That's kind of what I am getting at though. CDPR has shown a tendency to decouple actions the player can take in the game from the character progression. The best example is dialog. You don't have dialog abilities. Instead the results are primarily determined by the selections you make in the moment.
I think this can be a critical mistake when you're allowed more freedom to build the character a specific way (I say more because exactly zero games let you build your character any way you want). Not necessarily because it's a worse approach. It's because it cuts things out of the character progression. It'd be perfectly acceptable if there were other ways to progress and "build" a character. It's far less so when you look at the progression trees we've seen so far. Consider for a moment the sheer volume of combat oriented abilities there. Or, better yet, consider how many aren't combat oriented.
Thats why i started post with "I agree". We all love then game contains *EVERYTHING*, but in reality that *EVERYTHING* can kill balance of game and make tons of useless or no fun mechanics. I think good game should have balance between number of opportunities and their usefulness and quality.
I don't buy this either. It's effectively saying we can't have nice things because it's hard. Furthermore, take a trip down memory lane and consider TW3 progression. Complicated? Nope. Pretty basic really. Balanced? Heh, not even close. Now imagine for a second how it's going to play out when you have 200 different ways to kill stuff.
The more important bit isn't that we can't do everything. It's there doesn't appear to be a lot of ways to progress a character beyond deciding how you're going to fight stuff. Even some of the options not directly related to fighting stuff are likely to be indirectly related to fighting stuff. I'm starting to get an Assassin's Creed vibe set in the year 2077 with better writers and character development.
