3 réponses à ce sujet

[Jigglypuff]

I always found it strange how you use it and the companions seemed oblivious/accepted it, even when you used it in front of them, it did not even raise arguments between those who were adamantly against it.

 

 

[Allan Schumacher]

Your point is sound, the devs point however isn't. This is retconing: 

''Pure blood magic in the lore of the game is really supposed to be a very evil power. In previous games it wasn't really perceived to be that way. We talked about it being that way in the lore, we'd talk about crazy mages who went down the blood magic route and how that would have nasty consequences.''

 

Just no. It's not ''evil power'', it's not supposed to be perceived that way, it's no supposed to have any nasty consequences other than conflicts with people that don't like blood magic. Inquisitor can't face those consequences? Fair enough, just no other bs pls. 

Just curious, do you validate this perspective based on the fact that you used blood magic in DAO and DA2 without consequence?

[Allan Schumacher]

I was under the impression that the chantry comments have more to with the fact that the player forms the Inquisition, which isn't too far removed from the eyes of the Chantry for many.

[Allan Schumacher]

It seems weird to see no blood magic as drawing the line in that regard, considering we've known what the inquisition is and whose authority it operates with for at least a lot of months now, depending on how long you were here. And that's one of the only ways I can really interpret that response, given the context of this thread and the context in which the comment was made, being in a thread about not being able to use blood magic, with a comment directly responding to not being able to use blood magic.

 

If that wasn't the case then I would apologize, but I hope in explaining my confusion I made it a bit clearer as to why I would be confused in the first place.

 

I'm not 100% sure.  It just seemed like it was mentioned as a general "thing I am not looking forward to in DAI but am willing to accept" that wasn't actually related to blood magic at all.  At least in the way that I read it.

 

EDIT: Nope, seems I was mistaken and he does consider this to be evidence of being chantry bound.  /shrug

 

 

This whole thing about blood magic being evil by default seems like one big retcon that actively contradicts the game's lore. Oh, and I've only done maybe 2 playthroughs as a blood mage in DAO and NEVER in DA2 (I always do force mage and spirit healer in that one)... So don't think I'm a biased blood magic lover.

 

I put the question that way not because I was thinking "you like Blood Magic, so obviously you won't have issues with it" and more "Are you basing it on the gameplay of the previous games?"  You seem to sort of being doing this, when you say "simply casting blood wound weakens the veil? Or just casting a fire spell because you have no mana left to do it weakens the veil?"

 

I already had felt that Blood Magic was not at all done particularly well from a gameplay-story integration perspective.  I considered it the most egregious fault in terms of narrative consistency, and to me it more came across as "here's this cool, really powerful thing that we think people will have fun with."