Character Portraits

Started by Stupot, Thu 02/10/2014 09:38:45

Previous topic - Next topic

Stupot

What are your thoughts on character portraits for when a character is speaking?
A lot of the better games do have them (they seem to be a staple of Wadjet Eye games) and they certainly are a sign that a little bit of extra time and effort has gone into the production values. But do they necessarily help to make a game better?

The reason I ask is that I personally don't really feel like I need them all that much. It's not that I dislike them, and often the artwork that goes into them is gorgeous, but they don't really add anything to my enjoyment of the game.  It seems like a lot of effort for not a lot of return. What you do get, I guess, is the characters facial expression, which can't always be conveyed in a normal character sprite, especially in low res. I suppose that was the main reason for their existence in the first place.

IIRC some of the portraits in Ben Jordan games even included lip-synced animation, which must have been a mammoth task. It looked pretty effective, but I wonder if the results are worth the extra effort.

What games have you played and/or made that have (or haven't) included character portraits. What are some examples of it having been done well/poorly, and do you think they are worth the extra time (and in some cases, money)?

Babar

I like to think of character portraits as a zoom-in of the person, which is why I don't personally like character portraits in a radically different style from the rest of the game (for example, pixelly lo-res "semi-realistic" or specifically styled non-cartoony backgrounds and sprites, and then a manga style portrait, or "painted" portrait is common in many games, which bothers me). Also a lot of games have the portrait in a "portrait" style (i.e. the character is posing in a specific way), which most of the time doesn't match at all what the character is doing at the time. Even portraits facing the other way from how they're shown on screen is distracting to me (unless the portrait is always a perpendicular-to-face view).

Other than that, I quite like them...barring any other considerations, a nicely done portrait for speech is a plus to me.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

CaptainD

My feelings are pretty much the smae as Stupot's - I don't exactly mind them but rarely think they actually add much to the game.  If anything I think they can be a little distracting - on the whole I'd rather see the characters in setting (at least most of the time).

The only time I think they perhaps add something is when they also show emotion, not simply a talkcycle.  But even then, on the whole I'm fine with them in top-down view JRPGs, but to me they are less effective in a side-view 3rd person adventure game.
 

Slasher

Hi,

as per said:

I generally only prefer portraits if they show a vital element like: raising an eyebrow, smirking etc etc other than that I don't personally like them and prefer the default  normal speech view. Of course there are types of games where I find them acceptable.

Weston_Kaunk

#4
I've been experimenting with portraits myself.(recent pic)so I've thought a bit on this. It all comes down to use. I wouldn't say it'll lead to anything better or worse, but it can definitely lead to deeper characterization. the ability to see a character's face closer, especially while speaking, can tell volumes. Say when reading a line that is meant sarcastically the game would have to rely heavily on the voice actor to convey that sarcasm, if there isn't any voice acting it'd be a real struggle for the writer to make sure the sarcasm of the moment was portrayed. But include a closer look at the face and suddenly the storyteller has an entirely new avenue to explore. Not only can you have a set of expressions for each character, but you can tell a great deal about the character when you use the faces very specifically. This character only has a small smile most of the times everyone would be laughing. But can be seen beaming when about to get into a fight, and laughs after a successful confrontation. Or the character that's always seen smiling, by the end of the game the player might know (with combination of the writing) when that smile is fake or real. And if that character cries it'll mean that much more.
If you have a set of expressions or not even the moment you decide to use the face can make a difference. Imagine someone whose a familiar character, who you see the face of often and can interact with full dialogue options normally, after one heartbreaking moment they go off into the corner not facing you and suddenly when you try to talk to them their text pops up like a generic npc's without any chat portrait popping up, "I don't want to talk", "please leave me alone", "just give me a bit okay." "please" . The player suddenly isn't able to reach that character like they're use to, they're not even to 'see' how that character is. And with the interactive nature the player trying again to see if the character opens up --but doesn't and just cycles through similar responses or just stops altogether-- could make it even more tragic. The portraits act to reassure the reader they're understanding the text in the tone they read it, it's that semblance with face to face communication, but suddenly having that taken away from them it's reminiscent of that moment your friend's seriously depressed and stops talking to you. You know why they're depressed, but you want to know 'what's going on with them'. there's a distance. By establishing a standard of interaction and then removing elements you simulate a divide between player and character.


As far as animations, I think it'd really depend on the design. As much as having an extra image each character or a set of five for each character an animation (assuming something for each reaction in the character set)is a big workload choice, making those into animations at least triples the--already additional--workload (assuming three frames per emotion to sync mouth movements too). Now say it's something that really fills out the atheistic of the game or is really important to the specific design (focused on conversation and reactions/ thinking L.A. Noir) then it is something to consider. Animation is another level of depth, you can show the speed people react or draw out moments and add some real thematic gravitas. But Christ man, it'd be awesome to see and power too you, but please don't bite of more then you can chew. I'd take a hard look at the design big picture like, then if you still feel like exploring just start with stills. If it's going well and you have the resources go ahead add reaction sets, only there I think it'd be a good time to consider making animated reactions.

I guess if it was just a single face with a few slides animated, just generic talking movements, it might be worth the extra work if you like it. Give a test. see if it floats your boat. To my mind design is like 70% function, 30% personal taste.
tldr: I say too much
http://westonkaunk.itch.io/

Armageddon

I've never liked them personally, more partial to the Lucas Arts style. And if you have voice acting you shouldn't even have any of the text on by default.

abstauber

#6
Back in the days, I wasn't too happy when Sierra started to include portraits in post AGI games. It broke the immersion and people never looked like I imagined them from the sprites. Lucasfilm Games on the other hand added some gestures and poses to spice up their dialogs. But since AGS cannot do this without hassle (a second character just as the head), portraits are a convenient way to express emotions and character details.

But like Barbar I don't like when the style changes. So if you have a hand drawn character, I expect at least the same palette is used for the portraits :)

Btw. perfect usage of portraits:

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk