1079 réponses à ce sujet

[Piecake]

Ziggeh wrote...

I rather like DA's elves as they used to be the tolkienesque elves but are now just slight humans with regrets of that lost culture. It's an interesting play on the trope, that they too feel they should be the kind of elves people who are into elves in fiction feel they should be.

I think I might find it more interesting if we eventually found out that they never were immortal tolkienesque elves, but just created that myth to make themselves feel better about their current plight.

[Ziggeh]

Piecake wrote...

I think I might find it more interesting if we eventually found out that they never were immortal tolkienesque elves, but just created that myth to make themselves feel better about their current plight.

I very nearly added a caveat to my sentence, because I don't believe they ever were, but it muddied the point a touch. Mind you, I don't believe half the stuff in the codex.

[Maria Caliban]

In Exile wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

There are lore differences that require different biology from the human norm. The dwarves don't enter the Fade and are resistant to the dangers of lyrium. I don't think the average person would believe that there were a group of immortal humans who ruled over the land and then lost their immortality because of interacting with other humans.

Those just require between-group biological differences. But we have those within the human norm.

Immortality does not exist within the human norm. The ability to naturally connect to the Fade is one that animals have in the setting. Not having it is a bizarre abnormality.

I get why people use non-humans in fictions. My response would be that it's precisely for the reason that I see the prallel to the real world that I find non-humans to just be humans in suits.

Wait, you mean all non-humans? In all speculative fiction? Or are you specifically talking about the common fantasy races?

However, I was responding to Upsettingshorts 'The story would be the same.' No, using city elves that could stand in for a number of oppressed groups is not the same using a specific, real world oppressed group.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:49 .

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...

There are lore differences that require different biology from the human norm. The dwarves don't enter the Fade and are resistant to the dangers of lyrium. I don't think the average person would believe that there were a group of immortal humans who ruled over the land and then lost their immortality because of interacting with other humans.

I of course can't possibly explain away every change necessary to make all of the races of Thedas work as human without inventing various excuses.  Like, "well, the underground humans have lived near and worked with lyrium for so many generations that they have developed a tolerance" (think lactose intolerance in humans).  As far as the immortality thing goes, that does seem like it'd be harder to account for.  A loss of immortality I think - in upsettingshorts' silly view of Thedas - could be interesting if it is metaphorical; such as representative of wisdom and a considerate and deliberate nature.  Contact with humans making them more impatient and worldly.  Keep in mind of course, that I'm really not all that knowledgeable when it comes to Thedas lore.  

However:

Maria Caliban wrote...

Immortality does not exist within the human norm. The ability to naturally connect to the Fade is one that animals have in the setting. Not having it is a bizarre abnormality.

I never said anything about abandoning the spiritual.  Maybe the Maker just cursed them.  Or, in the case of the no-longer immortal humans, were once demigods favored by the Gods who lost their gifts by intermingling with humans.  Or at least that's the excuse they give.

Maria Caliban wrote...

The city elf/human divide does require a physical difference between them. You could use skin color, but the impact on the audience is different. 'Humans keep city elves in alienages' is problematic. 'White humans keep black humans in alienages' is going to be a direct commentary on the real world. Imagine the response to a fantasy game where in one origin a white man interrupts the wedding of non-whites, and then takes all the women home to rape.

You might be fine with that. Many people wouldn't be. I'm not sure the writers and developers of a fantasy game want to end up knee deep in real world racial politics.

You've brought up that point before.  You were right then, and you're right now.  But like I said, I was just speaking of my preferences and indeed - I would be fine with that.  The treatment of the elves in the city elf origin is brutal, reprehensible, and offensive - and most wouldn't consider it a political commentary on the real world.  But of course I'm not silly enough to think that, as you say, most people wouldn't have a problem with it if it was about whites and nonwhites as opposed to humans and elves.

Science fiction and fantasy do have the luxury - or at least, the right set of tools in their toolbox - to address real world issues like racism, sexism, violence, etc - in a way that gives them some emotional distance while still being potentially thought provoking.  And in general I have no desire to take that away from them.  However, the underlying problem is the common, reflexive apprehension towards confronting controversial issues in a thoughtful way.  Which is the reason that sci fi and fantasy have to jump through hoops to address those issues - when that is in fact their goal - in the first place.  Even then, it still has the potential to make people uncomfortable. 

Racism for example is a real world issue.  Dressing it up into a human versus elves problem may make it less controversial, but it also blunts the edge of the point.  Writers and businesses have to consider that.  I, as a consumer and reader, really don't. 

Now that I've gone much farther with the point than I intended...

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:52 .

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...
However, I was responding to Upsettingshorts 'The story would be the same.' No, using city elves that could stand in for a number of oppressed groups is not the same using a specific, real world oppressed group.

In general what I meant to say wasn't "The story would be the same" but "The story could be the same."  Obviously, with some changes.  The idea was to explain that they didn't need to be oddly alien looking humans for me to notice and appreciate their differences.  

It's something we've both actually been over before - and you said something like, "Yes, I get that you are saying differences can be based on culture and geography."

I'm not saying anything new this time, really.

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Immortality does not exist within the human norm. The ability to naturally connect to the Fade is one that animals have in the setting. Not having it is a bizarre abnormality.

Neither is magic. Yet somehow we accept that there is some subclass of humans that can do it. Having some subset of immortal humans (or humans who believe they were once immortal) is no more setting inconsistent than any other reality breaking trope.

Wait, you mean all non-humans? In all speculative fiction? Or are you specifically talking about the common fantasy races?

However, I was responding to Upsettingshorts 'The story would be the same.' No, using city elves that could stand in for a number of oppressed groups is not the same using a specific, real world oppressed group.

You wouldn't have to use a specific oppressed group. It would just be the dalish (or whatever name you want to give them) and they would be a conquered people. Just like what the elves are.

I suppose at best you could say that fantasy pushes a particular version of race (that we are intrinsically different and not all the same thing) but I don't see why not using fantasy races implies we would have to use real world race.

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
The italiced part. The interface and subtitles are in spanish, but the voice acting is in english.

I'm kind of shocked. My understanding was that publishers typically re-do VO for non-English markets;  we sometimes find people wanting to buy the English  versions overseas because the localized cast isn't as good as the English one.
Maybe this is prohibitive in games with lip-synching?

It's a case-by-case situation. Bethesda still uses spanish VO (with all them three actors); while, since Jade Empire (or KotOR, not sure which one), Bioware stopped using spanish VO. Last one with spanish VO was Icewind Dale II, I think.

Modifié par Xewaka, 23 décembre 2010 - 11:47 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I of course can't possibly explain away every change necessary to make all of the races of Thedas work as human without inventing various excuses.  Like, "well, the underground humans have lived near and worked with lyrium for so many generations that they have developed a tolerance" (think lactose intolerance in humans).

And since they've been living underground for so long, they might be much shorter than normal humans. Also, they've become excellent smiths and miners as that's all they have to trade with the outside world.

There are fantasy settings where dwarves are just another breed of humans. Thedas might be another one. We already know that humans and dwarves can interbreed.

In my own way, I'm agreeing with you. If you pile on enough biological differences, you've got a different type of human. But at that point, why not just call them dwarves? Then people know what to expect.

 As far as the immortality thing goes, that does seem like it'd be harder to account for.  A loss of immortality I think - in upsettingshorts' silly view of Thedas - could be interesting if it is metaphorical; such as representative of wisdom and a considerate and deliberate nature.  Contact with humans making them more impatient and worldly.  Keep in mind of course, that I'm really not all that knowledgeable when it comes to Thedas lore.

There are a number of real world mythologies and religions that suggest a 'Golden Age' where humans lived much longer until the world changed or they became corrupt.

The difference between humans and elves here is that its that by using a fantasy race, I'm willing to consider that the immortality was real. I'm still skeptical, but I don't consider it impossible out-of-hand. It's much like the Maker or the elven gods. Given the setting, I'm willing to accept that divine being might exist. If it were a historical novel set in ancient Rome, I'd never consider the gods the characters worshiped to be any more than make believe.

You've brought up that point before.  You were right then, and you're right now.  But like I said, I was just speaking of my preferences and indeed - I would be fine with that.  The treatment of the elves in the city elf origin is brutal, reprehensible, and offensive - and most wouldn't consider it a political commentary on the real world.  But of course I'm not silly enough to think that, as you say, most people wouldn't have a problem with it if it was about whites and nonwhites as opposed to humans and elves.

Science fiction and fantasy do have the luxury - or at least, the right set of tools in their toolbox - to address real world issues like racism, sexism, violence, etc - in a way that gives them some emotional distance while still being potentially thought provoking.  And in general I have no desire to take that away from them.  However, the underlying problem is the common, reflexive apprehension towards confronting controversial issues in a thoughtful way.  Which is the reason that sci fi and fantasy have to jump through hoops to address those issues - when that is in fact their goal - in the first place.  Even then, it still has the potential to make people uncomfortable. 

Racism for example is a real world issue.  Dressing it up into a human versus elves problem may make it less controversial, but it also blunts the edge of the point.  Writers and businesses have to consider that.  I, as a consumer and reader, really don't.

To be sure, there is fantasy and science fiction that tackles real-world issues in a straight forward manner. The hard sci-fi movement can be seen as a reaction to feminist authors in the 1970s and 80s writing a ton of sci-fi that dealt with marxism, sexual equality, social revolutions, etc.

I'm more concerned about BioWare and video games in general attempting to handle real-world political and cultural issues. It's one of those things that you write about (game about?) because these things interest you and you want to explore them. It's not something you can casually slip into a game and then ignore for 80 hours as the PC battles darkspawn.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

What you are trying to conclude is that there is a lack of value in the cinematic scripting, but that is wrong. The written line is a detraction. It is that thing that makes these intrinsically worth less.

Of course it's wrong because that's not what i'm saying at all.
You're letting your min-maxing warp the perception, again   What i'm saying is, the value of visuals and VO associated with the script may be somewhat limited and perhaps lesser than it's presumed by those pushing for the "fully cinematic experience" in a game. But limited value doesn't equate lack of value.

You are confusing content with presentatiion. I prefer cinematic presentation to written presentation. But I care about content. If I get the content in a form I care less about, that makes my experience worse. But I still have the content, and so I can't actually control my impatience enough to enjoy the presentation I would have otherwise enjoyed.

I'm not sure why you think there's confusion here -- to reword it to your terms, the cinematic presentation, while certainly enhancing the experience, doesn't appear to be interesting enough by itself to make you want again experience the content you already learnt through different presentation. I.e. it doesn't enhance the experience to the point where you'd find the content already known... valuable enough to watch it again. Is that incorrect?

Or they may like the story so much they want to see it again.

That's also possible and for some people will be true. But it doesn't rule out the reasoning i've provided as being motivations of some others. Or even the same people but in different cases.

You may be making mistake here and presuming that i intend for my explanation to be universal and applying to everyone. I don't.

You're infering too many things about my motivations.

That's not as much ifering anything about your motivations in particular, but rather observing potential motivations which may be different from your own.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Of course it's wrong because that's not what i'm saying at all.
You're letting your min-maxing warp the perception, again   What i'm saying is, the value of visuals and VO associated with the script may be somewhat limited and perhaps lesser than it's presumed by those pushing for the "fully cinematic experience" in a game. But limited value doesn't equate lack of value.

Which is to say you're trying to say there is a lack in value relative to the pressuposed standard.

But that requires a false construct of the experience, which I addresed in a later post.

I'm not sure why you think there's confusion here -- to reword it to your terms, the cinematic presentation, while certainly enhancing the experience, doesn't appear to be interesting enough by itself to make you want again experience the content you already learnt through different presentation. I.e. it doesn't enhance the experience to the point where you'd find the content already known... valuable enough to watch it again. Is that incorrect?

Yes. I explained in a different post. Looking at cinematic presentation by itself is incoherent because it is a modifer for the content. You cannot separate how I feel about any particular cinematic from my experience of the content of that cinematic.

All that you can do is ask me in general which type of presentation I would rather have. Because there is an order effect, you can't come up with an empirical task to measure the same without getting skewed results.

That's also possible and for some people will be true. But it doesn't rule out the reasoning i've provided as being motivations of some others. Or even the same people but in different cases.

You may be making mistake here and presuming that i intend for my explanation to be universal and applying to everyone. I don't.

You are trying to argue that Bioware is inaccurate in their justification of the paraphrase - i.e. that there is some alternative explanation that accounts for the experience of the majority that is neither a subjective preference for cinematic presentation or a preference for the paraphrase itself.

To be universal (in the psychological sense) it need not be accurate for all as opposed to most cases. And you seem to be making a most objection, otherwise I don't understand why you would comment at all.

That's not as much ifering anything about your motivations in
particular, but rather observing potential motivations which may be
different from your own.

You're trying to come up with a general explenation for a reaction that excludes your own but includes mine. That's already a hard position to be with respect to developing a theory.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 décembre 2010 - 11:28 .

[Piecake]

tmp7704 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

What you are trying to conclude is that there is a lack of value in the cinematic scripting, but that is wrong. The written line is a detraction. It is that thing that makes these intrinsically worth less.

Of course it's wrong because that's not what i'm saying at all.
You're letting your min-maxing warp the perception, again   What i'm saying is, the value of visuals and VO associated with the script may be somewhat limited and perhaps lesser than it's presumed by those pushing for the "fully cinematic experience" in a game. But limited value doesn't equate lack of value.

You are confusing content with presentatiion. I prefer cinematic presentation to written presentation. But I care about content. If I get the content in a form I care less about, that makes my experience worse. But I still have the content, and so I can't actually control my impatience enough to enjoy the presentation I would have otherwise enjoyed.

I'm not sure why you think there's confusion here -- to reword it to your terms, the cinematic presentation, while certainly enhancing the experience, doesn't appear to be interesting enough by itself to make you want again experience the content you already learnt through different presentation. I.e. it doesn't enhance the experience to the point where you'd find the content already known... valuable enough to watch it again. Is that incorrect?

Or they may like the story so much they want to see it again.

That's also possible and for some people will be true. But it doesn't rule out the reasoning i've provided as being motivations of some others. Or even the same people but in different cases.

You may be making mistake here and presuming that i intend for my explanation to be universal and applying to everyone. I don't.

You're infering too many things about my motivations.

That's not as much ifering anything about your motivations in particular, but rather observing potential motivations which may be different from your own.

Your entire arguement is absurd

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I wouldn't. I would say that experience only has value insofar as it mediates the enjoyment of the script.

Well, i don't see it to be universally true -- there may be specific situations where the script cannot be received, yet the piece is still found enjoyable based on the quality of delivery alone. For example i'll frequently enjoy listening to songs performed in language i don't understand, and it's then based purely on texture of the artist's voice, or combination of instruments and similar factors -- in these situations i have no clue what the script driving the piece is, nor i'm even interested in trying to come up with any kind of possible interpretation of my own.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Well, i don't see it to be universally true -- there may be specific situations where the script cannot be received, yet the piece is still found enjoyable based on the quality of delivery alone. For example i'll frequently enjoy listening to songs performed in language i don't understand, and it's then based purely on texture of the artist's voice, or combination of instruments and similar factors -- in these situations i have no clue what the script driving the piece is, nor i'm even interested in trying to come up with any kind of possible interpretation of my own.

But in purely auditory stimuli cases, the script isn't purely written or verbal content. The same for visual.

If I saw a Japanese movie, I could still understand some of the script based on the actions.

It is the same with the song. While the words may be incomprehensible, not all music depends on words at all. There is the pace of the song, the instruments involved, the dissonance or consonance of the sounds.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

If I saw a Japanese movie, I could still understand some of the script based on the actions.

I've seen a lot of japanese movies where I've not understood the actions even with the script.

Giant robots. Hitting each other for reasons they've yet to explain.

[upsettingshorts]

Gamera is friend to all children.

[In Exile]

Ziggeh wrote...
I've seen a lot of japanese movies where I've not understood the actions even with the script.

Giant robots. Hitting each other for reasons they've yet to explain.

I think this falls under the "porn" rule, i.e. there's never a reason not to do it.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Which is to say you're trying to say there is a lack in value relative to the pressuposed standard.

I suppose it will depend on how you define "lack". Given this is pretty flexible term, perhaps it'd be better to use "absence" and "shortage" instead. I was talking of shortage of value, while your interpretation seemed to reduce that to absence of value.

You are trying to argue that Bioware is inaccurate in their justification of the paraphrase

... what? no.
 
I'm instead noting that they may be attaching more value to the cinematic presentation than it's warranted. I.e. they're sinking increasingly larger part of resources into the part of the game which appears to provide quite limited return of such investment.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote..
I suppose it will depend on how you define "lack". Given this is pretty flexible term, perhaps it'd be better to use "absence" and "shortage" instead. I was talking of shortage of value, while your interpretation seemed to reduce that to absence of value.

Not at all. I meant lack in the shortage sense.

In this context, though, we are talking about the threshold for a feature to be useful. Being below a threshold in this case seems equivalent to being absent.

... what? no.
 
I'm instead noting that they may be attaching more value to the cinematic presentation than it's warranted. I.e. they're sinking increasingly larger part of resources into the part of the game which appears to provide quite limited return of such investment.

Which is a claim that they are inaccurate in their justification of their paraphrase.

Here is what you said originally re:

tmp7704 wrote...
Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far
less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be? I
mean, if people (yourself included) are fine with getting just the
written version of the dialogue, and instantly skip the spoken version
with all the tone work etc ... then it'd seem they don't exactly attach
much value to these extra parts.

After all if the delivery itself
was huge source of enjoyment, wouldn't you gladly sit there and well,
enjoy it rather than skip? And yet instead you have to resort to "stupid
paraphrasing" i.e. essentially trick the player into sitting there and
listening to the thing if they actually want to know what's going on and
what's being said.

Modifié par In Exile, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:03 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But in purely auditory stimuli cases, the script isn't purely written or verbal content. The same for visual.

If I saw a Japanese movie, I could still understand some of the script based on the actions.

It is the same with the song. While the words may be incomprehensible, not all music depends on words at all. There is the pace of the song, the instruments involved, the dissonance or consonance of the sounds.

Which is why i specifically mentioned "no clue what the script driving the piece is, nor even being interested in trying to come up with any kind of possible interpretation of my own".

The pace, instrument selection and all other factors may be helpful if you're actually trying to understand some of the script. But one can also e.g. enjoy just the sound of certain instruments in any piece, no matter if it's fast or slow, sad or optimistic etc. That is, no matter what the content of script associated with the piece actually is.

In similar manner, there's voices of certain people i enjoy listening to, and that's completely detached from what they actually say, and universal -- the texture is simply pleasant on its own.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Which is why i specifically mentioned "no clue what the script driving the piece is, nor even being interested in trying to come up with any kind of possible interpretation of my own".

But that assumes you have a conscious choice in trying to get the piece. It's like looking at a screen with writing and not reading. There is a basic level of cognitive reflex you can't avoid.

The pace, instrument selection and all other factors may be helpful if you're actually trying to understand some of the script. But one can also e.g. enjoy just the sound of certain instruments in any piece, no matter if it's fast or slow, sad or optimistic etc. That is, no matter what the content of script associated with the piece actually is.

Well, I contest precisely that. I would argue you cannot separate the ambience from the music because the music is supposed to produce this kind of auditory reaction to the content (i.e. to the precise sounds chosen) independent of your willingness to interpret it at all.

Like watching a foreign movie, whether or not you are willingly trying to understand the action, there is some basic level of understanding and exposure to content you cannot escape from short of not watching in the first place.

In similar manner, there's voices of certain people i enjoy listening to, and that's completely detached from what they actually say, and universal -- the texture is simply pleasant on its own.

Like them screaming, or grunting?

[Graunt]

David Gaider wrote...
I was responding to the idea that humans are boring. I did not say that elves and dwarves are boring. They are interesting, and have great story potential (which is why I do and will continue to write them). They don't, however, have any more potential to be interesting than a human character does. Someone can really like the elven story or the dwarven story, sure-- personal preference will lead people to like one thing over another all the time-- but I simply reject the idea that humans must be "mundane" when there is an equal amount of potential among all the human cultures of Thedas to explore.

It's very safe to assume that most people that are upset with this are because Dwarves and Elves do not exist in our reality -- they are fantasy creations, thus are more exotic or "fantastic" than the "boring" humans that we see every single day.  Humans may have just as much potential for storytelling, but they will never achieve the same "+1" the other races get for simply not being something we are exposed to constantly.  You might think otherwise, but you're never going to convince those that feel this way...which is probably the majority.

Modifié par Graunt, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:19 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Meh, I'm ranting again.  Maybe that's kinda close to what David Gaider was saying about the races being intrinsically interesting?  Probably not.  I just don't appreciate the value of the elf or dwarf or qunari aesthetics.  Humans are already fascinating enough for me.  

But then I'm not sure I feel the same way about extraterrestial aliens in fiction.  If I kept a journal, I would be writing page after page trying to figure out just where the heck I'm coming from on this topic.  

I actually agree with you, which is why I prefer my elves to look pretty human- Fenris' ears are not as big as I feared they'd be, but too big for my liking- and don't mind that in Thedas they also have most of the same physical characteristics, lifespan, illnesses etc. as humans.  What unites them is a certain shared history and a recognizably "elvish" tie to nature, magic and philosophical living.  You could do the same sorts of storytelling by having human groups with very different outlooks, such as there are in Song of Ice and Fire.  The men in the north vs. the southern kingdoms vs. the Dorthraki with only one figure (Dany) being sort of elvish in her ties to Valyria.

The physical differences provide some visual variety, however, and occasionally have something poignant to add to the social and political differences.  When someone calls my elf Warden "knife ear", he's mocking something essential, personal and unchangeable about her.  Connor's demon said he cut the ears off the elves and fed them to the dogs.  That has more impact to an elven PC than if he had just said he had cut off some other body part that did not represent the elven difference from other races.

[Addai]

David Gaider wrote...

I was responding to the idea that humans are boring. I did not say that elves and dwarves are boring. They are interesting, and have great story potential (which is why I do and will continue to write them). They don't, however, have any more potential to be interesting than a human character does. Someone can really like the elven story or the dwarven story, sure-- personal preference will lead people to like one thing over another all the time-- but I simply reject the idea that humans must be "mundane" when there is an equal amount of potential among all the human cultures of Thedas to explore.

This makes sense, but then it sounded to me like you misunderstood what some of us meant who said we found humans boring.  I can only speak for myself, but when I say that I'm just using shorthand to say that I like being immersed in an elven PC's story more than a human's.  I thought the Cousland story was good, even better than the mage origin, for instance, but I still played more elf mages than Couslands.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

tmp7704 wrote..

I'm instead noting that they may be attaching more value to the cinematic presentation than it's warranted.

Which is a claim that they are inaccurate in their justification of their paraphrase.

Here is what you said originally re:

Let's bold slightly different parts of what i said originally:

"Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far
less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be?"

This doesn't mean i think they're inaccurate in their justification of the paraphrase -- the paraphrase system does seem to perfom function it's intended for, that is, to remove the factor which makes people skip the VO/cutscenes. Instead i think that behaviour of the players may indicate there's too much value being attached to the element which creates need for the paraphrase in the first place, and that is the voiced protagonist / cinematic presentation thing.

[RussianSpy27]

David Gaider wrote...

RussianSpy27 wrote...
3. The creator of the wonderful fantasy world, with the interesting Origins concepts that allowed players to experienced the deep histories and backgrounds of each of several of Theidas' races, that provided diversity and intense fun in the fantasy world says that he finds nothing intrinsically amazing about playing a non-human character. (?????????????).  With all due respect,  I guess it follows that you did not find it intrinsically amazing about playing someone like the Dwarf character that brought before us the entire realm of what it's like to be a Dwarf, what culture and politics of Orzammar? That was so freaking fun that I could replay that 100 times and not be bored!

Okay, let me address this point since you're not alone in misinterpreting what I said.

I was responding to the idea that humans are boring. I did not say that elves and dwarves are boring. They are interesting, and have great story potential (which is why I do and will continue to write them). They don't, however, have any more potential to be interesting than a human character does. Someone can really like the elven story or the dwarven story, sure-- personal preference will lead people to like one thing over another all the time-- but I simply reject the idea that humans must be "mundane" when there is an equal amount of potential among all the human cultures of Thedas to explore.

And that's all I said.

So no, we were not told that there would definitely not be future revisiting of the silent PC with all of then-alleged story benefits (and hence, per Mr. Woo's posts, I will not try to be a seer), but the comments seem to make such revisiting unlikely, as the concept is frowned upon.  Can a frowned-upon concept change tomorrow into a smiled-upon concept? Everything is possible, but just seems unlikely from what we've just been told.

Unlike what you seem to be assuming, profitibility is not the only consideration. A big part of it is what works for this project. When we look at what is an acceptable expense and what isn't, it's in comparison to how that expense makes for a return in the project we're working on. If we do a project in the future where we feel the expense of having multiple player races (along with the voiced PC) gives us enough bang for our buck, we'll do it. It's also possible we could abandon the voiced PC altogether, though like you I consider that unlikely.

Still, stranger things have happened, and a lot of it will depend on how we implement our changes as well as how they're ultimately received. "People didn't like the silent protaganist" in DAO could become "people didn't like the voiced protaganist" in DA2, who knows? Perhaps the game won't sell, in which case we'll have to go back to the drawing board. We don't have a crystal ball regarding that any more than anyone here on the forums does.

In the end we take feedback (the constructive kind) and go with our gut-- because we're the ones making the game, and it's our money on the line. Someone can demonize the fact that there are business decisions to be made, and imply that we're soulless automatons who value it above all else (which people have done) but that doesn't change the fact that we also have creative interest in our creation. One simply cannot exist without the other, and that's the simple truth.

Thank you so much, Mr. Gaider. I rushed with the reply and should have taken what you said to be in context. Instead of reading most of the preciding posts, I just clicked on the "BioWare" tab on the forum and saw your post and took it out of context. Also, I apologize if I implied that all of the decisions are based on finance - they obviously are not, and that's one of the things that makes the development team so special and dedicated.  I appreciate you taking the time to reply