IGN Dragon Age 2 report debunked

By Robert Purchese Published 26 July, 2010

BioWare shoots down dialogue claims.

BioWare has corrected an error-riddled IGN preview of Dragon Age 2, explaining that there are more than three dialogue choices per conversation.

"I'm not really sure where the 'there are only three options for dialogue' impression they got came from," wrote Mike Laidlaw, lead DA2 designer, on the BioWare forum.

"Perhaps it was when I showed one half of the dialogue wheel with three options which, you know, leaves another half open for, you know, other options."

"Also probably worth noting that we're not locked into specific icons per place in the wheel. Oh no. We have much more flexibility than that. We're like gymnasts."

BioWare developer Craig Graff added that there are up to five "choice" options and five "investigate" options "per dialogue node". He explained that there was a difference between choices when you're deciding something and choices when you want to express yourself.

"I imagine that's the only dialogue he saw?" chipped-in lead writer David Gaider. "The demo is pretty action-packed and there's only the one conversation which, yes, has three options in it. As has been said elsewhere in this thread, however, that's not all we're limited to.

"The personality options (which the article mis-characterises, I'm afraid - they may have been more his impression of the lines he saw rather than our explanation of them) have a bit more complexity as to what they affect. That's probably part of a larger conversation, however, so we'll talk about it at length later."

IGN originally reported that Dragon Age 2 conversations were restricted to three dialogue choices and each of those were signposted by a good, evil or "badass" icon.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (21) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • WinterSnowblind #1 2 years ago

    IGN seem to be doing this a lot these days. Like when certain Kinect games obviously require you to be standing, they publish a report claiming you have to be standing at all times. I've never been a big IGN hater, but I don't recall them posting utterly garbage articles based on their assumptions in the past.

  • Bodd #2 2 years ago

    Who is more foolish - the fool who writes garbage for IGN, or the fool who reposts it as 'news' on EG?

  • photoboy #3 2 years ago

    The IGN "editors" probably had another bikini photoshoot to get to (and why is every single writer on IGN credited as an editor)?

  • Lionheart #4 2 years ago

    Honestly. As soon as I read "They might have been imps or goblins or demons, actually. We're not nerdy enough to know the difference." I could tell this writer was a chump!

  • Plewt #5 2 years ago

    "I'm not really sure where the 'there are only three options for dialogue' impression they got came from,"

    Maybe from the demo you showed them? That was after all, the only dialogue you did show.

  • Eraysor #6 2 years ago

    Good work EG, reposting tripe!

  • Lionheart #7 2 years ago

    To be fair on EG, they are just confirming what we all knew, that the writer is doesn't know what he's talking about.
    He talks about "new" things in the second game which were already in Dragon Age Origins anyway.

  • sneetch #8 2 years ago

    @Plewt
    "I'm not really sure where the 'there are only three options for dialogue' impression they got came from,"

    Maybe from the demo you showed them? That was after all, the only dialogue you did show.

    And if you demo a shooter and only show two guns then there's only two guns in the game? If your demo only shows one level then there's only one level in the game?

    The IGN guys saw A and assumed Z an incorrect conclusion and Rob just parroted it.

  • anomagnus #9 2 years ago

    As Bodd said, i expect nothing from IGN, they have zero credabilty with me, but i do expect more from EG.

    The first post got nearly 100 comments, mostly negative from people jumping to conclusions. Will this post get the same interest? I notice that people seem very quick to be negative on EG these days, and very slow to be positive.
    Edited by 1 at 26/07/10 @ 12:16

  • sarcasmoidosis #10 2 years ago

    Positiveness = fanboism = lost of minus votes
    Bashing something on the other hand... :)
    Edited by 1 at 26/07/10 @ 11:23

  • Centrifugal #11 2 years ago

    I'm glad Eurogamer reported on this; I was worried that Dragon Age 2 was going to have very toned down conversation system. The whole point of this site is to report on gaming news, big or small. Or did that suddenly change?

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #12 2 years ago

    Good work EG, reposting tripe!

    Woo, thank you!

    We picked up on the original story because we weren't at Comic-Con and it stuck out as news. Getting confirmation from BioWare at that time on a Friday with their staff out at the event would have been tough. Luckily they responded on their forum and you guys spotted it and the matter has been cleared up.

    IGN is the world's largest commercial gaming website. The access granted because of that means content on the site is often of note and newsworthy. That the reporter got the wrong end of the stick this time is their problem, not ours.

    I'd have updated our original story with BioWare's forum posts earlier but was away for the weekend from Friday afternoon.

  • abigsmurf #13 2 years ago

    Whether there's 3 choices or 5 choices it still doesn't change the fact they're putting in what amounts to a feature that tells you if an action is good, bad or whatever.

    It's getting rid of the subtle morality system of the first and replacing it with an in you face one. It's reverting back to the system of analogue good/evil. This is from a company that managed to successfully implement the complex AD&D morality system into a game. I thought DAO was lacking in depth compared to BG (you beat the game spamming healing and frost spells)

    I can imagine the dialogue now...

    "you find a puppy cowering under a tree, would you like to:

    A: rescue the puppy and give it to an orphan (This is the GOOD option)
    B: drop kick the puppy into an active volcano (This is the EVIL option)
    C: give the puppy to the good female party member (this will get you laid)
    d: skin the puppy and make some gloves to give to the evil female party member (this will get you laid)"

  • Moribundman #14 2 years ago

    @Bertie Wooh! You're busy today. Whinger patrol across the headline threads? ;-)

    Seriously EG aren't as bad as CVG who reported the new ME2 DLC as "Lord of the Shadow Broker" going on to quote the correct name ("Lair of...";) in the text twice, prompted a thread full of sarcasm and mockery, before posting a new story today using the same incorrect name... :-P

  • neems #15 2 years ago

    @ abigsmurf - not saying you're wrong, as obviously I don't know either way, but the Bioware guy was quoted as saying

    "The personality options (which the article mis-characterises, I'm afraid - they may have been more his impression of the lines he saw rather than our explanation of them) have a bit more complexity as to what they affect. "

    Suggests that good, bad, and embarrassing are not how it's going to go.

  • SomaticSense #16 2 years ago

    Still, even if it being misreported was the case it doesn't change my main concern about the intial story. Namely, that they'll be colour coding the replies. Having 3 options, or having 176 options makes no difference if they are going to colour code it 'good', 'bad', or 'neutral'.

    One of the things that separated DA:o from the likes of Mass Effect was that it didn't show any form of this. It allowed you to base your dialogue choices solely on, you know, the actual text. It was written well enough that there was never an instance with you selecting an option, say, thinking it was a positive one, only for your character to punch them in the jaw, as has sometimes been the misunderstanding (not quite so exaggerated though, admittedly) in other games of this type.

    Keep the writing sharp and intelligent, without resorting to ME-style shenanighans where gamers just 'Go Green' if they want to be a good guy, or 'Go Red' if they are going for the baddie playthrough. Insisting on colour-coding the choices is just insulting to the gamer, and is dumbing down an IP that only existed for it's complexity and was solely targeted towards an RPG loving demographic disillusioned with the dumbing down of RPGs.

  • abigsmurf #17 2 years ago

    @neems, the complexity doesn't matter if the icon system still pretty much tells you what kind of dialogue choice it is rather than making the player think about if a response is good, bad or otherwise.

  • Shrike #18 2 years ago

    I think I'm going to avoid DA2 news from now on. One to avoid the inevitable spoiler-tastic trailers that EA's marketing division loves so much, and two because I'm tired yo-yoing between disappointment and cautious optimism every time anyone says anything.

  • Rack #19 2 years ago

    Umm, don't just blame IGN, after all you reported this one as well. Granted we all should have noticed that "according to IGN" by and large means "probably bullshit" but you still messed up and some kind of acknowledgement would be nice.

  • dagas #20 2 years ago

    That's a relief =)

  • Acrid #21 2 years ago

    @Photoboy "The IGN "editors" probably had another bikini photoshoot to get to (and why is every single writer on IGN credited as an editor)? "

    If only EuroGamer had bikini babes.....