Talk:Dragon Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)