RF Generation Message Board

More and more games get soundracks with 'real' music and voices done by real actors. Am I the only one who thinks this is a waste and would rather see the games a few bucks cheaper?

The mother of all examples would be GTA Vice City.  Though I liked the real life atmosphere the radio gave, I only enjoyed about 10% of the songs. And they'd usually play on the same time at different channels. Besides that, I liked GTA 3 just as much, and that didn't have licensed music.

Today I read about FIFA 2005's soundtrack. It'll have almost 40 licensed songs. From Sarah McLachlan to INXS. I can't help but think that EA has put more effort into their soundtrack than their gameplay.

A last example is Crazy Taxi. The offspring is a very mediocre band. I don't want to listen to the same 8 songs over and over again. If you can't stand the music, too bad! buy a different game.

The best example of actor usage is also in Vice City. Several famous people lend their voices to the characters in the game; Ray Liotta, Dennis Hopper and Burt Reynolds come to mind. Of course it's cool that the goodfella does the voice of Vercetti, but wouldn't a low profile voice actor do the same job just as good for a tenth of the price?  I think so.

I won't buy a game because it has ray liotta in it. Or michael Madsen, or Bruce Willis. Nor do I buy it to hear Slayer, INXS or Junkie XL. I buy them because they are good, and for me licensed music and famous actors have very little to do with the quality of a game.

I agree that voiceover personalities would be the logical and more affordable choice than some A-list personality, especially these days when celebrities embarrass themselves and everyone else with their stupid comments and therby sour people to their work.  

By this same reasoning, I'd like for lesser known independent acts to do the music in video games. Then the publisher could deal directly with the artist and not some Sony or Time-Warner act with all the inflation they bring.

Big waste of money... period.
They could put all the extra cash into something so much better. Like better developem,ent or longer gameplay or more story developement and depth.
The list goes on and on.

Or they could license my own music. I'll sell cheap.

GTA 3 did have licensed music. Many of the songs were also used on the Scarface OST.

For the most part licensed music is a waste, especially in already crappy sports games. But Vice City just wouldn't capture the 80's correctly without classic songs like Video Killed the Radio Star.

GTA: VC was great with the music, i thought that it really added to the atmoshere of the game.
but i dont think that if rockstar had hired lesser known actor for the voices that it would have made them spend more time on developing the gameplay or graphics.  i seriously doubt that because ray liotta did voice acting for them in VC that they cut back on perfecting the game itself.  

to me voice acting is a 'nice' touch to add to the experience of a game.
at the sametime i am iritated when a game doesnt have voice acting in it (zelda: WW).

i just dont see how spending some money on voice acting takes away from the gameplay experience.

i also doubt that VC would have been cheaper if lesser-knowns had done the voice acting.
rockstar knows that ppl would buy VC at pretty much any cost.

No Rockstar just woulda put more cash in there pockets.

good job, that was my point.  you will pay the same amount either way.

Vice City only had about 4 songs I that I like so I wasn't so impressed with it and I think Hunter the reckoning licensed music from a metal band called coma.

The PC version of VC you could add and remove whatever music you wanted.
I never got as into the GTA games i wouldnt pay 50 bucks for them. i will just wait till i have one handed to me before i even get it. i played it and it was alot fun but not worth the money in my opinion.
Feel free to bash me but why buy a game everyone you know owns and will let you borrow?

I agree with the thought that even without the professional voice actors the games will still cost as much.  That being said, i kind of like the games with licensed music in them.  It adds just a little something to them.

I think the music selection for VC was reasonably tasteful considering they had to choose from the biggest popular favorites of the era. Maybe I should just say that the music selection could have been much, much worse. I actually turn to the talk radio more than the music because it's so funny and because I'm like that when driving my real car.

Now, the selections for SA, supposedly set in the early 90's, could very easily go wrong. I guess we'll find out.

I have a feeling that the SA music is going to suck big like most of the music i can think of from the early 90's does.

There has been some not-so-bad music released in the early 90's. And they'll have different channels again, so it can't all be bad. I wouldn't mind some nirvana while cruising.

Wonder if they'll be cool enough to include the footpedal and shoegazer bands like My Bloody Valentine, Catherine Wheel, Ride, etc?

Bet you there is no Nirvana. There will probably be very little rock music in it if any. I think they will lean more towards rap, R&B and the likes.

They will have several channels again. And they won't all be 'black' music. They will have rock music. No way they'll chase away the large group of people that loathes R&B and rap.