60 réponses à ce sujet

[Dakota Strider]

I just hope the whole game does not become focused on blood magic, because it does become boring for me, after a while. My characters generally treat it as something they would not use, and would be very suspicious/cautious of anyone is suspected of blood magic, if not downright hostile to them. And I am not sure what else they can introduce about the moral dilemma of using blood magic, in DA3, that has not already been exhausted in DAO and DA2.

[ReallyRue]

Someone in another thread something that I thought was very intriguing - about how interesting it would be if the main character had a choice to make a deal with a demon (or use blood magic) in order to save a loved one's life. I think that would be a fascinating angle, especially if the character you potentially save has strong feelings about demons/blood magic.

[the_one_54321]

Fandango9641 wrote...
Ooooooo, how about using blood magic to seduce party members?

That's called rape. No thank you.

[John Epler]

The problem with blood magic is, unfortunately, that it's a fairly limited thing - you only get that content if you're both A) a mage and willing to be a blood mage. That being said, minority content isn't something we're against as a rule - it just has to be handled appropriately and with the relevant expectations - one of which being that there has to be equivalent content for other 'paths'.

But, I do think the writers want to touch on blood magic a little more in future projects than they were able to in DA2. So themes of corruption and power could certainly be explored through blood magic.

[AngryFrozenWater]

John Epler wrote...

The problem with blood magic is, unfortunately, that it's a fairly limited thing - you only get that content if you're both A) a mage and willing to be a blood mage. That being said, minority content isn't something we're against as a rule - it just has to be handled appropriately and with the relevant expectations - one of which being that there has to be equivalent content for other 'paths'.

But, I do think the writers want to touch on blood magic a little more in future projects than they were able to in DA2. So themes of corruption and power could certainly be explored through blood magic.

That sounds a bit too simple, John. If, in a game, blood magic is the main theme, then you cannot expect players to overlook its use, just because the developer has chosen that this major theme is in fact just a minor one. To me that feels like it deserves a bit more than exploring the theme. It requires having appropriate game world responses, like class recognition. Consequences to which side you have chosen. You don't need to explain to an NPC that you are a mage when you just threw a fireball while wearing a staff and a pointy hat. Players should know where they learned blood magic from. Players should be hunted down for using (blood) magic when it is not accepted. Merchants should not specialize in gear for (blood) mages in the open. Etc.

[Captain Crash]

While I agree AFW, I think John was pointing out mainly on time (and other developer restrictions) if your going to put all that effort in for blood magic (or magic in general) then something similarly unique has to be done for rogue and warrior classes. While not out the question, Im sure they could do it if they want, it is heavy on developers time.

That said as you quite rightly point out, the fact magic and blood magic felt simply ignored in DA2 does indicate that perhaps mage classes do need that little extra work above the others. Blood magic in general has a lot out potential for storytelling and its flaws never come back to haunt the protagonist to any degree in either game.

[John Epler]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

John Epler wrote...

The problem with blood magic is, unfortunately, that it's a fairly limited thing - you only get that content if you're both A) a mage and willing to be a blood mage. That being said, minority content isn't something we're against as a rule - it just has to be handled appropriately and with the relevant expectations - one of which being that there has to be equivalent content for other 'paths'.

But, I do think the writers want to touch on blood magic a little more in future projects than they were able to in DA2. So themes of corruption and power could certainly be explored through blood magic.

That sounds a bit too simple, John. If, in a game, blood magic is the main theme, then you cannot expect players to overlook its use, just because the developer has chosen that this major theme is in fact just a minor one. To me that feels like it deserves a bit more than exploring the theme. It requires having appropriate game world responses, like class recognition. Consequences to which side you have chosen. You don't need to explain to an NPC that you are a mage when you just threw a fireball while wearing a staff and a pointy hat. Players should know where they learned blood magic from. Players should be hunted down for using (blood) magic when it is not accepted. Merchants should not specialize in gear for (blood) mages in the open. Etc.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing against class recognition - far from it. What I'm addressing is the idea that blood magic, specifically the power of blood magic to corrupt the player, can be a major theme. Because it's by no means trivial to add, particularly as, like I said, you would only ever encounter that storyline if you happen to be both A) a mage and a blood mage. That's not saying that we shouldn't acknowledge if you make that choice - it's not an insignificant choice, and we've said before that we plan on having recognition of your specialization within the world, and the appropriate consequences associated with that choice.

If what you're looking for is a game that changes completely if you happen to choose the blood magic specialization, then that isn't going to happen. The only way that we would be willing to build an entire different game for people who choose a particular specialization is if we limited you to that choice and only that choice, stripping away other mage specializations and warrior/rogue as well. That's not to say we can't do more than we've previously done, of course, and we'll readily acknowledge that we should've done more with apostate mages and blood mages in DA2. But there is a point where we have to keep resource limitations in mind, and entirely different experiences for a player based on a sub choice of a class choice is probably that line.

[Maria Caliban]

I dislike the extent to which blood magic is becoming the applied phlebotinum of Thedas.

Want to create a golem army? Blood magic.
Want to clean a mirror of taint? Blood magic.
Want to enter the Golden City? Blood magic.
Want to trap a demon? Blood magic.
Want to do battle with a demon? Blood magic.
Want to have a serial killer? He's a blood mage.
Want someone to become a monster? He's a blood mage.
Want to have an Old God Baby? Blood magic.
Want to conquer Thedas? Have your leaders all be blood mages.
Want a city where the mages all get possessed? Give it a history of blood magic.
Want to stick a demon in a Templar? Blood magic.
Want to curse people with lycanthropy? I think that was blood magic.
Want to taint the ashes of Andreste? Blood magic.
Want to track missing a mage? Blood magic.
Want to create Grey Wardens? Blood magic.

Even the dragon cults drink blood and that appears to give them a special relationship with the dragon, possibly making another it form of blood magic.

I wish blood magic had its own strengths and limitations, an actual Fifth School, as opposed to being Magic++.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

While I think changing the story based on class specialization is an unreasonable proposition, I don't see what AFW is suggesting as the same thing. There are ways to develop consequences for such a specialization without altering the premise or progression of narrative - mainly through mechanics that alter interactions between player and game. Side Quests that acknowledge such choices would also be nice.

But I think that the Dragon Age franchise is sorely missing in the variety of interaction and overarching mechanics driving reactivity.

Whenever someone brings up the issue of resources and how it's "impossible" to implement that kind of reactivity, I can't help but think of Nosferatu or Malkavian playthroughs in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines; or Werewolves and Vampires in the Elder Scrolls games.

You don't need to rely on discrete story branching for everything - I'd argue that you shouldn't.

[hoorayforicecream]

John Epler wrote...

If what you're looking for is a game that changes completely if you happen to choose the blood magic specialization, then that isn't going to happen. The only way that we would be willing to build an entire different game for people who choose a particular specialization is if we limited you to that choice and only that choice, stripping away other mage specializations and warrior/rogue as well. That's not to say we can't do more than we've previously done, of course, and we'll readily acknowledge that we should've done more with apostate mages and blood mages in DA2. But there is a point where we have to keep resource limitations in mind, and entirely different experiences for a player based on a sub choice of a class choice is probably that line.

There is another option, of course. You could disallow blood magic as a specialization for the player. The direction of the game would need to work some sort of story reason into it (after the protagonist broke the mystical seal of ShallNotBeBroken, all of the blood mages in the world all of a sudden were all possessed by demons and became some sort of hive mind of abominations hell-bent on opening a permanent portal to the fade and allow the demons to take Thedas for their own nefarious purposes), and you'd still be able to devote a reasonable number of zots to each other class and specialization. Cutting it as a player choice allows the freedom to make it as big a deal in the game as you want.

I do agree though. It's very difficult to give the blood mage specialization its just due in terms of lore and story with the limited allocation of resources. But it isn't fair to pull zots from the other specs to give them to blood mage.

[John Epler]

CrustyBot wrote...

While I think changing the story based on class specialization is an unreasonable proposition, I don't see what AFW is suggesting as the same thing. There are ways to develop consequences for such a specialization without altering the premise or progression of narrative - mainly through mechanics that alter interactions between player and game. Side Quests that acknowledge such choices would also be nice.

But I think that the Dragon Age franchise is sorely missing in the variety of interaction and overarching mechanics driving reactivity.

Whenever someone brings up the issue of resources and how it's "impossible" to implement that kind of reactivity, I can't help but think of Nosferatu or Malkavian playthroughs in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines; or Werewolves and Vampires in the Elder Scrolls games.

You don't need to rely on discrete story branching for everything - I'd argue that you shouldn't.

Well, I'm mostly referring to the comment that Blood Mages should be constantly hunted down.

As to other types of reactivity? I can get behind that. There's a lot that can be done simply through various little in-world events that can give the feeling that, by choosing to be a blood mage, you've drawn a line in the sand. Which comes down to the idea of storytelling through gameplay, rather than just dialogue, which is something I'm entirely in favour of. And given the world state at the end of DA2 - the fact that everything has, more or less, gone to hell seems to support a world where you can react to these choices without being inconsistent. Back in DA:O, being an apostate/blood mage was a Really Big Deal, because of the control the chantry and templars had over the world.

Now that the mages have rebelled against the chantry, it seems more feasible that the templars simply don't have the time or resources to go after you in quite as concerted a fashion as they did before. Some people would still react poorly to your use of blood magic, and there would, undoubtedly, be those who would seek your demise - but a blood mage protagonist feels a bit more feasible than it may have previously. 

I'm just spitballing. Though I'll say that, of your examples, I can agree with the Malkavian/Nosferatu/Everyone Else distinction. Less so for the Elder Scrolls games, at least the more recent ones. There were some comments, certainly, but by and large the consequences were not all that large.

Modifié par John Epler, 30 avril 2012 - 11:44 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

John Epler wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

John Epler wrote...

The problem with blood magic is, unfortunately, that it's a fairly limited thing - you only get that content if you're both A) a mage and willing to be a blood mage. That being said, minority content isn't something we're against as a rule - it just has to be handled appropriately and with the relevant expectations - one of which being that there has to be equivalent content for other 'paths'.

But, I do think the writers want to touch on blood magic a little more in future projects than they were able to in DA2. So themes of corruption and power could certainly be explored through blood magic.

That sounds a bit too simple, John. If, in a game, blood magic is the main theme, then you cannot expect players to overlook its use, just because the developer has chosen that this major theme is in fact just a minor one. To me that feels like it deserves a bit more than exploring the theme. It requires having appropriate game world responses, like class recognition. Consequences to which side you have chosen. You don't need to explain to an NPC that you are a mage when you just threw a fireball while wearing a staff and a pointy hat. Players should know where they learned blood magic from. Players should be hunted down for using (blood) magic when it is not accepted. Merchants should not specialize in gear for (blood) mages in the open. Etc.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing against class recognition - far from it. What I'm addressing is the idea that blood magic, specifically the power of blood magic to corrupt the player, can be a major theme. Because it's by no means trivial to add, particularly as, like I said, you would only ever encounter that storyline if you happen to be both A) a mage and a blood mage. That's not saying that we shouldn't acknowledge if you make that choice - it's not an insignificant choice, and we've said before that we plan on having recognition of your specialization within the world, and the appropriate consequences associated with that choice.

If what you're looking for is a game that changes completely if you happen to choose the blood magic specialization, then that isn't going to happen. The only way that we would be willing to build an entire different game for people who choose a particular specialization is if we limited you to that choice and only that choice, stripping away other mage specializations and warrior/rogue as well. That's not to say we can't do more than we've previously done, of course, and we'll readily acknowledge that we should've done more with apostate mages and blood mages in DA2. But there is a point where we have to keep resource limitations in mind, and entirely different experiences for a player based on a sub choice of a class choice is probably that line.

That sounds much better. But I feel blood magic is a special case in the storyline so far. The apostate/templar conflict is what DA2 is supposed to represent. And to be honest, storywise there was not much difference in playing a rogue or a mage or a warrior, besides the gameplay of the class itself.

I understand that resources are a problem, but as a player I respond to what I have been offered in the past. To me resources are not my concern. The story and gameplay are my concern. I know that you guys can be great in those. I have seen it before. But that same resource problem made DA2 to what it was. I won't bother you with waves of foes and the like. Still, I like to mention the rationalizations to keep the story railroaded because these hurt the story telling. That too felt like it was done for economic reasons.

And again, that does not mean I don't respect you guys for the work you are doing. I just respond to what I experience in DA2 and look at what you promise through those eyes.

[John Epler]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

That sounds much better. But I feel blood magic is a special case in the storyline so far. The apostate/templar conflict is what DA2 is supposed to represent. And to be honest, storywise there was not much difference in playing a rogue or a mage or a warrior, besides the gameplay of the class itself.

I doubt you'll get much disagreement. This is something we've discussed, and, while it may not be to the degree some people are hoping for, we hope to make it feel at least somewhat different in the future. DAO, to me, felt like it handled it rather well by emphasizing that, as a Warden, you're not really subject to the same restrictions as the 'common folk', but it still reacted to your class choice in some situations. I think that's a good goal for us to aim for in future projects.

I understand that resources are a problem, but as a player I respond to what I have been offered in the past. To me resources are not my concern. The story and gameplay are my concern. I know that you guys can be great in those. I have seen it before. But that same resource problem made DA2 to what it was. I won't bother you with waves of foes and the like. Still, I like to mention the rationalizations to keep the story railroaded because these hurt the story telling. That too felt like it was done for economic reasons.

And again, that does not mean I don't respect you guys for the work you are doing. I just respond to what I experience in DA2 and look at what you promise through those eyes.

Nothing wrong with this at all. Resources -aren't- your concern as a consumer of an entertainment product. You care about how the game plays and feels, and that's it. However, I would suggest that, when you're in discussion with developers before a game has been released, you're in a slightly different position. You can (and should!) make suggestions and proposals based on what you want in a game - but if you want to engage in discussion, the reality of limited resources has to be taken into consideration. Again, that's not to say that you should refrain from making requests because 'oh, they may not have the resources', but it does help make the conversation rather more productive all around when it's kept in mind.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

RE: Blood Mages being hunted, Fallout: New Vegas employs something similar, where falling out of favour with the major factions forces them to send hit squads after you as random encounters. Chris Avellone noted this mechanic in the recent Plot vs Play panel at Pax (plenty of p's in that particular piece).

"Josh Sawyer, who was playing through Fallout New Vegas for the second time. And he decided to ****** off both factions in the game, who hate each other. And when you ****** off either faction in the game, assassins will attack you, which is pretty typical for showing reputation mechanics in games.

But because he had chosen to ****** off both factions, which is something we hadn't accounted for, he woke up in the Mojave Wasteland one morning to find that both assassin squads had spawned in but rather than attack him, they launched at each other, murdered each other, and Josh just went by, whistled, looted all their corpses... And I could have spent like a month and a half trying to do a narrative design solution that would set up that situation, but because of the mechanics Josh was able to have a story all his own because of his actions in the environment."

Wouldn't something like that work well for the Templar/Mage focus of Dragon Age? Like say, a Blood Mage who's taken advantage of Apostate Groups because of self interest and greed. Judging by Chris Avellone's comment, it'd also use less resources/take less time, assuming that the base for such interactions are there.

It's not necessarily the same thing, but it is aspects like that which I feel Dragon Age needs.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 01 mai 2012 - 12:01 .

[John Epler]

CrustyBot wrote...

RE: Blood Mages being hunted, Fallout: New Vegas employs something similar, where falling out of favour with the major factions forces them to send hit squads after you as random encounters. Chris Avellone noted this mechanic in the recent Plot vs Play panel at Pax (plenty of p's in that particular piece).

"Josh Sawyer, who was playing through Fallout New Vegas for the second time. And he decided to ****** off both factions in the game, who hate each other. And when you ****** off either faction in the game, assassins will attack you, which is pretty typical for showing reputation mechanics in games.

But because he had chosen to ****** off both factions, which is something we hadn't accounted for, he woke up in the Mojave Wasteland one morning to find that both assassin squads had spawned in but rather than attack him, they launched at each other, murdered each other, and Josh just went by, whistled, looted all their corpses... And I could have spent like a month and a half trying to do a narrative design solution that would set up that situation, but because of the mechanics Josh was able to have a story all his own because of his actions in the environment."

Wouldn't something like that work well for the Templar/Mage focus of Dragon Age? Judging by Chris Avellone's comment, it'd also use less resources/take less time, assuming that the base for such interactions are there.

Yeah, that's the kind of narrative through gameplay I mentioned earlier (maybe in this thread, I've lost track). The only concern I'd have (and it's possible that I'm just paranoid) is that part of the reason it worked in FO:NV is that they've conditioned players to expect a significant portion of that game's storytelling to take place through the environment and gameplay, whereas we tend to lean heavily on dialogue and cinematics. Which isn't an excuse, really - finding a better place on that line in which to live is certainly something we're aware of moving forward - but it does raise a few warning bells.

Generally speaking, though, the less we have to pull the player into a conversation or cutscene, the happier I am. A cinematics guy who believes that fewer cinematics are a good thing? Shock and horror.

STALKER remains my go-to example for this kind of thing. Most of the biggest 'narrative' moments in that game are entirely unscripted. I doubt we'll go quite that far into the 'ambient narrative' direction, but those types of games certainly have some things that we could draw from.

[brushyourteeth]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I dislike the extent to which blood magic is becoming the applied phlebotinum of Thedas.

Want to create a golem army? Blood magic.
Want to clean a mirror of taint? Blood magic.
Want to enter the Golden City? Blood magic.
Want to trap a demon? Blood magic.
Want to do battle with a demon? Blood magic.
Want to have a serial killer? He's a blood mage.
Want someone to become a monster? He's a blood mage.
Want to have an Old God Baby? Blood magic.
Want to conquer Thedas? Have your leaders all be blood mages.
Want a city where the mages all get possessed? Give it a history of blood magic.
Want to stick a demon in a Templar? Blood magic.
Want to curse people with lycanthropy? I think that was blood magic.
Want to taint the ashes of Andreste? Blood magic.
Want to track missing a mage? Blood magic.
Want to create Grey Wardens? Blood magic.

Even the dragon cults drink blood and that appears to give them a special relationship with the dragon, possibly making another it form of blood magic.

I wish blood magic had its own strengths and limitations, an actual Fifth School, as opposed to being Magic++.

Aw, give the Qunari a little credit - they're conquering Thedas just fine without blood magic. Props to them!

I think you make a good point, but I disagree up to a certain point because blood magic is intended from the beginning to essentially be the most powerful form of magic. And it generally (not exclusively, but generally) seems to only be used by either the wicked or the desperate, which is why we typically only know of it achieving big, scary things.

On the other hand, I'm with you as far as wanting blood magic to actually have some limitations, and I would like to know a little more about what those limitations specifically are.

[Brockololly]

CrustyBot wrote...
Wouldn't something like that work well for the Templar/Mage focus of Dragon Age? Like say, a Blood Mage who's taken advantage of Apostate Groups because of self interest and greed. Judging by Chris Avellone's comment, it'd also use less resources/take less time, assuming that the base for such interactions are there.

It's not necessarily the same thing, but it is aspects like that which I feel Dragon Age needs.

I basically agree with Avellone in that a very effective way to tell a story is by letting the player tell their own story through the game systems and mechanics. Sometimes thats more enjoyable and memorable than many authored, scripted experiences.

A legitimate faction system of some kind would be nice. And (might?) fit in pretty well considering the chaotic world state post DA2. Of course, it would depend on the role of the protagonist in DA3 too as to how much it would make sense.