Dragon Age: The Veilguard Not the 'Right Game' for 'Nasty' Blood Magic

BioWare drawing a line in terms of morality? I mean, I’m not exactly an expert in player choice but that’s usually the first thing you try, pushing boundaries to see how far it goes. And punching that reporter woman in Mass Effect.

Less choices for players. How about keeping it in the game and letting the players decide which path they choose to pursue?

They've run out of time and money trying to get this one over the line. I think this one is going to be a much narrower, more linear DA experience as a result.

So how to fight? By trowing flowers or leaflets "Please keep away" ???

Nothing sells a role-playing game like removing player agency.

I’ll reserve judgement until we see how it plays out, but hopefully there will be some depth and moral ambiguity in characters, story and choice still.

Another check in Streamlining column, which seems to match the less control you have over your character in dialogue (from what we’ve seen). They have a lot more control over your character than previous games, or so it sounds. Honestly can’t wait for the game to come out so we can see reviews for ourselves.

I think this makes sense and is a fair thing to do. Not every game needs an evil option. Yes it’s an RPG but there’s limits on all stories, if you’re trying to make a story about a group of good heroes, then sucking the life force from someone’s blood doesn’t exactly scream goodness.

Sounding less and less like an RPG

"Blood magic isn't something a hero should use" well isn't that kind of moral freedom one of the main foundations of any RPG?

Lmao, so much for being an RPG

Maybe by leaving it out the game no longer fulfills the criteria for being a true rpg. Personally it changes nothing for me. Still intrigued and waiting on reviews before I make my mind up.

Well it's not like Shepard could kill innocent people on the Citadel or decide to side with the Reapers or whatever. Bioware's RPGs have always been fairly light in terms of moral choices that actually make a difference, or in "lifestyle" variations for RP purposes. Like, Shepard can't take drugs unlike many other WRPGs. They've never got close to things like Fallout, TES, or Disco Elysium for that kind of thing. In Baldur's Gate you could kill NPCs but then you can't really complete the game as you're constantly attacked by powerful wizards teleporting in.

As far as I can remember, in DAO no one reacted to you using blood magic despite it being this deeply feared thing. You could use blood magic around Templars - who should really kill you for that - and they wouldn't even comment on it. This sounds like they're just trying to avoid that ludo-narrative dissonance.

Gotta give EA that, they know how to market their games. Just look at Anthem.

It will be a disappointing mess tho. You heard it here first.

It makes sense if the character is meant to be a hero, rather than, say, the "hero" of Fable (which really just indicates anyone with excessive power in that world).

It doesn't really change my opinion on the game any.

We get blud magic instead. Ya feel me.

I just want them to do a full on remake of DA:O. God that game was good, but it's been downhill ever since for the series IMO.

If I want to play a nice PG rated rpg, I’ll go look at the many JRPGs out there. If I want to be evil, I can play western RPGs (BG3, Elder Scrolls, Fable).

Seems like I read somewhere that these developers have data that when given good / evil choices that the vast majority of players choose the “good” route. Most people leave the “evil” choices for a second or third playthrough. Perhaps that says something encouraging about humanity. But probably not.

Cool.either way dragon age the veilguard is going to be a amazing video game.just like 2014 game of the year winner Dragon age inquisition.word up son

In Inquisition you couldn' be evil either, nor use blood magic, you were basically roleplaying a savior, so even though I'm kinda skeptical of Veilguard due to other reasons, this isn't new to DA games.

Ahh, classic modern Bioware. "We emphasize player choice and consequences. Here's the 3 choices you may pick to ensure our preconceived consequences are achieved."

This definitely cools my enthusiasm for the game some.

Won't deny that choices or certain expanding of the universe are a challenging thing to develop the possible outcomes (that and carry over from old games to newer ones unless a remake/remaster/port and keep them in tact enough) and the combat/dialogue/events/decisions following through enough to other parts of the game and playing out correctly, etc. than just 'dialogue' and 'hear more about this' and that's all it does.

DnD type experiences require a lot of work for an CRPG or old school one or so then just leveling or others being their own in other RPGs.

I don't care myself but it is something western RPGs have offered and done well with that JRPGs don't really unless intended to be evil in a sense playing as a demon overlord like Disgaea even though no choices or really a 'villain' I guess but still in a sense of course. But most are based on heroes and typical parties and acting like a hero not acting like a demon overlord. Or any other type of threat like how Fable Legends could have or the Zombi U multiplayer mode on Wii U did of summoning them, but that works as a gamemode kind of thing then a whole game or pushing the villain aspects.

But villainous choices does add a lot to a game and some audiences do enjoy that not just being the hero all the time. But if the game allows it.

I mean it's not like these games are being a crime/police RPG or something else that's more particular of an angle to write around and whatever morals pushed, even then those crime thrillers or police force games have back and forth moments from their points of view not choices to do such and such for either side. It's a fantasy world so it's fine whatever messages or whatever consequences the world has.

I can understand pushing 'we didn't have time for that/want to do that' but there is a point where some things in games are a bit safe of oh the hero and this and that. Some people like to play as villains and if those aspects suck well that's a bit of a loss for that audience sample size.

I mean they have Solas as the villain, that had their reasons, and has left your Inquisition party even though causing what he has prior to the Inquisition & I think in an under your nose or what he did prior way. I mean is a hero/villain moral that ridiculous in a game like this NO. XD

For development time or vision I get it but at the same time it does make players question things when some games will go yeah lets do this. I get the things EA wants, I get the things the staff want from the game but more and more it's been a will Bioware survive after this game releases. What other RPGs will push choices.

Expectations to me are gameplay high with games then visuals/other things. But tempered to be 'sure I guess it passes of compelling enough' even some simple are fun to master, games are too 'simple' or more about 'messages, visuals & other social/theme focused' & the gameplay is more done to death boring then exciting for me in some games these days depending on the genre.

Part 2:
Will Fable's modern return be simplified as well? The originals had a lot going for them even besides limitations of the hardware or ideas to communicate things back then. Graphics may be what they are but systems have been getting trendy/safe and very boring over time even if yes a lot of work I understand that. It's why I keep going back to older gens is the priorities were different and the game mechanics were amazing.

Buying Alpha Protocol I get it didn't sell well/buggy but to me it was awesome & I'm not even into it these types of games.

But it's been in all Bioware games the decisions to make that change the game in certain ways (minor or major ones), they change systems from time to time which makes sense in any dev's further projects. I don't know much about Blood Magic so can't comment on it.

Too little and the game/world can seem a bit weaker or a bit focused on hero then villain or limited possibilities. Too much it can be a challenge to make but also to know what choices will matter or too overcompensating of choices.

Rock Paper Scissors or 3 types of options of Positive, Negative, Neutral, or more positive, more negative being 5-6 options to make more severe consequences. Besides just games with Rock Paper Scissors type combat approaches to them it does make me wonder. Not just the Mass Effect events carrying over and Dragon Age maybe had that but to a different extent even though Mass Effect had the same characters throughout, Dragon Age had some not in other games but maybe the reputation was carried over I don't know.

That or yes some are fun like the reporter in Mass Effect, not just oh this person over this person fits this role or that role in Inquisition or other equivalent things in other Dragon Age games and it effects other systems (then just a bond system or loyalty missions) assuming usually while Mass Effect doesn't really have that level of complexity to it but has it's own elements to it of course.

That or I guess the Fable 3 ending decisions to manage the kingdom and just buying up the houses and other things to prepare before the ending. Besides 1 & 2's choices/character decisions. To me Fable or Infamous made me go wow these in game decisions made a difference. Fable more so then more limited of Infamous but even then Infamous having choices then just a dialogue wheel or a good/bad points counter made a bigger impact even going from Second Son, backwards to Infamous 1.

But annoying citizens or doing whatever in those worlds whether Fable or GTA or other examples makes a difference.

Dragon Age and Alpha Protocol to me really pushed the decision making moments (not just because of the timing and no waiting around). Alpha Protocol especially if a boss fight after starting a level. XD

@Bunchesopuppies normally, if you want to make a lot of choices that affect the story and world around you, western RPGs are the way to go.

Can I be Mr. Negative Internet Person # 53850 and just point out that Bioware, as it exists today, is no longer Bioware. Pretty much all the staff who worked on Inquisition or prior DA games are long gone.

I guess I just mention it because I loved the series. Very near and dear to my heart. And I am approaching this game with a heavy dose of skepticism. Gotta wait and see but I'm feeling a bit pessimistic about this project overall based on their most recent output. Just can't get hyped about this and every tidbit I come across doesn't inspire.

But more on topic, I'm not so fussed about this particular decision. While Bioware has a legacy of player choice RPGs (most notably Mass Effect's very simplistic good-evil dialogue trees), to be honest that was always superficial and you were more or less locked into a pretty set narrative. As people came to find out with Mass Effect 3's wildly controversial ending which finally tore away the illusion of player choice they had built up in 1 and 2 to reveal a pretty set outcome.

I never saw Bioware games as create-your-own adventure type RPGs despite them angling so many of their games that way in marketing. And that's alright. They had an interesting story to tell and rich lore to back it up.

@Northern_munkey this game is the bones of what the original version was: a coop hero game set within dragon age. Everything they’re saying, from “super fun combat” to “blood magic isn’t for heroes” just makes it clear they probably don’t even have the ability to implement it as the game systems are locked in. Still ridiculous.