300 réponses à ce sujet

[FirstWarden]

We can only wait now Meris.

[Yrkoon]

  LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you argued with someone that having weapon choices is what defines them the most,

So?


Oh wait I get it.   First it's:  "You said it's the only thing that matters!!!"    Now it's:  "well alright, you said it matters most."

You're boring me.  Go practice your backpedaling somewhere else  lol. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 28 décembre 2011 - 06:38 .

[LinksOcarina]

Learn to argue properly.

Because the fact of the matter is that its the only thing you have talked about. Ergo, it is the only thing that you care for and it defines the experience the most for you when you play, following proper logic when making an argument such as this. Otherwise you would have mentioned the other facets of role-playing and why they are just as important in your first post.

classic debate stuff, really. You should learn it sometime before you start in one.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 décembre 2011 - 06:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Meris wrote...

If you honestly think the matter here is confusion, you simply didn't understand.

Well, I do get that it would be nice to have armor that has meaning to the characters.

Which is why I thought it was great that Morrigan got the Reaper's Vestments (which bore a resemblence to her original swamp gear), or that you could equip Allistair with Cailin's armor (if you bought the Ostagar DLC).

The way DA2 did it, however, with me as a mage finding countless swords, daggers and other items which were pointless for me to find outside of spamming gold, is silly.

I'd be fine with finidng companion specific armor (which you could... sort of... in DA2) but I'd just like to see more variety. What if I didn't like the bonuses given to me by Merril's upgrades? Most of them were blood mage related and it seems like I was pigeon-holed into either making a certain companion a certain type of class or forego bonuses.

I'd rather have a FEW armor sets to choose from for each companion. These could be mixed and matched at will and would offere set bonuses if all matched. That way I could have the option of giving Isabella some freaking pants, if that was a costume choice (which I SERIOUSLY hope it would be... or not to have Isabella at all, that would be fine as well). 

Point being, options, especially options that are companion relevant, would be nice.

[ADelusiveMan]

^^^ Agreed!

[nitefyre410]

Yrkoon wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

/facepalm.... Bioware should have NEVER released that statement... they should went about their work quietly because now when DA 3 comes out instead of it being judged by its merits and how it stacks against the rest its going to compare to well the execute the EA version of Bethesda formula

^YEP. And for once it won't be our (the fans') fault for having such 'unrealistic' expectations  (David Gaider's favorite gripe). Muzyka is deliberately name-dropping his company's product in an attempt to ride  on the coat tails of Skyrim's success. It's a calculated move, like everything is at that altitude. And when it comes back to bite them in the ass, lets remember how it began.

 


Some Really needs  to have a long meeting  the PR people and how  you handle the media and fans in general.  Now they have  backed themselves  and Dev team into a terrible corner  but setting the expectation that DA 3 is going to something on the level of Skrim  and the two are COMPLETELY  different.    Nieither is going to exactly alike or any where close being simular in any respect. 

"As Always we are looking to improve upon the experinces our customers have playing our games. We at Bioware have heard the critism of Dragon Age 2  and as always are looking at a vast amount of influences to release a  product that is of the quality  not only our  customers but we as developers expect to  release."  


There you go that is all the need to be said... and just walk away  smiling.   

Disclaimer: I know asbolutely nothing about PR  

[Gunderic]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Gaider did say that they will be doing an approach to appease both camps, customizable armor that is visually different, but fitting with the characters, kind of like the costume changes we see between the romances in-game, or Anders going from white to black for the feathered pauldrons...

That I do like, custom colors and what not sounds fun.

Yeah, Laidlaw's proposed system can go where the sun don't shine.

[Travie]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Learn to argue properly.

Because the fact of the matter is that its the only thing you have talked about. Ergo, it is the only thing that you care for and it defines the experience the most for you when you play, following proper logic when making an argument such as this. Otherwise you would have mentioned the other facets of role-playing and why they are just as important in your first post.

classic debate stuff, really. You should learn it sometime before you start in one.

This is the most rediculous post I've read all week. Do you honestly think everyone you meet in a forum is following your concept of proper debate procedure? Hah!


Anyway, to the actual discussion here... I really don't have a problem with Bioware taking a few tips and good bits from Skyrim and throwing them in DA3.

There is nothing bad about having a more open world, especially after the laughable level design of DA2. 

[Gunderic]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Learn to argue properly.

Because the fact of the matter is that its the only thing you have talked about. Ergo, it is the only thing that you care for and it defines the experience the most for you when you play, following proper logic when making an argument such as this. Otherwise you would have mentioned the other facets of role-playing and why they are just as important in your first post.

classic debate stuff, really. You should learn it sometime before you start in one.

trollface.jpg

[Meris]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point being, options, especially options that are companion relevant, would be nice.

Point taken, already discussed in a previous page and also acknowledged by BioWare. The point I made is that there's merit in making iconic-looking companion armor - for roleplaying and characterization purposes, not to avoid 'confusion' -, but also that in doing so BioWare mustn't, and neither needs to ,restrict our choices, both visually and statistically for a companions' armor at single point in time.

Now that the new art direction is mostly fleshed out, I suppose the art department may have time to make multiple outfits for a given time and companion.

Modifié par Meris, 28 décembre 2011 - 10:19 .

[Melca36]

Sidney wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
RPG is about choice, is it not?  The extra armor adds some variety and every minor detail adds to replayability, not to mention it adds to the feeling of that party being more yours because you've decided what defense they should wear and what weapons they wield.  It's a form of personalization if you will.  So why is that stupid?  Seems an awful lot of people are bothered by something so "stupid."  It seems more asinine to me to have a party in tow, picking up armor dropped from battles here and there that can never be equipped on the party members, but then that's probably just me.

All of this is beyond comprehension. I mean truely and well silly. The fact that many people are interested in stupid things is not a shock, the world around abounds with people making silly choices. What is odd is what reactionary types gamers are. It was in a game therefore it should always be in a game no matter the reason for it.

Choice, yes but a mace vs a sword isn't a choice that matters. Rather it is Sten in the Juggernaut or Oghren isn't a choice that matters. Who sits on the Orzammar throne matters in terms of story (although not much in terms of game) but type of weapon or armor doesn't.

Plus, what really galls me about you and your luddite kind is that DA2 did allow for customization - the runes and the mixes you could create allowed every bit as much customization as DAO. Hell, in DAO I can tell you exactly what suits of armor you were wearing at the end of the game - the same ones I was and everyone else was. There was no personalization. More, the runes (because of limited slots) created tradeoffs - add one type of rune and you can't add another. In DAO the armor was strictly linear with better and best suits fairly easily discernable. What you whine about isn't game function but wanting to do no more than play dress up.

I am saddened that the volume of grousing from the small number of whiners might bring this tacky little feature back.

It was ridiculous for our companions to look the same after seven years.

Runes do NOT mean customization. Runes enhance what your character can do or withstand...combat -wise.

People want to make the companions their own.

[Fast Jimmy]

Meris wrote...

Point taken, already discussed in a previous page and also acknowledged by BioWare. The point I made is that there's merit in making iconic-looking companion armor - for roleplaying and characterization purposes, not to avoid 'confusion' -, but also that in doing so BioWare mustn't, and neither needs to ,restrict our choices, both visually and statistically for a companions' armor at single point in time.

Now that the new art direction is mostly fleshed out, I suppose the art department may have time to make multiple outfits for a given time and companion.

Well, I'll take nothing at COMPLETE face value until DA3 hits the shelves, but I hope that is the way that they approach the next segment of the franchise. However, I don't want one set of armor to be extremely inferior to another. Otherwise, everyone's characters at the end of DA3 will look identical to each other, as everyone will be wearing the same Uber sets. I'd like armor that scales or is equally powered across the board, but offers different bonuses for different builds.

I also hope that the armor is functional, from a logistical point of view. Or at least there is one or two sets that are, that way I don't feel silly watching characters wearing cotton clothing taking arrows to the chest and shrugging it off. But that's already being discussed in another thread right now, as well.

[Meris]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Meris wrote...

Point taken, already discussed in a previous page and also acknowledged by BioWare. The point I made is that there's merit in making iconic-looking companion armor - for roleplaying and characterization purposes, not to avoid 'confusion' -, but also that in doing so BioWare mustn't, and neither needs to ,restrict our choices, both visually and statistically for a companions' armor at single point in time.

Now that the new art direction is mostly fleshed out, I suppose the art department may have time to make multiple outfits for a given time and companion.

Well, I'll take nothing at COMPLETE face value until DA3 hits the shelves, but I hope that is the way that they approach the next segment of the franchise. However, I don't want one set of armor to be extremely inferior to another. Otherwise, everyone's characters at the end of DA3 will look identical to each other, as everyone will be wearing the same Uber sets. I'd like armor that scales or is equally powered across the board, but offers different bonuses for different builds.

I also hope that the armor is functional, from a logistical point of view. Or at least there is one or two sets that are, that way I don't feel silly watching characters wearing cotton clothing taking arrows to the chest and shrugging it off. But that's already being discussed in another thread right now, as well.

First bolded part: now that's a point of incredible difficulty. Balancing a looting system so that different armours aren't inherently better than all others isn't easy, and has never been at top priority in single player games.

Second bolded part: you're playing a game with a combat system that inherits a lot from tabletop rpgs. The graphical experience of the game is merely auxiliary, not definitive - at times even conflicting - with what actually happens in character: if you stab someone with your dagger but only take 2% of their hitpoints, you didn't cause as much damage as you think you did, odds are that wasn't even a stab.

Same deal with the arrow that didn't really go through your character's chest or heart, unless it took, respectively, a hefty or all of your character's hitpoints.

[Fast Jimmy]

Meris wrote...

First bolded part: now that's a point of incredible difficulty. Balancing a looting system so that different armours aren't inherently better than all others isn't easy, and has never been at top priority in single player games.

Second bolded part: you're playing a game with a combat system that inherits a lot from tabletop rpgs. The graphical experience of the game is merely auxiliary, not definitive - at times even conflicting - with what actually happens in character: if you stab someone with your dagger but only take 2% of their hitpoints, you didn't cause as much damage as you think you did, odds are that wasn't even a stab.

Same deal with the arrow that didn't really go through your character's chest or heart, unless it took, respectively, a hefty or all of your character's hitpoints.

I agree with the difficulty of my first request. That's why I want to mention it now, before we get too far into 2012 and the ball is rolling on DA3 development.

In response to the second request... I think armor should have an armor rating that, once is by-passed, does catastrophic damage. Low quality weapons would do little to no damage to characters in high quality armor and high quality weapons would rip through low quality armor like a hot knife through butter... and then into the limbs of the wearer of said low quality armor.

Having armor that is thin as a blouse and exposing skin should never be able to take damage anywhere in the vicinty of a character who is wearing plate mail armor and holds a shield. This is something we see clear as day between Aveline and Isabella in DA2. Isabella's high cunning score should not result in damage being reduced, but maybe many more hits being dodged. Even if a hit with an axe grazes you in a blouse, it is going to do more damage than a direct hit to plate mail.

[LinksOcarina]

Travie wrote...

This is the most rediculous post I've read all week. Do you honestly think everyone you meet in a forum is following your concept of proper debate procedure? Hah!

Don't really care if they do or not. I am just pointing out the fallacy of one persons argument. Not my perogative to teach people anything really. At that point I was getting a bit heated.

[Gotholhorakh]

Savber100 wrote...

Muzyka said BioWare is "checking [Skyrim] out aggressively" as it develops Dragon Age III. The Canadian video
game house informally announced that the next title in the Dragon Age
franchise is in development on Twitter in May, but so far BioWare hasn't
specified a release date.
"We're big admirers of [Bethesda] and the
product," Muzyka told Wired. "We think we can do some wonderful
things. [The next Dragon Age] is going to have the best of features from
the prior Dragon Age games, but it's also going to have a lot of things
I think players are going to find compelling from some of the games
that are out now that are doing really well with more of an open world
feel.

full article here: http://www.pcmag.com...,2397985,00.asp

Ok. looking at Skyrim, Bethesda's approach seems to have been:

1. more content, more polish, more story,
2. to realise that fixing hundreds of "neckbeardy RPG fanatic problems" - sorry, I mean "stuff the target audience wants" - does not stop it being accessible or working on consoles, but DOES make it a better game that everyone wants to play

They produced a game that sells like water in the desert AND can stand up next to Morrowind. I really hope DA3 takes lesson.

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Role playing is more than just envisioning a master swordsman, it's actually about how he wields the weapon over what type of weapon it is. You can be a saint, or a bastard, but you still wield a weapon around.

I get that people like choice, but the weapons you described serve a dual purpose Yrkoon; they have names to augment the characters that use them. It gives them a bit more character, kind of like how Bianca gave Varric an extra dimension. If your not allowed to throw around a sword or a mace or a staff of what have you, does it really affect you so much since what determines how you use your weapon is your choices via interaction of fellow characters?

Your character that you play can be driven by drama as much as physical items. Complaining about the lack of choice though the weapons or armor is foolhardy, and honestly, shows how superficial you view RPG and myth and fantasy in general.

Just because someone pointed out the lack of ability to change weapons does NOT mean that's the only thing they find missing.  It simply means that's the thing they pointed out.  Neither does it point to how superficial someone may or may not view RPGs.

[Sidney]

Melca36 wrote...

It was ridiculous for our companions to look the same after seven years.

Runes do NOT mean customization. Runes enhance what your character can do or withstand...combat -wise.

People want to make the companions their own.

I have no issue with the idea NPC's should change clothes after 7 years - then again nothing says you the player have to change clothes and you wouldn't except for the stupid level restricions on armor.  Still, NPC = Non-Player Character. Companions aren't "yours" they
should be people who aren't the player character - sort of right there
in the name isn't it? I loved in FNV that I could not drop Legion armor
on Boone because he wouldn't wear it. THAT is a great NPC who doesn't
feel like my Skyrim companions who are dumb, mute ciphers who mule loot
for me.

The fact is that my DA2 party likely had a different set of runes stuffed onto their weapons and armor than your DA2 party whereas your DAO party and mine likely had all the same weapons and armor equipped. One seems a lot more custom to me than the other.

[Sidney]

google_calasade wrote...

Just because someone pointed out the lack of ability to change weapons does NOT mean that's the only thing they find missing.  It simply means that's the thing they pointed out.  Neither does it point to how superficial someone may or may not view RPGs.

Sure it does. You have a ton of limits on everything you have in RPG's.  I can't role play as a fat wizard who looks like Santa in most games because I can't pick the "fat" body type. I can come up with all kinds of crap around why my character is fat that is as meaningful as any sword saint BS people can dream up. All of that stuff is nothing more the superficial and appearances.  Choices that matter about who your character are don't come from
appearnaces - otherwise your own life would be meaningless because you
didn't pick your gender, voice, height, body type and so forth nor do
they come from the stuff you have. The fact that you use a mace or sword in DAO, BG2 or Skyrim don't change who you are on tiny bit.

Try this, can you role play in Star Trek where everyone wears the same clothes, there is only one gun (as best I know trekkies might come up with more than "phaser") and so on.  

Plus, the argument was people have built whole characters around their choice of weapons. Unless we have someone unclear on English that is what it says it is and that is criminally shallow.

[Addai]

Sidney wrote...
I loved in FNV that I could not drop Legion armor
on Boone because he wouldn't wear it. THAT is a great NPC who doesn't
feel like my Skyrim companions who are dumb, mute ciphers who mule loot
for me.

Skyrim companions also show certain preferences based on their class- an assassin NPC like Jenassa will prefer the best light armor you give her, the orc warrior female won't wear light armor at all.  The AI is not perfect but the idea is still there and the rest you're meant to work out for yourself in what you choose to give them.

The fact is that my DA2 party likely had a different set of runes stuffed onto their weapons and armor than your DA2 party whereas your DAO party and mine likely had all the same weapons and armor equipped. One seems a lot more custom to me than the other.

This argument is pretty silly.  My Fenris looked exactly like your Fenris, perhaps with an armband difference, and so on for all the DA2 characters.  The runes you'd use would be based on their class which does not fundamentally change from game to game.  Mods add variety to both, and with no mod support for DA2, Origins still wins there.

So, fail.  And you're lucky that people responded civilly to your posts at all, with you throwing terms like "your luddite kind" around.

Modifié par Addai67, 29 décembre 2011 - 01:36 .

[LinksOcarina]

Addai67 wrote...

Skyrim companions also show certain preferences based on their class- an assassin NPC like Jenassa will prefer the best light armor you give her, the orc warrior female won't wear light armor at all.  The AI is not perfect but the idea is still there and the rest you're meant to work out for yourself in what you choose to give them.

This argument is pretty silly.  My Fenris looked exactly like your Fenris, perhaps with an armband difference, and so on for all the DA2 characters.  The runes you'd use would be based on their class which does not fundamentally change from game to game.  Mods add variety to both, and with no mod support for DA2, Origins still wins there.

To the first point, companians may show affinity to certain armor types, but it doesn't make them characters. They have no personality other than basically saying I like something or not.  So the armor serves a function to their classes like you said, but not their characterization, making the role-playing experience with them cumbersone and unimportant, since they are basically fodder in the end.

To the second point, the argument is not so silly. While I agree you have limitations on what runes you can use, not everyone would use runes of protection on Aveline unless if they make a tank build. There is some variety based on the classes; adding fire damage to Bianca for exampleis always a fun one, while Varrics' leather coat can get physical, nature, frost, or pure protection resistence. There is a degree of choice based on how you would play there, so I see where Sid is coming from.

That said, it is still to shaky of an argument to make against what Yrkoon was saying. I think it falls under the same category though of Yrkoon's obsession with the weapons being part of the character process. Now if we talked about the skill trees...thats a different story I feel, because, unlike the Skyrim trees, the skill trees in Dragon Age offer more customizable options, despite being lower in number. We have trees based solely on offense, defense, a mix of the two, stat boosting, healing, crowd control trees, stealth, pure tanking or pure damage, etc. You can mix and match easily per class with numerous builds if you take time out to plan it, and this is something that is more akin to role playing than picking a specific weapon or rune if you ask me.

And one more thing, and this a minor point, but mods don't matter here. It's fun to use them, fun to have support, and make some new choices yes, but they are mods, they are not part of the main package of the game. So they should have little, if no bearing, on the subject at hand.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 29 décembre 2011 - 02:05 .

[billy the squid]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Skyrim companions also show certain preferences based on their class- an assassin NPC like Jenassa will prefer the best light armor you give her, the orc warrior female won't wear light armor at all.  The AI is not perfect but the idea is still there and the rest you're meant to work out for yourself in what you choose to give them.

This argument is pretty silly.  My Fenris looked exactly like your Fenris, perhaps with an armband difference, and so on for all the DA2 characters.  The runes you'd use would be based on their class which does not fundamentally change from game to game.  Mods add variety to both, and with no mod support for DA2, Origins still wins there.

That said, it is still to shaky of an argument to make against what Yrkoon was saying. I think it falls under the same category though of Yrkoon's obsession with the weapons being part of the character process. Now if we talked about the skill trees...thats a different story I feel, because, unlike the Skyrim trees, the skill trees in Dragon Age offer more customizable options, despite being lower in number. We have trees based solely on offense, defense, a mix of the two, stat boosting, healing, crowd control trees, stealth, pure tanking or pure damage, etc. You can mix and match easily per class with numerous builds if you take time out to plan it, and this is something that is more akin to role playing than picking a specific weapon or rune if you ask me.

And one more thing, and this a minor point, but mods don't matter here. It's fun to use them, fun to have support, and make some new choices yes, but they are mods, they are not part of the main package of the game. So they should have little, if no bearing, on the subject at hand.

How do you have more customisability when there is extensive skill selection present in Skyrim which was removed from DA2? Neither does it create more customizability as I must still sink a certain number of points into a given skill tree to access certain abilities, it improved little from DAO, removing only the liniarity, yet enforcing artificial restrictions on customization.

In addition when mods address glaring issues, bugs, rebalancing and provide new content then yes they are important, whether they are part of the main game as shipped or not is irrelevant.

[Plaintiff]

google_calasade wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
What truly surprises me is that they ever believed it was not important.

It's not important to me.
 

To ever make that mistake displays a solid misunderstanding of what an RPG should basically feature.

How? While we're on the subject, what should an RPG basically feature and why?

Someone else asked me that in another thread, so I won't repeat it here.  If you don't care about something so small as party customization, you would not (most likely) be interested in all the facets of a RPG, anyway, and are probably more interested in games that lend themselves more towards action than actual role-playing.

If you are curious, do some googling, look it up on wikipedia, or maybe play some older role-playing games.

Been there, done that. Still not convinced.

You just said that armor customisation is extremely important to an RPG, that it is a basic feature that must always be implemented. Then you turned around and said it was a "small" thing. It can't be both.

Since you suggested wikipedia, here's what it has to say on the subject:

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

I notice armor customisation didn't get a mention. Nor did strategy or combat or a number of other things.

Let's take a look at what wikipedia has to say about role-playing video-games specifically:

Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion.

Unlike the previous article, this one goes on to mention clothing, weapons and armor in a section on 'characteristics'. But just because an aspect of a role-playing game is accepted and conventional doesn't mean it is necessary.

In fact, there are other role-paying formats where weapon and armor choices are extremely limited, or even non-existent. In the Fighting Fantasy series of gamebooks, first published in 1982, the character typically keeps the same weapon (if any) that they were given at the beginning of the adventure. Generally, weapons and armor have little effect on combat, which relies almost purely on the three initial stats (Skill, Stamina and Luck). Here, the inventory typically consists of tools (ropes, keys, enchanted jewellery and whatnot) that can be used to overcome the various challenges that are encountered. Some are only good for specific situations, and if the character has by chance missed this particualr artifact, they will die and the adventure will end.

Its also worth noting that, in any tabletop role-playing game, it would be perfectly possible for a GM to deprive the players of weapons and armor, or simply engineer a situation where there are none to be found. Indeed, they might not even be necessary, because the plot involves little conflict and revolves largely around solving puzzles.

I submit, therefore, that while equipment customisation may be a typical facet of roleplay, it is not required. I further argue that the only defining aspect of a role-playing game is that it centres around the playing of a role in a larger narrative, that this role can be created by the player or pre-made by another entity and that most, if not all the other accepted conventions of RPGs are unnecessary fluff.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 29 décembre 2011 - 03:04 .

[billy the squid]

Plaintiff wrote...


I submit, therefore, that while equipment customisation may be a typical facet of roleplay, it is not required. I further argue that the only defining aspect of a role-playing game is that it centres around the playing of a role in a larger narrative, that this role can be created by the player or pre-made by another entity and that most, if not all the other accepted conventions of RPGs are unnecessary fluff.

So the conclusion is that any role involving a character controlled by a player, be it player made or predetermined and defined by the game itself, is infact an RPG ?

[Plaintiff]

billy the squid wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Skyrim companions also show certain preferences based on their class- an assassin NPC like Jenassa will prefer the best light armor you give her, the orc warrior female won't wear light armor at all.  The AI is not perfect but the idea is still there and the rest you're meant to work out for yourself in what you choose to give them.

This argument is pretty silly.  My Fenris looked exactly like your Fenris, perhaps with an armband difference, and so on for all the DA2 characters.  The runes you'd use would be based on their class which does not fundamentally change from game to game.  Mods add variety to both, and with no mod support for DA2, Origins still wins there.

That said, it is still to shaky of an argument to make against what Yrkoon was saying. I think it falls under the same category though of Yrkoon's obsession with the weapons being part of the character process. Now if we talked about the skill trees...thats a different story I feel, because, unlike the Skyrim trees, the skill trees in Dragon Age offer more customizable options, despite being lower in number. We have trees based solely on offense, defense, a mix of the two, stat boosting, healing, crowd control trees, stealth, pure tanking or pure damage, etc. You can mix and match easily per class with numerous builds if you take time out to plan it, and this is something that is more akin to role playing than picking a specific weapon or rune if you ask me.

And one more thing, and this a minor point, but mods don't matter here. It's fun to use them, fun to have support, and make some new choices yes, but they are mods, they are not part of the main package of the game. So they should have little, if no bearing, on the subject at hand.

How do you have more customisability when there is extensive skill selection present in Skyrim which was removed from DA2? Neither does it create more customizability as I must still sink a certain number of points into a given skill tree to access certain abilities, it improved little from DAO, removing only the liniarity, yet enforcing artificial restrictions on customization.

In addition when mods address glaring issues, bugs, rebalancing and provide new content then yes they are important, whether they are part of the main game as shipped or not is irrelevant.

"Requiring logistical thought" is not the same as "limiting customisation".

Skyrim is just as restrictive as DA2. In order to access specific perks within a skill tree, it requires you to be sufficiently "skilled" in that area (ie; to get the next perk in one-handed weapons, you have to use a one-handed weapon for a specific number of times, to access the next perk in the Block tree, you have to successfully block a certain number of attacks and so on).

Functionally, this is no different from DA2 requiring you to conciously spend skill points in a specific skill tree in order to access higher-tier abilities. The only difference is that DA2 requires you to think about what abilities you will use prior to selecting them, while Skyrim effectively makes the choice for you by tailoring your options specifically to your individual playstyle.

Arguably, DA2 could be considered the less restrictive of the two, because it allows you to purchase abilities you might never use, and further, allows you to choose whether or not to activate specific abilities, while perks in Skyrim are either automatic or occur based on a factor of random chance, with no input from the player at all.