78 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Bonecold]

So no one thinks blood magic. which could be a DLC add on. And carefully plan out and tested. Should be a DLC? Blood magic is too powerful in the game. D2 made it super strong.

[Todd23]

So no one thinks blood magic. which could be a DLC add on. And carefully plan out and tested. Should be a DLC? Blood magic is too powerful in the game. D2 made it super strong.

But because there was no in game consequences (at least that's why I think they did this) their patches often included the blood mage specialization getting weaker. If you play the game now it's no better than any other specialization.

[Asdrubael Vect]

 how dare them to cut blood magic(this is not lore wise and they show it on arts and mention) when they were even said that the game would have consequences if you will play as blood mage

 

they again lie to us

 

first about that our Inquisition are "non-related" to Orlais/Chantry/Templars/Seekers when most of all of our companions and especially advisors are related and from this factions

 

and now about this,

 

"necromancy" is just a spirit magic this not allow us to do what blood magic do

[godModeAlpha]

well, guess what! there is no such option in DA:I!
 
some of us actually really looked forward to that specialisation, and the news about it gone made us burn apple pie on purpose, eat whole bar of bitter chocolate for the first time in our lives or cry in the shower whilst singing what we all want by gang of four.

I honestly think this could be released as a DLC, remember the Wardens keep in DA:O.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

dlc is basicaly a new content added into the game. i seriously doubt it could change gameplay outside the dlc in the way this specialisation would be actually recognized by main story (let's say that classes specialistations are somehow recognized in dialogues and such). now, i'm not saying it's not possible, to override content, just never seen this before (or cannot remember).

i understand why they choose not to include BM (i assume they've learned a bit from DA2 overwhelming obliviousness) - to do this properly, the story/interaction with NPCs would have to include new path used only by one specialisation of a one class - a bit more than one line in every third scene, maybe even unique quests and their outcomes. who would waste resources on such tiny feature?

 

but i'll whine anyway, well at least until someone banns me 

cuz i don't care about game reacting to my PC mind controlling the empress anymore (puny player playing in such hideous manner with our precious NPC? never!). at least give me some basis to headcannon it, damnit!

[PsychoBlonde]

This is a pretty common problem, you see it in various romance threads and now here.  The 'I don't want to play this way, therefore nobody should be allowed to' attitude.  In this case, it does appear that blood magic is getting a pretty big change/retcon, from what it used to be, which was 'some people think it's evil and some don't', basically it was a matter of opinion and perspective, to a flat out 'blood magic is evil, and the inquisitor isn't allowed to be evil and thus isn't allowed to be a blood mage'.  I liked blood magic, I liked the way it was, where you could see it as evil, or simply as another school of magic, a more dangerous one but entirely controllable if you knew what you were doing.  It seems they're changing it, for the worse in my opinion, to something that is flat out bad and something we aren't allowed to do anymore, it's quite the shame.  Certainly it was fun in the first two games, and there were 'good' blood mages in both, along with of course plenty of bad.  I wish they hadn't made this change, and they'd let us keep that fun specialization.  Oh well . 

I'm glad they made the change--if "blood magic is Evul!" is ACTUALLY what they were going for.  I complained about this a ton on the Origins and DA2 forums, that their gameplay COMPLETELY undercut the story.  If blood magic REALLY IS that risky and dangerous, if you allow the protagonist to just be a blood mage and NOT risk turning into an abomination you've created a huge breach between story and gameplay that will necessarily lead any intelligent person to completely discount blood magic as a real threat.  It made the entire issue look like a joke.  So they basically had these options:

 

1.) take blood magic away (as a specialization) from the PC and make it a REAL threat

2.) leave the PC with blood magic as a specialization but randomly have a "you turned into an abomination" GAME OVER screen (which would NOT be fun)

3.) turn blood magic into a Conversation Only thing that you can only choose (or not choose) to use in cut scenes.  This removes the dissonance and allows for consequences for using blood magic that aren't driven by a gameplay specialization.  I'm kind of hoping this is the path they chose and "use blood magic" becomes a mage-only conversation option kind of like the "use the force" options from KoTOR.

4.) Keep the blood magic specialization and ignore it from a story perspective turning the entire thing into an eye-rolling example of locking the story and gameplay in different rooms.

 

Of course nothing is going to change the fact that in the 2 games thus far you could freely be a blood mage with zero consequences therefrom.  So deciding to do something powerfully unsubtle in Inquisition (if they actually do so) will indeed look like a ham-handed retcon.  These are the things that happen when you don't fully integrate your stuff from the get go.

 

Heck, even turning blood magic into a conversation-only thing places way too much story presence on playing a mage that really ought to require some corresponding options for Warrior and Rogue . . . but what would those options be?  This is what happens when ONE class is based on "what you are basically by accident" and the other two are "methods you've learned".  Options that are appropriate to the Mage class have no corresponding factor in the other two classes.  It'd look stupid if mages ONLY get the option to "use blood magic" while Rogue and Warrior get a variety of "be persuasive" options.  ANYONE can be persuasive.  Being a mage doesn't PRECLUDE persuasiveness, while being a Rogue or a Warrior effectively precludes you from using magic.  Granted, they could allow you to tell a party member (if you have a mage in the party who doesn't mind the idea) to use blood magic . . . but then you still have the problem that Mage in Party > Lack Of Mage.

This has been a problem with the game from the start.  Mage is THE most important class because an entire big plot of the game REVOLVES around that class.  There aren't any plot points that REVOLVE around people being Rogues or Warriors.  Heck, if it wasn't for a few locked chests and generally pointless traps there wouldn't be any difference BETWEEN the other two classes.  Everything is either "mage" or "not mage".

[aTigerslunch]

Blood magic, could still be open to those willing to want it. If for it being too powerful wise, meh.

Inquisitor and the inquisition wouldnt get much support from anyone by being a blood mage. So, storywise, only mages that also use it might help where most wont. This is how and why I see it closed off. Makes sense logically.

Hawke should been reprimanded in DA2. The Warden not so much, cause grey wardens have used it.

I will remain standing with the storywise excuse. Anything else may not be so logical as far as the inquisition is concerned.

Any power or skill can be used for evil or good I believe. Now if blood magic supposed to cause one to be an abomination, then it needs to happen with PCs, and hopefully companions against it would try attacking and not ignore it. Actually the way blood mage npcs were treated should be the same to any pc that uses it too.

I know inquisition wont have it. Makes logical sense storywise to me. Future DA needs to be considered in these respects on how and what should be considered. Though the team already knows and realizes this.

[Panda]

Personally I don't see blood mage more evil than walking bombs or necromancery etc. There is pretty brutal and disturbing spells mages can have in DA games even without blood magic ^^; Horror and nightmare sound like they can mess up with someone's head as much as blood magic. Also since we have had pretty nice blood mages around, Jowan and Merrill, who weren't exactly evil just potentially dangerous, I don't see how blood magic is evil. Risky but not evil.

 

It's intresting if they are going now to blood magic is very evil route in DAI when previous games gave different opinions on it and let you decide.

 

I liked my blood mage in DA2 so I wouldn't mind playing one in DAI either. I hope it'd have been noticed more though by companions etc in DA2. Merrill got lot of crap for being one and Hawke didn't which was odd.

[Ashira Shepard]

That was one of the things that seemed really weird to me in DA2, like you'd think someone would make a remark about that but nah.

 

You'd think someone would at least quirk an eyebrow when Reaver!Hawke rips a chunk out of someone and eats it (at least that's what the description and animation lead me to believe) but also nah. I'm actually curious how Reaver will be in DA:I. At least, I'm assuming that's what the skull star-eye symbol is in the warrior specialisations...

[KainD]

If blood magic REALLY IS that risky and dangerous, if you allow the protagonist to just be a blood mage and NOT risk turning into an abomination you've created a huge breach between story and gameplay that will necessarily lead any intelligent person to completely discount blood magic as a real threat. It made the entire issue look like a joke.

I don't agree with you because blood magic doesn't have automatic negative consequences, it merely has the big risk, which means that some intelligent and powerful blood mages can avoid the negative consequences like possession.
If the protagonist is good enough to face and overcome many impossible and dangerous situations that the plot provides, then they should be good enough to not face the consequences of blood magic. I doubt that the fact that we are good enough to stop an apocalypse makes you think that the whole trip was not dangerous and that anyone can do it right? Well our protagonist is also good enough to not get possessed like most blood mages as well. Saving the world from a horde of demons is much more dangerous after all don't you agree?

[Arvaarad]

I have no problems with bloodmage PCs. If anything, it should be *easier* for a bloodmage to hide their apostate status because blood magic offers mind control abilities.

See a templar looking my way? Just need to pull out my knife. Now he doesn't remember that I cast spells, and he's my very best friend. I definitely have a Hawke who rose to power this way.

I was a little sad at the loss of the spec in Inquisition, but at least I'll get to try some shiny new mage specs.

[Dagr88]

- PC (mage) is physically unable to learn Blood magic for some reason.

 

OR

 

- Blood magic will be some sort of secondary specialization (Max percussion check; mode where you use HP instead of MP), that you won't have to upgrade (use skillpoint), because (for example) you will learn it from a demon, who usually "upload" knowledge directly in your mind (as far as understand the process).

For that reason it's not one of 3 major specialization which you'll have to develop skill point-wise.

 

OR

 

- Blood magic is too much of a Cheetos for a game which has political orientation.

[Texhnolyze101]

This is one of my main beefs with DA:I in the reason behind why I'll wait to get it in like a year or so when its 30$ or something.

[Dussan2]

mostly a warrior in both installments, but I'd always utilize blood magic once informed about its strategic applications.

in the first game, the aoe/cc is ridiculous.

in the second game, the lack of viable mana recovery methods really enhance the mage's burst.

<<(this guy is the abusive type that purposely puts on the legion of the dead shield emblem in awakening and sets Anders' strategy to martyr>aid allies cycles in II)

I hesitate to ask your reasoning in objecting blood magic's very existence as an option because your basis may very well elicit an IDGF response...at best.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Plot-wise, the head inquisitor obviously has a very strong reason to not be known as a blood mage, but hey, fortresses are often befallen from within.

This.

 

The first game, blood magic was a HIGHLY useful AOE/CC abilities.  While it did not augment your magic, some of those abilities were practically vital, from what I remember.  In truth I felt you had to have at least one BM in the group.  But that is just how I play.  In the end, I always end up cheating like a bastard so it wasn't a big deal.

 

As for the OP, I am of two thoughts about this.

1.  Blood Mage is a VITAL part of the Dragon Age lore.  Leaving it out as a player character skill kind of cheapens the experience.  

2.  They really never cared about the PC being a blood mage anyway.  It irked me.  One playthrough I was a blood magic using feiend.   I mean that is all you saw with my guy, *SPLORCH!!* effect and then I'm controlling some fool like a puppet, or blowing his ass up.  Or I'm tossing out combos like a fiend and then slitting my wrist for more mana.  But Wynne just went *tsk* and went on her way, and Alistair was still my best bud.  There was no real consequence for being a Blood Mage, even though I was doing it everywhere.  

[Uccio]

It is really disappointing for not being able to play as blood mage. I´ve played both previous games as such and now I am not able because its "too evil" and they can´t make it happen? Bio wants to set railroads already for the pc, bad form.

[TurretSyndrome]

It's sad that something that has such a presence in the lore and the game-world is abandoned from being properly defined, a third time. In a way Blood Magic was never really there in either DA: O and DA 2. Sure, it was a specialization but having to deal with zero consequences for possessing it in both the games made it just a skill tree to put points into and nothing more. Was really hoping for the devs to implement it the right way this time. Instead, the devs are scared away by the prospect of  adding some weight to it in the game. Very disappointing to say the least.

[Shapeshifter777]

I don't want to have my uterus removed, even though I am a man, so Obama should ban the removal of uterus-es. 

 

I don't want to eat at McDonald's cause everyone who eats there gets fat, so please government, ban McDonalds.

 

I don't want to... you get the point.

[Shapeshifter777]

Never played a blood mage in any of the games myself, it just felt wrong to do so while reading all about it, i just couldnt justify using it in any play through, even if i was being a utter bar steward i still couldnt find a justification for using it in the story.

 

Im glad it aint a option anymore but also sad for those that loved playing the spec, nothing worse than having your fav spec/class took away

 

Because it's fun to play an evil character?  

[Shapeshifter777]

You cant be evil in a DA game

 

In the first game, you go into the fade and make a deal with a lust demon pledging a young child's soul to her for eternity in exchange for demonic powers.  If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

[BloodyTalon]

Don't worry necromancer sounds like a branch of blood magic, just not the mind controlling type.

[BloodyTalon]

In the first game, you go into the fade and make a deal with a lust demon pledging a young child's soul to her for eternity in exchange for demonic powers.  If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

You could use Intimidation on the same demon resulting in them giving up the child and giving you blood magic also. But yes that was evil if you went with the normal deal.

[Zjarcal]

Your wish was granted, even if it sucks.

In the first game, you go into the fade and make a deal with a lust demon pledging a young child's soul to her for eternity in exchange for demonic powers.  If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

Well you can always try to justify deals like that by saying "I need the power to stop the blight". Not saying it changes much regarding the morality of the situation, but truly clear cut "evil for the sake of being evil" is almost downright nonexistent in the DA universe.

Selling Connor's soul for demon sex is the only thing I can think of... now that's really nasty.

[TurretSyndrome]

Selling Connor's soul for demon sex is the only thing I can think of... now that's really nasty.

 

Haha. I remember doing that my first playthrough of Dragon Age. Had a good laugh just because an option like that was there in a game. I also remember telling my friends about it later on Teamspeak, they were like "ooookaaaayyyy, I think you you need to see a therapist".

 

The only option I could think of that was anywhere close to being evil was bedding Gheyna and telling Cammen about it. The look on his face was priceless.