Talk:Dragon Age: Origins/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First lifesigns date

Could anyone try to track down the date when the first information on DA was released and add it to the top of the article? Right now, this could pass as abandonware from the last millenium... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.76.87.120 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a list of features that the developers have said will be included? For example I just read on the official forums that their will be a strength attribute and the magic system will be mana based.

Hi, I added a link to my website (hope that's ok?) which fulfills the above. I'll try and incorporate some of the info that I've gathered together into the main article when I've got more time. --Petros471 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Release date

I saw that a release date was mentioned on the page, but as far as I know Bioware has denied that they have one. I assume that this release date was taken from the article from 1up or 'games for windows' magazine (which is the same article). Bioware's response(by Chris Priestly) to this claim by 1up was:

Well, I think that was more of an estimate on their part. I've said this in another thread, but it bears repeating.

We don't know the release date yet. Heck, Mass Effect is going to be coming out quite a bit before Dragon Age and we don't know the release date for that either.

The team is working really hard and you're starting to see what they are coming up with (which looks fabulous imo), but we won't have a set release date for quite some time yet. Stay Tuned.

which was stated somewhere on this page on Bioware's forum[1]

So I would propose to remove the release date, but I dont know what wikipedia's guidelines are for this.86.80.15.251 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the release date, since it isn't an official one and no one commented on it why it should be there. 86.80.15.251 11:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the made up release date. Bioware is still saying TBA second half of 2009. If you have a link to an article saying otherwise, feel free to change it back. Snake 89 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan sites

As per Wikipedia:External links I removed the links to all but one fan site. I choose Age of the Dragon over Sorcerer's Palace because the former is much more accessible in that it is not cluttered with things un-important to someone looking for information about Dragon Age.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjo (talk • contribs) .

I agree that only one fan site should be linked, and I favor Age of the Dragon because it's a dedicated DA site, whereas Sorcerer's Palace is a general news page with DA coverage mixed in with NWN and NWN2 news. Also, it appears that AotD is updating more frequently at the moment.--Muchness 04:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Place

Sorcerer's Place (note the spelling) is the only website gathering and collecting Dragon Age forum highlights. The other site that's been removing the links to SP here and putting itself on the list is mooching our coverage so it should be the last one on the list, let alone the only one. So do us a favour and stop with the childish de-listing and link removal. As for how the "former is much more accessible in that it is not cluttered with things un-important to someone looking for information about Dragon Age", all our DA forum news coverage is on a single page, and no one thus far has had any problems dealing with more information rather than less. In time we'll open a separate section for DA, but until then, our DA forum highlights will be posted on the page linked.

I think the sheer fact that that other site is stealing our coverage along with our title for it (i.e. Dragon Age official forum highlights), and at the same time in its links section dubbing itself the only DA fan site speaks volumes for their integrity. Not to mention their constant childish removal of our link here. Way to make friends in the community, whoever you are.

I feel I have to respond to this to restore a bit of balance. In response to the above post:

• "Sorcerer's Place (note the spelling) is the only website gathering and collecting Dragon Age forum highlights." - This is clearly not true. My site does as well! And I certainly don't copy them from SP, they come straight from the official forums, with my own editing. If you looked closely at my site I would be very surprised if you found that they were exactly the same- there would probably be differences in what posts are selected for reproduction, the order they are in, the comments around them etc.

-- Our own coverage comes from the official forums, so it's obviously very easy for anyone to copy it and present it as their own. Making minor edits so that it doesn't obviously look copied would be a matter-of-course. Not that I can say 100% that that's what you're doing, it just looks like that to me based on a number of factors I've listed.

• "The other site that's been removing the links to SP here and putting itself on the list is mooching our coverage" and "So do us a favour and stop with the childish de-listing and link removal.” I have never removed the link to SP. I have never edited this article as an anon IP, always under this username. Looking at the edit history and my contributions shows that I've only added my site, not removed SP.

-- Well, someone's been removing links to us, and judging by what I've seen here, there aren't really that many candidates here who would have the interest in doing that. Coupled with the fact that you call yourself the only DA fansite makes it a tad too obvious to ignore. The fact that we cover more than a single game doesn't mean that somehow this disqualifies us from being listed. For many of the games we cover we do a heck of a lot better job than 99% "dedicated" fan sites out there.

• "I think the sheer fact that that other site is stealing our coverage along with our title for it (i.e. Dragon Age official forum highlights)" Please see the first point. Also I actually 'stole' the concept and terminology from the vault's coverage of Neverwinter Nights ( http://nwvault.ign.com/ ) and was partially inspired to start Age of the Dragon because the vault stopped covering Dragon Age. All news (game related or otherwise) is almost always covered by many, many sites- I have never heard of any site complaining that another is stealing coverage just because they report the same news. Copying content from another site is another matter, but as I've already said I only copy from the BioWare forums (and if they have a problem with that, they are welcome to tell me). By the way, the newest SP headline for DA is "Dragon Age Forum News", not "Dragon Age official forum highlights"; not that I'm claiming what I call them to be original.

-- You should have looked around a bit more then, we've been covering DA forum news for months. And please don't try to make it sound like anyone else is posting DA forum highlights, or compare it to general news gathering which takes little effort. If you were in fact collecting your own forum highlights you would know that it takes a lot of time and effort. As for "Dragon Age official forum highlights", that's what we call it when it's submitted to other sites to report about. Not that it matters, it's just another too obvious link to what we're posting.

• "its links section dubbing itself the only DA fan site” I’m sorry but that is completely wrong, and always has been. To quote from my site, next to the link for http://www.dragonagex.com/ "AFAIK this is the only other dedicated DA fansite out there (that's not counting sections about DA on the large gaming network sites)." I.e. I link to what I think is the only other dedicated fan site and specifically exclude sections on large sites from that claim.

-- I'd call it deceiving visitors, considering there are hardly any active DA sites in existence, so listing them all would take oh, 2 minutes? But whatever works for you... Just FYI, SP doesn't belong to a "large gaming network".

Some other comments:

• When I added the link to my site, I hadn't read (nor was aware of) Wikipedia:External_links, which includes "What should not be linked to... Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates." I apologise for breaking this guideline, and wouldn't have done so if I were aware of it at the time of adding my link. I even left a comment at the top of this page asking if it was ok, and no-one responded saying no, so I assumed it was. Later (earlier in December rather than back in October) I was actually taking advise from User:Evilphoenix just as the edit from User:Rjo happened.
• I feel it should be noted that the author of the previous comment, User:Toonstruck has mostly edited articles in order to add links to SP.

-- SP is one of the best sites out there for the games it covers (and I can say that based on our visitor comments, not vanity), so naturally it deserves to be linked. To begin with I've only corrected some broken links to us that have been posted in various articles relating to our site, since I've noticed failed hits from Wikipedia coming to our server after we've changed some links. For the couple of games that we also cover but weren't linked yet, I've added links, since they are obviously relevant. Everything after that was basically making sure that our links weren't removed by sites who think that the way to handle competition on Wikipedia is to make it look like it doesn't exist, by removing links to all sites but their own.

My edits are clearly available for viewing as well.

• Age of the Dragon is not just about forum highlights. It also has a Dragon Age feature list, and unofficial Dragon Age FAQs, which are (as far as I know!) the most complete on the internet. Both I wrote myself (obviously taking a lot of info off the official BioWare site, some copied directly).

-- Kudos to you, and nobody is disputing any content that you have that is obviously unique.

Toonstruck: Please note that I'm not accusing you of lying; I can understand how you could have come to most, though not all, of your conclusions. Of course you might not believe my responses above, but as we both have a vested interest in the links section of this article I suggest that we both leave it alone and leave other editors to make more independent and less biased decisions about which site or sites should be linked to.

-- Well, unfortunately I can't afford the luxury of being so lenient because I've had to keep re-adding links to SP that our perceived competition (or someone who has a gripe with us for some reason?) keep removing, either in favour of their own sites, or just out of spite. It's easy to do it anonymously on Wikipedia, or under another name. Frankly, just before this last edit here I wanted to start looking if there's anyone official to complain to because removals of our links are obviously malicious.

And I completely agree with leaving both links there - I've never had the audacity to completely remove links to active sites that have been entered on the list. At best I'd re-order the list in order of importance or relevance. Unfortunately there is hardly anyone editing the links sections that doesn't have an interest in promoting their own site, even when it is inferior to others on the list either in terms of content, relevance or frequency of updates. I do my best to be fair in this regard.

Finally I apologies again for being inappropriate in my editing of the article, and I will not do so again. I just wanted to make the above points as I hate for anything other than the truth to be known.

-- No problem, and I'm glad that you've replied.

Petros471 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just made some additions based on the recent four page 1up/GFW magazine article found here. As the majority of the previous content was covered in it, I moved several references to the external links section. Since I drew so heavily from that article I only referenced it in one place, as I'm new to wiki-editing if someone could go through and edit what I've added it would help. The page is starting to fill out and there is probably enough info in that article to add some more headings, perhaps plot and game engine/mechanics for starters. The article also gave some info on one of the NPCs - Shale, a dwarven golem/construct, and info on his story progression and methods to upgrade him but I wasn't sure to add it because of spoilers or lack of info on other NPCs.

Kamix 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick one

I for one thought that the BG series ended with Throne Of Bhaal, but ever since i read the article here on Wiki, that BG3 is in the making, I did some trudging here & there...and this is what most have to say : BG3 has been scraped/morphed into Dragon Age. I dont think BioWare has stated that explicitly but if any of the co-producers(?) have anything to say, then can anyone here dig that up and ascertain or deny that claim. Besides the places I picked it off was on fan-forums and its common knowledge that those are one the worst places to get any reliable info.Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect actually. Black Isle (Now Obsidian Ent.) was working on BG3. Interplay the publisher pulled the plug. I thought I read many moons ago the tech demo (pre-alpha) for BG3 was 'leaked' to some sites. But I could be in error, either way Bioware had nothing to do with the official BG3 sequel. - Rhomal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.71.111 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I added two tags to the article requesting citations:

for the artistic direction

and for general gameplay features

Now added --Sendu (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.87.102.5.5 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello 2!

I noticed that two sites are claiming the game will come to consoles later eg http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53624 and http://www.mcvuk.com/news/31210/E3-08-BioWares-Dragon-Age-heading-to-consoles Both are reputable, but this is the internet and it could be a mistake..

As such I haven't changed the article yet.. Anyone got better confirmations or denials?87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been confirmed. But no announcement regarding the consoles or release date is announced. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure - has 'dragon age:origins' been confirmed for consoles or just that a dragon age game will eventually made for consoles (as part of the franchise)?87.102.86.73 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has fixed that, thanks whoever it was.87.102.5.5 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Name change to "Origins"

1Up's podcast has them talking about the game's name change from Dragon Age: Origins to simply Origins. Podcast Problem is, the name change isn't anywhere else. So keep an eye out for the retitle. JAF1970 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. The context of that was talking about the name change from just 'Dragon Age' to 'Dragon Age: Origins' by adding the 'Origins'. There isn't going to be another retitle. --Sendu (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Official website age check

Should a note be placed with the links that there is an age check when one attempts to enter the website? I'm not quite 17, and now I'm locked out of the website (presumably until my birthday - I'm guessing it's an issue of "we expect an M rating and we don't want any emails from angry parents complaining about what their children saw on the site") - whenever I try to access it, it gives me the message "Sorry, you are too young." So should this be noted? 71.243.223.58 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No harm noting. Chensiyuan (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dev Section

Currently, the Development heading states:

BioWare will release a 'developer-grade' toolset (the same one that they used to make Dragon Age: Origins) to allow extensive modification and customization of the game.[15]

The part in brakets doesnt make sense as we are talking about the one they are using to make DA:O unless theres another DA:O I'm not aware of.

Z/G

118.100.76.81 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean that it should be in present tense since Dragon Age isn't finished yet? So it should read "the same one that they are using to make Dragon Age: Origins". However, I went to look at the source that is referenced, and there is no mention of these being the tools that BioWare is using to make it. The quoted text 'developer-grade' is present, but I don't think this can be inferred to mean that they used these same tools to make the game. Once I get home I'll be removing that text unless I can find another reference somewhere to support it. I'll also try expanding on the section in general. Wormdundee (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated logo and confirmed release date

Hello

The logo currently listed is an outdated one and may confuse visitors also in the latest trailer for Dragon Age, it confirms the release date for October 20 2009, and this is most likely worldwide... so if anyone can make the adjusted changes then please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamount (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The logo seems to be the same in the trailer... --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you are right about that, however on the official forums (at the top) the new logo is clearly visible, check it out:

http://daforums.bioware.com/viewdevposts.html?topic=679243&forum=135 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamount (talk • contribs) 10:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've never been to the forums before today (or, indeed, the official site before your last comment said there was a new trailer). --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DRM

It was recently announced that DA will not contain securom but do a regular style disc check. I would add this info myself, but I can't access the sites for sourcing while here at work (site restrictions). A google search on Dragon Age and Securom should bring up some good sources. --Lendorien (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be excited if I had a decent PC. If no-one's done it when I go to the library later today, I'll probably add it myself. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I took care of it. I was able to access a cached version of one of the articles. I will say that along with The Sims 3 not using Securom, this might be signs of a backpedal on EA's part.--Lendorien (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping it's the beginning of an industry wide backpedal myself. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Origin Story?

Which Origin story is this article based on? Because, if elves and dwarves aren't liked by humans, then I can't see humans being a romance option. I think I remember reading somewhere that Morrigan wasn't a fan of humans (presumably an elf then?). So which Origin story is this article based on, or is everyone editing wildly on multiple ones without specifying which story it is? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Morrigan is indeed a human but dislikes those outside her normal relations, since she isn't a normal city girl but an outsider. I also think being a different race does not affect the number of romances you can have, otherwise that would make the other races less appealing if you are not a human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamount (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Personally, I'd welcome the chance to romance a dwarven lady if I play a dwarf. For a start, it's certainly more believable than romancing Morrigan. She's twice the player character's size. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could romance Zevran. Some dwarf-elf thing going there...and he swings both ways, to boot. The romance options aren't affected by anything, I've found, which is kind of awkward, if you ask me.129.97.174.39 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

True and no all in the article, but this would be better posted on a forum. Maybe you can complain to BioWare and ask them to have romance options based on your race for the upcoming sequel? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Collector's Edition

Does anyone have any clue what is in the Xbox 360 collector's edition I just pre-ordered? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

All retail versions of the collector's edition have the same content. See or here for official page, or here for a link to Shale. 58.104.181.43 (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Though I'm not impressed that there doesn't seem to be any British stores I could have preordered it from to get the Feral Wolf Charm and the Memory Ring. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the wolf charm is a Gamestop exclusive. Lots of the US stores seem to exclusive items, though I think the memory band is for everyone who pre-orders so you should be right for that, I've seen it on Game.co.uk. 58.104.181.43 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You have? Odd. I'll have to check that later. Thanks. Unfortunately, it was the Wolf Charm I wanted. :P I'm perfectly happy with grinding on BioWare games without assistance. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Play.com have the Feral Wolf charm and Memory band exclusive for the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael2084 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Bit late to say that and I've heard too many horror stories (and at the time had no reliable internet connection) to pre-order outside of a GAME store. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Memory band is not exclusive to anywhere...Its pretty much shipped with any deluxe version. Annihilatron (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we got that, thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Specializations

I've added a brief mention of specializations to the "Gameplay" section:

Unconfirmed features include "specializations", packages for character development and improvement which are only available when unlocked by in-game events.<ref>{&123;cite web | url=http://daforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=689962&forum=135&sp=15#6590582 | title=Unofficial posting on Dragon Age forum}}</ref>

I kept this fairly vague, because we don't really have much hard information to go on.

I hope user 71.116.122.163 (talk · contribs) will now stop re-inserting that longer text about specializations. (I actually got the forum link by scanning the page history for first attempt to add that text.) But I deliberately used a terrible title for the cite, because I'd like someone who regularly edits here to fix it.

Incidentally, specializations seem like a nice game mechanic IMHO. Cheers, CWC 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was less what he added, more the way he added it, where he added it and the lack of citations. KotOR and Mass Effect had Specialisations, I doubted Dragon Age wouldn't. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, he's done it again. Cretin. He's got a final warning on his talk page before I start taking action. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning is on his talk page. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, its now confirmed. Although I'd have no way of citing this information, however, most character bonuses that can't be achieved through levelling are achieved through plot events and the choices you make.

Annihilatron (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really the content of his edits, it was the way he was editing them in. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Characters and locations

Over the passed month and a half I been adding more detail to some of the character descriptions and references since they were originally added around January of this year and don't reflect the newer official bios. I haven't seen anyone work on them lately so I was thinking in moving on and finishing up the rest. If there is someone here who was thinking on working on some of it I am more than happy to pass the remaining work to you or split it.

On another topic Dragon Age's Official Website has had information on the locations you will be entering during your travels, do you think that another section should be added for these locations?

Silentcid (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've been very impressed with what you've done given that I have a natural suspicion of IP addresses and users with no user page. :P I'd help out but the public computers near me don't like the site. Sorry. As for the locations, draft them (don't worry about putting citations in) and post them on the talk page. Most games don't have a location list, but it depends on what you can come up with. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Someone posted that the PC Gamer UK gave it a score of 94% and didn't get the reference on it. This came from the magazine but since I don't live in the UK can someone find this info and put in the reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentcid (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just got my copy of PCG, so just about to add the citation. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamespot awarded the PC version a 9.5, the Xbox360 version with an 8.5, and the PS3 version with a 9.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.16.206 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Giantbomb gave the game (all versions reviewed together) a perfect 5/5 http://www.giantbomb.com/dragon-age-origins/61-20738/reviews/80.101.161.195 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How about some actual criticism? There are articles out there which bite at the companion AI and the bland architecture and landscapes, etc. 123.243.117.241 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

List them. Chensiyuan (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Australian IGN review... let's not put that in. As a ton of the comments pointed out, it was almost totally deviod of content and shouldn't be really considered a "review." However, criticism will appear. It always does. The problem is, it might be that the only Wikipedians who come to this page are either too engrossed in the game or waiting for it to come out (in my hands in four hours and nine minutes) that they don't have the time/will to add stuff to it. Even most of the glowing reviews are missing from this article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, there was... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dragon-age-origins-review?page=3 going on about consequences lost amidst so many meaningless choices, the architecture, unimaginative dungeons and http://www.videogamer.com/pc/dragon_age/review-2.html points out unimpressive visuals as well. Unfortunately I haven't find the article again that mentioned the AI - personally, that's the only gripe I've had with the game. It's common enough on google that an article worth citing on it will show up eventually, I guess! 123.243.117.241 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Someone will go through them later for the information. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations tag

can we remove the citations tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.101.196 (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Err... what are you talking about? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page, kinda hard to miss. --Mika1h (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to me, with the improvements made over the last couple months, that the citation tag on the article page can be removed. Since others here seem to agree, I'm removing it. If there is any dispute, we can put it back and discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caidh (talk • contribs) 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that. Yeah... I missed that most of the time. :P In that case, I belatedly add my support for the removal. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"War dogs are a confirmed romance option"

Is this vandalism?

Yes. BioWare may be courageous in their taunting of Fox, but beastiality is illegal (to an extent) in most countries, so they're not going to be doing that. You know... ever. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

One spot, if you say surprise me, you get the dog as an option. Nothing happens. You can also get a dwarf dressed up in a unique fashion. And a few other things. By itself it might be bad, as a whole you realize they are really bad (though funny as heck) jokes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a work pc with a profanity filter, so I'm gonna try to explain this without using any... questionable language. In the 'Pearl', which is a house of ill repute, you have several options. One option is 'women' and the player is given a choice of several females, all of whome have some terribly funny dialoge to describe what the player is doing to them. One of these options is 'surprise me' at which point the player walks into a room with an assortment of oddball situations. One of the situations is the player walks in and a dog is on the bed. It is 'implied' that the player and the dog do something to earn the M rating the game has. Your other choices include a dwarf dressed up in a leather outfit (I'll leave you to guess) or a 'magical hammer'. All of them are terribly funny, and the whole thing is admittedly a joke. But yes, you have a 'war dog as a romance option' so there. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

... I really can't tell if you're joking or not, but that definitely isn't going into the article without a source. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[[2]] go here. watch and be horrified. 151.213.218.212 (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? What the HELL? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You were warned. 151.213.218.212 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Leakage

Thepiratebay is a torrent index it proves that the game has been leaked so do Biowares forums. But if some people do not consider those inappropriate sources let's wait till somebody makes a news article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.32.166 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

New threads go at the bottom. And I accept fully that it's been pirated (and it disappoints me), but pirate bay isn't a good link as no-one wants to have a direct link to pirated material on their site for fear of being sued. Wait until CVG, GamesRadar, IGN or similar covers it. Forum posts are acceptable if nothing else exists, but it is always vastly preferable to have another source. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when were forum posts an acceptable source? --Bilge [TC] 11:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

They are if it's from a moderator/community manager or, even better, a developer themselves, but as I said, use with caution and alway look for a source to replace it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think forums are an acceptable source post-release of the game. Pre-release it's fine because information out there is shallow, but now we'll want to wait for an article to pop up. Not that a leakage is a big surprise :P 75.80.128.65 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If no other sources exist, then it's still acceptable by my understanding of it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Playing Offline

Has anyone come across any evidence/citations for the statement about needing to be online to play the DLC in the Development section? I own the game and the DLC and can play offline just fine. There have been some bugs present (e.g. it might at one point warn you that your saved game requires you to log in, and then when you try again, still offline, it lets you in) but I've seen nothing official on the subject to confirm what the intended stance is. Should the statement be removed until it can be verified or perhaps amended to indicate some are having trouble? Grammarye (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should first ask what platform you have the game for. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may add my thoughts. As a PC player who has read that one needs to register and play on line etc. for the DLC, I have avoided doing so on principle. Regardless of the reasons why, no big corporation or authority ought to be nosing at what we individuals are doing. Privacy is valued by some of us for its own sake. So if DLC can be bought and played without the spyware type activity, at least some of us would be interested.

Moved sales figures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue resolved, thanks!

---

I moved the sales figures of the DLC from the "Reviews" section to the "DLC" section. The sales figures of the company are not a review. If a company makes a product that harms people and sells $1 million worth of the product before the harm is realized, the dollar figure reflecting the amount sold is a measure of harm done, not a review. Likewise, if a company sells one product for one dollar and the product helps people, it is not a review. I am not saying this game harms or helps people, but merely demonstrating that positive sales do not mean positive reviews, and positive reviews do not mean positive sales. 71.16.143.71 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I placed that information there under the "Reception" banner, and did not notice I also placed it under the subsection "Reviews". Thanks for correcting my mistake. --Taelus (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

System requirements are wrong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Done, further concerns listed in new section

---

I'm looking right at the back of the box now, the game REQUIRES the following: 1.6Ghz Core 2 SINGLE CORE, or an AMD Athlon 64 2.0 GHZ CPU. It RECOMMENDS the following: 2.4 Ghz Core 2 DUO (not quad), or a Phenom 2 X2 2.7Ghz. RAM fails to mention that Win7 also needs 1.5GB of RAM. It's true, the box recommends 2GB of RAM for XP, but 3GB(not 4!) for Vista/Win7. I don't know how to make these changes, but it should be easy to cite since IT'S RIGHT ON THE BOX. Another problem: it doesn't even mention Win7, which is sad, as it's clearly marked on the box as compatible and that's rather remarkable considering their close release dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the Xbox version, so I can't check personally. Secondly, the system requirements currently on the page have been there since June. It's likely that they were updated since then if they're different. Just for confirmation's sake, however, is it possible for you to scan the back of the box and e-mail it to me (contact information on my userpage). Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the PC version, I will dig up the manual which came with it and use the detailed specs within it to update. I'll try dig around to find an updated online set of data too. Might take a bit though, wikitables never like to behave when I edit them. --Taelus (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling. It's like they hate us. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Change performed using available sources. I was only able to update the minimum requirements, as they did not clarify on changes to the recommended settings. I did however show that Windows 7 is supported. However I am slightly dubious that there is a mistake made here by Bioware themselves, as they list the requirement as "Core 2 Duo Single", which I am unsure if it exists... Could just be a typo on their behalf, but I updated the section to reflect their official statement. --Taelus (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. PC Gamer UK had an article a few years back about how all minimum system requirements were garbage and that yes, you could play Crysis on the minimum specs, but it would look like walking through a forest of melting cheese at one frame per second (or something along those lines). Minimum specs are the absolute minimum, but you won't get much of a game out of it. Could be BioWare's fallen into that trap. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have always taken such things with a pinch of salt, because I find every system build is slightly different. I barely pass the minimum requirements for Dragon Age: Origins based on graphics card technicalities, yet am happily playing the game very smoothly on a mixture of Medium and High settings. Likewise, I know of people who pass the recommended requirements yet cannot run the game above Low settings without lag. System requirements are one of the biggest problems with PC gaming because computers are so complex and varied. I do not envy engine designers, they have to consider to many options. Especially since there are several "tuned" and "rereleased" versions of graphics cards out there, so simply saying "X850 required" doesn't say much. Anyway, I will stop myself writing an immense off-topic essay now. On-topic, we have done the best we can with the official sources released, but as we know from the Shale voice actor problem, the official sources are terrible, and the secondary sources contradict each other. --Taelus (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that Steam website always has the requirements for all of their games: [3] --Mika1h (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks alot to Mika1h, the system requirements are updated and cited. --Taelus (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Game engine used

The information box says "Eclipse" but the page for that engine has been deleted. It seems like this is because the engine is a derivate of a different engine, but I'm not sure if it would be best to link to this engine or recreate the Eclipse page. Something should be done in either case, so I'm just checking what others think would be a good idea --80.202.26.29 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That was back in 2008. I'm pretty sure that there's more infomation on it now that the first and only game to use it has been released, so maybe we can try to bring it back to life. I don't think linking to the other engine would be that useful, but I could be wrong. It depends on what that page says on Eclipse. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A few links that might be useful in future related to this:

• Naming policy of Bioware engines. A celestial theme?
• Eclipse engine uses PhysX technology
• Other games still under production using the Eclipse engine?
• Bioware trademarks the the engine name (could be used as a citation)

I am not sure there is quite enough information to make an article yet though. Hopefully when/if Bioware releases further documentation for the Eclipse Engine toolset, we can dig up lots of useful information from that. For now I think we should wait though, until december. I suspect by then more players will be getting into modding using the toolset, and Bioware will probably release its new DLC, so they might see it a good time to provide more information. --Taelus (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Collector's Edition

What the hell is going on? According to this, it comes with a tin case, a cloth map of Ferelden and a bit more of Thedas and, the way it's worded, all of the soundtrack. I pre-ordered from GAME in the UK. I got a normal plastic case with different box art and a cardboard cover around it, what seems to be a quarter of the soundtrack, if that, and no map. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You got the European collector's edition. The link is the American collector's edition. I won't comment my opinion as this is an encyclopedia, not a forum, but that is a typical occurance in the worldwide market. Also remember, the EU release even has different system requirements printed on the box than the US version... --Taelus (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That... that really sucks. [insert rant here] Am I allowed to blame EA? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that depends, you can either choose to blame Europe for being a less competitive market for video games (thus leading to firms not offering as many incentives over here to maximise their profits), or you can blame EA for doing so at the expense of social welfare of Europeans... But I shall avoid talking Economics hehe. --Taelus (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll blame EA... or Jack Thompson. :P Thanks for answering the question. (grumbles under breath) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO the "talk" page counts as forum rather than encyclopedia. Also IMO this offering of more to one country than another, is morally reprehensible, and disappointing to customers. EA and all others who indulge should be ashamed. Hope they all read this and change their ways.

Edge of Reality

Edge of Reality was a development partner for this game, working on the console versions. I'm certainly an "interested party" (I work for Edge of Reality,) so I won't edit or discuss further. MarkNau (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying exactly what they did? Because I've never heard of them before Dragon Age. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Since the game has been out for a while now, and there seem to be a few editors slowly working on it, I thought I would quickly review the article to highlight some key areas that will need improving.

1. The lead section could be expanded slightly to better summarise the article, and what makes the game noteworthy.
2. The synopsis section needs a clean-up, as its pretty much all in-universe and plot at the moment.
3. Development section could use a slight re-write to aid flow of reading, but for the most part it's content is good. System requirements issue needs sorting out though, although I am unsure how as the requirements were different in the US and EU.
4. The Downloadable Content section looks good, and can be added to as more is announced.
5. A track list in a collapsible box for the soundtrack could be good, or even a sub-article which can be linked to to contain this information. Sales data should become available for the soundtrack in the near future.
6. Other Media looks good, although I might move the section to the bottom of the article as a sort of "See also"/"Related topics" segment.
7. The Reception section looks good, although a compilation of the awards the game has won would benefit it further.
8. Referencing is excellent in this article so far.

Feel free to add any thoughts, hope this helps. I will rate this as B-class for now as it is coming along well, and only needs mild expansion and a few bits of clean-up here and there. --Taelus (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Assessment

Assessed as C; uses a character list, which also has the unfortunate quality of explaining gameplay elements to readers such as advantages or abilities found in some characters; unsourced content strewn throughout the article; development section seems less prose, more list; reception is lacking in content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Music Awards

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Information added to article.

---

Bioware's audio/studio director received the award from Hollywood Music in Media Awards for Bioware for outstanding music supervision in a video game (Dragon Age). Bioware was also awarded best original song in a video game for "I Am the One"(Dragon Age:Origins). The latter was composed by Inon Zur and Aubrey Ashburn, it was performed by Aubrey Ashburn.

http://www.hmmawards.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169:2009-winners&catid=52:submissions&Itemid=104

I think this would bolster the soundtrack section. The only problem is that the music supervision award was given for implementation of the soundtrack so maybe the title of the section could be changed to something like Music in Dragon Age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxanderr (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added it so the matter can be considered closed Alxanderr (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2009 Awards

Can someone make a table for me so that I can put up nominated for, and received awards. It could have 3 columns the first being site, or award giving organization, the second would be nominated, and the third would be awarded or won. Alxanderr (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What, like this?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Awards Site Nominated for Won N/A N/A N/A

That okay? If not, that's the basic coding for a table right there so you should be able to figure it out from there. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks perfect. I'll try to make up a table soon then, and I'll post it up here before I put it on the main article. Alxanderr (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for improvement

while "list of characters" has a forked article, there should be at least a short writeup about the characters. Chensiyuan (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My plan was to improve the character article properly, then use that to create the summary here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A brief summary of the player character, and creation process would do well in that section, perhaps with the section being retitled slightly. --Taelus (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split of Characters section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Done Page was moved per discussion, and linked in a subsection in article. --Taelus (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Rationale for my tagging in the article: The character section is currently trimmed down in this article in order to keep its weight low, as it should not dominate the entire article. However, a list of characters with voice actors would be useful for some users, and I believe is acceptable under notability criteria as it would be a list of actors assigned to roles, which is of note to those interested in the topic. Any thoughts and comments before the split is performed? I would leave the section in this article with a link pointing to the main article, with no content present here on characters personally, to avoid weight issues and to aid the flow of the article. --Taelus (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in the Dragon Age universe. That is all. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call, as there will doubtless be sequels... If anything, having a page like that will keep character lists off both the games pages and the series article when it comes about, which saves a bit of trouble in the long-run. --Taelus (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Dragon Age 2 was confirmed before the first game was even out. Check BioWare's page. (has a happy) However, at this point, I was actually thinking of the books. :D Maric probably deserves a mention. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, an excellent point. Perhaps the book's pages (if they exist yet) could also point to the list, making it useful for the entire topic? If there are no objections for a couple of days then I think it will be safe to perform a split. --Taelus (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I created the Dragon Age template, I left some hidden things in that could be shown when the pages were created. A page on characters was one of them. All you need to do is unhide it and it'll appear on all pages the template is transcluded to. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this movement, I think that it would allow much more fleshing out of the characters. As they are now, they may as well be left out. Move the inf to the new article. 71.169.185.194 (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this as well. The characters are definitely one of the most in depth parts of dragon age and they could have their own wiki article each.Alxanderr (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just adding that I think it would be a good idea for a separate character page to keep things neat and tidy --Csmarks001 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's unanimous then. I'll go and split the section in a minute. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Needs a lot of work, but it's done. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

System requirements - round 2

Unresolved

 – Still unable to find boxshots for both EU and US versions... --Taelus (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They're still not correct, though I am thankful to whoever fixed the parts I pointed out before. The problem now lies with the fact that the article suggests the game "requires" and even "recommends" a faster processor if you're using Vista/Win7. This is not true. The game (or the box) makes no distinction between a "1.6ghz" and a "1.8ghz" CPU depending on whether you have XP or Vista/Win7. I'm sorry XP fans, but it's simply not true.

Again, the information is on the games box. I don't know of a better source, but I'm sure one could be found on Bioware's site. Vista/Win7 ONLY require extra RAM and video power. (This is just opinion, but I feel the video requirements are overstated by Bioware. My ATI 4670 runs the game on max detail, max textures, and x2 anti aliasing, and does so flawlessly.) Thanks ahead of time for whoever fixes this problem. I don't know how to change it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.130 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ding, ding, ding! It's round two! /Joker imitation

The new requirements come from Steam. I think the difference between CPUs must be from the BioWare forums citation, but I couldn't find them myself during a quick search, so I can't tell if they're accurate or need changing again. As for your magic graphics card, that's probably just fluke rather than BioWare overstating things. System requirements are the bane of PC gaming and if it ever fails and gaming goes console only, it'll be due to that rather than piracy. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to just reply to a section, sorry for cluttering. Could someone explain?

1. I can't scan the box. no Scanner. i did try to take some closeups with my digicam, but i have to upload them on my other computer. I don't know how to upload them to wiki. ((EDIT: didn't see the contact information comment)), or tell me how to do it here, i'll have them to you by this evening. I took several, one of them should have come out pretty damn clear.
2. Bioware DOES NOT say "Core 2 duo SINGLE" on the box. It says "Core 2 SINGLE" which does indeed exist. i.e. celeron processors based on the CORE 2 cpu architechture.
3. Taelus. Check the box, not the manual. They're at the bottom on the back.
4. I don't think the graphics card thing is a fluke, i've had friends with the minimum running it on moderate settings, and even Taelus above said something similar. I still think they're overstated. I found the same with farcry 2. Again, this is opinion and irrelevant to the article.
5. I'm not trying to be a troll here, or aggravate, I just enjoy the game and little things like this irritate me. Did someone actually bother making up the "(xp) (vista)" things? Or was this actually published somewhere by some clueless (or premature) source? I want the article improved, and that's what i'm attempting here.

Thanks for the collaberation (sp?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.236.113 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Answering in order. To edit a section, go right to the top of the page and click "edit". Then scroll down to what you want to edit. If you only want to edit a specific section, most Wikipedia formats have an edit button to the right of their header. As for my e-mail, see my user page. Don't worry about the troll thing, you don't seem to be at all. We're all trying to improve it. Finally, it's collaboration. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Taelus, you're the one who's done most of the work on system requirements. E-mail me and I'll send you the back of the box for you to work out and find some sort of average between what online sources say and what the back of the box says. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No need, feel free to simply upload the box somewhere and use it. I believe GameFAQs is a reliable place which is willing to host gamebox shots. My problem with this scenario is that there are at least three different sets of system requirements floating about, because Bioware didn't make it clear they depreciated older ones. It's making citation here a nightmare. --Taelus (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It SHOULDN'T MATTER how many "sets" of system requirements are floating around the internet. The numbers from the BACK OF THE BOX should be enough, I have went through the trouble of taking a picture and the issue has yet to be resolved. WHY? Is the editor more interested in having clear, concise, easily citable material on the page, or is he/she interested in pushing the POV that XP is "somehow" (miraculously) able to run the game with a slower processor? i.e. the POV that "no OS is better than XP."

In fact, I couldn't have provided you with a better source for your information, easily citable, easily identifiable. If you think I have photoshopped the image, then by all means, visit your local wal mart (or online retailer) and have a look see. The requirements on the page currently are out of date, taken from some gaming magazine likely 6 months before the game was even released. I'm sure WIKI has some policy against pushing out of date rstatistics, even though the game is already out, the requirements are in front of all to see, and yet, this nonsense about "(XP)... (Vista/7)" is STILL floating around. Once again, how much better of a source can be provided than the games' OWN BOX. I have to say, I am incredulous. No wonder WIKI is looked so down upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.11.13 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the gamebox infront of me, and it does clearly state the different requirements for XP, Vista and Windows 7. It doesn't list the recommended system requirements either and is thus incomplete information. If your gamebox differs from mine, then this is just yet another set of contradicting system requirements. (My copy is the EU UK release however, thus might have a different back to the US EN release.) --Taelus (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if you will look under "CPU" you, my good sir, will understand that the box makes NO difference between XP and Vista/Win7. You're pushing the POV that XP is somehow better. I don't know why, but what the hey, everyone has their motives. If you want an actual picture of my girlfriend's game box, then by all means, ask jadefalcon for it. He has one. And I assure you, it makes no difference between processors except with respect to Intel/AMD. It makes no difference under the recommended specs either, again, except with respect to Intel/AMD.

EDIT: I don't think Vista runs any slower in the UK. ;D (I'm only kidding.)

Quoted from the EU release CPU section: 1.6Ghz (XP) 1.8Ghz (Vista and Win 7). AMD: 1.8Ghz (XP), 2.2Ghz (Vista and Win 7). Also the version of windows does make a difference, because Vista and Windows 7 are more power hungry than Windows XP and thus consume more of the CPU power and RAM just by running. The game recommended specs take the fact your running background processes into account. --Taelus (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Then send a picture of that to jadefalcon; he's a neutral party. or allow him to mail my picture to someone else and you do the same. Doesn't really matter to me. My proof is already out there.

If there really IS a discrepancy like this, perhaps it should be noted (not given much space though) in the article? BTW - I do apologize if I come across as confrontational, but as I said, I've provided my picture of my (girlfriend's) very real box. I visted local retailers while I was out and their boxes are identical to mine. So.. care to explain?

On a side note.. i still can't seem to reply to a section properly. I get all this HTML mumbo jumbo that I don't understand and can't always reply (like now) and it ends up with every time I reply, I have to create a new section. Anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.11.13 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I explained above: To edit a section, go right to the top of the page and click "edit". Then scroll down to what you want to edit. If you only want to edit a specific section, most Wikipedia formats have an edit button to the right of their header. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I understand your frustration, we have several problems with article citations here at the moment where Bioware doesn't really provide clear information. Personally I suspect they will update their own website soon enough... or at least, I hope so. --Taelus (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also to clarify why I cannot really resolve this right now by using your gamebox (which I thank you for supplying), the EU gamebox and US gamebox have different system requirements. How can we say which one is correct? Especially since the official website has yet another different set of (out of date) system requirements. Technically all three sources are "reliable" per guidelines, but that gives us three different segments, and it would seem odd to list three different sets of requirements in the article. I suggest we wait until hopefully Bioware clarify their official website. --Taelus (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archived

I have archived all the older issues which were resolved or stale, and have archived a few newer ones and left them on this page. Hopefully this will make it easier to see the issues still around. The older topics are now in the Nov 2009-Dec 2009 archive. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Take your console warfare somewhere else

The last paragraph in the review section needs to either be rewritten or removed for very obvious reasons. For now I'm at least going to mark where citations are needed. Kellenwright (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I did not write that section, I'd like to state that I do not necessarily see any animosity towards Xbox360 users. The statement is a direct quote from a reviewer, an opinion. As such, it should be included within a section titled, 'Reviews,' if legitimate. On the other hand, I will be adding another quote from the same reviewer, in which he states, "Minor visual hiccups, like corpses that disappear and reappear, are a bit more common on the PS3." I think that would create a more neutral tone, as the original statement does seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with the PS3 version of the game. I hope that helps, in terms of your 'rewriting?' -- Kilkia123 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This Is War

Added a small bit about the games use of 30 Seconds to Mars' This Is War to the soundtrack section. Olioster (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

System Requirments

System Requirments were wrong for Intel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.188.238 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, however I have reverted to the version which states that Core 2 Duo is recommended, rather than Core 2 Quad, per the citation provided. However, if I may clarify the confusion over this, it seems that the first batch of game boxes distributed in the US and EU had different system requirements labelled on them. I have no idea if the 2nd edition batches would have been 'fixed', but without a new citation I would assume the requirements listed on steam are correct.

Additionally, whilst this is original research by myself, the game runs very well on Core 2 Duo, thus I would assume the "Quad" requirement was a mistake on Bioware's part, and that the "Duo" was what they meant to say - After all, they said both at release time if you believe what is written on the back of the boxes. Do feel free to change it again if you can find a supporting recent citation. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

http://dragonage.bioware.com/game/faq/#1.05

Tells the minium specs on the right hand side in boxs. It "recomends" a quad core. The dual core is minium with vista. Single core etc. for XP. You can change how you want, not sure how to do all the proper reference linking work. But who better than bioware themselves huh? Edit: Seems the back of the box on mine anyways seems to be a combination of the 3. Guess the website is just more specific for each OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.188.238 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiny awkward sentence in the introduction

"The game is set in a fantasy setting with magic and swords,..."
Isn't that somehow redundant or is there a necessity for the mention of "magic and swords" (not to forget axes, daggers, shields, bows, crossbows, armor, poison, potions, dragons, werewolves, ogres, wine, women, and song, etc...)? -- megA (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sequel Speculations

I move that the section concerning the sequel be changed. The claim that there is a strong possibilty that the upcoming title mentioned in the brochure (reference number 92.) is an upcoming sequel is pure speculation. It could be an expansion pack or even downloadable content. There is no evidence of what the nature of the title is. No official word has ever been given as to what exactly the brochure is referring to. Until such a time that is officially confirmed that it is indeed a sequel and not an expansion pack or other merchandise, the comment should be stricken. This is a page for facts, not speculation, and there are no facts to confirm a link between the brochure and the sequel, as a result any speculations to that effect should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.213.69 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility

I heard on NPR that this game was rated very high for accessibility. That is, it's easy to play even for people with a variety of handicaps (color blindness, deafness, and impaired mobility). This is something worth exploring not only for this game but for all software and websites along the lines of "has this software/website been rated for accessibility, and if so, what are these ratings? I'd appreciate any suggestions for including this in our various software/website related articles. Rklawton (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

System requirements, last time!

http://dragonage.bioware.com/game/faq/ Despite what my game box says, and every one I have seen, this (official) page *does* make a difference between the CPU min. requirements for different OS's, however, they're NOT the same requirements as stated in the 'box' on this wiki page. Could someone a little more wiki savvy update this information? To summarize what Bioware says: a 1.4 core 2 for Xp and a 1.6 for Vista, where the article right now is saying 1.6 for Xp, and 1.8 for Vista. Now. I've supplied a picture of my own copy to prove the requirements are wrong, and nothing was done about it. What MORE can one give, that an actual game box (ordered through Amazon.com) and Bioware's own FAQ for the game. I believe those resources should suffice. Thanks. If it isn't fixed soon, I'll do my best, but I don't know how to properly show the reference, etc. I'd just like to see the article *corrected.* Something else interesting, my box lists a min. of a X850 with 256mb of VRAM, but the online source says 128mb. It also says a 6600GT with 128 mb will meet min. specs, which is identical to the article (if a 128 mb 6600 will play it, then an X850 should be MORE than enough). In short, I think Bioware has put out about ten different sets of "system requirements" - very strange. Thanks ahead of time for comments or help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.76.216 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism about the Mac release

There has been hefty criticism in the community about BioWare/EA's policy regarding the Mac port.

• It was announced AFTER the Windows version was already out, so many Mac owners had already purchased the Windows version to use on OSX's BootCamp.
• Then, patches stopped at 1.01, so later add-ons other than Warden's Keep, Stone Prisoner and Return to Ostagar (usable with a community-discovered tweak) were unusable.
• Support questions to the Bioware or EA staff are redirected to the user's forum.
• Dragon Age: Awakening has been promised by Bioware and Transgaming on inquiry, but hasn't yet been released, the "official" word being for months "we are working on it". (It won't be compatible without the 1.03 patch, though)

It is now the consensus on forums that the Mac version was released in order to drive Mac users to buying the Windows version in order to have full support, and that the Mac version is already abandonware. I don't know if all this is relevant (since it describes consumer opinion and not "official" announcements), but if it is, I could provide sources for it... actually here are some: Bioware Mac forum thread about Awakening for Mac Bioware Forum Mac technical FAQ -- megA (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed Spoiler from Witch Hunt DLC

Removed the spoiler below from the Witch Hunt DLC. Yes it's accurate, but anyone reading about it before playing will have the ending ruined for them. If the intent was to point out that there could be future DLCs based on the way it ends, then it should be rewritten without giving away plot points.

"However, the DLC ends with a massive cliffhanger, with Morrigan stepping through a portal, with or without the Warden depending on if Morrigan was the Love interest, to another world and her fate and plan uncertain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benn333 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Camera

"The camera is in an over-the-shoulder third person view when zoomed in, and an isometric-style view when zoomed out, though the console versions cannot zoom out to the extent of the PC version."

This is inaccurate and needs to be changed, you cannot zoom out with the camera at all on the console version.You can rotate the camera on the console version, but not zoom out. 99.196.128.59 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images

This article has too many non-free images, most of which are not in line with WP:NFCC (they don't illustrate anything that needs an image to illustrate it, they just provide "decoration"). In particular, the following images are all redundant; it would be justifiable to include one to illustrate gameplay, but it's not justifiable to include them all:

• File:Dragon Age Ogre.JPG
• File:Gazarath.JPG
• File:Redcliffe Castle.PNG
• File:Marbari War Hound.JPG
• File:Winged Firebreathing Dragon.JPG

rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights

So many of the module and HAK developers at IGN for Never Winter Nights I and II have stated their reason for discontinuing the maintenance and development of their modules/HAKs is they are moving on to Dragon Age. Dragon Age would be the spiritual descendant of NWN then. Why is Baldur's Gate focused on? 97.85.168.22 (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay - Origin Stories

In the gameplay section: The human noble begins as a Cousland and is the only class that can rise to a rule. Elven and human mages start their story off in the circle.

Entirely meaningless to anyone who doesn't know what Cousland is, or what a circle means to mages or what is special about "the circle." The in-game details don't appear until later on in the article.--WPaulB (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Open world

Could this game be classified as open world?ECW28 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No. The game world is made up of discrete locations rather than a single, freely traversable world. Indrek (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Comparing the game’s level-based stages to Oblivion’s open-world environments wouldn’t be fair, since each title does their chosen style of level design well." Dohvahkiin (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon Age: Origins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and have this done before Christmas. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: I have looked through, and I can't see anything substantial enough to prevent this article getting an Instant Pass. One thing I might say, and which has become a general rule of thumb in my editing, is that archiving the online references would be wise. So there we are, it's passed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Awkward positioning of Loghain

Hi! I just noticed that, in the Characters section, Loghain's positioning is somewhat awkward, for two reasons:

1. Loghain is mentioned as being a secret character in the second paragraph before who he is is defined (in the fourth paragraph).
2. It seems that the article is trying to conceal the fact that Loghain is a secret character, ultimately winding up with some redundancy. The particular sentence pair that I am referring to is as follows:

• There is also a so-called "secret companion" who can be recruited, but that will cause Alistair to leave the Warden. The secret companion is Loghain.

If anyone can figure out how to solve these problems, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you mean. I was still pretty new to copyediting when I edited this page, and I had no idea how to deal with things like spoilers, so I didn't do a lot of rewriting, just fixing errors. I should probably do a fresh copyedit on the whole page... if I ever have time. For now, though, I can certainly fix that section. :) —2macia22 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Genre of the game - rpg vs action rpg

Two edits by User talk:Lone Internaut were made to change the genre of the game from "role playing game" to "action role playing game". He states that it is an action RPG "since there are no turn-based mechanics in use". This is a definition I have never seen - and is not commonly used. There are no action elements in a real-time with pause game, and no other game in this genre (such as Infinity Engine games like Baldur's Gate, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, or Pillars of Eternity) use this definition. I'd encourage any other comments on this from editors (either further discussion from Lone Internaut, or from other editors). Caidh (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Caidh: Well, the game can act even as a direct combat, with no pause in use. It is optional. It's not something that I invented that usually pure role-playing games are turn-based. Anyway the contraddiction was where the "Gameplay" section said "Dragon Age: Origins is an action role-playing game", while the incipit and infobox said it was a role-playing. I think that, with the games you cited, the problem about "action role-playing" or simple "role-playing" is more controversial than it appears.

Then, you said in edit summary: "Dragon Age 2 & 3 can be considered action RPGs". If with "Dragon Age 3" you meant Dragon Age: Inquisition - and I did not played it - judging by what is written in gameplay section Inquisition can pause the game too. So what is the exact difference? Both the games permit to pause combat and tactics but Origins has to be a pure "role-playing game" while Inquisition don't. Why? Lone Internaut (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

When I said Dragon Age 2 and 3 'can' be considered such, I mean there is an argument to be made about it, not that I agree with it. Origins in no way, shape, or form has ever been described as an action rpg in my experience. Changing the genre should, at minimum, require a reliable source that describes it as such. If you believe that Dragon Age: Origins is an action role playing game, then I would expect you would feel the same about all the Infinity Engine games or all other real time with pause games. For such a large scope of change, I would encourage getting a discussion going at WP:WikiProject Video games for a wider range of opinions. Caidh (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Caidh: It's even true that Infinity Engine games are based, usually, on D&D table-top rules and legacy, so in their case an exepction can be made. As I said is more controversial than it appears. For Origins and others, things are different, and a simple "paused-combat" feature it's not enough to consider it a pure role-playing game. I don't think that a wide scale change in the project rules is necessary, not now. As for sources, well, on Electronic Arts website, the game is seen as a "Action, Role Playing (RPG), Strategy". Don't know if actually can do a difference. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but I respectfully disagree with your statement. The Infinity Engine gameplay (with respect to the mechanics of the whether it is real time or pause) are the same as Dragon Age: Origins. Whether it is based on D&D table-top rules isn't relevant. I would strongly recommend that you start a discussion on this in the WP:WikiProject Video games page, as what you are suggesting is a complete redefinition as to what is considered an Action Role Playing Game, and should be discussed by more than just you and I on this single game's talk page. Caidh (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I would really, really, really consider very much more a D&D's legacy and rules in a video game. And putting on the same level any Infinity Engine game and Origins is something I would neither attempt to do. Respectfully, I reject your reccomendation as I beleive it's not a problem of the project but rather a wrong consideration - in this I stand alone, evidently - about this game. So, I give up on this "battle". It's been a pleasure to collaborate. Thank you. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)