289 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

On the contrary, player behaviour is irrelevent unless it is acknowledged by the game.

A roleplaying option that isn't acknowledged is a roleplaying option that doesn't exist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

On the contrary, player behaviour is irrelevent unless it is acknowledged by the game.

A roleplaying option that isn't acknowledged is a roleplaying option that doesn't exist.

All roleplaying takes place inside the player's head.  All of it.  The game can't acknowledge any roleplaying under any circumstances.  The game can acknowledge character behaviour, but the roleplaying behind that behaviour is only ever visible to the player himself.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

Quoted for truth.

Perception IS reality. If the player does not perceive roadblocks to the way they play, then those roadblocks do not exist, even if the developer is not aware they were even supporting such actions in the first place.

For instance, the developers from Obsidian created a system where you can have reputations with multiple factions, where they will send hit squads after you. However, Obsidian never planned on a player ticking off two factions that hate each other, so a player slept and woke up to find their character surrounded by both groups... but, instead of attacking the player, they attacked each other, resulting in a full-scale turf war where the player could just sit still and watch. The developers at Obsidian said they absolutely loved that this scenario they hadn't planned for could happen.

Just because a game isn't specifically designed for a set of outcomes or playstyles to occur doesn't make them invalid or "wrong." And developers who restrict those playstyles on future games are stifling player agency and freedom. 

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

On the contrary, player behaviour is irrelevent unless it is acknowledged by the game.

A roleplaying option that isn't acknowledged is a roleplaying option that doesn't exist.

All roleplaying takes place inside the player's head.  All of it.  The game can't acknowledge any roleplaying under any circumstances.  The game can acknowledge character behaviour, but the roleplaying behind that behaviour is only ever visible to the player himself.

Obviously that's not true. Or if it is, then there's no such thing as a "roleplaying game", and the debate is pointless.

For there to be a "role" to play, there has to be a context (ie setting and narrative) for that role to exist in. There have to be other characters, to react to the actions of your character. The game provides those, and in Bioware's case, it also provides the character templates that establish history; essentially pre-established roles for the player to assume and work within the confines of.

All of these things work in conjunction to create the roleplaying experience. You could potentially create a character in your head without context, but that is not playing a role, that's having an imaginary friend.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mai 2013 - 05:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Context is not the issue at all.

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them.

If the game tells you what your character is thinking, that suspends the role of what the player is supposed to be doing. That's a problem.

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

Quoted for truth.

Perception IS reality. If the player does not perceive roadblocks to the way they play, then those roadblocks do not exist, even if the developer is not aware they were even supporting such actions in the first place.

For instance, the developers from Obsidian created a system where you can have reputations with multiple factions, where they will send hit squads after you. However, Obsidian never planned on a player ticking off two factions that hate each other, so a player slept and woke up to find their character surrounded by both groups... but, instead of attacking the player, they attacked each other, resulting in a full-scale turf war where the player could just sit still and watch. The developers at Obsidian said they absolutely loved that this scenario they hadn't planned for could happen.

Just because a game isn't specifically designed for a set of outcomes or playstyles to occur doesn't make them invalid or "wrong." And developers who restrict those playstyles on future games are stifling player agency and freedom. 

But your example is a very clear example of something happening IN GAME. (And to be fair it sounds cool).

Non-voice in rpg restricted my roleplaying because all the other voices was... well voiced. The non-existance of the voice proved to be a very real road block because it broke my immersion and very clearly stated: 'This character is just an avatar'. As an result the non-voice actually made very hard for me to roleplay as I was constantly beaten over the head with: Avatar, avatar and avatar, empty shell of an avatar.

Hawke on the other hand felt on par with the rest of the world and thus I could truely immerse myself in her and made many distinctive Hawkes with fine tuned personalities.

It doesn't really have any value for me if it doesn't happen in game.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Quoted for truth.

Perception IS reality.

But only your perception, right?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

Quoted for truth.

...Perception IS reality....

Hallucinations are perceptions. Hallucinations aren't real. Your statement is false.

Just because you do not percieve a roadblock as a roadblock, does not mean that it was not designed to be a roadblock.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Context is not the issue at all.

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them.

If the game tells you what your character is thinking, that suspends the role of what the player is supposed to be doing. That's a problem.

If the game doesn't react to your decisions, then the decisions don't really exist.

DA2 doesn't tell you what your character is thinking. Like all previous Bioware games, it gives you a selection of pre-programmed thoughts to choose from and express.

But this thread was never about that, and I don't know how we even got on this tangent. It was specifically talking about restrictions on character creation.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mai 2013 - 05:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

 

Quoted for truth. 

...Perception IS reality....

Hallucinations are perceptions. Hallucinations aren't real. Your statement is false.

Just because you do not percieve a roadblock as a roadblock, does not mean that it was not designed to be a roadblock.

It certainly is real to the person who is seeing them. It would cause them to take actions that could affect others.

A man believes he is being attacked by demons and stabs one of them. Turn out, that man having hallucinations and stabbed another man. Everyone around could see he was not being attacked by demons... but because he saw it that way, he acted accordingly. 

One man saw demons. One man didn't. The man who didn't see them wound up dead. I would say that makes the "wrong" reality quite relevant. And arguably more influential on the test of the world than the "correct" reality. 

[FINE HERE]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Context is not the issue at all.

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them.

If the game tells you what your character is thinking, that suspends the role of what the player is supposed to be doing. That's a problem.

If the game doesn't react to your decisions, then the decisions don't really exist.

DA2 doesn't tell you what your character is thinking. Like all previous Bioware games, it gives you a selection of pre-programmed thoughts to choose from and express.

But this thread was never about that, and I don't know how we even got on this tangent. It was specifically talking about restrictions on character creation.

Well, dialog options did 'help' to make your character's personality in DA2, so it's sort of relevant? (It's not pre-game, but still...)

And in DA2, you are told what your character is thinking, sort of. Green/Blue symbol equals happy, gentle thoughts, Purple symbol equals witty, oportunist thoughts, and red symbol equals aggressive, violent thoughts. Oh, and hearts equal ridiculously flirty thoughts. There's no neutral option. (Eh, unless it's one of those cirlce of arrows responses, but those sometimes attach the 'dominant' personality, which is bad.) That was one of the things I hated about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Context is not the issue at all. 

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them. 

If the game tells you what your character is thinking, that suspends the role of what the player is supposed to be doing. That's a problem.

If the game doesn't react to your decisions, then the decisions don't really exist.

DA2 doesn't tell[/b] you what your character is thinking. Like all previous Bioware games, it gives you a selection of pre-programmed thoughts to choose from and express.

But this thread was never about that, and I don't know how we even got on this tangent. It was specifically talking about restrictions on character creation.

Who said anything about reactivity? You are convoluting a number of different things. 

Choice and Consequence/Reactivity - Being able to make choices in a game and have those choices be both acknowledged and extrapolated on.

Immersion - Your ability to feel as if you are inside the game world; the ability to feel you ARE that character. 

Roleplaying - The ability to think, feel and act like your character.

A game with a set protagonist can still give you lots of Choice and Consequence. The Witcher 2 is a great example of this. A game with an undefined protagonist can conversely give you very little Choice and Consequence. Skyrim is another great example.

Your immersion may depend on hearing your character voice the lines you choose. My immersion is not dependent on a voiced PC.

However, Role-playing can only be accomplished if you are able to do two things, essentially. A) create and truly know your character. Know their background (part of character creation), know their outlooks, know their personality. And not have the game break your character.

DA2 makes you sad when the game tells you to be sad. It makes you angry when you are told to be angry. It makes you express belief in a god. It gives expressions, mannerisms, inflections and overall personality into the character. And every time it does so, it runs the risk of being contrary to the character created by the player. Which breaks role-playing. Which hurts immersion. And which diminishes Choice and Consequence (because, after all, your character is no longer making the Choices... Bioware's character is).

For those who roleplay, these kinds of infractions make it impossible to play like they have played games in the past. And, again, that is a problem. Back to the original point - if you have zero say in how your character is created, how are you supposed to roleplay them effectively?

[ArcaneJTM]

Plaintiff wrote...

ArcaneJTM wrote...
Nice try, but wanting the option to pick a race is not in any way specifically limited to elves and dwarves.

I didn't say it was, but their existence as a staple of Fantasy fiction means a lot of people expect them to be included by default.

People in this thread are specifcally bemoaning the exclusion of elves and dwarves, but there are several more races that exist in the world of Thedas.

And they should be included as well.

In any game.  A world that includes them however should have the option available to the player.

Why? Why is the ability to create a character of a fictional species more important than narrative cohesion? Because you prefer it? Because you don't want a plot-heavy game anyway?

They are not mutually exclusive, as I've pointed out multiple times. 

You don't care about race choice. You care about the race you want to play, which is an elf or a dwarf. Next to nobody is complaining about the inability to play a kossith, or a fex, probably because it was never included in the first place, so they don't suffer under the illusion of 'losing' something.

You're barking up the wrong tree, and quite frankly making an ass out of yourself as well.  Tone it down.

Just because elves and dwarves exist in a given setting doesn't mean it makes sense for them to be protagonists, just like it doesn't make sense for a Khajiit in Skyrim to be able to join the Stormcloaks, or buy a house.

The fact that you can shout them down (literally) makes you an exception.  That should have been clear to you from the get go.

The nature of Dragon Age's setting means that elves and dwarves are limited vastly more than humans. Until that aspect of the setting changes, including the option to be an elf or dwarf limits the kinds of stories that can be told, and offers nothing in terms of functionality that a human doesn't.

You are wrong.  See Origins and DA2.  Plenty of elves and dwarves running around outside of the alienage or deep roads.  You don't have to have each and every NPC announcing to the world that you are an elf or a dwarf or whatever and calling for the guards all the time because of it.  That would break immersion more than help it.  Seriously, you know you're not human.  You don't need every single person you come across to remind you of it.

I really don't get this nonsense that being allowed pointy ears would somehow completely destroy any hope of having a good story.  As if it's somehow impossible to add a check in the dialogue beyond whether you've got a penis or not.  Really, the fact that you can and should have a check for something as basic as that disproves the notion that you can't have a good story if you let people make their own characters.

Want a bit more?  How about a couple of merchants who won't sell to you, or a couple that give you a discount?  Not at all hard to do and can even be added last minute.  Or how about a guard or two that take issue with you being who you are.  Again, very easy to include.  You can even go all out and make a zone that you are restricted from accessing or allowed to access based on whether you've got horns or not.  An extra week or so of development, depending on how big they are, but still not difficult to put into the story.  It's literally that easy to account for things like race in the overall narative.

If you're really so worried that the role playing game part might get in the way of the story part then maybe you'd feel better if Bioware just scraped the whole thing and sent the script to Hollywood.  <_<

[Naitaka]

FINE HERE wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Context is not the issue at all.

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them.

If the game tells you what your character is thinking, that suspends the role of what the player is supposed to be doing. That's a problem.

If the game doesn't react to your decisions, then the decisions don't really exist.

DA2 doesn't tell you what your character is thinking. Like all previous Bioware games, it gives you a selection of pre-programmed thoughts to choose from and express.

But this thread was never about that, and I don't know how we even got on this tangent. It was specifically talking about restrictions on character creation.

Well, dialog options did 'help' to make your character's personality in DA2, so it's sort of relevant? (It's not pre-game, but still...)

And in DA2, you are told what your character is thinking, sort of. Green/Blue symbol equals happy, gentle thoughts, Purple symbol equals witty, oportunist thoughts, and red symbol equals aggressive, violent thoughts. Oh, and hearts equal ridiculously flirty thoughts. There's no neutral option. (Eh, unless it's one of those cirlce of arrows responses, but those sometimes attach the 'dominant' personality, which is bad.) That was one of the things I hated about it.

Interestingly enough I've felt similiarly about DA2's dialogue system but absolutely loved the one in Alpha Protocol. I think the difference is that in DA2 you're only picking the tone that you use to say pretty much the same thing while in AP you're picking an attitude in how you deal with the situtation at hand and directly change the direction of the conversation and the outcome. I felt more like I was conforming to Hawke in DA2 than I was making any real decision.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
I've been playing games for over ten years and the first real dialog system I encountered was Alpha Protocol then Mass Effect 2.

Have you never done tabletop roleplaying?

No, i didn't even understand the concept of roleplaying until i found BSN.

Never played a tabletop, almost certainly never will.

That may provide additional context to understand my views.

My condolenses.  You are really missing out.

No better group activity, in my opinion, than sitting around a table with friends and playing a game.  A game that isn't a video game, where you are cooperating.  Sometimes board games can fulfill this, but the best board games for this are emulating role-playing games anyway so...

I truly feel sorry for you, saying you almost certainly never will.

Role-playing with friends is light-years better than computer role-playing games.  And I love cRPGs.

Also - Alpha Protocol was the first dialog system you encountered?  Short of the timer on the conversation, I again apologize for you having experienced what is one of the best, if not the best, dialog system in a video game ever.

But how could you not understand role-playing?  Didn't you ever have a teacher in a class have people act out a period in history, or a youth group you were part of?  Role-playing as an instructional tool is fairly wide-spread in its usage.

 

[InfinitePaths]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Context is not the issue at all. 

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them. 


Choice and Consequence/Reactivity - Being able to make choices in a game and have those choices be both acknowledged and extrapolated on.

Immersion - Your ability to feel as if you are inside the game world; the ability to feel you ARE that character. 

Roleplaying - The ability to think, feel and act like your character.

A game with a set protagonist can still give you lots of Choice and Consequence. The Witcher 2 is a great example of this. A game with an undefined protagonist can conversely give you very little Choice and Consequence. Skyrim is another great example.

. Back to the original point - if you have zero say in how your character is created, how are you supposed to roleplay them effectively?

As you mentioend.The witcher 2 and one does this great.I got immersed to this game by thinking and feeling like Geralt.I got immersed in to the world and in to the protagonist.I role-played Geralt and made a lot of choices with consequence.

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 14 mai 2013 - 09:19 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Context is not the issue at all. 

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them. 

If the game tells you what your character is thinking, that suspends the role of what the player is supposed to be doing. That's a problem.

If the game doesn't react to your decisions, then the decisions don't really exist.

DA2 doesn't tell[/b] you what your character is thinking. Like all previous Bioware games, it gives you a selection of pre-programmed thoughts to choose from and express.

But this thread was never about that, and I don't know how we even got on this tangent. It was specifically talking about restrictions on character creation.

Who said anything about reactivity? You are convoluting a number of different things.

Choice and Consequence/Reactivity - Being able to make choices in a game and have those choices be both acknowledged and extrapolated on.

Immersion - Your ability to feel as if you are inside the game world; the ability to feel you ARE that character. 

Roleplaying - The ability to think, feel and act like your character.

A game with a set protagonist can still give you lots of Choice and Consequence. The Witcher 2 is a great example of this. A game with an undefined protagonist can conversely give you very little Choice and Consequence. Skyrim is another great example.

Your immersion may depend on hearing your character voice the lines you choose. My immersion is not dependent on a voiced PC.

However, Role-playing can only be accomplished if you are able to do two things, essentially. A) create and truly know your character. Know their background (part of character creation), know their outlooks, know their personality. And not have the game break your character.

That was beautiful.  I've not ever even come CLOSE to breaking this topic down so well, let along get anywhere in the vicinity of how succinctly you put it!

Bravo!

Fast Jimmy wrote...
DA2 makes you sad when the game tells you to be sad. It makes you angry when you are told to be angry. It makes you express belief in a god. It gives expressions, mannerisms, inflections and overall personality into
the character. And every time it does so, it runs the risk of being contrary to the character created by the player. Which breaks role-playing. Which hurts immersion. And which diminishes Choice and Consequence (because, after all, your character is no longer making the Choices... Bioware's character is).

For those who roleplay, these kinds of infractions make it impossible to play like they have played games in the past. And, again, that is a problem. Back to the original point - if you have zero say in how your character is created, how are you supposed to roleplay them effectively?

Answer - you cannot.  Unless you have your own definition of role-playing which only involves placing stat points, gathering loot, and altering your character's appearance.

Well said.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Obviously that's not true. Or if it is, then there's no such thing as a "roleplaying game", and the debate is pointless.

A roleplaying game merely offers us a framework within which to roleplay.  Why are you presupposing an interactive requirement?

For there to be a "role" to play, there has to be a context (ie setting and narrative) for that role to exist in.

Agreed.

There have to be other characters, to react to the actions of your character.

I agree those are valuable.

The game provides those, and in Bioware's case, it also provides the character templates that establish history; essentially pre-established roles for the player to assume and work within the confines of.

They do that now.  They haven't always.  Why do you think those are required, when we have examples from BioWare of roleplaying games that lack them?

All of these things work in conjunction to create the roleplaying experience. You could potentially create a character in your head without context, but that is not playing a role, that's having an imaginary friend.

I insist both are roleplaying.  Furthermore, in the player's character is constrained by some pre-determined limits, the exact nature and scope of those limits need to be made known to the player - otherwise, there is no roleplaying available at all, as the player cannot make informed decisions regarding his character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Context is not the issue at all.

Role-playing is thinking like a character and, based on those thoughts, making decisions for them.

If the game tells you what your character is thinking, that suspends the role of what the player is supposed to be doing. That's a problem.

If the game doesn't react to your decisions, then the decisions don't really exist.

The game does react to those decisions.  Indirectly.

All the decisions the player makes for his character inform the character's actions, and the game react to those actions.  Then, those reactions combine with the player's decisions to inform the character's future decisions.  It's a constant feedback loop.

[Nefla]

Plaintiff wrote...
By the same token, maybe they should learn to accept that not having elves and dwarves isn't the end of the world, and that having them doesn't obligate developers to provide an option to play them.

Being forced to play as human in a world where there are other interesting races and cultures is extremely frustrating and boring to me. Humans in DA are the most plentiful, boring race. Their culture is very similar to my culture in real life, humans are the default, non-oppressed race. It's basically playing the upper middle suburban businessman. If humans are the only race, then fine but don't dangle a carrot in front of my face and snatch it away. How would you feel if you could play a gay character in DA:O and then in DA2 it strips that option and you're forced to be a straight guy in a fixed relationship with a woman. Most games you already have to be human, most games you already have to be straight, it's not "the end of the world" but it is very disappointing and a huge detriment to the game imo.

[ArcaneJTM]

Why are people so adamantly opposed to character creation outside of hair color?  I just don't get it.  Is it the extra development time? It's not really that much and may be a good thing anyway all things considered.  Is it the extra resources required?  Again, not that much.  Granted a different voice actor for each race might be a bit much when it comes to expenses, but it's not really a requirement. Just use the same male and female voices for all of them.  Is it the misconception that story must be sacrificed to add another race to the mix?  It's simply not true and really no different from acknowledging different backgrounds or genders, which people seem to agree is a good thing.

When all is said and done, how does somebody else playing as something other than human stop you from enjoying your game?  Especially considering that this is a single player game we are discussing.  It's not like anyone is demanding that all options other than male dwarf be omitted.  Even if the story is written around a human PC and the other races just shoehorned in somehow, nobody is going to put a gun to your head and force you to play as a dwarf or an elf or a mabari.

(Oh, now there's an idea for future DLC.  Add option to play main character as a mabari, barks and all.  )

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 14 mai 2013 - 09:47 .

[Lord Gremlin]

Depending on how it's done great customization can enrich the story. NPC and story quests can be scripted to react in a specific way to specific traits of main character revealing interesting information and providing interesting insights into the world. Remember Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines? Remember how being for example a female Tremere will unlock all kinds of crazy new dialogue and insights into vampire society?
You know, I've started playing ME2 and never finished. I have ME3, never even got to properly play it. Jokes aside, after first one I've sort of lost interest. And protagonist being partially defined is at fault. We knew that he/she will pursue same basic goal regardless of how you play. Once it became apparent that this paragon/renegade scrap is just window dressing and the outcome is same crap... I've lost interest. Granted, entire system is hamfisted BUT even so you can do some reactivity. Take, IDK, inFamous. Same paragon/renegade crap but the difference it makes is huge. Even Jade Empire did ok in that department.
P.S. I hate Witcher games. Although I've enjoyed The Witcher books greatly (read them many tames, first time long before any talk of making a game appeared). I'd say it's more a story of Cirilla than Geralt, hence the entire second half is focused on her.

[-TC1989-]

Plaintiff wrote...
I don't hate them, I hate the fact that they and other over-used tropes are stagnating the Fantasy genre when it has the potential to be so much more.

(if I made RPGs, I would never include a single elf or dwarf, or the option to play as one, because I am sick to my ****ing back teeth of elves and dwarves). 

I guess when you say things like that, it can kind of cloud ones perception of how you view them. I'll take your word for it, but that looks like a good bit of dislike from where I'm standing.

I tolerate elves and dwarves in Dragon Age because the individual characters are engaging, and because it features homosexual characters.

Just to rephrase my last question. I asked if you wanted them to either no longer exist in the franchise, or just be excluded from CC. You say you tolerate them, but you want the fantasy genre to stop using them? So it's kind of "both", instead of "neither".

By the same token, maybe they should learn to accept that not having elves and dwarves isn't the end of the world, and that having them doesn't obligate developers to provide an option to play them.

I agree that people sometimes need to go with the flow, instead of yelling for more, and more choice. Obligation comes from the direction of the story/development. Rather than just throwing it in there, to make good with hurt feelings.