80 réponses à ce sujet

[Darpaek]

As opposed to turning them to stone and then shattering them...?

[Staylost]

Darpaek wrote...

That's the point I'm trying to make! You and your cohorts have yet to make an argument that can either be substantiated (ie - 62% of all PC users Respec) or that isn't an appeal to an anecdote ("more replayability!")

And if you don't want to suggest necessity - then don't use words like "obviously." Because, nothing you have said is obvious.

And when someone else presents you with a solution to your problem, is it your first tendency to think of reasons why it can't be done? If so, we might as well sit here and let the Blight overtake us! =D

The fact that no one has made a statistically sound poll of all DA console users on such an issue is irrelevent. It is substantiated that added a respec. option adds new options to gameplay, something that adds to the game experience as a whole. It doesn't need to be proven that Jed will use it but Lisa won't. The point I am trying to make, is that you could defend the game having only autolevel option, or MC can only be a rogue, with your current line. There may be reasons not to add respec to consoles. The fact that we don't have a poll is not one of them.

"More replayability" isn't an appeal to anecdote. And it is also defensible if anything can be defensible as adding replayability. The more ways to play the game, the more reason to try playing it again. In a more limited sense it can also add replayablity to those people who lack strategic flexability. With respec they can still play through using all of the different companions.

Not being able to climb trees obviously limits gameplay. The use of the word obvious is very defendable where I first used it. Since a limit is anything that prevents further action in any direction, not having the option to respec obviously limits gameplay. Also, obviously is not a synonym of need, so I will continue to use words like "obvious" without being worried about being mistook for saying "need".

And what you said lastly, I appreciate. It is nice to hear words of friendship regardless of position.

[Heals.like.Jesus]

thegreateski wrote...

Yes. . . I can see it now.

Wynne, formerly the sweet old lady, becomes a necromancer and takes great delight in summoning clouds of entrophic death to choke the life out her enemy.

That sounds like her.

Wynne can learn evey hex and death spell in a vanila game. So if what you wrote is supposed to be an argument, then you must be like the people who go to a gunfight with a knife.

Modifié par Heals.like.Jesus, 06 décembre 2009 - 09:25 .

[Deathstyk85]

bjdbwea wrote...

Seriously, if you're willing and able to pay for all the things people suggest as DLC, you can also afford a decent PC to run the game on, like it was intended to.

hardly, you know, i played a friends copy of both, and i personally liked how the xbox version plays, in comparison to the pc. (i tried it before i paid for it)

its personal preference, for most games i do prefer to play on my pc, but i enjoyed the way DA:O played on console.
it wasnt until later i realized the toolset was not compatible with xbox, wich was a bit depressing
so i may buy it for the pc later at some point, just to make and play custom content.

i understand peoples "allegiance" to one specific gaming platform, but that hardly means that the gaming industry revolves around yours, whatever platform it may be.

and also in response to the OP
no. there will not be a "respec" mod for xbox, nor will there ever be. not only because it simply cant, but there is also no need for it. one of the reasons the game is made the way it was, is to make you think about your character before you make it. and honostly, you dont need EVERY talent/skill point, you will likely have extras that you can spend on random points, or to make up for pre spent points.
and as far as not being able to customize followers, they come as they are, its like hiring a mechanic, and then asking why he cant be a dog trainer j ust cause you want him to be, hes just not. although even with most allies in the game, you can still push them in a direction you want, they just wont be "purely" that area of expertise. and i agree with someone who said that it doesnt add to the replayability.
almost no rpg (there might be some i dont know about) allowed you to respec your character halfway through the game, until WoW. and there is a misguided assumption that being able to change your abilities will add more to the game. that would be true, if you were intended to play with ONE character, and one character only. but since dragon age revolves around the idea of seeing the story from different characters viewpoints, if you dont like how your warrior turned out your first time, make a different character and make him the way you want him

[FlintlockJazz]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

That's all well and good, but that's not how BioWare designed those
characters.  Leliana might work out just fine as a dual-wielding Rogue,
but you generally get her early enough to do that if you want to
anyway.  Oghren is a bezerker.  He has dialogue about it, he teaches
it, etc.  He's not a tank.  Morrigan is just about the last person I'd
expect any benevolent spirits to help.  She's not that kind of person.

This
game is about the story and the characters. It wouldn't make any sense
at all for BioWare to release a mod that allows you to completely
change the characters.

I would've never been able to have all baldur's Gate 2 NPC in my party and hear their banter if not for the Level 1 NPC Mod.

I played my first run without outside interference, as originally intended and for the story, but after that has been done, I want some new blood and voices to keep me company in the subsequent runs.

And Morrigan is able to become a spirit healer in the vanila game, so the "Morrigan is just about the last person I'd expect any benevolent spirits to help. She's not that kind of person." part of your argument is not valid.

I only ever changed talents, never stat points or skills.

Sorry but I just gotta point out:  what you are suggesting is that you like to play through each game in the exact, optimal way, is this correct?  Wouldn't it be more interesting to try out completely new combinations as allowed by the game even though it may put you at a disadvantage or make you use characters you wouldn't normally try?  In fact, you're saying that you want respecs so you can cut out Wynne, thereby actually reducing your variation because you're not willing to pull along a character you don't necessarily like?  I don't like Morrigan but yet I am taking her on some of my playthroughs to see if she grows on me and to see her interactions with the others, and to just try out different options.  Hell I've romanced the bint despite the disgust I have towards her...

[thegreateski]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Yes. . . I can see it now.

Wynne, formerly the sweet old lady, becomes a necromancer and takes great delight in summoning clouds of entrophic death to choke the life out her enemy.

That sounds like her.

Wynne can learn evey hex and death spell in a vanila game. So if what you wrote is supposed to be an argument, then you must be like the people who go to a gunfight with a knife.

Flamethrower.

[Deathstyk85]

Maria Caliban wrote...

immortal_scream wrote...

nice answers there, but some justification would be appreciated

Why would someone justify not adding something to a game that was never intended to be there. There are also mods that let you see Morrigan's boobies, do we need a BioDev to come in an justify why that's not going to be a console DLC?

actually.....
i saw a thread once mapping out how to see morrigans no nos in the game, without any addons. appearantly underneath her robe, they decided to fully design her chesticles, and using the camera to zoom in, a certain way, you can see them lol.
its like one of those funny things they toss in, knowing most people wont find it, but just incase someone does, and then they can laugh about it lol.

[Darpaek]

You're stuck too deeply looking through your own prism. See, I don't think the inability to climb trees limits the gameplay in the least. It just makes it a different game than an Oblivion-type sandbox.



And no one has to defend the autolevel option as it stands. That's not how debate works. The autolevel option is the status quo. If you and yours fail to make your argument, we presume it doesn't change. People who have tried to defend it are debating on your ground - and that's foolish.



This is a forum. No one is asking for a scientifically accurate approach to measuring the "fun factor." However, if you could point to a page with a million views and 10,000 recommendations of the Raven Respec mod, then your anecdotal "fun factor" argument has some traction. Heck, I use it. I'm sure SCSII for BG2 has millions of downloads. Until that happens, though - any arguments of significance concerning "replayability" or the "fun factor" are easily dismissed.



Of course, it's nothing personal. I just take a deep, satisfying, and sadistic joy in twisting the knife in console gamers. I've been stuck playing ****ty console ports since KOTOR and it's nice to turn the tables every decade or so. =D

[Darth_Trethon]

I don't care about respec ability.....If I want another spell I didn't get while leveling up my mage I use tomes to get it. If I wish my warrior had 40 more points in magic for whatever reason I use tomes to get them. I really don't see what there is to complain about.

Modifié par Darth_Trethon, 06 décembre 2009 - 09:36 .

[Heals.like.Jesus]

Sorry but I just gotta point out:  what you are suggesting is that you like to play through each game in the exact, optimal way, is this correct ?  Wouldn't it be more interesting to try out completely new combinations as allowed by the game even though it may put you at a disadvantage or make you use characters you wouldn't normally try?  In fact, you're saying that you want respecs so you can cut out Wynne, thereby actually reducing your variation because you're not willing to pull along a character you don't necessarily like?  

No that is not correct. I like to play games in an optimal way, but never the exact same one. I dont run multiple games using the same spells otherwise I wouldve had 3 mages or 3 warriors in my profile instead of 1 of EACH class.

I aim to get as much freshness as I am able from each playthrough, not repeat the last one - that would be moronic and would equal in wasting my life without experiencing anything new.

How did you get that idea about me anyway?

Modifié par Heals.like.Jesus, 06 décembre 2009 - 09:43 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Staylost wrote...

The fact that no one has made a statistically sound poll of all DA console users on such an issue is irrelevent. It is substantiated that added a respec. option adds new options to gameplay, something that adds to the game experience as a whole. It doesn't need to be proven that Jed will use it but Lisa won't. The point I am trying to make, is that you could defend the game having only autolevel option, or MC can only be a rogue, with your current line. There may be reasons not to add respec to consoles. The fact that we don't have a poll is not one of them.

"More replayability" isn't an appeal to anecdote. And it is also defensible if anything can be defensible as adding replayability. The more ways to play the game, the more reason to try playing it again. In a more limited sense it can also add replayablity to those people who lack strategic flexability. With respec they can still play through using all of the different companions.

Not being able to climb trees obviously limits gameplay. The use of the word obvious is very defendable where I first used it. Since a limit is anything that prevents further action in any direction, not having the option to respec obviously limits gameplay. Also, obviously is not a synonym of need, so I will continue to use words like "obvious" without being worried about being mistook for saying "need".

And what you said lastly, I appreciate. It is nice to hear words of friendship regardless of position.

I would argue that respecing reduces gameplay, especially if you try and make the devs make it a standard feature of the game or any other game (if I find that you are personally responsible for making all games incorporate respeccing... J/K).  There is a mod for it if you want it except on consoles, which is a fact you have to accept and be happy that this game is moddable at all considering that most games wouldn't let you do so and have to accept it as is, and many have already explained that making devs incorporate respecs into the vanilla games will ruin it for those who don't like them, as it will mean building the game up with the assumption that players will respec, changing the balance of the game and altering other functions.  By not allowing respecs you increase the number of variables when creating a character: do you take a weak ability now and thereby suffer for a bit in order to gain a better ability later?

Please, most newer games these days are forcing respecs on us, take Diablo 3 for instance, let those of us who don't like them have this one for now at least?  There'll be hundreds of games with respecs built into them soon enough, MMOs have made sure of that...

[Staylost]

Darpaek wrote...

You're stuck too deeply looking through your own prism. See, I don't think the inability to climb trees limits the gameplay in the least. It just makes it a different game than an Oblivion-type sandbox.

And no one has to defend the autolevel option as it stands. That's not how debate works. The autolevel option is the status quo. If you and yours fail to make your argument, we presume it doesn't change. People who have tried to defend it are debating on your ground - and that's foolish.

This is a forum. No one is asking for a scientifically accurate approach to measuring the "fun factor." However, if you could point to a page with a million views and 10,000 recommendations of the Raven Respec mod, then your anecdotal "fun factor" argument has some traction. Heck, I use it. I'm sure SCSII for BG2 has millions of downloads. Until that happens, though - any arguments of significance concerning "replayability" or the "fun factor" are easily dismissed.

Of course, it's nothing personal. I just take a deep, satisfying, and sadistic joy in twisting the knife in console gamers. I've been stuck playing ****ty console ports since KOTOR and it's nice to turn the tables every decade or so. =D

I am a computer gamer at heart. I was very upset when Bioware first made Jade Empire and Mass Effect for Xbox. I could afford a nice new computer, but that would require me to forgo things of much greater value (like traveling to see my family). I totally agree that computers are superior and such...

But I totally reject all of your arguments for reasons I have previously stated. Not wanting to drag this out any longer, we can agree to disagree.

You are making claims borne from a wish to cause others pain, and while that has been clear throughout this thread ( the people making arguments against a console respec are all PC users? Hmmm... that can be substantiated & quantified). Your position is one that is likely to hurt Dragon Age as a whole. In the long run your insulting term "console kiddes" - these will be the ones that direct the future of Bioware & Dragon Age. You can deny them the things that make gaming a deeper experience, and in so doing deny yourself, or you can work positively. I don't have much hope, but I would be glad to have you make the statement that giving characters to us with no previously chosen stats or abilities would add to the depth & likely the success and beauty of Dragon Age long term.

Happy Holidays.

[FlintlockJazz]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

Sorry but I just gotta point out:  what you are suggesting is that you like to play through each game in the exact, optimal way, is this correct ?  Wouldn't it be more interesting to try out completely new combinations as allowed by the game even though it may put you at a disadvantage or make you use characters you wouldn't normally try?  In fact, you're saying that you want respecs so you can cut out Wynne, thereby actually reducing your variation because you're not willing to pull along a character you don't necessarily like?  

No that is not correct. I like to play games in an optimal way, but never the exact same one. I dont run multiple games using the same spells otherwise I wouldve had 3 mages or 3 warriors in my profile instead of 1 of EACH class.

I aim to get as much freshness as I am able from each playthrough, not repeat the last one - that would be moronic and would equal in wasting my life without experiencing anything new.

How did you get that idea about me anyway?

That came across harsher than I intended, sorry, but the idea came from this:

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

By that logic im a filthy cheater for having a chest in the camp. And the totally gamebreaking no helmets mod. I feel dirty.

Some examples how i've used the mod.

1)
I want a melee rogue. I cba to play one. I dont like zevran. I changed
leliana's 5 archery talents to 5 in dual wielding. So sue me. Vice
versa I may want to have zevran, but I'd like a ranged damager.

2)
I want to have oghren in my party for the banter. Alistair bores me
after 2 playthroughs of him tanking. I change Oghren's 2handed talents
into sword and board ones. Thats one gamebreaking advantage right there.

3)
Nightmare runs require healing at certain points. Wynne is boring.
Morrigan is not. I pick 3 1-st level spells from branches im never
going to use, including the totally wasted spider transform point and
invest in some spirit healer talents.

I get to hear new banter, play with different characters and not have a completely mismatched group.

Pardon while I visit the confession to repent for my sin.

From this I got the idea that you wanted the respecs to avoid having to try other characters out while simultaneously changing the characters you do like to the best build for your particular group.  I'm sure you didn't mean it quite like that, but that's kinda how it came across to me.  But then, these are forums and we all misinterprete what people mean which is why I asked if it was correct since I'm invariable not.   Re-reading point 2, I see you have a point there, but then isn't Shale a good substitute tank?  And again, why not play with a non -optimal party?  I'm not convinced that a sword and board tank is necessary, and in fact found that my 2hander warrior on my first playthrough often tanked better than Al, what with his ability to avoid being knocked down while sword-pummeling everyone...

[Staylost]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Staylost wrote...

The fact that no one has made a statistically sound poll of all DA console users on such an issue is irrelevent. It is substantiated that added a respec. option adds new options to gameplay, something that adds to the game experience as a whole. It doesn't need to be proven that Jed will use it but Lisa won't. The point I am trying to make, is that you could defend the game having only autolevel option, or MC can only be a rogue, with your current line. There may be reasons not to add respec to consoles. The fact that we don't have a poll is not one of them.

"More replayability" isn't an appeal to anecdote. And it is also defensible if anything can be defensible as adding replayability. The more ways to play the game, the more reason to try playing it again. In a more limited sense it can also add replayablity to those people who lack strategic flexability. With respec they can still play through using all of the different companions.

Not being able to climb trees obviously limits gameplay. The use of the word obvious is very defendable where I first used it. Since a limit is anything that prevents further action in any direction, not having the option to respec obviously limits gameplay. Also, obviously is not a synonym of need, so I will continue to use words like "obvious" without being worried about being mistook for saying "need".

And what you said lastly, I appreciate. It is nice to hear words of friendship regardless of position.

I would argue that respecing reduces gameplay, especially if you try and make the devs make it a standard feature of the game or any other game (if I find that you are personally responsible for making all games incorporate respeccing... J/K).  There is a mod for it if you want it except on consoles, which is a fact you have to accept and be happy that this game is moddable at all considering that most games wouldn't let you do so and have to accept it as is, and many have already explained that making devs incorporate respecs into the vanilla games will ruin it for those who don't like them, as it will mean building the game up with the assumption that players will respec, changing the balance of the game and altering other functions.  By not allowing respecs you increase the number of variables when creating a character: do you take a weak ability now and thereby suffer for a bit in order to gain a better ability later?

Please, most newer games these days are forcing respecs on us, take Diablo 3 for instance, let those of us who don't like them have this one for now at least?  There'll be hundreds of games with respecs built into them soon enough, MMOs have made sure of that...

Why are you talking about PC mods. This is a thread on console DA. Something you don't own.

... yet are terribly interested in. You have claimed to understand why we want what we want, yet it is unfathomable why you are so interested in denying us something that has no impact on you.

Edit: And after seeing your reply explaning yourself above, this is also too harsh. I apologize.

Modifié par Staylost, 06 décembre 2009 - 09:57 .

[Seifz]

Look, it's simple.



1. The characters come "as they are" because that's part of the story. This game is about characters and story, so there's no logical reason for BioWare to provide a respec mod.



2. Console users knew that they wouldn't have access to user-generated content before they purchased their games. It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't use the mod that's available now. Well, maybe Microsoft and Sony are part of the problem, too, but BioWare isn't.



3. The developers could spend time and resources to create a mod that would only be useful to console players, and only a minority of them, or they could spend time and resources working on new DLC that would be useful for everyone. Obviously, the latter option is better for the game.



That's all there is to it.

[Staylost]

Seifz wrote...

Look, it's simple.

1. The characters come "as they are" because that's part of the story. This game is about characters and story, so there's no logical reason for BioWare to provide a respec mod.

2. Console users knew that they wouldn't have access to user-generated content before they purchased their games. It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't use the mod that's available now. Well, maybe Microsoft and Sony are part of the problem, too, but BioWare isn't.

3. The developers could spend time and resources to create a mod that would only be useful to console players, and only a minority of them, or they could spend time and resources working on new DLC that would be useful for everyone. Obviously, the latter option is better for the game.

That's all there is to it.

Bioware has stated that they will make some PC generated content available to consoles. This plan may fail, but it is Bioware's plan to do so. It wasn't my idea. This work would obviously not benefit PC users since they would already have access to the mod.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Thanks Seifz. Sadly, I doubt that repeating the same logical information that was said earlier in this thread is going to stop people from stomping their feet and screaming "But I want it!".

[Seifz]

Staylost wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Look, it's simple.

1. The characters come "as they are" because that's part of the story. This game is about characters and story, so there's no logical reason for BioWare to provide a respec mod.

2. Console users knew that they wouldn't have access to user-generated content before they purchased their games. It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't use the mod that's available now. Well, maybe Microsoft and Sony are part of the problem, too, but BioWare isn't.

3. The developers could spend time and resources to create a mod that would only be useful to console players, and only a minority of them, or they could spend time and resources working on new DLC that would be useful for everyone. Obviously, the latter option is better for the game.

That's all there is to it.

Bioware has stated that they will make some PC generated content available to consoles. This plan may fail, but it is Bioware's plan to do so. It wasn't my idea. This work would obviously not benefit PC users since they would already have access to the mod.

Do you have anything to back up that claim?  I read a few rumors about BioWare possibly making some content available on the PS3, but that was quite some time ago.

Regardless, that doesn't change any of my three points.

[FlintlockJazz]

Staylost wrote...

You are making claims borne from a wish to cause others pain, and while that has been clear throughout this thread ( the people making arguments against a console respec are all PC users? Hmmm... that can be substantiated & quantified). Your position is one that is likely to hurt Dragon Age as a whole. In the long run your insulting term "console kiddes" - these will be the ones that direct the future of Bioware & Dragon Age. You can deny them the things that make gaming a deeper experience, and in so doing deny yourself, or you can work positively. I don't have much hope, but I would be glad to have you make the statement that giving characters to us with no previously chosen stats or abilities would add to the depth & likely the success and beauty of Dragon Age long term.

Happy Holidays.

While I am a PC gamer, it is not out of any desire to prevent console gamers to get something but that I am concerned about how it will impact upon those of us who do not want it, and find many of the pro-respeccers can sometimes be quite selfish when it comes to ignoring this (not saying that you or anyone else in this thread did so, but the massive argument we had post-launch about this definitely did).  Console games are bought with the knowledge that they are bought as is, and in fact so are most PC games except for the exceptions like DA:O, wherein we are fortunate that the devs have released the toolkit for us.  Most games would not allow the modifications that we can make with DA:O on PC, and most games are bought with the knowledge that it is bought 'as is'.

EDIT:  And just read your reply to my earlier post, fun with forums heh.  Yeah, I'm not a console gamer, but pretty much worried about how game development is going these days and how it will impact things.  Either they will have to make it standard for respecing, or try and build two separate builds to incorporate it, and the way I see things is that it's heading for the former rather than inclusive.   Probably getting worried about nothing, but it's still a concern, if they could get player-made content on consoles then that I think would be the best option for all.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 06 décembre 2009 - 10:07 .

[Surberus]

Seifz wrote...

Look, it's simple.

1. The characters come "as they are" because that's part of the story. This game is about characters and story, so there's no logical reason for BioWare to provide a respec mod.

2. Console users knew that they wouldn't have access to user-generated content before they purchased their games. It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't use the mod that's available now. Well, maybe Microsoft and Sony are part of the problem, too, but BioWare isn't.


That's all there is to it.

1. I think some people just want more freedom, where's the problem in that?
2. This was just a childish response a-la 'neener, neener,neener' Because someone's prefered platform is a console, they should suffer?

Stuff like this creates division and gaming hierarchy that hurts everyone long term.

Besides, Bethesda made user-generated mods part of DLC with Oblivion, so it's not exactly far-fetched for someone to request it.

And yes, I prefer more control over my group's skills and therefor prefer the idea of lvl 1 npcs. The group as I would enjoy playing it requires 2 mages, and personally I don't enjoy Morrigan very much (plus she doesnt come with the skills I want, so I feel as though they are wasted points) This leaves me feeling like my options are limited as to how I can play the game, which, in my mind, does not an RPG make.

Also, we're not going to agree, and that's okay. Just show some civility.

[Darpaek]

Staylost wrote...

In the long run your insulting term "console kiddes" - these will be the ones that direct the future of Bioware & Dragon Age. You can deny them the things that make gaming a deeper experience, and in so doing deny yourself, or you can work positively. I don't have much hope, but I would be glad to have you make the statement that giving characters to us with no previously chosen stats or abilities would add to the depth & likely the success and beauty of Dragon Age long term.

Happy Holidays.

On the contrary (Surprise!), I disagree on multiple points.  You may consider yourself a PC gamer, "at heart," but when you've accepted this as a truism - you ceased to be one.  Since you used Bio in particular as an example, if you look at their current projects:  it's a SP PC RPG, a PC MMO, and a console shooter-hybrid with a PC port.  So, first, I would disagree with your assessment of the field going forward.

I am a PC gamer.  I own a PS2 for FF.  I will buy a PS3 when Square Enix releases a FF for it.  Not until then.  Honestly, though - my laptop was only a couple hundred bucks more than the PS3 was at release.  And it's far more versatile - including giving me the ability to earn income.

For arguments' sake, let's agree.  I hope the console port is a giant and epic failure.  I hope EA double-takes with a giant WTF and carves out the talent from Bio and sends the rest to make animations for the next FIFA game - like they've done to every other quality indy studio they've bought over the last 20 years.  I hope the entire PC gaming market crashes and burns and gets written off by the powers-that-be.

But people will still make PC games.  It'll be like a reset button back to the mid-90s.  Force a divide between game designers that are in it for the money and game designers that are in it for the art.

And the talent from Bio will be sitting up drunk at 3am one morning listening to voice-overs from Sten reminding them that happiness can be found in doing your duty.  And then they'll look out and see who's still playing their games and realize that it's the PC community that truly appreciates them - and they'll remember where they came from and who made them what they are. 

Modifié par Darpaek, 06 décembre 2009 - 10:17 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

Why the hell would there be a respec in the first place? Name one other console story driven CRPG that allows this. Don't like how your character turns out? Well, that is your own damn fault. Live with it.

[Staylost]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Surberus wrote...

Besides, Bethesda made user-generated mods part of DLC with Oblivion, so it's not exactly far-fetched for someone to request it.

Bethesda made user-mods available for download for console users?

When did this happen?

I'm pretty sure you are correct. I've never heard of it either.

Horse armor might as well have been though...

[Staylost]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

Why the hell would there be a respec in the first place? Name one other console story driven CRPG that allows this. Don't like how your character turns out? Well, that is your own damn fault. Live with it.

ANGER!!!!



While I'm sure you are incorrect because of some obscure insignificant example somewhere, I'd rather make the point that DA:O probably isn't trying to be equal or lesser than past console story driven CRPGs.

& David Gaider was the king of messing with the characters of story driven CRPGs back in BG day.