38 réponses à ce sujet

[Abraham_uk]

Just to clarify, there will be more than one mage companion.

 

Just so that you don't start harassing the developers begging for another mage character, I can confirm that there will be at least 2 mages in the actual lineup.

 

 

However if there was only 1 mage out of a group of 9 companions (6 warriors, 2 rogues, 1 mage) would this bother you?

That would be 2 in total if you selected mage class for The Inquisitor.

 

Do you think this setup could work in terms of story and gameplay?

Would this mage have to be introduced early on, or could the one and only mage be introduced late game?

 

Once again I must emphasise the fact that there will be more than one mage in Dragon Age Inquisition.

[Abraham_uk]

I can't say no to more mages. The more the merrier.

 

However if there was only one mage in a cast of 9, it wouldn't bother me too much.

 

It would make mages feel a lot more special.

If you have too many magical characters then mages don't feel that fantastic.

 

 

Merlin is my favourite wizard simply because he is one of a few wizards.

He feels awesome. He feels special because he can pull off feats that most people cannot.

 

 

However you go into Tamriel and start casting spells.

Most people in Elder Scrolls have the potential to become powerful wizards.

Most fighters use some form of magic (be it enchantment, alchemy, staff wielding or spell casting).

Don't get me wrong. I love magic in Elder Scrolls. It's an awesome tool that his handled really well. In Oblivion you can even craft your own spells (epic indeed). However being a wizard in that universe feels no different to someone wielding a gun in real life.

[Ymirr]

Work in what way? Game itself, or story and it's opposing sides?

If for gameplay you don't need a single mage to win (in the previous games at least.) For story I'd say we'd need more than one, both on opposite sides of the mage templar conflict.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I like the class balance method they used this time. 

[Abraham_uk]

Work in what way? Game itself, or story and it's opposing sides?

If for gameplay you don't need a single mage to win (in the previous games at least.) For story I'd say we'd need more than one, both on opposite sides of the mage templar conflict.

 

 

Both story and gameplay.

[Sequin]

I like having choices, and since I like playing rogues I usually will include at least one warrior and one mage with my party.

Let's say I don't like the mage the game offers and there is only one, total. In that case, I'm just out of luck.

So yes, I would rather there be more than one to choose from in the party. And I don't think it takes anything away from their coolness to have more than one. Especially if the stakes are high in the plot. To me, it would make less sense to only have one mage available to help save the world.

[Gtdef]

2 mages are the sweet spot. The can represent the circle and apostate thing. Also gameplay wise generally speaking triple mage parties are fun in Dragon Age cause they have the most active playstyle (ok forcefield woundbombs weren't that interesting but whatever ;p ) and four mages wouldn't work. I just hope that at least one of the mages is going to make the lame wizard jokes. After anders I think we really need a mood changer.

 

As for your question, if it's gonna be one mage, I'd prefer it faster than later. They tend to be useful. It's going to be better for multiple playthroughs too. And yes it could work as long as rogue becomes more useful overall compared to the previous games.

 

The problem is that mages are the "go to" guys in this game. So having access to at least one fast is essential. 

[Incantrix]

I'm not sure how it'll work out.

 

So far we have Vivienne, Solus and the Magister. One of em is becoming an NPC if history has anything to say about it. Unless they pull a fast one and give us 3 mages. 

[Wulfram]

I think it'd be pretty annoying.  I like flexibility.

 

And while mages are rare in the population at large, they're not so low a proportion of the combatants able enough to be worthy companions

[Abraham_uk]

I think it'd be pretty annoying.  I like flexibility.

 

And while mages are rare in the population at large, they're not so low a proportion of the combatants able enough to be worthy companions

 

So very true.

Mages are awesome.

[jlb524]

I want 9 mages.

 

This group is supposed to be the best of the best.  

[Abraham_uk]

I want 9 mages.

 

This group is supposed to be the best of the best.  

 

That would be awesome!

They'd have to have high magic resistance if they were all into primal magic since they would be spamming area of effect spells.

 

 

If you have high magic resistance, does that make healing spells less effective on you?

[BubbleDncr]

I think only one mage would make people feel like that was the most important companion - because it would probably end up being the most used companion, since most people probably try to bring one of each class with them all the time, and would have no other option for the mage slot, unless they were a mage themselves.

 

So I would be against only one mage (or only one of any class, for that matter).

[Abraham_uk]

I think only one mage would make people feel like that was the most important companion - because it would probably end up being the most used companion, since most people probably try to bring one of each class with them all the time, and would have no other option for the mage slot, unless they were a mage themselves.

 

So I would be against only one mage (or only one of any class, for that matter).

 

Good point.

[TKavatar]

Bioware said we can have three people of the same class in our party.

Can't wait to form an all powerful 4 mage team with fire and walking bomb at our fingertips

[jlb524]

That would be awesome!

They'd have to have high magic resistance if they were all into primal magic since they would be spamming area of effect spells.

 

 

They can position themselves so this won't be an issue.

 

Or use like a Spell Mantle spell (from NWN).  DA:O had Anti-Magic Ward.  

 

I guess you'd have to worry about Veil tears with all that magic happening in a concentrated location.

 

Oh wait, that's already happening anyway...

 

 

If you have high magic resistance, does that make healing spells less effective on you?

 

You think it would but it doesn't.

 

We won't need healing when everything just dies real quick

[Knight of Dane]

Just having one mage would mean someone out there would only have the choise of someone they dislike in that class. That's simply bad games design.

[Eveangaline]

Eh, if mage healing is important I'd feel the need to take that character along all the time, when normally I love taking different groups every playthrough.

[Cylan Cooper]

Just having one mage would mean someone out there would only have the choise of someone they dislike in that class. That's simply bad games design.

This. Having only one means that someone might be forced to pick a character they dislike or die. Imagine if Morrigan had been the only Mage in Origins and your warden refused to do the dark ritual. Welp, better hope that you have thousands of health poultices. Or imagine the pain of the Sebastian fans if keeping him meant killing their only mage?

[KainD]

This would bother me quite a lot story wise, as I am a mage supremacist and don't want to do anything with non-mage companions. You are basically asking me how I would like to have have only one companion. Not very much. But currently we will have 3 mage companions, so I can have a full party, I am satisfied. 

[franciscoamell]

Yes, this would bother me. A lot.

 

Completely from a gameplay point of view. Story wise, I'm not sure how I'd feel. I had a file where I had no companions but Morrigan, Alistair and Sten. It was awful so I quit.

[Brose]

At a gameplay standpoint, this would be a very miserable experience. I need my healer and I need a combat mage. Unless I take one of these roles, but I'm more of a warrior/rogue gal myself (altho DA mages are lots of fun). Story wise, it would probably not be ideal, since the mages vs templars is a hot button of an issue in the DA verse right now, and it's nice to have different viewpoints from a group of people.

 

But, at a very basic point, I need my mages. I need 'em baaaad.

[themikefest]

It wouldn't bother me too much if there is only one mage companion since most of my playthroughs will be as a mage. Like to have more, but as I say, I wouldn't complain.

 

I know when I played as a mage in DAO, I always had Wynne and Morrigan with me and had a blast.  Of course I did the opposite in DA2 when I play as a mage, I never took Merrill and Anders anywhere with me except fot their missions.

[The Night Haunter]

Nope. 

 

Imagine if the one mage was Anders.... I could barely stand to put him in my group in the one play-through (mandatory) where I romanced him. If he was the only mage then he'd be the only healer and I'd have to take him... (in DA2 you almost had to do this, but Merrill could be modded to have heals).

 

I greatly prefer variety. Having 3 mages (what DA:I has) allows me to go through 3 playthroughs, each with a different mage, before I start repeating. Plus story wise mages make interesting characters, having one on the side of the circles/chantry (Vivienne), one anti templar (Solas), and one who isn't involved at all (Dorian, or DHMG as we know him), provides good view points for every situation.