DM voice acting for foundry

mrbuttflakes

I think a real cool feature for the foundry would be to allow DM's to record they're own voice acting and narration to the stories they create. I haven't read anything about this, but that would be pure awesomeness if possible. Would this be possible or is this too much?

Making it noob friendly also would be great. there's tons of people out there with epic stories to tell but no way too implement them due to the complication of some editors as in NWN series for example.

nimloh

It would be cool. There's been a desire for dungeon narration for Cryptic's content similar to what exists in DDO. The ability for foundry creators to record voice for their quests would really make one feel like a true DM.

stormdrag0n

While I would love to see it...there is a huge potential for abuse, I remember asking fro the ability to add custom music files in the foundry back when it was in development for STO and Zinch said the biggest reason not to was potential copyright infringements, still as someone that is into sound editing that would be a very cool feature.

singularitarian

Not that I wouldn't love to use it, but the problems invited by this seem pretty extensive.

mrbuttflakes

If they monitor the recordings before letting the module go live I see no problem with it. People could also abuse the character dialog if they want. Is that any different? I can understand about music back rounds and copyright issues, but maybe just limit that to what they already have in game.

stormdrag0n

mrbuttflakes wrote: »

If they monitor the recordings before letting the module go live I see no problem with it. People could also abuse the character dialog if they want. Is that any different? I can understand about music back rounds and copyright issues, but maybe just limit that to what they already have in game.

Oh yeah it would be great...and I'm a 100% behind it, just don't know if they would have the resources to monitor incoming dialogue like that...and the copy right think could be an issue to, I mean whats to stop someone from doping in a wav file of Act two of ESB?

As far as the text goes I think...there was something said about the language filter being in place...but who knows maybe it's something we will actually see in the future.

zebular

Instead of always dwelling on the "potential for abuse" theory, which and quite frankly everything in this world of ours either has potential for being abused, is abused, or has been abused. By such a notion, not much in this World would be possible. So, stating the obvious really does more negative than positive.

There would, of course, need to be some sort of submission and approval system in place for voice-overs. SOE does this with their custom flag and sail designs in Pirates of the Burning Seas Online. Sure, it takes a few weeks to get something submitted and approved, but it is quite possible and does happen. I know, I have some custom flags and sails.

For NWO, approved voice-overs could then either be flagged as public or private. Public would allow all DMs to use them in their Foundry Campaigns and Adventures, which having it set as public would ensure that only you, the submitter and author of the voice-overs, are allowed to use them in your own Foundry Campaigns and Adventures. For public ones, these could be chosen by either the Devs themselves or through some sort of "Foundry Spotlight - Voice Over Edition", where select Foundry Projects with custom voice-overs have their custom voice-overs uploaded to the server and then allowed for use by all Authors/DMs.

If such a system comes in to place, as long Foundry authors (DMs) understood there was an authorization time, we could make the voice-overs ahead of time and submit them right away, so they could be authorized by the time we finished our Campaign or Adventure.

For instance, which in the map editor, I could select "record voice over," while in the dialogue of an NPC. I'd then record it and when finished would be promted to either "save for publishing" or "save and upload for approval." The first option would wait to submit all voice-overs until after you have finished the Module and press Publish. This would keep the module from being published until it has been approved.

The latter option would submit the voice-over for pre-approval before the module is even finished and published. This could allow Foundry authors a sense of quicker authorization, for the process for their voice-over or voice-overs would already be in the process of authorizing while they continue to work on their Campaign or Adventure.

I am sure that there would need to be some sort of technical limitations set to the voice-overs however, such as a maximum number of individual voice-overs and a max length per voice-over, in addition to the screening and approval process.

I kind-of rambled there, hope that all makes sense.

gillrmn

The only way I can see this implemented is by a 'contest' system. e.g. a select few campaigns being picked and allowed to upload custom content.

The reason is that the cost which goes into checking IP violations would be very high on time and resources. These may sometimes even be unintentional and skip the DMs notice.

Using private (or only you hear) kind of voice system may be good, but it opens up another can of worms - exploits. This may be an invitation to hackers to your computer.

But I would like something like private voices. The cryptic doesn't even have to officially support it. For example, if they allow the client to send external command to winamp (and thus by extension many other audio players who can take a cue from external programs), for example a command like (play next track/ pause current track/ play from xx(mins):yy(secs)) it would be really helpful to community.

But because devs have already said they want everything be integrated to client, I don't really think they will support it(unless many people start actively asking for it).


EDIT: If you look at one of the posts where I transcribed a long podcast an year back, it says:-

...
Foundry:-
Do's - almost most of things.
Won't = custom made stuff (copyright issue is important).

so custom made stuff is a don't for them in foundry. That means, even if we want them, devs would be reluctant and have already designed the foundry in a way which does not incorporate that part.

slimey01

They could make it so that the author is responsible for IP infringements, and not Cryptic/PWE.

and/or

Publishing content with voice files could publish as normal, but voice files only publish after they have been approved at some later time.

and/or

A good text to speech engine would be a good but expensive idea as well.

The problem with action type games is that they tend to be full of action, and reading text gets in the way of action and immersion.

I would enjoy hearing such a feature, as some recent games would not have done so well if it wasn't for their near complete voice acting.

vangald

Closest thing I can see being done sound wise is maybe some custom song creation similar to what was put in APB. But I doubt that will happen either. There is a lot of legal problems. We are already likely going to have issues with what foundry missions stay up because of references to copyright material.

vindicon

slimey01 wrote: »

They could make it so that the author is responsible for IP infringements, and not Cryptic/PWE.

They can't.

Everything in the game, including UGC, is property of the company, so any copyright infringements are automatically their responsibility. And even if they weren't, there is no way to identify the authors, because all they have is an IP adress, that is often dynamic as well. What are they gonna do with it, launch an epic investigation every time some bloke in Dusseldorf or some lass in Taipei uploads a copyrighted madia file? At best they could ban them, if they can even pin down the correct IP (many countries use exclusively dynamic IPs) which would definitely do bugger all to satisfy the owner of the copyright...

subway7850

I say no to the idea to have voice over in foundry.

I played SWTOR, and therefor it is my opinion that voice over should be used to a minimum in the game.

its great the first 8 hours, but after that, one gets tired of it.

tagari84

I say no to this idea, the main reason is the fact that the VAST majority of user created audio input (voice acting especially) would be terrible and immersion breaking.

stormdrag0n

subway7850 wrote: »

I say no to the idea to have voice over in foundry.

I played SWTOR, and therefor it is my opinion that voice over should be used to a minimum in the game.

its great the first 8 hours, but after that, one gets tired of it.

"Some" people get tired of it...right now there is a huge contingent of SWTOR players demanding more VO, so much so they had to reassure folks in the Live stream that it wasn't going away....and really DM flavor VO is vastly different than character VO.

azulchico

So I happened to watch rpgamer.com's interview with Andy Velasquez from PAX 2012 where he demos the foundry and I remembered someone asking this exact question. Here's the link to the question from the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pn7iU4EwTc#t=25m06s

But yeah, the answer is, sadly, no.

Watch the whole video. It was pretty cool.

singularitarian

tagari84 wrote: »

I say no to this idea, the main reason is the fact that the VAST majority of user created audio input (voice acting especially) would be terrible and immersion breaking.

Yeah. Most people have terrible microphones (and voices) and couldn't narrate a short film based on The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

catburger003

Nope. If they did that, trolls would come and say such things. And besides, not everyone has a good microphone.

aandrethegiant

I say only 5 ***** content providers can get voice. VO should also be toggle-able so that if we dont like a voice, we dont have to hear it.

If a provider breaks a language rule, or a decency rule (civil rights/religious/political/ advertizing violations), they lose their right to do VOs. Community should have a way to flag all ugc for language/decency rules.

stormdrag0n

azulchico wrote: »

So I happened to watch rpgamer.com's interview with Andy Velasquez from PAX 2012 where he demos the foundry and I remembered someone asking this exact question. Here's the link to the question from the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pn7iU4EwTc#t=25m06s

But yeah, the answer is, sadly, no.

Watch the whole video. It was pretty cool.

Wow thanks for that it's one interwove I missed.

subway7850

azulchico wrote: »

So I happened to watch rpgamer.com's interview with Andy Velasquez from PAX 2012 where he demos the foundry and I remembered someone asking this exact question. Here's the link to the question from the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pn7iU4EwTc#t=25m06s

But yeah, the answer is, sadly, no.

Watch the whole video. It was pretty cool.

Thank you!
Now this is good news!

iamtruthseeker

It just can't be done for liability reasons. As discussed elsewhere, a company is liable even if it's the gamer's fault if something is litigious in nature.


Now, if we found some way around that and/or had pre-recorded voice clips (approved in advance) accessible, I'd love that...as long as we had the option to toggle them off as well, and no Foundry made them mandatory (only enhancing what was available on text.)

gillrmn

Yes, custom files have been no-no even from co-op days. That was what they have maintained all time long - reinforced periodically by the same question.

So no custom content. But it still leaves a way out. e.g. Make a contest of UGC and chose 3 best one, then cryptic themselves adds voice-overs (officially) and custom content from their side(not from users side). So its like adapting a UGC as official content.

That would be awesome.

aandrethegiant

iamtruthseeker wrote: »

It just can't be done for liability reasons. As discussed elsewhere, a company is liable even if it's the gamer's fault if something is litigious in nature.


Now, if we found some way around that and/or had pre-recorded voice clips (approved in advance) accessible, I'd love that...as long as we had the option to toggle them off as well, and no Foundry made them mandatory (only enhancing what was available on text.)

Hey how about a contest where the community comes up with the best audio voice-over for their favorite quests, to be voted on by the community. The winners get stamp of approval or denial by Cryptic.

Bammm.

iamtruthseeker

aandrethegiant wrote: »

Hey how about a contest where the community comes up with the best audio voice-over for their favorite quests, to be voted on by the community. The winners get stamp of approval or denial by Cryptic.

Bammm.

Go for the eyes Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!! RrraaaAAGHGHH!!! (Immediately after Boo says*Squeak*)! Stupid Gosh Dang he's been dead complication!

aandrethegiant

iamtruthseeker wrote: »

Go for the eyes Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!! RrraaaAAGHGHH!!! (Immediately after Boo says*Squeak*)! Stupid Gosh Dang he's been dead complication!

Baldur's Gate is proof that voice overs if done right could not only boost our creative juices, but quite possibly be an engine that endears our game in the psyche of gamers 10-20 years from now. To not even TRY to create a workable system where we challenge our creative talents at creating sound for our quests would be severely limiting the realism of what we are trying to develop and leaving a void for future generations that could have been exploited to the game's benefit and enjoyment right now. I know I could create a system that would benefit us all.

There should be a unique audio channel for DM voice so that it could be toggled on and off, and of course a slider to turn DM voice on and off.

Lastly, my system would avoid liability issues, as all but the final contestants would be taking place in the public domain.

iamtruthseeker

aandrethegiant wrote: »

Baldur's Gate is proof that voice overs if done right could not only boost our creative juices, but quite possibly be an engine that endears our game in the psyche of gamers 10-20 years from now. To not even TRY to create a workable system where we challenge our creative talents at creating sound for our quests would be severely limiting the realism of what we are trying to develop and leaving a void for future generations that could have been exploited to the game's benefit and enjoyment right now. I know I could create a system that would benefit us all.

There should be a unique audio channel for DM voice so that it could be toggled on and off, and of course a slider to turn DM voice on and off.

I'd settle even for a talk voice mod that didn't make me sound like a demon or opposite sex, but like E Gary Gygax.

aandrethegiant

iamtruthseeker wrote: »

I'd settle even for a talk voice mod that didn't make me sound like a demon or opposite sex, but like E Gary Gygax.

Um I can imitate Gary's voice something fierce But that would probably be an issue that could wind us up in court.

iamtruthseeker

aandrethegiant wrote: »

Um I can imitate Gary's voice something fierce But that would probably be an issue that could wind us up in court.

Well, he's no longer living, so that's not an issue. As for the content of the words, that could "resurrect" S&P sometimes.

aandrethegiant

iamtruthseeker wrote: »

Well, he's no longer living, so that's not an issue. As for the content of the words, that could "resurrect" S&P sometimes.

There is something on the books for the legal protection of name, likeness and voice for the deceased.

In Estate of Elvis Presley v. Russen, 513 F.Supp. 1339 (D.N.J. 1981), Elvis Presley's estate obtained an injunction under the federal Lanham Act to halt an Elvis Presley imitator from doing business as the "Big El Show." However, the U.S. District Court limited the scope of its decision by holding that the unauthorized stage show could proceed so long as it was advertised as an imitation of Elvis Presley, to eliminate "consumer confusion".

iamtruthseeker

aandrethegiant wrote: »

There is something on the books for the legal protection of name, likeness and voice for the deceased.

In Estate of Elvis Presley v. Russen, 513 F.Supp. 1339 (D.N.J. 1981), Elvis Presley's estate obtained an injunction under the federal Lanham Act to halt an Elvis Presley imitator from doing business as the "Big El Show." However, the U.S. District Court limited the scope of its decision by holding that the unauthorized stage show could proceed so long as it was advertised as an imitation of Elvis Presley, to eliminate "consumer confusion".

True. He died recently (EGG not EP.) I'd still like to sound like him, not exactly like him then.

aandrethegiant

iamtruthseeker wrote: »

True. He died recently (EGG not EP.) I'd still like to sound like him, not exactly like him then.

Oh I'm readily aware my good friend. This sounds like a good time to tell you folks about a project I've been promoting for a few years now.

http://www.gygaxmemorialfund.org/

This is an official memorial owned and managed by Gary's wife, Gail Gygax. Its a wonderful way to say thank you. Any monies (hell, ya'll can give a dollar:)) go to help place and maintain a memorial in a public park of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. It will also help to sponsor informational events and to establish a scholarship program in his name for students with a demonstrated need for assistance to study at an accredited college or university. That's a lot of traction for $1 or $5 donation, for something many of us have spent much of our lives enjoying the fruits of his work.