239 réponses à ce sujet

[Taleroth]

Actually the original intent of a crpg was as a simulation of the tabletop experience. The computer and game system acted as the DM with the game creating the character or characters.

 

. That is why most of the terminology, settings and game mechanics come from the P n P role playing systems. Many of the designers of crpgs have at one time or another been players of the P N P rpg systems from D & D to G.U.R.P.S.

 

The basic battle system in D & D came from the Chainmail rules. Chainmail was a fantasy miniature wargame. Since it roots were in a wargame and the battle system followed those rules death was permanent. D & D allowed for resurrection with the proper spell, scroll or item. Other rpgs did not.

 

If a character died in one of the P n P campaigns the player of that character re-rolled a new character and rejoined the party. The DM or group would decide if the new character came in at the same level as the old character or at a lower level. The new character would have the base equipment for the class. and have to journey to meet the party depending on the DM.

 

After joining the party the new character would receive the equipment of the old character unless the other members decided to split the items.

 

Since the rpg rules required sleeping, eating, inventory management and preparation so did the many of the crpgs.

The rpgs and crpgs appealed to a wide variety of people. Not just math and computer geeks.

 

Now if gamers wish to embrace more of what I call rpg-lite mechanics then that is fine. I will continue to present my points on what I think an crpg should encompass. The developers are free to listen or ignore. 

 

That's quite a tangential rant. Even D&D stopped dealing with half the things you're talking about a while ago. Preparation, detailed inventory management, and long term wounds are gone and probably won't be coming back for 5.

[CybAnt1]

Since the rpg rules required sleeping, eating, inventory management and preparation so did the many of the crpgs.

 

 

Actually, speaking specifically of D & D, any edition, they never required that characters eat and drink regularly. Sleep was necessary periodically, but mainly because of the Vancian mechanic; it was the only way for mages and clerics to re-acquire their spells from their spellbook for the next day after having cast them. (OK, technically the clerics prayed to their gods for them, rather than studying them from a spell book.) 

 

Inventory management. Well, you know, it is true, every item was supposed to have a weight/encumbrance and you were limited in how much you could carry, based on your character's STR. That said, my gaming group never kept track much, especially because there often weren't weights given for new magic items or artifacts introduced in a campaign. Also, in theory, you shouldn't be able to carry more than x amount of gold in a sack, but ... yeah, that was pretty much ignored, too. 

 

The one thing D & D never had was a limit on the number of items you can carry (like almost every CRPG today) - aside from a total weight/encumbrance limit. 

[Realmzmaster]

That's quite a tangential rant. Even D&D stopped dealing with half the things you're talking about a while ago. Preparation, detailed inventory management, and long term wounds are gone and probably won't be coming back for 5.

 

Which is why many gamers still use the 2nd and 3rd editions and WotC/Hasbro reprinted the 2nd edition rule books in premium format. They also reprinted the 1 and 3.5 edition rulebooks. Noteing also that Pathfinder is based on the open source 3.5 D & D edition rules and player input. 

 

Pathfinder outsells D & D 4th edition. That is why the 5th edition of D & D is being crowdsourced, Time will tell what will and will not be in the 5th edition.

 

The purpose of the fifth edition is to try for unification of the previous editions.

 

I will still be requesting to see some of the ideas in the OP find there way back into crpgs: Like ending unlimited ammo.

[Realmzmaster]

@CybAnt1,

 

Was not just speaking of AD & D, I also played GURPS (detailed rules on everything including food and water along with weight and cost), RuneQuest, StormBringer, Elric!, Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Trip, Power & Perils, and DragonQuest. Campaigns that required the party to have enough provisions or take advantage of hunting, looking for water and salvaging what the party came across. 

 

The party could die from dehydration, disease and starvation. That is a reason I like games based on The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) (Realms of Arkania and Drakensang.

[CybAnt1]

I guess the point might be it's not a universal tabletop/PnP RPG mechanic; that said, since my experience outside D & D was mostly Stormbringer (like you), Call of Cthulhu, and some GURPs versions, like GURPS Cyberpunk. I dunno how much D & D is or is not an outlier - here. 

 

I never played PnP Shadowrun, but I've always liked the CRPGs based on it. One of the few fantasy/tech hybrid games that I think works well. 

 

I've never played a 4E tabletop session, and I've never seen a 4E CRPG based on those rules. The latter thing seems odd, as from having glanced at the 4E sourcebooks/rulebooks, the game seems almost written with CRPG-compatibility in mind, particularly the all-cooldown powers system. That said, I guess there's still weird legal problems over who owns the license rights, at this point, to make D & D computer games. 

[Das Tentakel]

I beg to differ BG1 and Bg2 by the comments of a lot of people on this forum is when they picked up crpgs. The players came from all walks of life not just computer and math geeks. That is a misconception. The people in my gaming groups included everyone from athletes to beauty contestants. The DM did most of the heavy lifting and mechanics by making an environment that everyone could role play. 

I try not to generalize that much.  If I am not wrong Robin Williams, Wil Wheaton, Tim Duncan, Vin Diesel and Steven Colbert are players of D & D.

 

Well, I was there in the 1980s and 1990s. In my country, there was a clear difference between, say, boardgamers, wargamers, roleplayers and...computer gamers. There was a fair degree of overlap, but pen & paper RPG's had a much wider appeal than CRPG's. Probably primarily because human DM's ran the pen & paper games, and could be very flexible, accomodating a wide range of players, playstyles and genres. Oh, and fudge the dicerolls if needed. It was also an intensely social experience. Moreover, the visual aspect, when present in the form of miniatures, drawings, tilesets etc. could look beautiful. CRPG's...were, like simulations, mostly the domain of computer-using gamers, and those did tend to be technically oriented young males. I only saw this changing in the late 1990's, when computer ownership became really universal, the Internet established itself, and games became significantly more accessible and graphically more appealing. In my memory the first games to accomplish this - in the eyes of my gaming circle, not of myself - were Diablo and Baldur's Gate. They didn't care a rat's bottom for Ultima or Wizardry, but Baldur's Gate was a hit.

 

And to be honest, I only got in even later. I was primarily a strategy gamer (Diplomacy, Machiavelli, Colonial Conquest, Lords of Midnight, play by mail strategy games) and pen & paper roleplayer, and CRPG's didn't draw me.  As a history student and avid sf & fantasy reader (NOT the Tolkien ripoffs or D&D franchise stuff) boring tactical games with a fantasy coating, ho-hum stories, so-so graphics and ditto characters didn't appeal to me. Complexity wasn't the issue; I just wasn't into squad-based tactical games with what I considered a rather crappy fantasy coating. I only really went over in the 3D era (KotOR, Summoner etc.).

 

The 'realism' of those older CRPG's are, I suspect, related to the fact that the post-D&D, 1980's boom in pen & paper RPG's saw the emergence of a number of games with an almost baroque level of complexity. Some computer gamers I knew went for Rolemaster or AD&D with complex additional houserules. Later on there was a shift to simpler rulesets that stressed storytelling, and more recently there's been a shift to games with faster combat systems (Savage Worlds etc.).

The lingering importance of AD&D 2E, 3E and the recent rise of Pathfinder is, I think, mostly a result of past (A)D&D market dominance, something that ultimately goes back to the 1970s and 1980s. There are lots of (ageing...) DM's and players that invested a lot of time and a fair bit of money in those systems and are effectively 'locked in'. 4E effectively failed to appeal to this core market. 

 

Anyway, my point is: Hardcore realistic rules were a temporary fad in the 1980s, since then mostly discarded by pen & paper RPG's. CRPG's were initially an offshoot of pen & paper RPG's and, with some delay, followed their evolution. The 'simplification' and 'streamlining' of pen & paper RPG's were just a natural and necessary reaction to, and correction of, the 1980's 'realism' trend. That CRPG's would also streamline and simplify was inevitable.

[Realmzmaster]

Well, I was there in the 1980s and 1990s. In my country, there was a clear difference between, say, boardgamers, wargamers, roleplayers and...computer gamers. There was a fair degree of overlap, but pen & paper RPG's had a much wider appeal than CRPG's. Probably primarily because human DM's ran the pen & paper games, and could be very flexible, accomodating a wide range of players, playstyles and genres. Oh, and fudge the dicerolls if needed. It was also an intensely social experience. Moreover, the visual aspect, when present in the form of miniatures, drawings, tilesets etc. could look beautiful. CRPG's...were, like simulations, mostly the domain of computer-using gamers, and those did tend to be technically oriented young males. I only saw this changing in the late 1990's, when computer ownership became really universal, the Internet established itself, and games became significantly more accessible and graphically more appealing. In my memory the first games to accomplish this - in the eyes of my gaming circle, not of myself - were Diablo and Baldur's Gate. They didn't care a rat's bottom for Ultima or Wizardry, but Baldur's Gate was a hit.

 

And to be honest, I only got in even later. I was primarily a strategy gamer (Diplomacy, Machiavelli, Colonial Conquest, Lords of Midnight, play by mail strategy games) and pen & paper roleplayer, and CRPG's didn't draw me.  As a history student and avid sf & fantasy reader (NOT the Tolkien ripoffs or D&D franchise stuff) boring tactical games with a fantasy coating, ho-hum stories, so-so graphics and ditto characters didn't appeal to me. Complexity wasn't the issue; I just wasn't into squad-based tactical games with what I considered a rather crappy fantasy coating. I only really went over in the 3D era (KotOR, Summoner etc.).

 

The 'realism' of those older CRPG's are, I suspect, related to the fact that the post-D&D, 1980's boom in pen & paper RPG's saw the emergence of a number of games with an almost baroque level of complexity. Some computer gamers I knew went for Rolemaster or AD&D with complex additional houserules. Later on there was a shift to simpler rulesets that stressed storytelling, and more recently there's been a shift to games with faster combat systems (Savage Worlds etc.).

The lingering importance of AD&D 2E, 3E and the recent rise of Pathfinder is, I think, mostly a result of past (A)D&D market dominance, something that ultimately goes back to the 1970s and 1980s. There are lots of (ageing...) DM's and players that invested a lot of time and a fair bit of money in those systems and are effectively 'locked in'. 4E effectively failed to appeal to this core market. 

 

Anyway, my point is: Hardcore realistic rules were a temporary fad in the 1980s, since then mostly discarded by pen & paper RPG's. CRPG's were initially an offshoot of pen & paper RPG's and, with some delay, followed their evolution. The 'simplification' and 'streamlining' of pen & paper RPG's were just a natural and necessary reaction to, and correction of, the 1980's 'realism' trend. That CRPG's would also streamline and simplify was inevitable.

 

 

I understand what you are saying , but Pathfinder is based partially on 3.5 D & D, but it was also crowdsourced with gamers in 2009 allowed to give a great deal of input to the defining and refining the system.

 

So, it can't be just aging DM and players that are driving Pathfinder sales. 5th edition D & D is also going to go the crowdscouced route.

 

Also as far as I know is only one crpg  based on 4th edition rules Daggerdale and a facebook game called Heroes of Neverwinter. The rules for 4th edition appear as CybAnt1 notes to be tailor made for present day crpgs. That could be because of the muddled mess that is D & D licensing. I don't know.

 

But quite a few kickstarter games will tell the tale of the tape: Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity and some others will tell how niche the market is. I do believe if these games do well developers will take notice.

[Realmzmaster]

I think I would like to see more use of survival skills in games like hunting, fishing to go along with the requirements for food and water. The party could literally live of the land.

[CybAnt1]

Well, it's interesting, WoW hunters do hunt food, and fish, and cook meat and fish, to create consumable food. (As well as skinning animals for leather.) They do need to either build a fire or use one. 

 

It does help you regenerate health if you eat it, but so does any food you can buy or find, the only other reason to eat it is the kind created by their Cooking skill usually gives temporary buffs. There is no survival mechanic, though. 

 

BTW, on one other point, the Heroes of Neverwinter you're talking about may be a FB game, but there is a PC game called Neverwinter which is a free-to-play MMO that uses 4E rules. (Not to be confused with Neverwinter Nights nor that FB game, apparently - hmm, seems the FB game was shut down.) It went officially "live" in June 2013. I've never played it. I have tried Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) which still seems to be using a variant of 3.5, and found it "meh". 

 

http://en.wikipedia....er_(video_game)

[Realmzmaster]

There are several mechanisms that I feel could be implemented in present crpgs that would help those who like the story side of Dragon Age games or who to not engage in the manual execution of battle. The autocombat button would help those who are not looking to control a character in combat and but want some challenge.

 

The button worked well in Wizard's Crown, Eternal Dagger and other crpgs. The gamer would have the option of quick resolve without seeing the combat or watch as the AI plays it out. The gamer can use the tactics screen to set up commands for all the characters and it would be tied to the autocombat button.

 

Of course the option to control the battle manually would be available to those who choose to do so.

[Realmzmaster]

 

BTW, on one other point, the Heroes of Neverwinter you're talking about may be a FB game, but there is a PC game called Neverwinter which is a free-to-play MMO that uses 4E rules. (Not to be confused with Neverwinter Nights nor that FB game, apparently - hmm, seems the FB game was shut down.) It went officially "live" in June 2013. I've never played it. I have tried Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) which still seems to be using a variant of 3.5, and found it "meh". 

 

 

I see. So Cryptic Studios decide to make a game based on the 4th edition rules as an MMO. Makes sense because at one time Cryptic was owned by Atari. The MMO started development under them. Another free to play MMO that is late to the party.

[AlanC9]

That said, my gaming group never kept track much, especially because there often weren't weights given for new magic items or artifacts introduced in a campaign. Also, in theory, you shouldn't be able to carry more than x amount of gold in a sack, but ... yeah, that was pretty much ignored, too.

IIRC TSR's first published list of item bulk had a few errors. Gold was less dense than water. I heard something about someone in my group telling the DM he was making a raft using bags of gold pieces for flotation, but I think it's apocryphal.

[metatheurgist]

I beg to differ BG1 and Bg2 by the comments of a lot of people on this forum is when they picked up crpgs. The players came from all walks of life not just computer and math geeks. That is a misconception. The people in my gaming groups included everyone from athletes to beauty contestants. The DM did most of the heavy lifting and mechanics by making an environment that everyone could role play. 
I try not to generalize that much.  If I am not wrong Robin Williams, Wil Wheaton, Tim Duncan, Vin Diesel and Steven Colbert are players of D & D.

I'm not saying there weren't exceptions, there obviously were. As someone that's been into RPGs since AD&D and was part of a gaming club in college, there weren't a lot of athletes and beauty queens in there. People that played computer games were outsiders, not mainstream. That has changed. Even now RP'ing is still considered "one of those strange things" that nerds do, though it does seem to be better accepted.

Also, I'd consider everyone in that list geeks, with the exception of Tim Duncan. Vin's a good looking geek but still a card carrying member.

[AlanC9]

I guess the point might be it's not a universal tabletop/PnP RPG mechanic; that said, since my experience outside D & D was mostly Stormbringer (like you), Call of Cthulhu, and some GURPs versions, like GURPS Cyberpunk. I dunno how much D & D is or is not an outlier - here. 

I don't think rules systems are the right way to ask the question. Whether or not supplies are of any concern varies from campaign to campaign, or even from session to session. Hell, past 4th level or so food and water aren't a concern even in D&D unless your cleric goes down.

[Realmzmaster]

I'm not saying there weren't exceptions, there obviously were. As someone that's been into RPGs since AD&D and was part of a gaming club in college, there weren't a lot of athletes and beauty queens in there. People that played computer games were outsiders, not mainstream. That has changed. Even now RP'ing is still considered "one of those strange things" that nerds do, though it does seem to be better accepted.

Also, I'd consider everyone in that list geeks, with the exception of Tim Duncan. Vin's a good looking geek but still a card carrying member.

Let me lengthen that list: You can check here http://www.edmplanet...ead.php?t=86735

 

Information on Tim Duncan: http://blogs.sacurre...eky-tendencies/

 

So if I am a geek I will wear it proudly. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

My definition of "realism" in fantasy is a lot different than what some people seem to see it as. I want realism in fantasy, of course. I want the world and the characters to be believable. I don't want them to follow the historical timeline of Earth, however, and I don't need the fantasy world to have all our social norms and conventions. This is a very important distinction that a lot of people seem to miss. Thedas is not medieval Earth and it doesn't need to conform to a standard as if it is. It's a very different world and what's believable in it is quite different than what would be believable in the real world timeline of Earth. 

[Realmzmaster]

I don't think rules systems are the right way to ask the question. Whether or not supplies are of any concern varies from campaign to campaign, or even from session to session. Hell, past 4th level or so food and water aren't a concern even in D&D unless your cleric goes down.

 

True, but every system does not have a create food or water spell.  Also it requires that you have a cleric in your party if you use D & D. Allowing for hunting and searching for food (assuming food and drink play a role in the campaign) allows a party to form without a cleric. 

 

Dragon age proves that parties can consist mostly all of one class plus an extra. I like to use a group of rogues (rangers in DAO) plus a warrior. StM likes to use an all mage party if possible. 

Both DAO and DA2 make it easy to leave the mages at home or camp. (Sometimes too easy).

[Realmzmaster]

My definition of "realism" in fantasy is a lot different than what some people seem to see it as. I want realism in fantasy, of course. I want the world and the characters to be believable. I don't want them to follow the historical timeline of Earth, however, and I don't need the fantasy world to have all our social norms and conventions. This is a very important distinction that a lot of people seem to miss. Thedas is not medieval Earth and it doesn't need to conform to a standard as if it is. It's a very different world and what's believable in it is quite different than what would be believable in the real world timeline of Earth. 

 

I agree with you to a point. The previous two games have already established a baseline. The game shows characters eating, drinking and sleeping. Death for everyone but the party and companions is permanent unless inhabited by a spirit.

 

A lot of what happens has been abstracted. Like DA has bows with unlimited arrows. There is no story or lore reason for it. The purpose is simply a game play mechanic. The archer never runs out. Yet, Sebastian is yelling I am running out of arrows. 

 

Weapons never break in battle or armor degrade. No lore or story point is given how a character can learn templar skills in either DAO or DA2 without consuming lyrium (which seems to break the lore), but for game play purposes the character can.

 

You have a lot of gameplay/story segregation that is not explained by the world setting or the world's history. If the game lore had stated that Varric crossbow or Sebastian's bow was enchanted to solidify air into an arrow. I could accept that because that is how that world works. I cannot see that for any normal bow. That is unexplained in both DA games. (So another abstraction.)

 

So when I hear about realistic weapons and armor being wanted and the complaints about the rogue animations in DA2 but the rest of the unexplained points is okay? That has me going you have got to be kidding?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I agree with you to a point. The previous two games have already established a baseline. The game shows characters eating, drinking and sleeping. Death for everyone but the party and companions is permanent unless inhabited by a spirit.

 

A lot of what happens has been abstracted. Like DA has bows with unlimited arrows. There is no story or lore reason for it. The purpose is simply a game play mechanic. The archer never runs out. Yet, Sebastian is yelling I am running out of arrows. 

 

Weapons never break in battle or armor degrade. No lore or story point is given how a character can learn templar skills in either DAO or DA2 without consuming lyrium (which seems to break the lore), but for game play purposes the character can.

 

You have a lot of gameplay/story segregation that is not explained by the world setting or the world's history. If the game lore had stated that Varric crossbow or Sebastian's bow was enchanted to solidify air into an arrow. I could accept that because that is how that world works. I cannot see that for any normal bow. That is unexplained in both DA games. (So another abstraction.)

 

So when I hear about realistic weapons and armor being wanted and the complaints about the rogue animations in DA2 but the rest of the unexplained points is okay? That has me going you have got to be kidding?

Well, people ask for "realism" in context mostly of meaning "things I personally like" while ignoring other points they don't like. The things you list are mostly issues that are ignored because the majority of players would consider them tedious and unpleasant if they were acknowledged by the mechanics. When it comes to the design of weapons and armor, I think people use "realism" as a way to paint their aesthetic preferences as something more objective. The resilience and strength of characters in fantasy games are shown to far outpace that of a "normal" human, so what is realistic for the people of Earth to use in battle isn't necessarily the line for realism in fantasy games.

[AlanC9]

True, but every system does not have a create food or water spell.  Also it requires that you have a cleric in your party if you use D & D. Allowing for hunting and searching for food (assuming food and drink play a role in the campaign) allows a party to form without a cleric. 

 

 

Yep. But this hardly ever happened in my experience. Too many ways to get screwed without a cleric available. And that's by design in D&D; the intent of the system was to force cooperation between classes with different abilities.

 

My point is that D&D is a lousy example of PnP systems taking this sort of thing seriously. And in practice, even when a system did provide rules for supplies, etc., most of the time gamemasters would handwave the issues away unless the particular adventure was some sort of survival scenario.

 

Come to think of it, I can only remember one time in my whole D&D career where this issue came up enough to actually require the party to deal with it. No cleric that time; we had a psion with disciplines that handled most of the cleric duties. Most.

[Realmzmaster]

Well, people ask for "realism" in context mostly of meaning "things I personally like" while ignoring other points they don't like. The things you list are mostly issues that are ignored because the majority of players would consider them tedious and unpleasant if they were acknowledged by the mechanics. When it comes to the design of weapons and armor, I think people use "realism" as a way to paint their aesthetic preferences as something more objective. The resilience and strength of characters in fantasy games are shown to far outpace that of a "normal" human, so what is realistic for the people of Earth to use in battle isn't necessarily the line for realism in fantasy games.

 

Point taken. The same occurs when they talk about something being immersion breaking but ignoring the other immersion breaking points in the gameplay and story. Some of the problem I have with DA is that it contradicts its own lore for the sake of gameplay.

Like the learning templar skills without consuming lyrium.. 

[CybAnt1]

Well, people ask for "realism" in context mostly of meaning "things I personally like" while ignoring other points they don't like.

 

Absolutely correct. The real bottom line for people when they use "immersion" or "realism" in an argument is what they really mean "this is something I don't like". 

 

But, of course, when you start saying "it detracts from immersion" or "it's unrealistic" you can make it seem like it comes from an objective frame of reference and affects everybody. (Except it may not.) 

 

Being all different people with different backgrounds and experiences, most notably gaming experiences, we not only like different things, we are bothered by different things. Some people are heavily "bothered" by "unrealistic" armor and weapons. Well, I get that point, sorta. I suppose hauling around swords that are 15 feet long and 5 feet wide is a bit daft. But then, to say, they don't look exactly like historical medieval weapons - well no, no that doesn't bother me. Why should they? As we keep saying, Thedas is based on medieval Earth, but it ISN'T medieval Earth. 

 

Some people say it somehow distracts from immersion or it's unrealistic that Thedas has so many bisexuals. Really? Maybe it's all the lyrium, it enhances bisexual tendencies, who the hell knows? It doesn't bother me one iota. Of course, it could be some are having to deal with other issues .... but I digress. 

 

I'm not exempting myself from this. I suppose the reason I really don't like people in plate armor being able to forward roll 10 feet is it's a silly thing I've never done before in any fantasy CRPG I've ever played, so it's jarring and I don't like it. It is a move toward action-RPGness and that's just something that, by taste preference, I don't like. But that's not enough to convince people, so in comes "the appeal to reason and realism". I mean, I guess you have to. Otherwise, we really are stuck trying to convince each other why some of us like chocolate and others like vanilla. 

 

And that's OK. It's OK not to like certain things. I don't like certain things. I try to explain why! I even try to explain what might be a better way of doing them... but at the end of the day, it's impossible for me to make others like what I do. So I usually argue for why options should exist for both groups - but as we all know, Bioware cannot put an infinite number of toggles into every game, all the puppies in Edmonton would die. Also, of course, I won't be bothered by what does bother other people, and vice versa. Part of the problem of being human. 

[Rawgrim]

Realism within the frames of the gameworld. If we are told\shown something doesn`t work in one game, having it work in the second game (with no explanation given) messes up the "realism".

 

Just because the game has magic, doesn`t mean everything can be explained by "Its magic". The magic system has rules, and those rules are in the lore. If everything is allowed because of magic, we should be able to just magically create the Death Star, and let it blow up the planet.

 

The Dragon Age games tend to stay very true to their own setting\rules\framework though. Mostly it is just that god-awful anime combat that messes up the "belivability" of the whole package.

[CybAnt1]

I guess I look at it this way. If you give me the opportunity to slam the ground with my weapon, and stun 5 nearby enemies ... well, OK, that, and things like "Hail of Arrows" are unrealistic. OTOH, so are sky-dropping banzai bandits. Throw unrealistic challenges at me, give me unrealistic tools to deal with them, and for sure I'm going to use the latter. 

 

There has to be some point where the suspension of disbelief doctrine I mentioned triggers. Thing is, it's like pain threshold. It will happen at different places for different people. DA2 crossed mine. I get that it didn't for other people. I'd discuss DA:I, but I'd prefer doing so in a context where we really know something about the combat beyond last year's pre-alpha videos. 

 

I am not a person who says anything belongs in the game "because gameplay". No. Can't agree. Some things are just silly, and ... well, they're silly.