to hold the exact same sentiment.

 

[Saark]

I always get distracted while listening, which is not the case when reading. I can't get the fixation on voiceovers, as I would expect them to appeal to people with a longer attention span - so usually older gamers, I think.

If you only do one or the other, absolutely, there's different levels of focus depending on the individual. When you do it in combination though, it tends to improve the attention span across the board.

It's why it is a lot easier for people to understand and follow series/movies in a foreign language when they also get to read the subtitles. Do just subtitles, or just the foreign language dubbing, and there might be confusion one way or the other, as text won't be able to get the tension or emotions across, while just the sound can quickly lead to comprehension issues. Combine the two, and people have a much easier time following along, and staying engaged as a result.

I want to act, not watch a movie. I would expect people with a short attention span to hold the exact same sentiment.

Players do get to act though, through dialogue choices. It's what makes the medium stand out compared to movies, audiobooks or just reading a book, because you get to actually engage with the story that is being told, and interact with characters or the game world, instead of being relegated to a third-party viewing experience.

So when you have a visual experience that also engages another sense, i.e. the auditory one, and you add actual in-game interactions on top of it, you suddenly have a very engaging medium you can work within and tell stories. Which is the entire point of RPGs, and why they started as social experiences where players engaged with one another in an environment where multiple senses were stimulated simultaneously, instead of a player just reading a CYOA by themselves. That's not to say it HAS to be this way, but there's a reason why the medium has developed into this direction, because it's easier to keep players engaged than having them read Ravel go on a 30 minute text-only dialogue with TNO.

 

[behold_a_man]

it typically improve the attention span across the board.

Not for me (maybe it's a matter of implementation; I don't know whether to skip the dialogue, or wait for a fellow to finish, and hearing anything distracts me when I read).

Players do get to act though, through dialogue choices. It's what makes the medium stand out compared to movies, audiobooks or just reading a book, because you get to actually engage with the story that is being told, and interact with characters or the game world, instead of being relegated to a third-party viewing experience.

But I have to wait for the fellow to stop talking (or read the dialogue, which is usually scattered across multiple scenes, which is frustrating). In pre-Diablo games, usually the only thing slowing me down is the speed at which I press keys.

 

[Saark]

But I have to wait for the fellow to stop talking (or read the dialogue, which is usually scattered across multiple scenes, which is frustrating). In pre-Diablo games, usually the only thing slowing me down is the speed at which I press keys.

I think that's mostly a matter of how much text is being displayed at once, the speed in which characters talk, as well as whether you are already given the dialogue responses as well, allowing you to read and choose a response while the NPCs finishes yapping. When done well, it ends up being a more fluent dialogue because there's less downtime between the NPC and the PC audibly talking, but not all the games are doing it this way. I actually can't even remember how BG3 did it. Some games even display the text at the same speed the characters are talking at, which I find incredibly annoying personally.

People experience these things in different ways, i.e. autistic people tend to struggle with sensory overload so they prefer just one stimuli over multiple ones simultaneously, but again, it's different from person to person. Me personally, I prefer just reading the text without any other interruptions as well, but it's also simply due to me having grown up that way and reading a lot of books, so I'm not bothered by it. The new generation is very different in that regard.

Generally speaking, humans have seen a notable decrease in their attention span over just the last 20 years, and as a result, the most efficient methods of grabbing and holding onto people's attention have changed and evolved as well. I personally believe that voice acting, motion caupture, QTEs and all the other junk that we're being bombarded with in every other game these days, has definitely been a result of game companies recognizing that an increasing number of players are struggling with staying focused and engaged on their games. And it has also exacerbated the problem.

But, as we all know, if you press a button, something awesome has to happen. It's degeneracy, plain and simple.

 

[behold_a_man]

If you press a button, something awesome has to happen, after all.

It was once a case, but not as of now. In most modern RPGs, I have to suffer with slow character speed, slow combat animations, mundane cutscenes, overgrown texts, long loading times.
This was not a case for, say, turn-based grid-based blobbers - text is short, loading times are immaterial, cutscenes... there are no cutscenes, and both movement and combat speed are only limited by how fast I press keys.

I'm driving towards the following: older games seemed better adjusted for people with shorter attention spans than modern games (specifically the ones discussed here).

 

[Saark]

I'm driving towards the following: older games seemed better adjusted for people with shorter attention spans than modern games (specifically the ones discussed here).

In terms of gameplay, I'd probably agree. Although the visual spectacle of modern games helps a lot to keep people glued to the screen.

But as far as actual dialogue and interacting with NPCs goes, I think it's not really a fair comparison to consider Blobbers and full-blown RPGs to be in the same genre, and the overall presentation in the current era of gaming has improved a lot, after declining for two decades.

Ultimately I feel that the games of the early 2000s were very text heavy, with a bigger emphasis on writing and story than gameplay, and the decline started when that design shifted towards a more cinematic experience with more emphasis on action gameplay. We've now come full circle, I feel, with a game like BG3 being a lot more story heavy again, but I seriously doubt that the game would've been even remotely as financially successful if it wasn't fully voice acted, motion-capped and had a somewhat decent engine and character models. It just wouldn't have hit modern gaming sensibilities.

I think Owlcat recognizes that to some degree, and is looking to move into that same direction, allowing them to still focus on writing and story first and bringing it to a wider audience, without having to make the game more action-like. But then again, it seems like the new game is supposed to be more of an action game in the first place?

 

[flyingjohn]

Now they can add extensive audio bugs to their gameplay bugs.

 

[Saark]

Now they can add extensive audio bugs to their gameplay bugs.

I'm sure they're excited at all the new possibilities and opportunities this offers for them to fuck up and bug out the game in unexpected ways.

 

[behold_a_man]

Although the visual spectacle of modern games helps a lot to keep people glued to the screen.

But are they really the people with a short attention span (in the case of RPGs)?

I would defend the following hypothesis: modern RPG developers don't really care about people having shorter attention spans, and the drift towards a more cinematic experience is not dictated by it.
Otherwise, they would focus more on shorter loading times; on the ability to use the keyboard to complete most of the game (if not its entirety); on lightning-fast character movement, maybe even on the possibility of downgrading the graphics to something completely rudimentary just to speed up the game; we would probably see more RPGs with minimalistic stories, closer to Half-Life than some ridiculous Planescape: Torment knockoff.

 

[Saark]

I would defend the following hypothesis: modern RPG developers don't really care about people having shorter attention spans, and the drift towards a more cinematic experience is not dictated by it.

I think it's a lot more complicated than any individual issue, and it's just a bunch of things coming together in one big package. I don't think any individual change is going to make your game more appealing, which is why I don't support the "fully voice a game just because others are doing it" attitude. It needs to be done in a more thoughtful way if you really wanna make it count for something, and way too many games don't do it properly.
So I definitely agree, that the shortened attention span wasn't the driving factor behind more cinematic games, but I think it contributed to it to some degree. It's obviously more complex than X caused Y. I think it's more of a circular development, where easier and more regular access to these kinds of experiences in media in general lowered peoples attention span, which in turn required companies to develop more attention-grabbing methods to keep people engaged, which in turn lowered peoples attention span etc. etc.

When and why this process started, is likely hard to pin down, but I would reckon that in the early 2000s, when different types of games were readily available, companies who made more cinematic games saw a bigger increase in new players than those who didn't, and as a result more companies flocked to this kind of design. That doesn't necessarily mean that that was the reason those games were more popular, but it wouldn't be the first time that the marketing and developer teams didn't actually understand why consumers preferred one product over another.

 

[Grunker]

Developers: It is literally impossible to compete with BG3, it's a one-of-a-kind-game on a unique budget

Also developers: WE ARE NOW FORCED TO DO X BECAUSE BG3 DOES IT

Game devs. Kings of poor excuses since 1981.