Glynnis Talken and Robert Clotworthy Will Not Be Returning

I hate to say it, but this sounds very two-faced.

I'm saying that you only linked information that said she did the voice of Kerrigan. That's irrelevant to whether or not she did the voice in the original Zerg trailer. And after all, it does sound a lot like her.

Well how about waiting until we hear the actual actors before deciding that? We haven't heard any of the final actors yet, except maybe Tychus and possibly Zeratul.

Well you've obviously overly familiarised yourself with it. How much did you like the voice of Grom then?

For a voice actor to be replaced, the replacing voice actor does not have to be so different that it bears no resemblance to the original actor. It can still be a similar voice, but with a better or more expressive actor. And again, it could simply be a slight tweak where the original actor would not be as a new actor. Perfect example, Meg Griffin in Family Guy. Lacey Chabert in the first season, Mila Kunis in the rest. No one would even know that it was a different voice had they not either listened to the commentary or looked into it themselves, but she was still replaced. The voice actresses sounded alike, but one was still replaced.

And I've got to agree with Mike. I don't see can have 'not let' Raynor's actor audition. Unless he was told outside the audition room that he wasn't able to come in, they can't have really 'stopped' him auditioning.

Then why not just be open to it until you've actually heard the new voices? At the moment it's like this... A mate's offered to buy a round of ice creams. You've asked for a Magnum, he goes off and buys the ice creams, comes back saying they were out of Magnums so got you something else instead, and you start *****ing about his choice. How do you know he's actually gotten something you do not like yet? Just because he didn't buy a Magnum it doesn't mean he bought a piece of **** on a stick. After all, he could've bought a Heaven, being the exact same thing.

Voice acting is a subjective topic. And if you weren't interested, why did you bring up all those examples?

If they're two dimensional because of that reason, then it's because they haven't properly been developed as characters, so it doesn't matter if they have new voice actors anyway.

And how can you be saying that they only had a tiny amount of lines if you were using Archimonde as one of your examples?

Lastly, characters should not rely on outside medias in order to give their character other dimensions. Lore's obviously expressed parallel to the game, but having books and novels about Raynor and other characters shouldn't mean they can just have the exact same Raynor in StarCraft2. The extra dimensions and insight have to be portrayed in-game, which is what they are doing.

Raynor was underdeveloped in the first place, so I don't see why they should have to live with that.

I'm sure that was the sole reason for it...

Not classic from StarCraft, but a classic personality. I don't see where you get off saying that no-one would have been able to relate.

And, again, Blizzard shouldn't've have to live with such a mistake, especially when they have the means to correct it.

And no, Raynor isn't only defined by what we played in StarCraft1and can read in books. He will be defined by StarCraft2 as well. Not only that, but Blizzard had already spoken of him as such a character that he did not turn out to be in StarCraft1, so, regardless, is defined by that as well. And on top of that, but characters evolved. People do not just stay as the one person they are their whole life. It simply doesn't work like that on any level. Lastly, if the books truly did provide this extra dimension, then they're already expanding on the character of StarCraft1 which, according to what he was defined as in StarCraft1, shouldn't have been released because they were not Jim Raynor.

Then how about hearing it before passing judgement? It's like the ice cream example.

 

Same thing goes for you pal - so far you brought nothing to the table other than "I disagree".

I think it's pretty clear that they're different actresses...but that's just me.

I liked it alot. Where are you going with this?

Again, they should have at least let him audition. There's no way of knowing if he's right for the role based on some experience with him a decade ago...since you know, not much can happen over the course of a decade... <_<

Uhm, ok. But I have an article that states otherwise, so unless you have something similar then I think we're done here.

1) We had an entire demonstration and cinematic of the new voices. How can you say that we "haven't heard anything yet"?
2) Waiting will avail you nothing. Again, I'm sorry that you're not worried about the voice acting. But not everyone has the same opinions on this subject as you, so don't be surprised when we start voicing our thoughts on the issue instead of just laying back and hoping for the best.

So that everyone could decide for themselves. I was just putting out my opinion. Do you realize that you can't argue with opinions?

Then the problem is with StarCraft's storytelling, not voice acting, isn't it?

I don't care how many lines they had - voice acting continuity is still important.

I thought it was clear that I was only referring to nostalgia.

In other words, you're saying that the Jim Raynor portrayed in StarCraft doesn't fit with the one portrayed in books, despite the fact that the character from the books was build around the character from the game. That makes no sense.

 

And, you're the one telling us how we should feel. Even if what you say about ItzaHexGor is true then what you are doing is still no better. You are being a hypocrite about this. The following are great examples of what I am saying:

I can. That alone disproves your claim. Easy, huh? I could easily relate to the new Jim Raynor from the very moment I saw and heard him for the first time. When I saw the character I couldn't have thought anything but "Jim Raynor". It's still the same Jim Raynor that many of us know and love. All any of this means is that he's more of a three-dimensional character than you seem to would have preferred. If he goes with the current course, I don't see it ever being a problem except for the very few who are terrified of change. I'm glad Blizzard doesn't base all of their decisions on the opinions of the community when they haven't even had a chance to experience these new changes or even have enugh information about them to understand the situation. It's all ignorance and preconceived notions. Neither are worthy of taking serious. And, to be fair, I am including myself in this. Again, I, personally, have no problem with the change in voice acting in this regard. When I see Jim Raynor, I immediately think "Jim Raynor" so it's highly relatible despite your claim.

Protop: It's always wisest to only speak for yourself when you're discussing opinions. It makes you look a lot less arrogant and immature when you do this. Learning to accept other's opinions is an important part of growing up and becoming a well-rounded person. You need to serously look into this.

Yes, there is. This, again, is within the realm of an opinion; therefore, it could NEVER be undeniable. Just the simple fact that you don't understand this speaks volumes about your maturity. In this world, there are facts and there are opinions. The two can never be the same except in the mind of an arrogant or otherwise immature person / troll. Think of fanboys that say "It's a fact that my favorite game is better than yours. There's no denying this". Is it a fact because they say so? Does your opinion have so little worth while their's is so valuable? No. The truth is that, for the most part, when you're not an expert on a subject your opinion means nothing. It means even less when it's, again, based on preconceived notions and ignorance. The internet is full of trolls that are devoid of knowledge and respect for these basic truths. What you are doing is no different and you need to realize this. Stop heralding your "almighty opinion" as something more than it is. It is just an opinion of equal worth to ours. Nothing more; nothing less... and that's a fact.

Blizzard has no obligation to me, you, or anyone here so they damn sure don't have any obligation to anyone else. This is their intellectual property. They can do whatever they want because it is theirs. Even if it means changing something that a few people (or even many people) will be against. If Blizzard cared this much about the community's views on something they haven't even payed much less seen then StarCraft 2 would be one of the biggest disappointments in gaming ever. Changes happen in almost every major move in almost every series since the dawn of gaming. Of course, this concept been around since long before that but I'll limit it to then for this purpose. For example, people claimed to have a problem relating to Zelda and Mario during the Nintendo 64 era because of the switch to polygons from simple pixels. They both looked, controlled, and sounded very different. Sure, these characters are much less complex. That's a given. But, Jim's change in character, appearance, attitude, et cetera will be explained in the game. You seem not to understand this. Your hesitance for change doesn't come from how the character has turned out or how he is presented in the game. No, it only comes from your untested shallow first-impression "notions". A change in voice acting and appearance is nothing to get so upset about. I would get into his change in personality but that's just a given. Good characters change. That is something all authors strive to do for their characters. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that after a few hours of play most people will have already accepted the new character(s) regardless of how they feel about the voice change or the voice acting itself. This is human nature. I'm sure even you will do the same.

After all, do you hear anyone demanding the old Mario to come back in Super Mario Galaxy or for the old Link to come back in Twilight Princess just because they use polygons? No. They got past this "hurdle" and accepted the change. I have many more examples but none of them are as well known as these so I'll leave it up to you to see other examples in your gaming to compare since my examples would probably go misunderstood due to not having played these games. I'm sure you can find some great examples unless your gaming is limited to Blizzard. In which case, you won't find as many examples due to the development time of their games. And, that would mean you haven't been through such a situation to know how it turns out in the end.

StarCraft fans are definitely some of the hardest to please when it comes to change but I don't think even this will be too much of a problem. If there is, indeed, a hurdle to get over to "relate to these characters" then it can easily be gotten past if only the person wouldn't be so kainotophobic (afraid of change). This has been tried and true since the beginning of video games. I could say "there's no denying this" and it be accurate but I won't.

Again, speak for yourself.

You hit it right on the nail. Aedus1160 likes to argue just to argue ... and he won't stop until everyone tells him he is correct in every conceivable way. And, because I know this I was hesitant to get into this whole argument but I've held my peace long enough and he's said too many things needing of commenting for me to pass this up.

It makes perfect sense. What you have right now is a double standard.

*facepalm*

Almost everything regarding this whole incident is subjective. For the life of me, I can't understand why you don't see the differences between facts and opinions. You confuse the two constantly.

So, because Jim Raynor is a three-dimensional dynamic character, you're disapponted? This is what authors strive to do and now that Blizzard is doing it you shoot it down without even trying it? Quite illogical, I must say. Creating dynamic characters is the mark of good author. What you are asking Blizzard to do is to create boring, unimaginative characters.

I've read that article but I don't remember much about it so until I see it again I'll remain skeptical. Unless the article itself quotes Blizzard as saying these exact same words then it's useless. I take opinion statements and speculation with a grain of salt when it comes to things like this regardless of the source.

No, she wasn't. She was just a place holder and nothing more.

Don't you dare start accusing him of doing the very same thing you do, hypocrite. You've done this many times with me and now you're doing it again. Pathetic. We are discussing opinions and your unproven links. How could anyone be wrong? If someone is wrong here it's you because an opinion and a fact can never be the same (that's a fact) but you don't understand this.

 

Neither is complaining. Look at Diablo 3 and a lot of aspects of StarCraft 2. Blizzard probably couldn't care less about what a few fans think when it comes to something like this. This entire situation can only be based on preconceived notions or ignorance. We haven't heard enough of these new voices to judge and we haven't been given enough information to have a valid opinion. Why should Blizzard take us seriously? The only valid part of an opinion on this would be whether or not you like the fact that the voice actors have change. And, since that's based on preconceived notions and fear of change, it's still not really worth listening to on Blizzard's part. So, all we can do at the moment is state our opinion (but not expect it to amount to anything) and, of course, speculate. I can't find any valid reason that you would be so against speculation when that's all you've been doing ... unless you just don't know what the word means.

That's five people plus lurkers that have said the same thing. I'd say it's pretty much official, Aedus1160. I'd love to see you deny it.

Not only was he underdeveloped but the Jim Raynor in the deleted missions from StarCraft was quite a bit different than the Jim Raynor he know right now... and those were official maps that were removed but still kept on the original discs.

I see it clearly but that's probably because I've had past dealings with him. He values his opinion far too much, he can't accept or respect other's opinions nor can he see the clear difference between a fact and an opinion. He's an all around terrible poster. His only worth while contribution was making a fool of himself to the point that his readers felt the need to give me two reputation points for "taking the troll down" (exact quote).

@ItzaHexGor: Glynnis did not do the voice acting in the Zerg Reveal Trailer.

What have you brought that was worth something?

*epic uber facepalm*

sjdfnsndfjsndkfnakdfnaskdnaskdnaskdnasjndasndas.... it's so frustrating trying to make sense of that mind of yours....

 

That's not two-facedness.

It was in response to that you didn't play WarCraft3... Regardless of whether you played it or not, you were still obviously immersed in it. Because of your refusal to answer the question I'm assuming that you thought Grom had a very fitting and expressing voice in WarCraft3, as he did. As I've already demonstrated, his WarCraft2 voice would not have been at all fitting for his WarCraft3 role, and the exact same situation could happen with Raynor.

Again, as Mike's been saying, you don't have anything official from Blizzard. That quote is as valid as Jon just saying "I'm guessing this is what happened... Yada, yada, yada".

Because it has been said that auditions would take place in late production, November last year comes to mind but I can't find where it was said, and the voices we've been hearing have been from June last year. They're placeholder voices, just as Kerrigan's actress was.

To put it simply, I just can't see any validity in complaining about an unknown. o you really think Blizzard's going to be saying "Hmmm, they seem to not like that voice we haven't shown them, so we should probably hire the original budget actor that didn't present who we wanted to presented as Raynor correctly."?

But seriously, back to my analogy, when would you start complaining that you've been bought a crap ice cream?

You can if they're put forwards as proof.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't mean that the original actors are required to return. If there's been such a problem with StarCraft's storytelling then they're obviously not being presented in the way Blizzard wants them to be presented. To fix that, they've got to hire a better and more suitable voice actor.

Again, Grom Hellscream. For him, voice acting discontinuity was very important. We wouldn't've have been able to tell before we'd actually played the game, so how about waiting until we at least hear the voice? Even that's still too early really, as we have no clue of what he will be like in-game.

That still doesn't make it unrelatable.

So, what? You're saying that he won't be built around the character in StarCraft2? That, by having a new voice actor, he will automatically be a rich, Asian garbage-truck collector who's interested in vintage footwear and dancing the West Albanian tango?

Of course he's going to be built around his original character, dude. The fact that he's got a new voice actor and has fallen on hard times doesn't stop him being the same character.

I just thought I'd call attention to this, but you actually edited out what I'd said about opinions in order to try and show that fans shouldn't voice opinions. You know perfectly well what I think, you're just trying to make me look bad.

 

I know - I was referring to the quote you were replying to.

It's not a fair comparison, I don't have nostalgia of WC2. You have to realize that it's the continuity that's important for me, just as much as the actual voice acting. When I was playing War3 I had different priorities. It's not a double standard - it's pure opinion/experience.

Uhm...have you you even read my previous posts? It's an official blizzplanet interview that has been quoted on other gaming sites. Mike already admitted that it's a valid source. It doesn't need to be from Blizzard, and it wouldn't be; it's an interview with Clotworthy.

As far as I'm concerned we already hit that stage of production since that article confirmed that auditions already took place. I'm assuming auditions for Wings of Liberty were earlier, and ones for Heart of the Swarm are later since they're being developed as separate expansions. This is why we only heard about Glynnis now.

It's not unknown.

Blizzard? They probably won't. But that's the problem. Should they? Yeah. At the least, they should have given Clotworthy a chance to audition. As for Kerrigan, her voice actor IS an unknown, but if it's the one from the Zerg Reveal Trailer, that's bad news for me.

Should I give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt and hope that it turns out ok at the end? No. Because they hired worse voice actors in their previous game. So why should I?

Your analogy is just as irrelevant now as it was the last time you presented it. As the difference is that I'll be paying for SC2. In addition, your analogy would imply that I would never get to eat my favorite brand of ice cream ever again.

There is nobody more "suitable" than the original actor! If that's not the case then it means that Blizzard made too radical of changes to the voice, which sucks for us people that value continuity. At least give the guy a chance to audition.

And again, if we're going to be using examples, we should look at more recent games. Yeah, Blizzard has had good voice acting in the past, but what if they're starting to slip?

If you had nostalgia for the non-existent Raynor that Metzen originally envisioned, then sure.

In retrospect, that's probably true. However, it's the impression that I got since you were arguing against the massive uproar of the fans. If I didn't quote you all the way it's because your full quote seems contradictory:

Having a right to complain (say what we don't like), and give a critical response to the changes made sound like the same thing to me. Or did you mean something different?

 

Alright then, time to crack some more skulls together and try to get a semblance of logic & common sense back into this travesty of a thread.

Come on Tychus, haven't we already been through this? You should know by now not to stick your hand in the fire, or else you'll get burned.

It's exceedingly obvious that you have no handle on the issues being discussed here. Throughout your entire post you gave me a wall of text of things that I don't disagree with. Let me recap what my argument actually is:

• Clotworthy expressed interested in auditioning for StarCraft II.
• There is no way for Blizzard to know for certain if Clotworthy was right for the role unless they let him audition.
• Blizzard did not let Clotworthy audition for StarCraft II.
• Blizzard has a habit of dropping voice actors in favor of new ones that some people don't like.
• Some people don't like the new StarCraft II voices from the trailers we've seen. And since we're late enough in development, it's a good time to be worried about the voices.
• For those who feel that the SC2 voice acting situation is dire, waiting around isn't going to fix anything.

And perhaps the most important one:

• The old voice actors had the habit of knowing how they portrayed their original characters. Some people value consistency in voice acting just as much as the actual voice acting.

See? I don't need your walls of text telling me how Raynor is being improved! It's worthless to me, I agree with it, and that's not what the argument is even about!

None of these things are "subjective". Welcome to the conversation btw. Feel free to educate yourself on what's being discussed.

Blizzard is a company that takes feedback from the fans - that's part of why they're great.

The same thing can be said for every single piece of speculation that goes on in a StarCraft 2 forum. I fail to see why voice-acting decisions are off-bounds for critique while everything else isn't.

I'm not here to get your opinions on what you think about the voices. I'm here to discuss whether or not Blizzard is making bad decisions when it comes to letting their voice actors go.

Right, it was your "opinion" that every single SC: BW unit would be coming back in the editor. That's the difference between you and me though, I have evidence to back up my claims. In fact, that's probably the only reason you got involved in this argument, because it's so subjective. You know you can't hold a candle to me when it comes to objective issues where your claims have to be backed up, so you decided to troll me here instead. That's fine with me, just remember that two people can play that game, and perhaps I'll start budging into some of your conversations from now on.

Furthermore, I already said that I respect Itza's opinion on the Warcraft voice acting so I fail to see what you're rambling about.

ROFL! Should I remind you that the only reason you got support in our previous argument was because they thought you were arguing only for what we already knew to be confirmed in Q&As - that only some units would be in the editor? You pretended that this was your position the whole time. It didn't occur to the onlookers that somebody might be stupid enough to claim that ALL units would be coming back. And since you have more posts on this forum than me, they just assumed that I was a troll. I see that you take the rep you got from that very seriously, as it's probably the only rep that you get around here. How sad that you only got it under false pretenses.

Links. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

1) It's an exaggeration. Don't tell me you've never head anybody say "everybody knows that..."
2) I already said that I used "related" in reference to nostalgia. Which means memory. So no, you can't. Raynor only exists as we know him. This is just simple logic here.

Except I didn't say that I didn't like the new Raynor, just his Blizzcon '08 voice.

Protip: I am speaking for myself numbnuts. -___-

ROFL! Very well then, I'll be sure to not use such definitive language in the future for you nitpickers. The obvious conclusion from my post was that most StarCraft fans required a connection to the old characters, since this is the sequel. Of course I couldn't count on you to pick this up; I guess I just have to lower my expectations with you next time.

Aww, boo hoo! Dry your tears. I know that you're still butthurt from last time when I made you look like a fool, but how much longer are you going to keep trolling me?

Not remotely. I don't hold new SC2 or War3 players to any kind of standards.

You have the audacity to hold me to standards that you yourself don't keep? Hypocrite. Also, you can see the quote from the article on both of the links I provided, and they're not opinion statements. So it's hardly unproven. Most certainly it's a hell of alot more than you've ever offered. At least you won't hear me say "I can't find it, but it was in some blizzcast." rofl

 

I have always been of the opinion that a serious debate is not so much about ''winning'' or ''correcting'' as it is about sharing and learning. I hope that other people at Starcraft2forum.org also cherish that belief.

Tychus, you're an intelligent fellow, and I respect the fact that you're interested in serious, interesting debate. You're a great poster; in fact many of your threads become first page material. But the peremptory tone of that paragraph is unworthy of you, and, perhaps, hints at a subtle irony of your character.

If you'll permit, Tychus, I present a hypothetical situation for you: if someone, with a limited knowledge of Drama, were to google, say, ''problems with The Method'' and in consequence reported finding nothing but praise for it (seemingly to drop another arrow in his in quiver of arguments, so to speak), well, is that someone more interested in winning or learning?

I don't know what your major is, but mine is Drama. Now, let me state here that I am neither a debater of great talent, but rather too often a fool (like all too many of us) and, I let my desire to make a point (in essence to win) mitigate my respect; I was both rude and arrogant in my replies to your arguments, Tychus, and levied unjust accusations against you. However, I hope you can look beyond my flaws, so we can put that incident behind us and have friendlier, more constructive debates from now on.

That said, I don't give a damn whether any of the original voice actors return or not. I'll evolve along with them.

 

That's irrelevant, because as I said, it applies to you as well. It's still twofaced.

Characterisation will always come first over nostalgia. That's obvious. If there's an opinion between an old voice that we recognise that will be worse at portraying the new personality and a new, similar voice that we don't recognise but will be better at portraying the new personality, then the newer, better voice should always be chosen. If it's not, then they're being detrimental to the game by being too sentimental.

Also, regardless of whether you'd played them or not, if it's the continuity that's important to you, then you should still be just as opposed to Grom's voice change. And if you really want to understand what's being put across here, look up Grom's WarCraft2 voice on YouTube. Original voices simply do not always work for the new character, and Grom's is a clear example of that, with all subjectivity removed and sentimentality forgotten.

In that case we need the quote direct from the interview. Otherwise it, again, is just someone's opinion of what was said.

Well, look at it this way. Kerrigan's is the latest character we've heard, so if her actress at that stage was a placeholder, why would the actors from about six months before that be the real actors? And what 'stage of production' are you referring to? Alpha?

And your sources tell us that casting takes place near release, so regardless of whether they've already had auditions or not, no, we are not already hitting 'that stage of production'.

Ok then, mind telling me who's doing the voices and linking where we've seen them act?

Again, it's unknown. Knowing it's not the original actors doesn't mean we know what it is.

Firstly, if their minds were already so made up like this, then auditioning wouldn't have helped. And if he had auditioned, then there would have most likely been an uproar over Blizzard deciding that this new actor is better at doing Raynor's actor's voice, when they were actually just taking it in a different direction. It's lose-lose for Blizzard. At least this way they're making it clear that they're taking the character in a different direction. The original voice would only hinder that.

Should you know what you're talking about before you start saying it is, or will be, horrible? Yes. Because if you don't, then you're just proving to everyone that you're not basing your thoughts on anything and are just acting irrationally.

As for their previous actors, apart from you again presenting your opinions as facts and the fact that you'll most likely challenge me if I present my opinions on it by saying it's completely subjective and that you don't want to discuss such matters, if you roll a dice five times and they all come up ones, is your next roll going to be a one? Should you wait until you've seen what it is before you start complaining that you've rolled a one again?

Ok then, you're paying for the ice cream, or a five litre tub of ice cream, happy?

And it's not necessarily your favourite. Your favourite of what you've tasted, yes, but you haven't tasted everything. There's nothing to say that you can't like the substitute he bought more, so why would you automatically assume it's worse? That's simply being pessimistic.

That's only the case if they're wanting to cast a Raynor that's identical to what he was in StarCraft1. Not only was the original Raynor not what they were after but Raynor's character has changed since then. Again, the Meg Griffin from Family Guy parallel. No-one would notice that the voice actress changed between seasons one and two, and, in fact, individual lines by the first actor that weren't initially used were used in some later seasons, and there's absolutely no noticeable change in the voice. Case and point, a new voice actor does not, by any means, mean that radical changes have been made.

Why are old examples not relevant? Is StarCraft not an old game? Of any comparisons that are to be drawn, the most relevant would actually be between WarCraft2 and WarCraft3.

Not non-existent so much as misrepresented. Storyline-wise, he still does what Blizzard had envisioned. His voice actor just couldn't portray that as well as they'd've liked. And again, if you're so into nostalgia then you'd be listening to a hyperactive parrot on steroids every time you played WarCraft3. Again, nostalgia is not always a good thing. Characterisation always comes on top of nostalgia.

The impression you got from me saying that fans can give their opinions and critical response to changes made was that fans have no right to give their own opinions? Right...

There's a vast different between complaining and giving a critical response. Think about it this way... If you were asked to right a critical response to a particular text for school, would you simply complain about it through your entire essay? If you submitted a practice essay to your teacher to give a critical response and your teacher just complained at you for writing it, is that actually a critical response?

In short, characterisation is more important than nostalgia. Case and point, imagine if Grom's original voice actor did his voice for WarCraft3.

 

Hex. Do not get me started about Warcraft 2 Grom.

 

Dare I ask why?

 

This is not your character to decide that and you cannot say that with clarity. You have no idea what will happen with his character in this game. In regards to you saying that he has changed too much, that's what a character is a changing person. Next time you change your mind or opinion you don't want to be flamed and judged for it do you? Then leave the story telling to the professionals.

Isn't this the kind of subjective matter that you said doesn't hold up in an argument?

Not true, have you ever been to an audition? Have you ever tried out for a part period? Have you ever passed an audition and made it to call backs? Have you ever recieved an acting job? I'm going to assume no because if you had then you'd understand the process of how this works. I'll fill you in. First the person casting already has an idea and mold for the position they want to fill, they don't hold on audition with no idea as to what they want, they hold it waiting for someone to portray their role correctly. Second person by person gives them a monologue to display their talent and abilities. Third they take notes and pool a select group into a pool to give them an extended exert from the script they wish them to portray. Fourth they narrow it down from there and select the person they wish to represent the character that they have created. This usually takes place over several days, but they are done in groups. Group A would do all of their work in one day, Group B the next, etc. But lets say that person number 128 out of 500 in Group A was the guy they were looking for and put him through to call backs. Yet again he passes and exceeds everyone else in Group A the team then gets to make the decision if it's even worth screening through another at least thousand people and give him the role. Thus the thousands of people that were in Group B through G get turned away and refused the ability to audition as the part has been filled. You do have the right to be up in arms about the way the acting business is run, but that's what SAG is for really so don't bother. You do not have the right to be up in arms about Blizzard, they didn't create the business they are just part of it. Go ahead look up to see if any actor was ever turned away for a job, you'll get millions. Acting is a harsh and rough business to make your way in but that's why you get agents to give you job opportunities left and right, because if they didn't you'd starve looking for work. It's that quote 'don't hate the player, hate the game' Blizzard is the player and acting is the game. Get used to the rocking or jump ship and start swimming.

Blizzard has hardly done this enough to call it a habit, they have kept plenty of actors and in some cases even have their own acting troop to be apart of several of their games. This is also subjective something we were told to avoid...

Most people do like the new voices, I've heard no one come to your side of the argument. Blizzard can't make everyone happy. They are simply pleasing the masses at the moment, sorry you pulled the short straw on this one.

Again it's true some do, but some care about the character being portrayed as accurately as possible regardless of consistency. Unfortunately the consistency comes second only to quality for most.

That's exactly what they're doing, again sorry you drew the short straw on this one.

They didn't loose anyone, they found someone better or at least they think so. That is their opinion and their opinion is what matters at the end of the day. It's nice for everyone to have a say but at the end a decision has to be made. A decision which we cannot properly judge yet. In your idea we should throw people in prison before they do something illegal because they probably will. That's not the way it works.

This kind of talk has no place in this forum and is completely unnecessary:

Bring your arguments, opinions and facts but leave your attitude at your desk.

 

Warcraft 2 Grom's voice is nails on a chalkboard.

 

Why not get something for the community like, grab a chance to be this characters voice eh?? lol, i know everyone will be pissed when they will be hearing underserving ones...

anyway ten years of age is a new era and its not so bad for change right.. i'll just have to look forward to her newfound voice talent.. lol

 

Oh gosh I played the original warcraft and warcraft 3 but not warcraft 2. I jsut went to youtube and ehard grom's war2 voice. It even hurt my dogs ears. That was terrible!

 

Itza - I'll get back to you shortly.

What are you rambling about? That has nothing to do with what I'm actually discussing. Again, refresh yourself:

Familiarize yourself with these things if you plan on arguing with me again.

It's too bad that Clotworthy never got to do any of those things. So your example is pretty much irrelevant.

I have the right to voice my opinion. Sorry.

It's starting to become more prevalent. especially with their recent games. Just because they kept a few people doesn't disprove this. Warcraft 3 came out 6 years ago - Blizzard has changed over 6 years.

Are you freaking kidding me?! Nobody has come to my side of the argument? Maybe on these forums yeah, but there are like 3 people in this conversation if you haven't noticed. The majority of the people in these threads want the VAs back:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=15276982305&sid=3000
http://www.sclegacy.com/showthread.php?t=279

It's a simple matter of stepping outside of these forums. Just because 3 people here are arguing against me doesn't make them right. If anybody here was going to use the bandwagon fallacy, I would definitely have more right to it than you.

So you want to get in a debate over whether the old VAs were more "quality" than the new ones? As far as I'm concerned, the stand-ins that we've had so far are inferior, other people would agree.

ROFL! Step out of these forums pal and take a look around...

Take a look at this poll for example: http://www.starcraftwire.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1638

100% of the people want the old VAs. 100%.

I see that you conveniently glazed over Tychus's trolling. Look, I know that you're just disagreeing with me for the hell of it, but at least have the courtesy to not be a hypocrite and hold me to the standards which you don't hold other people to.

 

Notice how the poll is also closed, stopping people from expressing their opinions.

On top of that, it's a specious poll. It's simply asking if we would want the original voices back, so to disagree, someone would physically have to not want to original actors to return, and just like the Developer's Feedback poll, it's lumping them all together for solidarity. Even I, who hated Raynor's voice in StarCraft, would find it hard to say that I do not want the original actors back, as I have nothing against most of them.

Also, again, we haven't actually heard the new voices, so it's practically asking if we like something we know better than something we don't.

Long story short, it's a specious poll.

EDIT: I've warned you about aggressive talk, Aedus. There's no need for it.

 

Irrelevant. It was still opened after we heard both voice acting demonstrations, and it had 57 votes.

Cute, but no. If you say you do want them back then that means you don't want the characters to be expanded/developed (according to you), which is your main argument. This is a double standard - I'll be using this example if you keep bothering me with that Grom example of yours.

Sorry, but I just feel that he's singling me out simply because that's what everyone else in this thread is doing, which he all but admitted. Earlier in the topic he basically said that he liked Glynnis's voice and couldn't understand why they dropped her i.e. "What sense would it make to bring in a voice actor to do bits and pieces already, one that they were set on?" Now he's seemingly changed his position and just comes in to argue with me because that's what everyone else is doing. Why else would he say "if you're right, why has nobody come in to agree with you"? It's like he's just coming in here to add his +1 and get in good with you guys.

How do you figure? I've given actual links that support my claims that I listed in the bulletpoints. How about you?

The problem is that this doesn't apply to our case. Except for people who actually like the SC2 voices we've seen so far more than the old ones.

We have the direct quote - that's why I linked to another forum & news post. Search for "Blizzard Entertainment did not give him the chance to audition to reprise his former role."

Auditions have already happened. We are at that stage, as SP was 1/3 done a while ago which is what the article says. The voice acting positions went up for grabs a few months ago as well.

However, I think you're misunderstanding me. I know that they are placeholders, it's already been confirmed. But that's irrelevant to the what I highlighted in my bulletpoints. The point is that we have already seen the kind of decisions that Blizzard is making with SC2 voice acting i.e. making Raynor way too much of a hick and if it's Kerrigan in that Zerg Reveal trailer, just making her sound plain bad, similar to my WoW examples.

It's safe to say that we will not hear the final voice actors before it is too late. And yes, I realize that this only applies to people who don't like the voices.

And again, this is just idle speculation. They have no way of knowing if Clotworthy could have taken Raynor in a different direction. Clotworthy said he wanted to do just that in the interview, and it's been 10 years.

The problem with all your analogies is that they're basically strawmen. I'll respond to this if I have to but I'd prefer if we discussed the actual subject instead of your analogies, since I can make biased analogies as well.

1) I'd prefer not to roll the dice with SC2's characters & voice acting. If we don't speak up now we will not get another opportunity for Blizzard to do something about our opinions.
2) It's not as simple as a dice roll, since there are many factors i.e. multiple VAs.
3) A more apt analogy is leaving your stuff where you know that things have recently been stolen. Should you put your stuff there and "roll the dice"? Just because things have been stolen before doesn't mean that it will happen again, does it? That's just being pessimistic right?

Uhm, that doesn't change the fact that you can't eat your favorite flavor again. Even if you find better flavors you liked the original for a reason. It's also like saying "I don't care that chocolate is your favorite, we're going in a different direction and you can't have chocolate ever again". Why should we accept this in the case of voice acting when we know that Blizz doesn't have a good track record of picking new VAs?

Again, they're voice actors. Have you listened to any of Glynnis's or Robert's other samples?

If this is the case then they should have at least let him audition. We're going in circles here.

No, it's not, because that's not when their new habit started. Saying that you can't compare the voice acting because one is an online RPG and another game is an RTS is not necessarily true either. You claim that Archimonde had a small role in War3, well he also had a small role in WoW. So how does that excuse the horrendous new voice acting/editing for him?

If it's semantics you're arguing, to complain just means to express displeasure. You can't really give a "critical response" to voice acting since it's subjective as we already showed - you can just say whether you like it or not. How do you think fans should give a "critical response" if they're not in the voice acting industry or whatever? Then can only say whether they like it or not, unless they're educated enough to dissect the voice acting. I chose the word "complaining" for this reason, but I never implied that we had to be rude or anything.

Futhermore, you were originally arguing against the uproar of the fans over this issue. But unless you can disprove the things I had in my bullet points, then we DO have a right to complain and nobody (including you) should be able to tell us otherwise. Because then the problem with your stance is that you're assuming everyone feels the same way on this issue as you do, which is clearly false.

 

I took your bullet points and responded to them one at a time. If that isn't 'refreshing myself' then what do you propose I do?
By the way I've been in this argument for about 90% of the time sorry I got here a post or two late but don't you accuse me of just jumping in here to get on the bandwagon to get my reputation up...

stop being so damned condescending... I have done nothing of the sort to you. Again I've been here through most of the fight and responded to your bullet points as such, stop throwing this excuse out there just to side step the debate. This is exactly what you have been doing every time that we put out a point that puts you at a disadvantage that's not what debating is.

Not at all, if anything my example is the most relevant. In that example he is in group B or C or D etc. in which case they all got turned away including him.

You are correct, however you do have the obligation to know what your opinion is about. Like I said you have the right to complain about the acting business all you want, everyone does. You don't have the right to complain about Blizzard singularly because it's a company standard. Just like I don't have the right to scream at Pepsi for making plastic rings that go around a six pack because they endanger the environment. It simply isn't their fault. Even if it was their fault, it would be folly to just complain about them because Coka-Cola does the exact same thing along with all of the other off brand sodas.

How is it becoming more prevalent? With WoW? or with SC2? Both? Regardless without an interview with Blizzard themselves telling us why they don't have the same voice actors it means nothing. A speculation: they may just have a habit of hiring actors that quit. Either way just as keeping a few people doesn't disprove your idea loosing a few people doesn't prove your idea either.

Plenty of people have chimed in, maybe they haven't gotten involved to the extent as the three of us but still they put their two cents in.

Stand in is completely irrelevant, the stand in has nothing to do with the final voice actor. Know this, Blizzard chose quality in the end. They didn't kick their old actors to the curb because of spite. That would just be ludicrous for a company especially because of their size and the number of people they have to present their work to.

No, I did not glaze over Tychus's post. He definitely walked a tight line in calling you immature, but I'm not a mod. However he never jumped off and called you stupid or numbnuts (something I felt needed to be addressed regardless) if he had I would have addressed that in my post as well.

Edit:

First off get your facts straight. I never admitted to singling you out, or anything of the sort. I'm just taking my seat in a debate. Yes, yes I did like Glynnis's voice, however the comment that I made was made in ignorance. I did not know that she was brought on specifically as a stand in. In my mind I thought she had the job and they pulled it out from underneath her. Obviously I was wrong, I didn't change my mind about Robert, I was proven wrong about Glynnis, I have always had this position with Robert. The second part which I didn't say (I would appreciate it if you'd quote me correctly) I said in a matter of numbers they seem stacked against you putting you in the minority in this forum. Blizzard is trying to please the majority. Even so, none of your aggressive talk was pointed at me so why are you giving reasons that I deserve your insults?

 

I don't think so. In that particular instance you were replying to something that wasn't part of the argument.

I apologize if you were offended then, I guess I took your post the wrong way.

Then that would imply that he got to audition. Sorry, but if that's really what happened they would have just said "he didn't make it through the audition" not "Blizzard Entertainment did not give him the chance to audition to reprise his former role."

Blizzard specifically doesn't owe me anything as a company, and I never claimed such. I was initially arguing with Itza's claim that we have no right to complain. Read my explanation about the difference between "complain" and "to offer a critical response" - in this situation there is none.

Dude, Blizzard would not discuss such matters with the fans. It came straight from Clotworthy himself. Sure, you can interpret it as "meaning nothing" but don't tell the rest of us to quiet down because we believe this perfectly reputable source.

What do you mean? Glynnis & Robert didn't quit, they expressed interest in coming back.

I know. I'm referring to the decisions that they made with their stand-ins, not the quality of the stand-ins.

I may have used more profanities but his post was no less offensive than mine. And yes he has done that plenty of times, but that's irrelevant. It just looked to me that you automatically took his side without reading what actually went on.