KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+May 28 2005, 04:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ May 28 2005, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just knew you'd be ****. Felt it in my bones I did. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Good. I'm sure all the developers who end up hearing this have let some of their overworked & deadline induced rage spill forth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd just rather keep Hollywood actor-centric BS to Hollywood. It's still BS there, but at least some directors and writers get recognition and at least there it's contained. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And at least in Hollywood (film & TV), actors have a much greater investment into work for the project - long hours, frustrating takes, rough schedules, etc.
More generally, it should be noted that SAG involvement in gaming is relatively recent. You'll probably find many of these older games you're raving about were non-union talent (if not the developers themselves in some cases). The Quake III announcer was a non-union designer/sound guy at id, for example. I think Blizzard may still work with non-union voice talent, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
But let's get real. There is no general quality difference between union and non-union. I've heard fantastic unionized voice work. I've heard fantastic non-union voice work. I've heard downright abysmal union voice work. And I've heard downright abysmal non-union work. How many of those top 10 sellers sold because of their voice? How many sold that much because of aggressive marketing or mass-market appeal?
I would also like to know which voices were used, in what games, for what characters. Because I honestly didn't notice anything amazingly more amazing in recent game voices. Except of course if they mean Pacman had a horrible voice.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuSquirrel+May 28 2005, 05:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuSquirrel @ May 28 2005, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More generally, it should be noted that SAG involvement in gaming is relatively recent. You'll probably find many of these older games you're raving about were non-union talent (if not the developers themselves in some cases). The Quake III announcer was a non-union designer/sound guy at id, for example. I think Blizzard may still work with non-union voice talent, but please correct me if I'm wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Begging your pardon, but you mean the series I mentioned earlier? Thief, Legacy of Kane, Max Payne and the like? I'm sure you've played most of them and you know how great those voice actors are. Were <i>any</i> of them union talent? My bet is they aren't. I wouldn't know though, so I was wondering if you did.
Slightly off-topic but also related. It was cool hearing partick stewart's voice in the ES: Oblivion e3 video. "the final hours of my life" so well done. I'm going to go watch it again ahah.
but still, I think they are important to a game, but when looking at the actual amount of work that goes into a game, they aren't as significant as some may think. Merely realizing that every voice spoken requires an amount of code to trigger it and a sound engine, but also usually some texture or model deformation needed to be coded or imported into the game. Thats more time already, not factoring in the underlying engine to make it all run together, and all of the visual and other sound effects used to make an affective game.
They are a necissairy part of a game, yes, not everyone can be the same quality voice actor, yes, they should get paid more, maybe, they should be recieving even 10% of the money involved in another video included acting role of the same length... NO.
Whether voice acting is an essential to games is a moot point. The real issue is that there's no way in hell voice actors should get a share of the profits of a game when the programmers, artists and others are paid only for their time, after pouring out their lives into their work.
TBH I'd rather see my cash go towards the people who make the game and less towards the people pushing it out.
At least that way there's more incentive for quality product, as opposed to the standard half-arsed games we get 90% of the time.
Voices don't make the game, but they CAN break it, and certainly exist as an icing on the cake for well-produced titles. Do those actors deserve more? Maybe, but not as much as the game's creators and certainly don't deserve it to the extent that it will justify a global price hike.
I agree with the idea that actors shouldn't get a better deal than the developers and artists that are there day after day doing the hard work that makes the game what it is.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Feh. Greedy b*stards. They just want to make sure that the game they were paid $10K to voice the main character on, all of maybe seven or eight hours of total talk time in a VERY vocal and long game, no more than two weeks to a month of actual labor... won't take off and become the next Half-Life, leaving them looking at their TEN GRAND and sniffling, because they could have had a quarter million if they'd been getting royalty checks.
Makes me want to walk up to some SAG members and kick them in the balls. Or aim three inches higher for the female members. Same effect.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cereal KillR+May 28 2005, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cereal KillR @ May 28 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would also like to know which voices were used, in what games, for what characters. Because I honestly didn't notice anything amazingly more amazing in recent game voices. Except of course if they mean Pacman had a horrible voice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the voice of Alyx played Mimi in <i>Rent</i>, though I don't think she was part of the original Broadway cast.
Jim Cummings and David Hayter are the only cool voice actors. They are also the only voice actor's who i know the names of, but anyway. And the dude who did the G-Man.
<!--QuoteBegin-ZeroByte+Jun 4 2005, 11:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ZeroByte @ Jun 4 2005, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look! <a href='http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,67707,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1' target='_blank'>Game devs strike back</a>! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So Wil Wheaton's argument in giving the strike a green light is that $275/hr isn't good enough because there aren't enough jobs and a "working-class" actor is lucky to get four per year. Did I read that correctly?
In what bizzaro universe is the compensation for a job based on how often you work or how hard it is to get the job? I've always thought that salaries were based on the difficultly of meeting the job requirements and the market demand for that job to be filled. If there's a surplus of actors, doesn't that mean that the value of voice services is lower?
Is he actually suggesting it's a major issue that voice actors aren't paid enough to sustain themselves with 4 weeks of work? Seems to me that leaves 48 weeks to... you know... get another job.
<!--QuoteBegin-onos turd+Jun 4 2005, 10:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (onos turd @ Jun 4 2005, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i wonder how much the guy who did gordons voice got.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you could make out a decent voice from Gordon if you listen carefully at the *pain* sounds when you fall down and such.
Comments
Good. I'm sure all the developers who end up hearing this have let some of their overworked & deadline induced rage spill forth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd just rather keep Hollywood actor-centric BS to Hollywood. It's still BS there, but at least some directors and writers get recognition and at least there it's contained. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And at least in Hollywood (film & TV), actors have a much greater investment into work for the project - long hours, frustrating takes, rough schedules, etc.
More generally, it should be noted that SAG involvement in gaming is relatively recent. You'll probably find many of these older games you're raving about were non-union talent (if not the developers themselves in some cases). The Quake III announcer was a non-union designer/sound guy at id, for example. I think Blizzard may still work with non-union voice talent, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
But let's get real. There is no general quality difference between union and non-union. I've heard fantastic unionized voice work. I've heard fantastic non-union voice work. I've heard downright abysmal union voice work. And I've heard downright abysmal non-union work. How many of those top 10 sellers sold because of their voice? How many sold that much because of aggressive marketing or mass-market appeal?
We'll have to see what happens.
Begging your pardon, but you mean the series I mentioned earlier? Thief, Legacy of Kane, Max Payne and the like? I'm sure you've played most of them and you know how great those voice actors are. Were <i>any</i> of them union talent? My bet is they aren't. I wouldn't know though, so I was wondering if you did.
-ion forum <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
but still, I think they are important to a game, but when looking at the actual amount of work that goes into a game, they aren't as significant as some may think. Merely realizing that every voice spoken requires an amount of code to trigger it and a sound engine, but also usually some texture or model deformation needed to be coded or imported into the game. Thats more time already, not factoring in the underlying engine to make it all run together, and all of the visual and other sound effects used to make an affective game.
They are a necissairy part of a game, yes, not everyone can be the same quality voice actor, yes, they should get paid more, maybe, they should be recieving even 10% of the money involved in another video included acting role of the same length... NO.
<i>Voice acting does not make the game</i>.
At least that way there's more incentive for quality product, as opposed to the standard half-arsed games we get 90% of the time.
Voices don't make the game, but they CAN break it, and certainly exist as an icing on the cake for well-produced titles. Do those actors deserve more? Maybe, but not as much as the game's creators and certainly don't deserve it to the extent that it will justify a global price hike.
no offense to them but their job isn't exactly hard.
Makes me want to walk up to some SAG members and kick them in the balls. Or aim three inches higher for the female members. Same effect.
I think the voice of Alyx played Mimi in <i>Rent</i>, though I don't think she was part of the original Broadway cast.
They are also the only voice actor's who i know the names of, but anyway.
And the dude who did the G-Man.
So Wil Wheaton's argument in giving the strike a green light is that $275/hr isn't good enough because there aren't enough jobs and a "working-class" actor is lucky to get four per year. Did I read that correctly?
In what bizzaro universe is the compensation for a job based on how often you work or how hard it is to get the job? I've always thought that salaries were based on the difficultly of meeting the job requirements and the market demand for that job to be filled. If there's a surplus of actors, doesn't that mean that the value of voice services is lower?
Is he actually suggesting it's a major issue that voice actors aren't paid enough to sustain themselves with 4 weeks of work? Seems to me that leaves 48 weeks to... you know... get another job.
Well you could make out a decent voice from Gordon if you listen carefully at the *pain* sounds when you fall down and such.