@de-astroturfer And I suggest you re-read what i wrote. For starters, you're seeing (and taking) too much "offense" in what I wrote. And secondly, I already explained why we shouldn't adopt voice acting *everywhere*, countering the point you just made. Yep, it's there, just look it up again. :) Oh, and the main point is valid also for photorealistic graphics. The fact that we're able to technologically do that today doesn't mean we have do it on every game, nor that we should.

You're seeing a "black and white" discussion when there isn't. "Less voice acting" doesn't mean "no voice acting". Being aware of when and where to use the technology we have doesn't mean forteiting it's use, but only using it where it's benefits outweight the cons. As a person who works on the industry, you should know that. Every detail we put on the games add costs and time and complexity: strong physics, destructible environment, photorealistic graphics, strong and smart AI, multiplayer, voice acting, complex open worlds, non-linear and complex narrative... It's a very dangerous line of thought to want *all* that on *all* games.

And if you think what I wrote about narrative was "pretentious nonsense", then just go read it again. Dude, I may be sarcastic and cynic (you're welcome ^_^), but I'm arguing with the points you are making, I'm not building a strawman fallacy to riducule you and "win" the discussion without making any arguments. I don't even like the way people think a discussion can be won. Really, calm yourself down and read everything again, you'll see it'll make more sense.

@de-astroturfer Movies are made by actors, actors can already speak, you don't need to hire additional professionals and increase the movie-making costs to make the actors speak - that's not true in games.

ALSO, movies are (with the exception of some experimental ones) a media dedicated to narrative, to tell stories, games are not. Games *contain* aspects of narrative, but they are about, y'know, *playing* then. They are mainly about gameplay, not telling stories.

Now, granted, *some* games dedicate themselves more to narrative aspects. In a few games of those, like Planescape Torment, being text-based is a bliss, it manages to do something that would be very unlikely for a voice acted game. Now, some other games, like those made by Quantic Dream, try to aproximate themselves from the movies and their language. *These* games can actually justify the use of voice over and are improved by it, but they aren't too many.

In the end, it's not a point of advocating the banishment of voice acting, but regarding as just one more feature and option that has it's places, but should not be taken for granted nor used everywhere - because it does have disadvantages, it's not only flowers and chocolate.

Now, if you believe the ability to hear any sounds is detrimental to our reading skills, that's a fine hypothesis. Now go write it down, find an university that is willing to take you and test it, make a dissertation, a thesis. But let me give you a hint: you may find your hypothesis lacking. :)

Well, at least you do understand what is irony. :) So, after all, was that hard reading and writing? Do you still feel the same need as before to have *every game* read to you like you were a little kid? If no, congratulations, you just matured a little bit! :D If yes, I suggest a shrink. ;)

@XxParasite @Mi1itant @Daian Actually, the first thing I thought, when I saw Wii U's announcement, was an arm strap for the Gamepad to use it simulating a shield (but on the back of your forearm, so you could still look at the Gamepad's screen) and a Wiimote on the right hand to simulate the sword. Probably never gonna happen, but I believe it would be awesome!

@xolivierx @Nev3rtime "There won't be very hard games"? Have you ever played New Super Mario Bros. Wii? Or is your standard to "very hard games" on the lines of Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy? Because if that is your standard of "very hard", you can be sure 95% of game developers won't make "very hard" games - and I'm glad they won't!

@de-astroturfer Yeah, I know little kids need someone to read them bedtime stories, because what can they do, right? They can't read for themselves. But most of us learn to read as we age, and we discover reading is an amazing thing! And that way we don't need others to read for us ever again! You should try it yourself.

No, I don't believe adding voice is of benefit for anyone. I actually believe this addiction to putting voice acting on *every game* is detrimental to the game's industry and works against us, the gamers. Voice overs are expansive, they increase the game budget A LOT, they need to be *very* well done to no detract from the game and break immersion, they increase the game's development time, make the translation between different markets (USA, Japa, Europe) harder and more expensive, thus effectively limiting the range and commercial appeal for various games and, in the end, make developers more aware of the high costs of development and slower cycles, thus making then more risk averse and prone to stick to well known formulas.

So, no, I don't want more voice acting, I want *less* voice acting - it's a plague and do no one any good.

@shannybaybay Bigger, Skyrim scale, plus "a million and 1 side quests", that's what you were talking about, and it was well understood and replied on that basis. :)

@corrus @freedom01 @de-astroturfer Here comes corrus again and his delusional comparisons saying a random Final Fantasy from previous generations had "much better graphics" than Skyward Sword. Well, at least his time he's not showing pictures of a later HD remake and claiming them to be from the original PS1 game. lol

Dude, if you think FFX looks better than SS, that has *nothing* to do with the graphics, but with your personal preference of FFX art style. You want to compare graphics? Look at the ground, the sky, the threes, the character hands, draw distance, how the characters hair are built...

And just stop comparing SS to PS1 graphics, that doesn't make any sense. I was there, dude, I played a lot of PS1. It was awful! 3D games at the time made me want to puke! They were fugly!

@shannybaybay Eh, I don't think that's a good idea. Let the Elders Scrolls be Elder Scrolls and let the Zeldas be Zelda.

Ever heard someone saying that too much of something, of anything, is never good? I agree. I prefer my games to last me some 30 or 40 (maybe even 50), hours than 150, that way I can explore , four, five or six different worlds, stories and gameplay in the same time Skyrim players only got to experience one.

@wexorian There are no game able to please everyone. I'll use myself as an example: I have a 3DS XL and no interest in playing Pokemon. I'm not saying I think it's a bad game, because it's not, but I have lots of other games that are, to me, more appealing to play.

I was never a Pokemon fan.
That being said, the reviewer complains about random encounters "when all you want to do is make it to the next gym", but there isn't an item for just that? I remember something like "pokemon repeler" or something similar, meaning that when you don't want random encounters, you just use it. Have they removed those items from the game? Or it is still there, but the reviewer never learned to use it?