Talk:Dragon Age: Inquisition

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meverett.umd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving random stuff into this section
" It is to be developed by BioWare and scheduled to be released in Summer 2012." Isn't this wrong since no bioware employee ever said the date? It was just speculation in that one article.
 * In any case, I redirected the article to Dragon Age until something substantive appears. –MuZemike 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It won't delayed Bioware says this is false a dev on the offical forums Mark Kirby claimed it was false -http://social.bioware.com/forum/Dragon-Age-II/Dragon-Age-II-Game-Owner-General-Discussion-NO-Spoilers-allowed/If-DA-has-separate-studio-why-delay-DA3-for-SWTOR-Content-13098256-1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.1.159 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Engine is not exactly Frostbite which is an FPS engine. Quote from cited site is " Dragon Age 3: Inquisition combines the storytelling legacy BioWare is known for, with deep RPG gameplay all on a  brand new RPG game engine underpinned by EA’s critically-acclaimed Frostbite™ 2 technology" meaning its more of a modification of the Frostbite 2 engine not the engine its self, I suggest editing the Engine to "Modification of Frostbite 2". ExilorX (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User score at Metacritic at 5.5/10 – normal?
I was a bit surprised, after reading the almost exclusively glowing reviews in the "reception" section, when I found the (PC) user score at metacritic to only be 5.5/10. I'm not familiar with how this usually looks, but is such a discrepancy towards the negative normal? And is the user score not notable? -- megA (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not uncommon. Metacritic user reviews often attract a lot of rage 0s. The reason Metacritic critic scores are notable is because they aggregate reliable sources; the user reviews, in contrast, are just the opinions of whoever loves or hates a game enough to comment. They are also vulnerable to organized campaigns to tank a game's score for reasons unrelated to quality. There is no reason to mention it in the article. (As a side note, Google's first autocomplete suggestion for me for "metacritic user scores" is "metacritic user scores are useless.")--Trystan (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A similar discrepancy was, however, mentioned in the Dragon Age II article... (DA2: Critics: 82/100 vs. users 4.3/10, DA:I: Critics 87/100 vs. users 5.5/10) -- megA (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Honest anonymous is a more reliable sourse of information than corrupt organisations, don't you believe in democracy? I thought better of wikipedia-37.99.57.36 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the "rage" is coming from PC users. The game is an obvious port from the console version and from what I have read the PC version wasn't supposed to be that way. There are issues with the PC UI (huge health bars, mission waypoints that never go away in giant boxes); all of this taking up valuble screen space. The UI was designed for console users with a joystick sitting on a couch in front of a TV and is not PC friendly (mouse/kb).There are complaints about not being able to use the tactical view properly (not enough zoom out, graphics in the way from seeing your characters etc). I personally would like to be able to turn it off as I always acidentially enter it when I scroll the mouse wheel too far. There are issues with the overall feel of combat (no auto-attack and you constantly have to hold the mouse button down to attack). Many have complained of just swinging at air because its hard to track an enemy. It really feels sluggish and slow to me. DA2 had a faster, better combat system IMO. Looting is this big production as you have to bend over the item then you get this box listing the items. Looting should be a quick action with a click/hot button. The other weird option is the search radar you can use (don't have too) to find items; constantly clicking, draining on the hand. DA2 had an option to highlight items of interst that you could see and pick up quickly. The graphics are rich and lush but they programmed a very small, light brown mouse pointer that constantly gets lost in the background (not good in combat). There are many more complaints for the PC version and supposedly Bioware has acknowleded it. I know the "community" would take care of things like this but due to the engine the game uses mod tools may not be available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalon80 (talk • contribs)
 * My opinions: while it might be worth looking into later as a source for potential expansion, right now they're really not notable. User scores are written by essentially any Tom, Dick, or Harry and can be based on anything from kneejerk reactions, poor research, or outright trolling. In composite, somewhat worked around but even then. Not to say critics are exactly flawless, of course, but I'd wait until user feedback is directly discussed from a reliable article or such. Plus, right now the game's only just released and honestly a lot of user scores are just 0s and 10s from first impressions, so waiting a bit might be worthwhile. I wouldn't be opposed to including any BioWare remarks like "We fucked up the PC UI" if they've mentioned it, though. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach. For DA2, that's an issue for that article, but if it is citing Metacritic user scores, it could be improved to changing the sourcing to a reliable secondary source discussing player feedback. That's the standard we should apply here.--Trystan (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I can agree that there will always be trolls or people simply wanting to sabotage a game for whatever reason. My previous, droning post was based off my personal game play (PC version) and visiting the EA/Bioware forums. It is lit up with complaints mostly about the PC version. I'm sure some of those people spilled over to Metacritic and other outlets to vent their disappointment with the game. I can also agree to giving the devs (and players)time to fix issues that should lead to a more accurate rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalon80 (talk • contribs)
 * I swear the topic of user scores comes up with every new release, more so if there is any controversial aspect, common with PC titles in particular. User scores by themselves are self-published and are not reliable, mostly because we cannot gauge whether people are making any genuine attempt to assess said game, let alone if they have even played it and are multiple posts being made? IF however there is coverage from another reliable source in the form of a news article for example or a statement from the developer, said mention of user backlash can be included. EDIT: See Portal 2 as a good example of this. Frankly Man (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The view that "anonymous reviewers are unreliable" is shallow. Go to Amazon.com and see the customer reviews. A large proportion is from verified purchasers (though names not displayed for privacy reason). They paid money to play the game, and then expressed their views. On the contrary, review websites that produce professional reviewers are paid by game developers (through advertisement). If you have to wait for those commercial websites to publish an article reflecting the user scores, and then we can cite it in Wikipedia, it satisfies your definition of validity, but you are also doing a service to the glory capitalism (i.e., websites are paid NOT to publish articles harmful to their clients, so indirectly does this Wikipedia). Titanjap (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)]
 * I should also emphasize that this is not my personal take but the general practice of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether you agree or not, there are standards in place. Personal views, including customer reviews without reference at face value and uncited allegations are original research (WP:NOR) and are not reliable. Frankly Man (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't need to emphasize. I know the so-called practice. Not just for Wikipedia but the world in general: when one cannot justify by logic, they justify by rules. Falling onto deontology instead of virtue is the biggest invention of the modern society. Good job! Titanjap (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough if you feel that way, I am just stating how it works here. Frankly Man (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Customer reviews are considered reliable as long as peers are in agreement (see PS4 DA:I scores vs PC DA:I on amazon ). "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals" is stated in (WP:NOR). Bioware itself has acknowledged the problem does affect things to a certain extent. A better example would be Simcity, where peers are in agreement that the game itself is unplayable at launch due to various reasons. This is in comparison to critics who gave it a passing score where they do not reflect the sentiments of the general users.101.100.161.64 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Peer review refers to a specific, highly rigorous process of vetting something for publication by qualified professionals. It has no application to self-published user comments, which are about as far from peer review as it is possible to get.--Trystan (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Further more, it would seem more plausible, if not preferable to find professional reviews that highlight said issues if they are as apparent as said customers claim. Frankly Man (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it enough that a Bioware employee acknowledged the concerns on PC gameplay from the community and stated they will look into it, despite it came from the forums? Which part of it isn't professional enough? Does it need a link from a gaming website's article who itself cited the direct link from the same forum to consider it professional?


 * But leaving that aside, I'll give you two examples of a disconnect between "professional critics" and players. There has been a disagreement on the game Mass Effect 3, where many players were unhappy how the way ending turned out, but no mention was given by any critics in the initial review. It was only after enough "peers" were generating enough comments, that game journalists started to publish articles on how players were unhappy over the ending.


 * The same issue goes for simcity. This article cited the top rated review in amazon. Many players were giving it 1 star because they were unable to play the game. At which point of time does an article make it professional enough to reflect the users' sentiments? Because it came from a gaming website?


 * The users' reception score on metacritics/amazon is done as a singular aggregate with highlights on the issues that come with it, be it the Mass Effect 3 ending, Simcity unplayable launch, or Dragon Age:Inquisition's PC gameplay, have all been acknowledged by EA/Bioware. There is no singular self published research here, because a group of people have pointed out the criticisms as a collective. There are university degrees for game programming, game designing, but I don't really think there's a qualification for game reviews. One might have a degree for journalism, but that itself doesn't make a review "professional" but simply the dissemination of information in a literary style. How does an article from a gaming website turn this into an accepted and professional status? Gaming articles are different from medical articles of which professional academia is required, and gaming itself is highly subjective to personally based opinions.


 * I do not know where you intend to go with this, but I personally find that it is insufficient to only include critics' scores when it comes to gaming recently due to Simcity and Mass Effect 3 debacles. The users' scores criticism had sparked a reactionary stance from the company itself, and I therefore think it is worth adding it into the article. To me there is a need to have a change in wikipedia to include users' criticisms and not just the critics alone for gaming, in consideration of the recent disconnect between users and critics. 101.100.161.64 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When fan reactions start to be covered in reliable secondary sources, they can be added to the article by summarizing what those sources say, which generally includes some key pieces of context and analysis. If you want to argue for a wholesale change in the WP:RS policy, that talk page would be the place to do it.--Trystan (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Then what sort of users-based information/reaction can be put in now after all this discussion? Is the metacritic scores considered usable or not? 27.104.242.141 (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, not by itself IE only referencing metacritic. See Portal 2, which like the 2013 Sim City example you point out that does mention a low Metacritic score BUT through secondary sources and within context of a wider backlash. EDIT: The top link is actually fine regarding PC issues, although I would still suggest finding more than one BUT it does not mention user scoring. Frankly Man (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I love your word "highly rigorous process", which, in your context, means reviews by paid reviewers who clearly have conflict of interest. This is the most practical yet ridiculous definition of rigor. Titanjap (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't follow. Peer review is a process used for publication of scholarly articles in academic journals. It has nothing whatsoever to do with video game criticism.--Trystan (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Also you keep making the sweeping allegation that all non-user reviews are some how invalid by default. Frankly Man (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Re generalizing the validity of user scores: I just went to MetaCritic and randomly looked up some similarly high-scoring PC games. In most games in the "green" range, like Skyrim, Alien Isolation, Legend of Grimrock II, Divinity: Original Sin, etc, the discrepancy between user scoes and critics is actually minimal, at most 10%... -- megA (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some less gushing reviews as balance?
Not to be sarcastic again ;-) but do less-than-glowing reviews (or quotes from them) have a chance of staying in the article, in order to give a more varied impression? Like this one, for example: Killscreen It brings up some interesting points and sounds less unanimouslyly 90%-euphoric than those reviews/scores in the article; though it gives the game a 75% score (you wouldn't expect it from the review text...), it's more in a "yes, but" style. Right now, the "Reception" section sounds unconfortably uniform – honni soit qui mal y pense... -- megA (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Balance is defined by giving due weight to the views expressed in reliable sources. Given that 27/29 reviews on Metacritic gave the game 80% or above, it's appropriate for the section to reflect that. I don't object to adding a sentence or two on the Killscreen review, but there isn't a balance problem here to fix, and specifically seeking out more negative reviews would introduce one. I'd suggest "Chris Breault from Kill Screen gave the game 75/100. He found several flaws in the game, noting, "Inquisition feels slick but siloed. The story and exploration parts of the game are boxed separately, and the latter is full of prefab errands with few ties to the themes of the Dragon Age setting."--Trystan (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever people feel, anything other than a paid commercial review is defined to be unreliable. Yes, everyone here is actually unreliable, unless you are paid to do your job. Titanjap (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course we are unreliable, both in our own opinions and in our ability to conduct original research analyzing and contextualizing the self-published opinions of others. Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source in this sense. I wouldn't suggest that WP:RS creates an encyclopedia free from systemic bias, but I don't think that is an achievable goal.--Trystan (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * IGN: 100/10 - We hated this game, but the studio bought every square inch of adspace on our family of websites, so... Game of the Year! /cynism﻿79.225.76.199 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedtree
Looking up Dragon Age: Inquisition on Google, and searching out its Wikipedia page, I notice that below it it offers links to related Wikipedia pages. This is common for Wikipedia pages on Google, and pretty handy. However, the related links for DA:I are -

Characters of Dragon Age - ‎SpeedTree - ‎Trevor Morris - ‎David Gaider

One of these things is not like the others. Speedtree is middleware that allows programmers to not have to bother putting trees in their game, and probably pretty useful. It is also however, phenomenally unimportant to Dragon Age. I have no idea if it is something that can be changed from Wikipedia, or if its strictly a Google thing, but I thought it might be of interest to Wiki editors. Maybe I'm wearing my conspiracy hat here, but it almost seems like a ploy to give Speedtree some marketing - I clicked it out of utter bafflement and I'm sure I'm not the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.125.42 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this really open world or not
The line in the main article stating that it's not open world comes from a very trusted source. However, it is multi-region, similar to Borderlands. Plus, the main article on open world games does state that sometimes, developers break the world into manageable sections, which is supported by the fact that their are sources that state it is open world. Should we leave the category or take it out? And I feel like that line needs to be tweaked a bit if it's going to stay in the category.104.246.58.250 (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If the developer had already said that it isn't open world, then it is not. Free free to take the category out. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * They contradict themselves though, so I'm gonna leave it.

"Explore a vast fantasy world on the brink of catastrophe in Dragon Age™: Inquisition, a next-generation action RPG in which your choices shape and drive the experience. This expansive, story-driven, open-world game is filled with complex characters, challenging combat, and difficult decisions." - http://www.bioware.com/en/games/#dragon-age-inquisition

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dragon Age: Inquisition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20141102000641/http://dgaider.tumblr.com/post/91870167579/in-the-interview-with-ashe-you-mentioned-the/ to http://dgaider.tumblr.com/post/91870167579/in-the-interview-with-ashe-you-mentioned-the/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Open world
Why is this part of the "open world video games" category? The article itself says the game is NOT open world. Unless the article is wrong.

Merge accolades list
Per recent discussions on standalone accolades lists, I think List of accolades received by Dragon Age: Inquisition should be merged back into this article. The table is far too short to warrant a separate article per WP:SPLIT. The relevant guideline is at WP:VG/AWARDS. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A separate accolades page is unnecessary. The game isn't really that well-received to begin with. OceanHok (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've gone ahead and copied the table back since it's short enough that it should be done regardless. As for individual publication awards that are still worth reintegrating in prose, I would suggest only major wins and not just nominations. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Trespasser

 * Hi OceanHok, I am currently working on a standalone article for Trespasser. When I am done, I intend to move the entirety of its plot summary into the article. I wonder if it will affect your proposal to have this article assessed for GA in any way. Haleth (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be fine. I don't see any problem with that. OceanHok (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Contributors and sources
FYI for anyone who is interested: Religion News and Christian Post and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_226#Reliable_sources_for_fake_news? Reliable sources for fake news?]. Eurogamer also runs on a contributor system with freelance writers, for e.g. this article here. The difference with Forbes compared to say Eurogamer, is that multiple editors have asserted in past discussions that Forbes doesn't place any of its contributors under any editorial oversight and so it may not be reliable as per the wording here. A general rule suggested by many editors is that the more likely a claim or news piece is controversial (especially if article is BLP), the more highly reliability of the cited source should be be scrutinized.Haleth (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You are not wrong, but we should always try to replace situational sources/primary sources with RS alternatives as much as we can, and if there is currently none, citing Softpedia is sufficient for now. Having 2 situational sources in a row doesn't help or add much when they are supporting the same content. Generally you only need one citation at the end of each sentence. OceanHok (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)