Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

News on the game

I think this might of some interest to this article. Apparently the game’s creator left.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the page using the source. Haleth (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Companions?

Would it be appropriate to add the new companions under gameplay, similar to how they're described in DA 2 Settings? Xypheria (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You could totally start a Synopsis section with a focus on setting like Dragon Age II#Setting; check out MOS:PLOT & MOS:VG for guidance on writing about fiction. Since the game has not been released, I would definitely include secondary sources. The perennial source list is always a good place to start if you're unsure about the quality of a source. Additionally, the WikiProject Video games source page has a lot of advice along with a list of reliable sources which is more industry specific. And the Teahouse is a great resource for new editors. You could draft something in your sandbox & ask other editors to take a look or boldly add it to the article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all this info! Just started the lessons so all this help is greatly appreciated! ^_^ Xypheria (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Vows and Vengeance Podcasts

Hello! So I've decided to be a bit bold and added the 7th podcast episode for the character podcasts, there is one source from Audacy that contains all currently released episode and has been good about updating them, would that be a better source to add to citation rather than the singular episodes? If so I can make the readjustments. Xypheria (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would need sources for each episode. There are 3 sources for the two sentences on it which cover the pertinent details (release date, total episode number, podcast focus) - are you looking to add more details about the podcast? Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really, I suppose since I found the one article that contains all podcasts maybe just to edit and have one centralized source for all podcasts, rather than have separate links for each episode. Xypheria (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Various requests to incorporate self-published reviews

Per discussion below, I've resectioned & collapsed the requests to incorporate self-published reviews as these requests have veered off-topic into claims of censorship after the article was protected from vandalism. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Any mention of the controversy surrounding gender ideology.

Any mention of the controversy surrounding gender ideology?

I know Wikipedia is a liberal wonderland but the consumer reviews are vastly different from Critic reviews. MetaCritic has Veilguard at just 3.8/10 after nearly 4,000 ratings from people who actually played the game. 2603:9008:1400:59B1:14C7:8C8B:EB72:D505 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's always dismissed as "review-bombing".--2804:D4B:79CE:9100:2026:C80A:FAD7:ED45 (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither liberal nor conservative nor of any other ideology. Instead, we attempt to make our coverage of topics reflect what reliable sources write about the topics. This means that if there is any noteworthy controversy surrounding this game, we need to wait for reliable sources to write about it, and then we can summarize what these sources write in our article. If you know of any such sources, you can link to them here. Individual user reviews are self-published sources and therefore not reliable. Sandstein 09:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

"nearly 4,000 ratings from people who actually played the game"

Yes, because the 18,000 user reviews The Last of Us Part II received on Metacritic within mere hours of its release were all from people who had played and finished the game. Metacritic user scores are not proof of anything when the only thing needed to post a review is to make an account on the site. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

"This article is being censored, and should really listen how the majority of consumers heavily dislike this entry. The reviews listed are mostly all bogus. Did these people even play the same game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B032:E390:B83B:E1FF:FEFA:4D67 (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

In what way is it being censored? And who are you to claim that a "majority of consumers" hate it? Your edits on the page rewrote actual sourced quotes, which is just outright vandalism. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

reliable sources? Some of these critic reviews are very obviously dishonest.

These reviews are commending the game on aspects that are not only objectively incorrect, but speaking on features/aspects that aren't even in the game.

Reliable sources? More like, paid for sponsors.

This is just like the Hogwarts Wired review.

Bad faith.

Make this article reflective of what the majority really thinks, which is that this game is terrible.

Considering it's dropping in player count by half every day. 2600:100A:B032:E390:B83B:E1FF:FEFA:4D67 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

None of what you're saying justifies your edit that fabricated what the reviews said, no matter how much you think they were shills. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I edit because this article is never going to be honest regardless of what anyone does apparently.

This entire article is bogus, and is being curated to make the game appear to be something it is not.

It needs to have audience and general reception added, and a lot of these reviews that are "reliable" just seem like hogwash fluff. 2600:100A:B032:E390:B83B:E1FF:FEFA:4D67 (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You can't make wikipedia what you want, Wikipedia is what it is because we only use reliable sources. So you can either stop complaining or actually try to do something. I'd start with making an account, followed by looking at other games to see if/how they include user reviews. Then with examples and sources in hand you can come here and talk about it.

However, user reviews change quickly and are therefor not that good for a wikipedia page.

Remember, the talk page is discussing how to improve the page, not wikipedia as a whole. There are avenues for that, but without proving you're here to improve wikipedia nobody will take you serious.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 10:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

wow, this must be the most censored wikipedia article of all time! good reminder why I will never again donate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:871:25c:b575:7153:916a:ff8b:c2e0 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is censored, we even have a rule on that: WP:CENSORED. However, just because it isn't censored doesn't mean you can post stuff that goes against the sourcing guidelines of wikipedia. If everyone was able to post whatever they wanted without having to use verifiable sources, the article Earth would state "The earth is considered flat by most people". Make an account, read WP:V and WP:VG/REC and come back. Nobody gets changes they want by crying out on a talk page. Instead wikipedia rewards those who put effort into their edits.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 17:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Remove bogus reception.

Remove bogus reception

Not a conspiracy, but this game is getting higher review scores than normal due to journo politics and palm greasing. Maybe add the audience reception?? This is one of the most misleading wiki articles I've ever seen, and should really just be honest and listen how the game has really been received, which is to say very poorly. 2600:100A:B032:E390:B83B:E1FF:FEFA:4D67 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with user reviews and its mention on WP:VG/REC. If you can find reliable sources highlighting your concerns, go ahead. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

>his is one of the most misleading wiki articles I've ever seen

Precisely. Outright dishonest about elephant in the room, are we, 95%, not even allowed about facts anymore? 74% negative reviews on google for example?

Donn't let wiki turn into "Pravda", as editors are doing now :/ 2800:BF0:A824:65:4F77:229F:1439:74DC (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

not even allowed (to talk) about facts anymore

2800:BF0:A824:65:4F77:229F:1439:74DC (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

From WP:VG/REC: User reviews and other self-published sources are unreliable unless these are called to attention in secondary sources, such as if a game was review bombed. In such cases, cite the secondary source(s) describing the event, not the user review itself. This includes user scores on aggregators.

If you find reliable sources talking about the negative reception, go ahead and make an edit request, otherwise that would be considered original research, which isn't allowed. LaffyTaffer (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Add user/player reception.

Add user/player reception

This article is being extremely disingenuous by not adding player feedback. The general reception is what matters, nobody cares what the "critics" have to say, considering they won't even honestly talk about the game. 2600:100A:B050:4BEB:3870:48FF:FEF0:59DA (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion immediately above this one. User reviews aren't reliable unless secondary sources report on them. LaffyTaffer (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How much longer, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?

Source

I'm asking the input of other editors, how long until we use WP:deny on people clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and simply remove or collapse non-constructive edits? It's clear there is at least one user on a rotating IP (you can see because of their mistake in formatting) and a bunch of users that just come here to whine and complain without adding anything to the conversation. I'm all for people who want to add things, but if they can't even be bothered to read a few rules on user-generated sources, aren't we just stuck saying the same thing over and over again?

Perhaps I'm a bit quick, but when do others think we've entertained them enough? I think putting a small QnA about user-generated reviews in the template should be enough of a justification for removal of on purpose obtuse comments.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 17:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the WP:DENY strategy, I suggest we collapse the off-topic claims of censorship since these IP editors aren't engaging in good faith especially after various policies have been explained on why user-generated reviews are not reliable sources. I've also already dropped a RPP for the disruptive editing of this talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOLDLY went ahead & just collapsed/resectioned myself. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can someone reverse the most recent change to this page regarding “positive reception? The tone of the editor came off as strangely aggressive and in bad faith. And can we lock the article to prevent anonymous editors? (I am aware I am making this topic anonymously). 74.92.156.84 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that this game has been attracting some vandal bigots because it apparently features LGBT characters. BMWF (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not entirely true. There is of course always someone who is unable to discuss in a respectful fashiomn, but the game has mainly received criticism because there are some that perceives that the game forces the players to accept certain DEI elements, and that this seems very forced and unnatural. For example, some have criticized the game for not being able to balance inclusion with the players' freedom to create their own story, as, for example, Baldur's Gate 3 managed. One can agree or disagree with the criticism, but this is mainly what it is about. The fact that one does not like the criticism does not mean that the criticism is based on a phobia against trans people and the like. Laddmeister (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality of inclusivity section

The article only uses opinions that come from woke/queer activists. Presenting someone like Randall as a neutral source who identifies on that spectrum is at least questionable when not made evident. The game as such is also subject of intense debate/ridicule for its approach to diverse content, none of which is even discussed, despite multiple sources addressing these issues. As of yet, it reads as if the game is a universally lauded example for diversity, which it certainly isn’t. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@DasallmächtigeJ: Reporters being queer doesn't make them activists or unable to provide a critical review. While Harvey Randall (PC Gamer) mentioned they were queer, their review is actually fairly critical as it outlines ways in which the narrative didn't work well. Similarly, Robin Bea (Inverse) also highlights where she thinks the narrative hits its limitations. You said "despite multiple sources addressing these issues" - can you provide any sources which state diverse narrative & player options shouldn't have been included? These need to be WP:RELIABLE sources (see also WP:GAMESOURCES & WP:RSP); see above discussions for why WP:SELFPUBLISH sources (user reviews, YouTube/Twitch streamers, etc) are not reliable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Somebody who conforms to gender ideology is not a neutral actor as far as such a contentious topic is concerned, so the identity should at least be mentioned. I’m not saying diverse options should not be included, but as we are talking about a contentious topic, it is important to look at both sides.

As of yet, the article only relies on mainstream gaming outlets, fully aware that gender critical opinions are not tolerated within its largely pro-woke echo chamber, where people who all have the same opinion talk amongst themselves, and which represents only a small margin of the general public.

In my opinion, there needs to be at least a paragraph that contrasts legitimate (!) criticism to the narrative, such as this article from Forbes (which is a grey area as far WP:SELFPUBLISH is concerned). And it should definitely include Gaider‘s overreaction to highlight that there IS a debate, it is just outside of the cozy offices of mainstream gaming outlets. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Gender-related discussion is a contentious topic. as you have been notified about on your talkpage. If you continue to imake inflammatory comments such suggesting that video game journalism is a pro-woke echo chamber you may be blocked from editing in the topic area. I advise you to moderate your tone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

They aren't being inflammatory, they are being a rational human. Anyone can tell this article is being censored from what the majority of the world thinks of this game. 2600:100A:B053:D580:5497:CAFF:FE25:691B (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't interested in parroting the narratives of angry gamergate supporters, but what reliable sources have said about the subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you want to think about your own echo chamber or tone. I just happen to do a PhD on a gender-related topic, so it’s not like I’m talking about things I don’t understand, and there is abundant research that shows media and scholary bias towards gender ideology. So what may seem like “reliable” media is inherently unreliable when a topic is concerned you can’t overtly criticize if you don’t want to lose your job. Which you just proved by threatening me for a mild-mannered remark on the article. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This site doesn't consider such sources inherently unreliable because of their "gender ideology", and Xilo has already pointed to such sources with writers that are still critical of the game. And in general editors on this site won't take you seriously if you start going off about these kinds of "anti-woke" topics. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet we are dancing around the main point of criticism with the large majority of players, which is either not addressed or framed as a far-right trolling campaign. Almost as if there is a huge divide between people in the real world and internet journalists. And just claiming one won’t be taken seriously if you are not blindly on board with woke narratives further proves my point. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User-generated reviews in general aren't considered good sources on wikipedia unless reliable sources highlight them. Due to that, it can't just cover the backlash in a way you seemingly want to here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That Forbes article makes an argument about modern language not being grounded in the cultures of Thedas which is the exact same argument that Randall made (they discussed lack of fictional etymology for nonbinary; "the history of the word itself is deemed irrelevant, or unworthy of discussion", etc). The articles have similar criticisms but PC Gamer is a RS & the Forbes article is by a Senior Contributor so I don't see why it deserves its own paragraph when the argument is already included with a stronger source. I'm not sure if you've actually read the PC Gamer article because it seems like you've dismissed the idea that the writer could be critical because Randall mentions they use all/any pronouns. You're attempting to make a "it lacks neutrality" argument without any sources to support that (see also WP:FALSEBALANCE & WP:PROFRINGE). If a significant view is missing, then you should be able to provide sources so the subsection can be updated.

As an aside, David Gaider (the series creator) hasn't worked on the franchise since 2016 so I don't think we need to include his response because he's not a current Veilguard developer responding on behalf of BioWare. If it should go anywhere, it should probably be in the paragraph on review bombing because Gaider's response ([1],[2],[3]) was mostly dismissing that discourse. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the big difference to me is that the author of the Forbes article is 1. not emotionally involved and 2. explicitly addresses the preachy, overtly political tone of the specific scene involving “misgendering” in the game that is the main focus of criticism/ridicule, which he also gives describes and analyses more thoroughly imo. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you think the Forbes article's author is better at describing the problem, as Xilo pointed out Senior Contributor articles are considered unreliable sources. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to review both NPOV & Verifiability - WP:SOURCESDIFFER states: "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say". Also, assuming a reporter is too "emotionally involved" to give a critical review simply because of the pronouns they use is pretty gross and probably violates the rules on contentious topics since you're making some very biased assumptions about the capabilities of queer people professionally.

You also declare that one scene "is the main focus of criticism/ridicule" which feels like your interpretation of social media vibes (ie. original research). At this point, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know if you went to college, but this is basic stuff and I don’t need you to guilt-trip me over someone’s pronouns. If you are emotionally involved, you are not - by definition - neutral, regardless of whether you are critical. A ManUnited fan can be critical of his team, yet he will never be neutral.

And if all our reliable sources are biased on the problem in that they assume gender ideology is not to be questioned and you being one of several people that threatens me, a researcher on the subject, for not having your desired opinion, we arrive at the deeper issue that our media landscape and how Wikipedia qualifies sources is broken. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to be neutral but it does require editors to be neutral & unbiased when creating a WP:BALANCED summary of subjective opinions in a reception section. Assuming that a source in unreliable because the reporter is part of minority group is an incredibly biased way to edit; that's like saying we shouldn't use female sources on subjects related to women's health or BIPOC sources on subjects related to bigotry because they're automatically emotionally involved based on their identity. Your sports analogy is a poor fig leaf for promoting discrimination. No one is threatening you by asking you to adhere to Wikipedia policies such as providing sources or unbiased editing in topics with a WP:CTOP flag.

You've been asked multiple times to provide reliable sources so please do so or WP:LETITGO. The process of getting a PhD should have made it clear that references are vital especially when asked to cite your sources. If you want to debate the validity of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, you can start a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard but that's beyond the scope of this talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2024: Inclusive?

IP has admitted they have no reliable sources for this allegation, so this thread is pointless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This edit request to Dragon Age: The Veilguard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add an edit that discussed how the character creator refuses women to have a large chest and back. That's not inclusive, it's exclusive. 2600:100A:B053:D580:5497:CAFF:FE25:691B (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done No source provided. (Reformatted heading since it was an edit request). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You're just hiding the truth 🙄 2600:100A:B053:D580:5497:CAFF:FE25:691B (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You have not provided a source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Because all the "legitimate" sources refuse to admit it, because they are being paid to turn a blind eye 🙄 2600:100A:B053:D580:5497:CAFF:FE25:691B (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2024 (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.

Review bomb context

@BMWF: You've removed details around the review bombing of the game a few times but it adds context for why it occurred. The various outlets highlighted that it appeared limited to Metacritic and contrasted it to the much more positive user reception on Steam. Audience reception can be included if reliable secondary sources discuss it; in this case, most of these sources are listed at WP:GAMESOURCES & they're discussing user reception in the context of the review bombing event. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"Critical reception" means critics, not anonymous self-published material. The article already mentions that there was review bombing activity, and what Metacritic's response to it is. That's sufficient. There is no need to give undue focus to the complaints of anonymous bigots.

WP:UGC says that "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not. " BMWF (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If the reception section was citing the self-published material directly, that would be an issue. But the key here is that the section is citing reliable secondary sources discussing the actions of anonymous users who are review bombing on one website (Metacritic) and not on another website (Steam). WP:VG/REC states: "User reviews and other self-published sources are unreliable unless these are called to attention in secondary sources, such as if a game was review bombed. In such cases, cite the secondary source(s) describing the event, not the user review itself. The reception section in this article is doing exactly that. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The guidance there is to describe the event with secondary sources, and not the contents of the user reviews. It is not a backdoor for posting self-published user review content.

The article already mentions that there was review bombing activity, and what Metacritic's response to it is. Again, there is no need to give undue focus to the complaints of anonymous bigots. BMWF (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If fan uproar, review bombing, or any other type of audience reaction is notable enough to be covered in secondary sources, then a summary of events is warranted. We're not elevating random self-published reviews by highlighting what secondary sources consider notable about an audience reaction (ie. there is no backdoor). In this case specifically, secondary sources contrast the negative user reception on Metacritic to the positive user reception on Steam to highlight how the review bombing appears focused on a single website. I used List of review-bombing incidents as a model for how to incorporate the Veilguard review bombing (@OceanHok then adjusted the wording) in case you want to see how other editors have summarized similar events.Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with providing a little bit of context to why the game was review bombed. We can include user-generated responses in the reception section as long as they are supported by secondary reliable sources. OceanHok (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's useful to include context for why the game was review bombed since it could otherwise be for a number of reasons like technical issues or some aspect of company conduct(cruch, CEO behavior, etc) LaffyTaffer (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Including context is not the same as quoting self-republished reviews verbatim. That is "backdoor" and a misuse. BMWF (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A summary of events is different from quoting anonymous self-published social media posts. This sort of backdoor doesn't align with either WP:UGC or WP:VG/REC.

It's also worth noting that just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's due for inclusion. Self-published anonymous social media criticism isn't intended for the critical reception section. BMWF (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative" is a summary sourced by reliable secondary sources and is not violation of WP:UGC (again, self-published sources are not being cited and examples of negative reviews are not included); it also directly aligns with WP:VG/REC on including review bomb events. Please stop reverting (see WP:EDITWAR) to your preferred version when the consensus is to include these details. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources can be used to demonstrate that review bombing happened, and maybe what the response to it will be, but it should not be used as a backdoor for the undue inclusion of the complaints from anonymous internet bigots in a section intended for critic reviews of the game. The fact that it was review bombed is possibly notable in a very weak way (although this too is debatable since it was just a blip), but even in that scenario the opinions of anonymous internet bigots are certainly not. The event can easily be summarized without that. Can you explain how someone on an internet board calling it "woke" is encyclopedic? WP:UCG makes this pretty clear. BMWF (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The backlash is clearly vocal enough to warrant a mention. This doesn't validate the views of said backlash, if that's what you're fearing. The complaints are only noted in the article as being negative using the word "woke", without any direct quoting from user-generated reviews. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with people who did the review bombing at Metacritic or made the arguments in the talk above that those self-published reviews should be included. I agree with Harryhenry1 that this is an accurate & limited summary of events which isn't undue & adheres to NPOV. At this point, you're just rehashing the same statement on WP:UGC and bludgeoning the process. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If RS summarizes why the game was criticized online ("these include numerous scores of zero out of 10 for content in the game repeatedly described as "woke"" from Eurogamer), then I say we have a pretty straightforward summary of events here without actually quoting any social media posts. OceanHok (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Even in that scenario the source is opting to quote, rather than state it in its own voice. Is it necessary to quote a quote? I'm having trouble understanding how the inclusion of an anonymous person calling it "woke" improves the article. Its debatable if the review bomb is even notable since it was brief and unsustained and Wikipedia doesn't care about user generated review scores to begin with, but it can certainly be summarized without quoting a quotation just to note undue complaints from anonymous people. BMWF (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What other wordings do you propose then? Directly quoting the source avoids issues such as WP:SYNTH. We can drop the quotation marks because it is just one word (and it is not an uncommon one). We rarely include user-generated content because they are often unreliable, not because we don't "care" about them. However, a report from secondary reliable source covering the audience reception is reliable. An event is notable when it receives WP:SIGCOV from several secondary reliable sources. We won't remove content because someone doesn't like it. The article only has one singular passing mention of their grievances ("with users criticizing the game for being "woke""), so online reaction is already covered in due weight. OceanHok (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Not related to this but I'll pop in. The DEI content and overall dislike for the game by the fanbase are major topics of conversation in the media. The fact that this article basically doesn't even mention any of that is pretty clear NPOV. Ergzay (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned, only reliable secondary sources should be cited, not those like small fan sites with little editorial oversight. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hiding more comments that are off-topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

None. Past experience shows that these criticisms of "wokeness" do not come from people who played the game and thus should be dismissed with extreme prejudice, and without any consideration. Quoted or not, anything using the term "woke" as a pejorative must be automatically disregarded. We humored these people for long enough. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Past experience shows that these criticisms of "wokeness" do not come from people who played the game and thus should be dismissed with extreme prejudice"

What do you base this on?

" Quoted or not, anything using the term "woke" as a pejorative must be automatically disregarded"

That's your preference. Woke has become, like it or not, a pejorative for exxagerated attempts at social justice. It's a term with several meanings. That you prefer one is your problem.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

"disapproving : politically liberal or progressive (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme" Laddmeister (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What do I base it on? stats that are publicly available information. You can verify how much of a game someone who left a review has actually played of the game they have been reviewing. The pattern can be observed with every game that has been review bombed for being "woke" or artificially boosted for "supporting free speech" culture warriors who leave such reviews all have a massive catalogue of games they reviewed but never played. They buy a game, leave a review in accordance with whatever their favorite culture war influencer on Youtube, X or other alt-tech platforms want, ask for a refund, rinse and repeat. And before you ask me to provide reliable sources to back this up, we don't need reliable sources to NOT include something. We only need them to cite things that are in the article.

"Woke has become, like it or not, a pejorative..."

A pejorative that is used exclusively by far-right culture warriors who should under no circumstances should be taken seriously, hence why I say that any such use of the word needs to be an immediate red flag, that you're about to see trash opinions that need to be disregarded immediately. I don't know about you but it's been 10 years, and I'm tired of giving these people the time of day. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"A pejorative that is used exclusively by far-right culture warriors who should under no circumstances should be taken seriously"

Is Barack Obama a "far-right culture warrior?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM Laddmeister (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What about the fact these so called reliable sources, are extremely unreliable.

The creative director of the game is personal friends with some of the critics listed

That doesn't seem very reliable, it just seems like this page is using arbitrary"what aboutisms" to deflect that the game at large was received extremely poorly, as well it has cratered in terms of players.

The secondary source argument is such a cop out. 2600:100A:B053:D580:5497:CAFF:FE25:691B (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you. Two of the three sources rated the game at 10/10 or 100%. Not exactly unbiased sources. Laddmeister (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It is ridiculous how much this page is being guarded by people purposely rigging the rules in a way that specifically benefits their side of the narrative.

This article should be used as an example to define the word cope. 2600:100A:B053:D580:5497:CAFF:FE25:691B (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Especially political and controversial pages are completely useless due to this activism. Laddmeister (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

A source having a high rating is not inherently suspicious or biased, they just thought the game was worthy enough of a perfect score. You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can't use it as a source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case it is suspicious 2600:100A:B053:D580:5497:CAFF:FE25:691B (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

How so? Accusations of collusion are serious and need sources backing them up, we can't rely on original research. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The reviews were written before the game was released and therefore before user ratings became known. Critics mostly liked the game. Fine. No problem. No one disputes this. The problem with this article is that, as it stands, is that user reviews, which is horribly low, are completely dismissed as “review bombing”. And the sources used for claiming the game is targeted for review bombing are the same magazines who obviously missed the target furthest. They clearly have an interest in downplaying the user criticism since it also targets them indirectly. Theyre maybe credible sources, but theyre not unbiased to this issue.

In short, this article dismisses negative user rating as review bombing. While that might be the case, there is no good reason to say that all negative rating as based on review bombing. But that is clouded in this article.

this is a wiki-issue, not a veilguard issue. Its the exact same problem in other articles on subject with the same political agenda. Like Acolyte, the Star Wars series. Users hated it, but that was also dismissed as anti-woke review bombing.

these people, using wikipedia as a platform dor promoting their political agenda (often being open about it in their user page as well) probably don’t understand it, but theyre destroying this platforms credibility in the process. Laddmeister (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "review bombing" does not apply to every negative user review, just the ones that are quickly written in anger, usually by people who haven't even played it yet, in the wake of a major public backlash against the game. In this case I don't think anyone can dispute the game has indeed been review-bombed, even if you think it's justified. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Did I dispute that the game has been targeted by review bombing? No. Try to read my comment again, but a bit slower this time. Laddmeister (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and going off about the reception to The Acolyte, a completely unrelated Star Wars series, just to bemoan a supposed bias on the site, does not help your case here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It certainly does, because its an example of the same type of activism being performed on Wikipedia. Believe it or not harry, your dismissal of my comments, which is fine, doesn't make them irrelevant. You only speak on your own behalf. Whether im “helping my case or not” is truky not for you to decide. And you’re not the one Im trying to convince. Laddmeister (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It's true that it's "not for me to decide", but I speak from experience that anyone trying to argue from the "anti-woke" side on wikipedia is fighting a losing battle, because that immediately leads to fellow editors not taking your issues seriously. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think debating the definition & historical usage of "woke" is off topic; we have reliable secondary sources use it in the context for what term the reviewing bombing coalesced around & we link to the wiki article on it in case a reader wants more info on the term. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [Note: I added this comment when I collapsed the above off topic tangent Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)]

I absolutely agree that it's off topic, but my initial reply wasn't. I said we should not include any mention of "criticisms" that revolve around "wokeness", which was relevant to the ongoing discussion. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo writes: "I think debating the definition & historical usage of "woke" is off topic"

I agree. But @46.97.170.199 claim that all criticism of the game "being to woke" should be dismissed as far-right bigotry is a problem that had to be adressed. Therefore the off topic comment.

Users clearly reacted negative to some of the games "woke" elements. Regardless of what stance one might have on "wokeness", that is a fact. Also supported by one of the sources mentioned in the article [4].

@Sariel Xilo continues: "we have reliable secondary sources use it in the context for what term the reviewing bombing coalesced around & we link to the wiki article on it in case a reader wants more info on the term"

Do we though?

Metacritic shows that professional critics rate the game at an average of 82/100 (as of 28th november 2024). Meanwhile user critics average at 3.8 (as of the same date). This massive contrast between user and professional critics are being dismissed as "review bombing". The sources for this are the same professional magazines that rates the game on the far opposite end of how users rate it. There are three sources cited for this being "targeted review bombing" by users; Eurogamer, PCgamesN, CGM. Eurogamer gave the game 100/100. CGM gave it 10/10 and "game of the year status". They are far off from where users are. Even the users on Steam who actually bought the game. Steam has it on rougly 70/100 favorable. That's about 30% off from where Eurogamer and CGM are. Maybe someone here is out of touch and doesnt want to admit it? Lets instead blame users for being bigoted?

How reliable are these sources when they differ so much from most users? However one might see it, they are definetly not objective and non-biased sources on this issue. But that's how they're presented in the article.

The only one of these three sources on the "review bombing" who were somewhat critical of the game in their own review was PCgamesN who gave it 6/10.

PCgamesN also writes that "At the time of writing ... on Steam, 74% of 13,120 reviews are listed as positive, netting it a ‘mostly positive’ rating on Valve’s platform ... Reviews criticize the RPG for being “woke,” with players targeting the game’s writing and narrative primarily, and its level design laterally."

So there we have it, also from one of the "sources". The criticism from users is that they don't like the "woke" narrative. It's not just some far-right activist thing. It's what user critics actually complain about. Laddmeister (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We do not include audience reviews or sources per policy; WP:USERGENERATED states: Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not. Fundamentally, it does not matter what user scores state or how different they are from professional reviews. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources (and this article is using sources outlined at WP:GAMESOURCES). We only mention audience reception when secondary sources consider it notable & report on it. In this case, secondary sources discussed audience reception in the context of review bombing so that's what we summarize. We don't do analysis ourselves (ie. no original research). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Good job skipping over every point made in my comments. Well done. Laddmeister (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is that reliable sources (as outlined at WP:GAMESOURCES) are somehow unreliable because they're more positive than user scores and my point is that we don't consider user reviews except under specific circumstances. We don't use user sources to judge if professional sources are accurate (because that is OR territory). If you want to challenge a source for being biased to the point where it is unreliable & shouldn't be used in reception sections, then there are notice boards where you can raise those concerns. For that kind of argument to be persuasive, you'll need something more than "but user scores/reviews are different & more accurate". Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

But IP's claim that all criticism of the game "being to woke" should be dismissed as far-right bigotry is a problem that had to be adressed.

It does not need to be addressed because it's true. Such criticisms come exclusively from one particular corner of the internet, are non reliable or outright WP:FRINGE. No serious criticism will ever include such terms. Even if such criticisms have been reported on and quoted by reliable sources that would still fall under WP:LAUNDER. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: it would appear this talk page is in dire need of some form of protection. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

"It does not need to be addressed because it's true"

Right. That's how you see it so it must be true? Gotcha. Laddmeister (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What I said lines up with site policy. If you insist on pushing this, I must conclude that you're WP:NOTHERE to make any meaningful or constructive contributions. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, mr. or ms. random IP, you're wrong there. I am interested in constructive discussions and contributions. But you're obviously not since you're saying everything that isn't aligned with YOUR view should be disregarded. And no, it's not a part of "site policy" to disregard everything "not woke" as "far right trolling" or whatever you're calling it.

We're supposed to discuss issues with the article that we don't agree on in the talk page to find consensus. As I'm sure you're aware. And hopefully you're also aware that I havent edited this page at all. I'm taking the discussion here, like we're supposed to. You might not like that people have other views than you, but that's not really my problem. Laddmeister (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you are going off topic, and I will refrain from fueling this any further. I should also point out that your account was created less than half a year ago, and your history on the site mostly involes edit-warring on the article of a Norvegian far-right party.

Rules regarding non-constructive and disruptive behavior also apply to talk pages. Consider this your final warning to WP:DROPIT, before the admins get involved. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm replying to myself as to not upset the anonymous IP-guy. This is an important discussion to have and most people are adult and mature enough to have this discussion without making to much of a fuzz about it. Looking forward to continuing talking about this issue with the mature and adult users on this site. Both about this and other issues that comes up regarding this article. It's better to take the discussions on the talk page than by editing without a consensus. So therefore I have not edited anything on this page. Laddmeister (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

In order to have a productive discussion, I would encourage you to review the various Wikipedia policies and make an argument grounded in policy instead of doing another round of "I just don't like it" & bludgeoning the process. Multiple editors have explained the policies on why we don't include self-published user reviews or original research and instead why we summarize the reviews by reliable outlets. Feel free to suggest reliable secondary sources to include in the reception so that the section is balanced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I never said I "don't like" anything.

I have not made one comment on the content of this game. Maybe I like it, maybe I don't. Who knows. Is it relevant? No.

I have simply commented on how in this article, user ratings are downplayed and excused as "review bombing".

There are sources that back up the story about review bombing. That is true. And I have made an argument for why those sources might be biased on this issue. Not in general, but on this issue.

We might disagree on that. That's fine. And it's enough for you to explain your stance on this without giving an arrogant and patronising answer about how I should take it another round of "I just don't like it". Because I never said anything in that direction.

Looking forward to future discussions, hopefully where you come off a bit less patronising and a bit more respectful towards fellow editors.

Have a nice day. I'm done with this issue. Laddmeister (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, user ratings aren't anymore downplayed in this article than they are in any other article, as Xilo pointed out when it comes to general policies of including user ratings in articles. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Prose

@BMWF and Wikibenboy94: There's been some back & forth reverts for a few weeks on parts of the lead and now the reception section so we're firmly in the discuss part of WP:BRD. I'm going to take a stab at breaking down the areas of disagreement below & hope we can come to consensus on the exact prose. If I've missed any, please add them at the bottom of the list so the list doesn't get renumbered. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record. Versus removing the sentence.
The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat. Versus removing the sentence.

For #1, referring to the sales chart that IGN reported on might be stronger than the Steam chart but I don't particularly care if we include this sentence or not. For #2, this is a fairly standard MOS:INTRO summary of the reception section (quite similar to the lead summary in Dragon Age: Inquisition). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

#1, I'm in favour of leaving out a mention of sales until some concrete figures are given by BioWare/EA (and to me the fact they haven't yet indicates they're not wholly pleased with the results). Perhaps then we can consider mentioning Veilguard also broke the Steam record. It's very rare for a video game article's lead to mention sales positions that isn't just the amount its sold within a certain timeframe. It potentially reaching third place in the top 20 best-selling games in the U.S. for October might be impressive, but as there's no proof of this this would be WP:SPECULATION; the fact it reached sixth seems pretty typical to what you'd expect.

#2, I have absolutely no qualms with leaving this in, as I've explained in my edit summaries; there's no valid reason why it should be removed, and accusations of WP:SYNTH are unwarranted. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

(1) is notable, sourced material and there's no valid justification for removing it.

(2) is formatted incorrectly. It's an addition not a removal. It should be:

The game received generally positive reviews from critics. Versus adding The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat.

In which case I would prefer the status quo only because the proposed change has some WP:SYNTH issues. The status quo "generally positive" satisfies WP:V because it's directly sourced to a reliable source (review aggregator Metacritic). BMWF (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

2) I formatted it that way because it has been in the lead for a few days & your removal changes the status quo. MOS:INTRO states: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. This is not a SYNTH issue since it is an accurate summary of the reception section (ie. if a reader goes to the reception section, they'll see the more details on the aspects that were praised along with aspects that reviewers were more critical of). It is standard to give a topline summary of a reception section in the lead. For example, the lead in the good article Dragon Age: Inquisition includes: Upon release, the game received positive reviews from critics, who praised it for its exploration, gameplay, combat, visuals, writing, characters and customization. The game received some criticism for its filler content, technical issues, tactical view, and aspects of its narrative. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit that added it is being challenged, which as you mention is very recent. Per WP:ONUS the status quo is the prior "The game received generally positive reviews from critics." which was there for months. That's verifiable because Metacritic describes it as "generally positive" among critic reviews.

The additional who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat is by definition source synthesis since no reliable source actually summarizes them this way. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't change if it's synthesis or not. The wiki isn't concerned about right or wrong it's concerned about verifiability. The reviews are generally very multi-faceted and almost none of them individually fit into that mold. To be clear I don't think it's a bad summary at all, but it's not good practice and will cause editor debates on what the best summary is since that text isn't sourced. BMWF (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the SYNTH policy. That is focused on the best practices when summarizing a source; it doesn't mean you can never summarize a source, but it does mean you need to be careful to not imply something that doesn't line up with what the source states. What's occurring in the lead is a summary of the reception section as a whole; this isn't the summary of any single summary but the summary of the article section. Let's breakdown the parts:

a) positive reviews from critics - lines up directly with the first two sentences of critical reception's first paragraph along with other praise throughout the section

b) who praised its cast - paragraph 4 on Rook and the game's companions which is mostly positive with the criticisms focused on structural aspects of the writing

c) representation of sexual minority characters - paragraph 5 where this basically is the same as the paragraph's topline sentence & is then shown in that paragraph

d) graphics, and level design, - paragraph 6 where this basically half of that paragraph's topline sentence & is shown in that paragraph

e) but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, - paragraph 3 which has most of the criticisms of story (one source even calls the writing mediocre in that paragraph)

f) and combat. - paragraph 6 where this the other half of the topline sentence & is shown in that paragraph.

So it is an accurate summary of the reception section in line with what is advised by MOS:INTRO & Wikipedia:Summary style. This style of summary is not against policy and is fairly common (good articles often make great examples on best practices & this lead summary is quite similar to Dragon Age: Inquisition). Additionally, if that's your read of WP:ONUS, I would ask you to revert your changes to the review bomb sentence until the consensus changes. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason it is source synthesis is because none of the reviews individually fit that mold, so the summary implies a conclusion that the sources don't actually state. It isn't a good idea to use a "well I think it's good enough" approach to inserting editorialization, because it will undoubtedly cause editor debate and drain time.

Rather than that, it is much better to go with the status quo approach which is attributing critic sentiment to reliable sources. BMWF (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Rather than explaining again why I don't think this is a case of SYNTH or editorializing, as I mentioned below, I've brought this conversation over to the dispute resolution noticeboard in hopes that a fresh set of eyes can evaluate. I hope you will participate in the discussion there so we can come to a consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Reception

Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions according to the review aggregator website Metacritic. Versus Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics, according to the review aggregator website Metacritic.
Veilguard was subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Versus Veilguard was subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove abusive reviews.
Critics were mixed on the game's story. Versus removing the sentence.

For #1, Wikibenboy94's point on it be redundant since all the platforms are the same rating makes sense to me. For #3, topline summaries are not WP:SYNTH if the paragraph then shows that critics were in fact mixed so I support including that sentence.

For #2, strongly oppose the wording change given the above discussion which came to a consensus on this inclusion (specfically that a summary of what occurred on Metacritc is warranted). Rather than proposing the change in that section, BMWF made the change with a generic edit summary & claimed it was for clarity when it was total rewrite that changes the tone & removes context. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Point 3 should be "Versus adding" since it's a proposed inclusion. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@NutmegCoffeeTea: Your revert isn't returning it to status quo since some of those are changes were made by BMWF for the first time today; I included the new changes with the older back & forth in hopes we could get it all cleared up. #3 was added a few days ago when @Wikibenboy94 & I were both working on the reception section. More importantly, the changes to the review bomb sentence are new so I would also ask that you revert that sentence in particular since it is against the consensus (see above #Review bomb context) & not the status quo. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

#1, As you've mentioned above and in my edit summary, it only makes sense to mention the platforms if they have a different consensus. Unless we see a release for a different platform (e.g. the Switch) down the line where the score is lower than the other three, I can't see this happening anytime soon.

#2, I'm kind of torn between the two versions. However, I think it is right to mention that Steam requires proof users have played the game before reviewing it, which helps to distinguish its reliability from Metacritic. A notable review-bombing on a site would also suggest that the overall user ranking would fall below what equates to "mostly positive". I would argue to keep the wording of "offensive reviews" (the phrasing also given by a source) as the wording is less harsh than "abusive".

#3, I support including the summary for the same reason. The guidelines at WP:VG/REC suggest "Signpost[ing] each paragraph with a topic sentence". I assume they'd just missed it, but interestingly BMWF didn't remove the summary for the last paragraph. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

With #2, I think it is important to have the "largely negative" Metacritc in contrast to the "mostly positive" Steam since the three sources are focused on what's going on at Metacritc; each do one sentence comparisons to Steam to highlight what is occurring isn't universal but the focus isn't on Steam. I would be fine leaving in the detail on Steam requiring proof since one source mentions it (Eurogamer - "which requires you actually play the game before leaving a review"). On #3, I also thought it was odd that BMWF didn't remove the "praise" topline sentences but did remove the one where it said part of the criticism was mixed (along with softening some other language such as what's in bold: "Malindy Hetfeld of The Guardian criticized the "surprisingly mediocre" writing..." to Malindy Hetfeld of The Guardian referred to the "surprisingly mediocre" writing"). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed as to the changing of: "Matt Purslow from IGN thought" to "Matt Purslow from IGN said", raising WP:SAID and yet using "said" in place of another. But I think we can agree these are the least contentious edits in this discussion. Wikibenboy94 (talk)

Silo, how do you feel that (2) changes the tone and removes context?

I think it is important to have the "largely negative" Metacritc in contrast to the "mostly positive" Steam since the three sources are focused on what's going on at Metacritc

The focus about what's going on at Metacritic is the review bombing, which gets not only mentioned but mentioned with additional context as well, such as user "woke" comments. The above discussion was about whether that "woke" context is due or not, and it's still there. The reason the source mentions Steam is to contrast it with Metacritic by noting that Steam, which requires players to play the game first, is not seeing the same review bombing. The latter version captures all of this very well and matches the wording of the source closer. BMWF (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

See my comment below on how the review bomb discussion was not limited to the "woke" context. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(1) The platforms do have different scores (82, 77, 86). Given that this is the dedicated review section, and not the lead where things should be condensed, I don't see a reason here to remove pretty basic platform info especially when we're only talking about ~30 characters.

(2) I prefer the latter in this case because it matches the source better. The actual quote is the 13,006 user reviews for Dragon Age: The Veilguard currently on Steam - which requires you actually play the game before leaving a review - are "Mostly Positive". Similarly, the source uses "abuse" and not "offensive" - "We take online trust and safety very seriously across all our sites including Metacritic," the spokesperson said. "Metacritic has a moderation system in place to track violations of our terms of use. Our team reviews each and every report of abuse (including but not limited to racist, sexist, homophobic, insults to other users, etc) and if violations occur, the reviews are removed".

(3) Addition not a removal. This falls under unnecessary editorializing/POV inserting. Not to a large extent or anything, but it doesn't improve the article. Reviewers are often very nuanced with their findings, so it's best to reference them directly. If a summary of multiple sources is needed it is best to quote a reliable source rather than editors, to avoid OR/synth issues. I can't find a single reliable source that says critics are "mixed". BMWF (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

For 3), once again not a SYNTH issue or editorializing. WP:VG/REC states: Signpost each paragraph with a topic sentence. A good opening sentence summarizes the paragraph, helps the reader anticipate what to expect from the paragraph, and has references to directly support the summary. "Critics were mixed on the game's story" is a summary of a paragraph where the reviewers didn't lean all one direction (ie. "critics generally praised" or "critics generally disliked", etc); the reviewers as a collective had a mixed response which is then shown in the paragraph where there are positive & negative reviews.

For 2), this page is tagged as a contentious topic & you were involved in edit warring over the review bombing inclusion (it was not limited to just if the word "woke" should be included). You should have proposed a change of the language instead of changing the status quo with a misleading edit summary. I oppose the removal of the outlets highlighting the negative reviews on Metacritic which I supported including in the original discussion (see my comment above which states "In this case specifically, secondary sources contrast the negative user reception on Metacritic to the positive user reception on Steam to highlight how the review bombing appears focused on a single website"). As I already stated above, I'm fine with including the comment on Steam requiring proof of purchase; PCGamesN uses the term "offensive response" so our language choice is reflected in the source. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It is both synth and editorializing. WP:VG/REC notes Be careful to not make generalizations not substantiated by the sources. A source based summarization would be "IGN says 'X' about Veilgard's waterslides, while Gamestop says 'Y'". It should also be noted that as a guideline, it is superceded by policy (WP:OR WP:V WP:NOV).

My edit summary was not misleading (as explained here) and the discussion above was focused on whether noting that anonymous internet commenters describing it as woke or not is due for inclusion. It has nothing to do with "mostly negative" which kind of pushes an inappropriate POV and is already implied by the term "review bomb".

I will also note that you were edit-warring and reverted a bunch of edits that weren't even related, when you should've followed WP:ONUS, as many of them were returns to the status quo. BMWF (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's bit silly to argue that the above conversation was simply about the term woke when everyone can see my November comments that specifically highlight the negative reviews (Nov 13 comment which includes "secondary sources contrast the negative user reception on Metacritic", Nov 16 comment which directly quotes the sentence you want removed "'Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative' is a summary sourced by reliable secondary sources") and you arguing against inclusion then.

I've explained how this isn't a SYNTH issue. At this point, I think the best option is the dispute resolution noticeboard rather than another round of disagreeing on the interpretation of policy. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your Nov 29 comment highlights that it was indeed about whether internet commenters using the term "woke" is due or not. It could probably benefit from some broader input, but either way the term "woke" is still present as context.

Regardless, the above discussion shouldn't be used as a backdoor to POV push or as a tool to give undue weight, to the point of redundancy, of any given text. BMWF (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

My argument was clearly on the inclusion of all three sentences because it is a summary of events with NPOV - I argued for including both the term "woke" & "user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative" & argued against including audience commentary beyond that if it wasn't sourced properly. It is not undue weight or POV pushing. You didn't remove sentences such as "Veilguard generally received praise for its inclusive character creator and representation of transgender and non-binary characters" from the reception section; your editing to remove part of the review bomb sentence along with summary that highlights non-positive reception is pushing a biased POV instead of a neutral summary of the reception. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal is anything but NPOV. On the contrary it is pushing an inappropriate by POV by giving heavy undue weight to user generated content that the sources themselves are describing as bad faith and abusive.

Your argument above was centered around the inclusion of the pejorative descriptor "woke" by anonymous internet commenters, which is still there. Again, the above discussion shouldn't be used as a backdoor to POV push or give redundant undue weight to certain things.

As for the sentence you are quoting, if it is sourced to notable critics and not random anonymous people on forums then it makes sense that no one has tried to remove it from the reception section. There is no conspiracy here. BMWF (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

When I said the platforms have the same consensus, I'm talking about the summary of "generally favorable", not the numerical scores. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Is it possible for you to return the status quo for the review bomb sentence while this discussion occurs? Inclusion of this was the consensus of the above #Review bomb context discussion; BMWF changed it when they should have started a discussion first (in the previous discussion, they argued against mentioning any of the negativity that occurred on Metacritic). I asked both BMWF & the drive-by editor to self-revert before the page was protected. While I feel other edits were also changes to the status quo, I only feel strongly about this edit needing to be reverted until this discussion ends given it was specifically already part of a lengthy discussion that came to consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This content dispute appears to go all the way back one month (see here). I'm not sure if there is some clear consensus on what should be on the live article, but I'm hopping that this break will lead to a conclusion in the near future. In the mean time, the article can stay as is, per WP:RIGHTVERSION, noting this does not represent an endorsement of the current version. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries! My thought on this specific sentence was consensus was resolved during the Nov 11-19 discussion above & this was a backdoor restart of that. I think the next step is the dispute resolution noticeboard to get an outside view from someone who hasn't been working on this article for weeks. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94 and BMWF: while the dispute resolution noticeboard isn't a required noticeboard, I think participation is the best way forward with the above stalled discussion. There are subheadings if you want to add your summary of the dispute. Sariel Xilo (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 December 2024

This edit request to Dragon Age: The Veilguard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just a grammatical error/typo: Please change the text "must be binded" into "must be bound". Cyfal (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Done Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

IP has not provided a reliable secondary source & does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The creative director at Warhorse studios tweeted a screenshot of his years old game Kingdom Come deliverance having more concurrent players than Veilguard.

I think it should be mentioned in this article, considering it's relevancy. 2600:100A:B037:4B7F:F830:8FF:FEAD:3249 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No. It's not relevant that a creative director of another studio tweeted a screenshot of concurrent players of their own game in comparison with Veilguard. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is, considering that it's an interaction between industry insiders.

Seems like a pretty relevant thing to post about, especially considering how poorly the veil guard has done in sales and concurrent player count.

I understand this article is being guarded from any and all criticism though.

Absolutely nothing negative about veil guard is allowed to be shown, because the game is absolutely perfect. I love it, personally, but the article should reference what other game developers have said, I mean, their opinions matter.

If you ask me it's a ten out of ten. My favorite feature is that companions have infinite health, it helps make the game intuitive because it can't be failed. 2600:100A:B037:4B7F:F830:8FF:FEAD:3249 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant. Any content added is based upon reliable sources, the opinion of another in the same industry isn't reason for inclusion. You finding the tweet is what is called WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. And please note that a Wikipedia talk page is not a forum, see WP:TALKNO. Your opinions about the game aren't necessary to mention. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It really isn't. It is one other developer who, according to you, tweeted a screenshot comparing their game with Veilguard. Please try to provide reliable sources and skip the original research. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking one of the editors to make the edit, the information is out there, I don't know how to properly format the edit.

I believe it is relevant to the article, that's why I'm requesting the information be added. 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, please. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a debate, now fulfill the request. Please. 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, much as I'd like to debate, my responses are removed.

The narrative this Wikipedia article contains doesn't hold up when people scrutinize it, so everyone is being censored from giving the truth of the matter.

It's not a debate when only one side is allowed to speak, it's just an echo chamber. 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

A request can be rejected, editors aren't required to say yes to whoever asks for a change to the article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done No reliable secondary source provided. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (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.

DRN followup

Closed as possibly resolved. Two of the editors reached agreement on a rewriting of portions of the article and made those edits. The third editor has not edited for two weeks. If the editor returns, and objects to the changes, discuss on the article talk page. If the editor returns, and reverts the changes, discuss on the article talk page, and explain that there is a rough consensus for the changes. If that also fails, starting an RFC is less unpleasant than filing a report at WP:ANI. In any event, do not edit-war, because they are no winners in edit wars.
— [[User: Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)]]

@BMWF: Please see above for closure by DRN moderator @Robert McClenon. While you declined to participate, that doesn't mean consensus didn't occur or it was the wrong venue to continue the discussion when we reached stalemate. Instead of edit warring, please revert the changes and outline why you disagree in a new discussion. I have limited internet for a few days but I could start an RfC later this week if needed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Talk:Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard#Prose there isn't a consensus for these changes. The two editors in agreement, which include the filer and a person he invited, were already in agreement prior. DRN exists to faciliate structured discussion among involved parties, but it cannot invent a consensus that doesn't exist. Given that the discussion on this above was already on-topic, there wasn't a real need for a separate moderated discussion to begin with.

What I think Sariel is looking for is more input, which I think would help. You can put your proposals through a RfC if you'd like, which should bring that input. BMWF (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Lack of controversy section

IP user that refuses to get the point.

The following discussion 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.

Why is there nothing on how even people from the company that made the game dont like it? The article at this point seems to say there are only bad faith dislike of it when there isnt. https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:d5kk4y3rctptuafbkqwqzn6f/post/3lf5bazmxus2y NonoIdontthinkso (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You are free to write such a contribution to the article, but it must be based on and cite reliable sources (WP:RS, see especially WP:VGRS), and not social media or forum posts, see WP:SPS. Sandstein 14:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The article is in no way claiming the only way to dislike it is in bad faith, in fact it highlights several critical reviews of the game because that's the job of a balanced article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

A WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION should be avoided as it is a magnet for tidbits that can violate WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

they have it rigged to where online media refuses to broach the subject of the controversy, so according to Wikipedia's standards it doesn't exist. 🙄 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is rigged, in fact the article already mentions the backlash it got since there are online media sources backing it up. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, the article mentioning the controversy in one sentence, whereas the controversy is in actuality massive and the game has been universally lauded.

"review bomb" is the excuse constantly used, or "vocal minority". It's not either of those. It's just a mediocre game that didn't sell well and was made fun of more than anything. This article misrepresents the quality of this product so so much, it's infuriating.

I just want the truth to be published. 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"The game has been universally lauded" so it has, in fact, been praised? Because that's what lauded means. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead of complaining, why don't you go find reliable sources that say so? See WP:VG/RS, a list of sources considered reliable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

the issue with you requesting reliable sources, is that the only sources deemed reliable (on Wikipedia) are websites that specifically refused to acknowledge any of the games issues/shortcomings.

Considering the author of the IGN review of Veil-Guard is personal friends with the creative director at Bioware, it's baffling that IGN is considered Reliable.

It's set up in a way that only allows one side of the discussion to be seen, that's just the truth.

I think Wikipedia should allow YouTubers to be included at some point, that way we can get a little honesty for once.

It's frustrating so much information is being censored over such a mediocre project, but here we are all the same arguing in circles. 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Lauded was a typo, but it works in an ironic sense. 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not be suitable for you, has that occurred to you? Were not "arguing in circles", you seem to be WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT, on this talk page and the one about Intergalactic. You are not going to get what you want. But don't worry, the internet is a very big place and there are websites and forums where you can complain to your heart's content. But this is a formal and final earning: stop making unnecessary discussions and remarks. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:31, 12 January 2025 (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.

Bioware Edmonton

Same IP user that refuses to get the point.

The following discussion 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.

The creative director has vacated their position. Insider speculation claims Bioware Edmonton will be shut down within the next month, due to the Veil-Guard selling less than 1.5 mil copies. 2600:100A:B039:93DA:70FE:E6FF:FE03:AC50 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

An article can't rely on unsourced "insider speculation" like that. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

smash JT posted an article I believe 2600:100A:B057:284E:80CB:CEFF:FEB8:1A2C (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is, you just don't want to include it because it tells the truth. 2600:100A:B034:7458:447:96FF:FE0C:31E0 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

He's still not considered a reliable source. Whatever troubles the studio may or may not be going through, we can't just rely on rumors from fringe sources. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

IGN is reliable though? The person who wrote the IGN review is personal friends with the Former director of Bioware Edmonton.

That's biased yellow journalism and you know it. 2600:100A:B034:7458:447:96FF:FE0C:31E0 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

How convenient for you to be the arbiter of what's fringe. More people read his articles than IGN's and watch his videos more than IGN's, and it's fringe?

I think it's time to reevaluate source reliability. 2600:100A:B034:7458:447:96FF:FE0C:31E0 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (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.

Sales Failed to Meet EA's Expectations

Closed due to discussion being held in topic above.

The following discussion 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 reached 1.5 million players, which is nearly half of what EA expected. https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/ea-blames-underperformance-of-dragon-age-and-ea-fc25-as-it-lowers-forecast/ 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:3C34:45FF:FEE6:DDF3 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, someone else already added this information in the Sales section. 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:3C34:45FF:FEE6:DDF3 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no confirmation it sold over a million copies, you're being dishonest. 2600:100A:B057:6156:5C35:A3FF:FEE4:BAE1 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The article measures it by players, not copies sold. It also notes how it underperformed by EA's expectations, so I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Same thing applied to EA Sports FC 25. It's just standard "pump stock" tactics. 190.227.41.106 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Closing this discussion to not have two about the same topics, please use the above topic. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (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.

Sales section

I rearranged the sales section to the game's performance on Steam, specific countries and overall performance. I did not remove anything completely yet, though trimmed some trivial / bloated parts. Not happy with the last sentence of the second paragraph, so feel free to adjust it! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Smal adjustment maybe. but the sources say that 1.5M players "engaged" with the game. Considering the rather abstract idea of engagement and also that the game was gifted with some GPU's and also available for 5 free hours on origin, wouldn't this make the sentence "EA reported that Veilguard had reached roughly 1.5 million players" a bit misleading?

1.5M people "engaged" the game is rather different from reaching 1.5M players... me installing the game for free or activating it but never playing it could probably be considered engaging, but I'm not a player.

Also, I believe it is best to keep the source phrasing. 2001:818:DA22:AF00:4467:5547:1E0A:E97E (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair point, I wasn't aware of any extra deals. I quickly added what I could find about it, with IGN we have a reliable source for it. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Disputed edit under RfC discussion

@FMSky, here you added a disputed edit that is explicitly under RfC discussion. Please self-revert this until the discussion concludes. BMWF (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sales in lead section

Closed as it is part of the RfC below.

The following discussion 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.

User:BMWF (who seems very enthusiastic about the game, with around 50% of his total edits as a Wikipedia user being on this page) thinks that the statement "After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record" should be in the lead. The sales section currently states that the sales of the game ~~were decent, but not great,~~ [Update Jan 23: game underperformed EA's expectation by around half] and there are a number of rumors that the studio is shutting down because of low sales numbers, with the game director already having departed. My question is, should we have a statement in the lead saying that the game was a record seller, when the exact opposite was the case? --FMSky (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I say leave it out. It's kind of WP:PEACOCKy use of language. Topping the Steam chart for some amount of time doesn't say anything substantial. If there is more concrete information about the sales out there, mention a specific number. Same goes for breaking a concurrent player record by one company. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, leave it out. It is fine to use in the sales section, although it is overall just a marketing "record". I re-added the coverage of Eurogamer, also deleted by the user. They also say decent, but suggest they have not exceeded expectations. I would honestly keep secondary analysis out until actual sales data gets released by EA and receives coverage. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

EA said the game failed to meet their sales expectations (1.5 million players). https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/ea-blames-underperformance-of-dragon-age-and-ea-fc25-as-it-lowers-forecast/ 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:3C34:45FF:FEE6:DDF3 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This was in the lead for a long time and I see no reason that it should be taken out. 87.79.164.104 (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah the reason for that would be that it is the opposite of what the facts are since the sales have been described as underwhelming. --FMSky (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It topping the Steam charts, and it breaking BioWare's concurrent player record are both facts. BMWF (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean I dont mind leaving it in and than adding something like however, it underperformed EA's sales expectation significantly overall and [...] to give the whole picture -- FMSky (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What you're attempting to remove is both confirmed by reliable sources and significant. The rumors you've provided are not a good reason to remove sourced content. BMWF (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You seem to wilfully ignore a consensus. Please stop this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

As now it has been reported that the game performed nearly 50% below expectations by multiple reliable sources, I don't think we need to go into more detail. This is more relevant than the company's performance on Steam. I hardly ever see Steam performance in the article lead of games. It’s just a small thing when looking at overall performance and fits into the sales area just fine. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Expectations are relative and don't mean all that much for example if they expected a large over-performance. The tidbits about it topping Steam or breaking the series concurrent player record don't change because of that. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No good reason has been presented here to exclude this. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't see why that should be removed. (Personal attack removed) 190.227.41.106 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you the user BMFW, but logged out? FMSky (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not. BMWF (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@FMSky, Soetermans, Vestigium Leonis, BMWF, NutmegCoffeeTea, and Wikibenboy94: Removal of the Steam details from the "Lead" section was the DRN consensus. BMWF opposed the implementation of that so the next step is a formal RfC (see below) if you'd like to participate. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

There was no DRN consensus has explained here. As for this specific removal in particular, it has been contested and clearly does not have consensus here so it should not be removed from the article until the discussion close and/or RfC concludes. BMWF (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2025 (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.

Writers fired?

I read on twitter/X that most of the writers, including Trick Weekes, were just fired from Bioware. I couldnt find it mentioned in any news article or on any other credible sources, so I'm not puttin git in, I'm just mentionining it here. It came from a tweet from one of the writers who were fired. It might seem that Bioware is getting rid of most of it's political activistic writers. A shift away from what they did with Veilguard. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I wrote Twitter/X. That was wrong. It was on bluesky.

https://bsky.app/profile/annlemay.bsky.social/post/3lgw5bffuqc26

https://bsky.app/profile/trickweekes.bsky.social/post/3lgw2zbjhfc2v

https://bsky.app/profile/karinww.bsky.social/post/3lgw2z5u3js2z

https://bsky.app/profile/ryancorm.bsky.social/post/3lgw7ga2li22x

https://bsky.app/profile/jencheverie.bsky.social/post/3lgw5mb2srs27

Seems Bioware is "cleaning house" of it's "progressive" writers. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

They were not "fired", exactly. Legally, that is very different. EA announced downsizing of BioWare yesterday, but did not comment on whether there would be layoffs alongside the restructuring. This follows the game director leaving for a new role with another studio. The following individuals have confirmed, via social media, that they were affected by the layoffs:

Ryan Cormier, editor on Star Wars: The Old Republic, Anthem, and Dragon Age: The Veilguard
Jennifer Cheverie, a tester, analyst and producer on Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Anthem, and Veilguard
Daniel Steed, a producer on Star Wars: The Old Republic – Legacy of the Sith and Dragon Age: The Veilguard
Lina Anderson, senior product manager
Michelle Flamm, systems designer

Reporting on this topic, PC Gamer connected the layoffs to public statements made by David Gaider, who left BioWare 9 years ago, stating that BioWare believed "expensive writing" was holding the company back.

Any attempt to include this material should be careful not to make connections that are not made by reliable sources. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not adding anything to the article. Just to be clear. The reason I'm writing that Bioware is removing "progressive" writers is based on Ann Lemay's post on Bluesky. She writes:

"I was a writer at BioWare for 5 years (2011-2016). I leaned a lot during that time from exceptional folx in many disciplines, but also specifically from my fellow writers & our amazing editors, on both the ME & DA brands.

Today, not a single one of those writers & editors remains employed there."

As far as I know, "folx" means people who identify transgender or non-binary. She points out that this group, especially, have been removed from Bioware. I might be wrong here, but that's how I understand wher post. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your reading of her tweet. Through my edits, I meant to communicate that the sentiments shared by affected staff on social media shouldn't be reflected on the article unless a reliable source provides some commentary to similar effect. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course. And again, that's why I posted this on the discussion page, not in the article. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think IPs can edit the Veilguard article in any case. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yea, you're right. I didn't notice. But that makes sense, considering the controversy that's related to this game. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

But regardless, it's probably more a "bioware" related issue than a "Veilguard" related issue. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a note - I've updated both the BioWare & EA articles to include that the underperformance of both EA Sports FC 25 & Veilguard lead EA to lower its annual revenue forecast (see Reuters) followed by EA restructuring/downsizing BioWare which included Dragon Age team layoffs (PC Gamer & IGN). Reliable sources aren't reporting the layoffs as due to "progressive writers" so let's stick to NPOV if anything is included at this article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: Hey. I did see that on the lead of the article. I know it's contentious so I didn't want to change it, but IMO the bit about EA's expected revenue being lower doesn't need to be there. I think it's important to mention that the game was a financial disappointment for EA, but mentioning that they reduced their expected earnings feels like a tautology—as in, of course they adjusted their expected revenue (it didn't sell as many units as they predicted). Just wanted to give you my thought on that but don't foresee me doing future work on this article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: I agree with your point about the EA financial forecast & that it should be removed from the lead especially with Reuters emphasizing the impact of the FC 25 underperformance ("did not get the warm reception its predecessors did, denting revenue in the live services segment, EA's biggest earner"). My bad for including it when I pulled the phrasing from List of commercial failures in video games#Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Another editor added the wording "commercial failure" to the lead and a link to that article so when copy-editing, I thought it made sense to align the phrasing & remove "commercial failure" (since I didn't see the sources using that phrase). Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ImaginesTigers that this is becoming far too much weight on a simple issue. In most other articles, you would report the best knowledge of sales, and whether that met/exceeded/failed expectations. It doesn't need more than a couple of sentences. The WP:WEIGHT on this is a WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issue. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There are neither NPOV nor SYNTH issues here. It is information directly from several high-quality sources, simply at an inappropriate of depth for lead coverage. I have made the changes and think it looks fine now. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: Incidentally, I can see Bloomberg also putting most of the blame on FC 25: The poor results were largely due to the underperformance of EA's latest soccer game but the company also said that DA:TV reached 1.5 million players, missing sales expectations by 50%. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It's improved. As an aside, the commercial failure of FC is off topic here, but it should be mentioned at the "list of commercial failures" article, as sports titles are a much bigger driver of EA revenue. To be clear, I wasn't saying it's inappropriate to mention layoffs, when the sources lead there. I'm saying there are three paragraphs of speculation and analysis about something that could easily be covered in a few sentences. That's something that can be addressed later, but it will continue to create issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see, FC 25 is not mentioned anywhere in this article. I have reviewed the Sales sub-heading because I had not previously. Although not my style, there is nothing objectionable and it is internally consistent. I have validated all references within the heading and it passes a sourcing check. The game did fine and "engaged" a lot of players (as the early parts of the heading suggest) but fell dramatically short of EA's sales expectations (as was suggested by Eurogamer, prior to EA's statements on performance). There has been significant speculation by reliable sources about player numbers, in part driven by EA's failure to provide any actual data on retail units sold. All of this is cited to high-quality video-game sources (IGN, Eurogamer). Do I think it could be condensed into a paragraph (or maybe two)? Yes. Do I see WEIGHT, NPOV and SYNTH issues? No. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not glaring enough to get into a dispute. Speculation isn't useful, and starts to create issues with WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:EIGHT. We should focus on facts. It can and definitely should be condensed eventually. That said, I appreciate you trying to bring some balance to this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging that! I updated the EA article with that source. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Targetting

As a contentious topic just want to call out that this article is being targetted by Gamergate campaigns stemming from the "anti-woke" crowd and various reactionary alt-right groups for diverse characters.

Just highlighting so that we can make sure that the article avoids bias. 2001:861:3A06:9580:38C0:9CFF:4C92:A44F (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You make it sound like it is a orchestrated attack of some kind. Do you have any proof? Regardless, the article is edit protected to a degree and there are several watchful editors that keep an eye out. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Some relevant coverage on this[5]. BMWF (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"engaged approximately 1.5 million players during the quarter, down nearly 50% from the company’s expectations"

That's the exact wording by the offical EA press release, January 22, 2025 (as was cited by IGN, used in the Wiki article).

The Bloomberg reference, also used in the Wiki article, seems to incorrectly add the word "sales" to "expectations", while the IGN reference correctly does not. --Cold Season (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Mostly positive reviews

It says that the game received mostly positive reviews on steam and that is no longer the case. I believe this should be fixed 2600:1700:6740:5FE0:DE19:9A50:4CAD:C597 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Layoffs

@ImaginesTigers: there are plenty of sources that make the logical connection between EA's announcement and the layoffs, as well as Busche's departure:

"The layoffs come less than two weeks after Dragon Age: The Veilguard game director Corinne Busche announced her own departure from BioWare, and just a week after EA said Veilguard had underperformed sales expectations" [6]
"The decision followed EA’s announcement that Dragon Age: The Veilguard had underperformed on its expectations for the long-awaited action RPG." [7]
"Larian Studios' Baldur's Gate 3 publishing director Michael Douse is calling out EA for continually laying off BioWare staff, in this case after the less-than-expected performance of Dragon Age: The Veilguard" [8]
"In the wake of EA's announcement that Dragon Age: The Veilguard failed to meet the company's expectations, BioWare has announced that it is "changing how we build games" in an effort to hold the company to "the highest quality standards." [Update: A number of BioWare staffers have revealed that they have been laid off, in addition to those moved to other parts of the company.]" [9]
"Despite positive reviews, Dragon Age: The Veilguard was recently deemed an underperformer by EA. Following that, BioWare has announced that it's being restructured, with team members being let go or moved to other projects within EA." and "Earlier this week, EA revealed in its quarterly earnings report that both EA Sports FC 2024 and Dragon Age: The Veilguard hadn't performed as well as it hoped, with The Veilguard in particular selling 1.5 million copies less than anticipated. Fans have been a little worried about BioWare's future since that was revealed, and it seems that was a fair assessment." [10]

Astaire (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've updated both BioWare & EA to include the Jan 2025 EA forecast downgrade due to the underperformance of both EA Sports FC 25 and Veilguard and then that later in the month, there were layoffs/restructuring at BioWare. The BioWare article includes a bit more on the studio impact ("Both PC Gamer and IGN reported that this restructuring included layoffs in the Dragon Age team...", BioWare employees being moved to permanently to EA subsidiaries, etc) and the EA a bit more on forecast ("Bloomberg reported that 'EA pinned most of the blame on its soccer title'"). I don't think Busche's departure (which is only mentioned in the first source you included) needs to be added to Veilguard. It seems like the impact of BioWare's layoffs on Dragon Age should be included at the franchise article as a lot of sources are speculating about the impact on the brand's future and that it is out of scope for this article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It is clearly not out of scope given that the above articles all link the downsizing to the game's underperformance. Astaire (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Astaire: Thank you for your comments; I agree with you. I've reduced the size of the Sales section, per another editor's feedback, and expanded the subheading's scope slightly. This should include some of the material you provided. I have added some industry coverage (e.g., EA's recent performance) where reliable third-party sources also do so. This should preserve space in Development, as I do expect more information about Veilguard's development in the future. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a note here: I have never seen "Sales" and "Post-release" getting combined. I understand why it was done, since the layoffs are connected to the sales. The sales section is in general quite short though, unless it is a best of all time game or something with similar impact. I don't have a quick solution for it. Perhaps we could add "Impact" as a new section below "Sales"? It negatively impacted the company, so it would make sense to me. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The Sales section was not short when I started editing it. It was an attempt to bring the content down but maximise information. On League of Legends (a live-service game), post-release is a subheading within the "Release" subheading, but that does not exist on this article. I think "Impact" would be a bit much, personally. Are these sections combined often? No. Is it an okay place for the content to live, as news continues to develop? I think so. I'll leave the discussion to other editors; I'm going to unwatch this page as it's eating up a lot of time (for a game I didn't even enjoy all that much). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

This is still not directly related to Veilguard and is a little bit of a stretch. In industry it's extraordinarily common for teams to shuffle once a previous project concludes and a new project is in full swing, which will often have different requirements. CDPR did the same thing with the CP2077 -> Witcher 4 transition.

https://www.ign.com/articles/mass-layoffs-at-cyberpunk-2077-developer-cd-projekt-prompt-new-union-formation BMWF (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

BMWF has a valid point here. The source says "The poor results were largely due to the underperformance of EA's latest soccer game", and we shouldn't conflate the internal shufflings of EA with layoffs. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the layoffs need to be included here; they're mentioned at BioWare & EA and could probably be included at the Dragon Age (lots of sources talking about the potential impact on the franchise). I updated the section to include info from the EA quarterly financial call; PC Gamer suggests the CEO's comments are blaming the lack of live service components as why Veilguard failed to connect with a large audience. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Whatever re-orgnization is going on, it's not much of a layoff, and is tied to bigger picture stuff in the massive portfolio of EA. This would have the added benefit of tightening up the reception section to keep it more on topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

For additional clarity, if it refers directly to Dragon Age: Veilguard, some mention is fine here. But trying to WP:COATRACK other issues with EA (shifting business strategy, other games from other studios) and BioWare (10+ years without a "hit") doesn't really fit in a section about the critical and commercial reception of this game. The business issues should be covered at the respective articles about each company. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. If an article says that the drop in EA's stock price was largely due to the underperformance of game X, but also the underperformance of game Y, then how does that prove that layoffs at the studio that made game Y are not related to game Y's underperformance? Astaire (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is still not directly related to Veilguard and is a little bit of a stretch. As I said, the sources are making the logical connection for us that the layoffs are linked to the game's underperformance. And there are more:

"After Dragon Age: The Veilguard underperformed, much of its team (including senior members who had been making Dragon Age games for a while) were shuffled around or laid off." [11]
"Those relocations were made permanent following the news of Veilguard missing its sales target by 50%, with an additional 20+ full layoffs on top of that. According to Bloomberg, BioWare's staff is now down to fewer than 100 people." [12]

At this point, you need to present sources saying that the two events aren't linked. Your speculation about reshuffling being "extraordinarily common" may be true, but it doesn't prove that it's what happened in this case and it's not based in any reliable sourcing that I can tell. Astaire (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate Aggregator Score:

This edit request to Dragon Age: The Veilguard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, The listed "OpenCritic" score of 68% for Veilguard in the 'Reception' section of the page is inaccurate or outdated. The current score being 79% for the "Top Critic Average", with 71% of "Critics" recommending the game according to the aggregator. 46.19.196.153 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate comparison to Inquisition

The opening paragraph states "but Veilguard foregoes Inquisition's open world in favour of discrete levels accessed via fast travel."

Inquisition is not open world, it also features separate levels connected by fast travel like Veilguard and the other Dragon Age games. The maps are just large in Inquisition. Sources: https://www.vg247.com/dragon-age-inquisition-isnt-open-world-is-multi-region-says-bioware https://www.pcgamesn.com/dragon-age-inquisition-isnt-open-world-way-you-might-think-it LatteCaptain (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Lead & reception prose established at DRN

Should the "Lead" and "Reception" sections be restored to the version that was established at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)? (I'll copy over the exact prose after opening the RfC per WP:RFCOPEN #3 to avoid statement truncation). Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

(Clarification - 26 January 2025): There's been an ongoing debate on what to include or remove from the lead & reception sections. I think the main breakdown is:

Should information on Steam charts be removed from the Lead? (strikethrough sentence in Lead below)
Should the Lead's summary style sentence on the Reception section be expanded to be more representative of the entire section? (bold sentence in Lead below)
In Reception ¶1, should the sentence on review bombing highlight that news outlet pointed to the differences between user reviews on Metacritic and user reviews on Steam? (the first bolded parts in Reception ¶1)
In Reception ¶3, should the paragraph open with a summary style sentence similar to the subsequent paragraphs (¶5/¶6)? (the first bolded parts in Reception ¶3)
Should some small word changes in ¶1/¶3 be restored to a previous version (ex: use "criticized" instead of "referred to")? (other bolded or strikethrough words)

(Original - 24 January 2025) In the lead and reception ¶1/¶3, should bolded prose should be restored and strikethroughs be removed?

Lead

Dragon Age: The Veilguard released for PlayStation 5, Windows, and Xbox Series X/S on October 31, 2024. ~~After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record.~~ The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat. It was nominated for Game of the Year at the Golden Joystick Awards and Innovation in Accessibility at The Game Awards.

Reception

¶1 Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics ~~for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions~~ according to the review aggregator website Metacritic.^[1] OpenCritic determined that 68% of critics recommended the game.^[2] Veilguard was subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews.^[3]^[4]^[5]

Reception ¶2 is not under dispute but here for additional context if needed.

¶2 Hayes Madsen of Rolling Stone called Veilguard a "fresh start for the franchise" with the game "practically a soft reset".^[6] Leana Hafer for IGN similarly commented that the "story feels like both a send-off and a soft reboot, in a way, which was paradoxically a bit refreshing and disappointing at the same time". She also found it "cool" that the Inquisitor returns as "a fairly important character".^[7] Andy Bickerton of NPR viewed the game as a "well-executed action RPG". However, he called the decision to not include prior player narrative choices a "letdown", noting that "it's easy to see how this squandered potential, along with the tonal inconsistencies, could have arisen out of Veilguard's near-decade of troubled production".^[8] Lauren Morton of PC Gamer thought a downside of perceived streamlining and eliminating the "most common RPG frictions" is that it "can feel more action adventure than RPG at moments".^[9]

¶3 Critics were mixed on the game's story. Matt Purslow from IGN thought that Veilguard was "at war with itself", as he felt that the game was not interested in exploring the franchise's past despite being its first direct sequel, and that the game sidelined major characters such as Solas and Varric.^[10] Malindy Hetfeld of The Guardian criticized the "surprisingly mediocre" writing in Veilguard, describing the protagonist Rook as more of a witty observer than a "person with opinions".^[11] She also found the "comically evil" new villainous gods disappointing compared to the more "compelling" Solas.^[11] Hafer opined that Veilguard has "weird" pacing, and that the overaching plot "is nothing particularly outstanding in its overall structure", with the only interesting factor being Solas.^[7] Madsen argued that Solas was "a secondary protagonist", with the game focusing on his choices, their impact, "and how your journey as Rook mirrors" his journey.^[6] Ash Parrish of The Verge appreciated how Solas' arc subverted her desire to kill him despite longstanding animosity; she praised BioWare for crafting "his story arc in a way that didn't soften his actions as villain backstories typically do, but in a way that I felt compelled to make a different choice".^[12] Reviewers were divided over how consequential player choices were to the narrative,^[13]^[6]^[11]^[9]^[14] with some finding major decisions "few and far between".^[11]^[6]

The rest of the reception section for context on lead summary. While it uses similar summary style sentences as above (see bolded text), it is not under dispute.

¶4 Madsen praised Veilguard for its attention to detail when showcasing the player's iteration of Rook and the game's companions, calling the characters "wonderfully written and well integrated into the plot".^[6] Todd Harper of Polygon emphasized the companions as the heart of the game, noting that they were "weird and idiosyncratic in the best ways".^[15] Kazuma Hashimoto of Them commented that at a surface level companions feel like "fantasy clichés and tropes", but with earned trust reveal "mundane moments" that make them feel closer to "normal people"; he also praised both the romance and non-romance options for interacting with companions.^[14] Hafer appreciated that companions are each "stars of their own story" with "complex, memorable, likable, distinct personalities", but was disappointed that in combat they felt more like extensions of the player character.^[7] Parrish enjoyed the "fun banter" of companions, and praised the romance options in Veilguard, highlighting that unlike previous Dragon Age games, it explicitly indicates when the player becomes locked into a romance path.^[12] Conversely, Oliver Brandt of Sports Illustrated viewed the choice to make all companions romanceable regardless of player gender expression as "a small step back" from other Dragon Age games.^[16] Harvey Randall of PC Gamer highlighted a lack of nuance in Rook's romantic dialogue if a player chooses to discuss Rook's gender identity.^[17] Morton thought companions lacked nuance and individual characterizations,^[18] noting that "good people don't make great characters".^[9] She further criticized the lack of a "functional mechanism for disapproval" and interpersonal group conflicts.^[18]

¶5 Veilguard generally received praise for its inclusive character creator and representation of transgender and non-binary characters.^[16]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23] Alyssa Mora of IGN emphasized the character creator's "body diversity" where "the options feel almost endless".^[19] Both Robin Bea of Inverse and Brandt commended Taash's story arc,^[16]^[20] with Brandt noting while BioWare has previously "touched on queer stories", Vanguard "goes one step further, unashamedly and unabashedly calling one of its most compelling characters nonbinary".^[16] Bea acknowledged the "smart writing" in Veilguard in addressing transgender representation. However, she critiqued the use of a coming out narrative as "low-hanging fruit", and thought Rook's gender identity was not fully explored beyond Taash's storyline and so did not "always feel like a fully-actualized trans character".^[20] Stacey Henley of TheGamer appreciated the deliberate use of modern language in Taash's story in comparison to Inquisition's Krem, though noted the language has been contentious with audiences as potentially "immersion breaking".^[21] Randall was more critical, noting how Veilguard "both failed and succeeded" in the narrative aspects focused on non-binary characters, and that the overall "scattershot, clumsy, and unpolished" writing impacts the "use of queer language in a fantasy context".^[17] They found the lack of a fictional etymology connecting the word to the cultures of Thedas problematic, reflecting wider story issues as the game seems "barely interested in the politics of its own setting".^[17]

¶6 Critics enjoyed Veilguard's graphics and level design but were divided on the game's combat. Bickerton felt that Veilguard's strongest feature was its action gameplay, writing "mastering combat and party composition is a thoroughly rewarding experience from start to finish".^[8] He also highlighted the game's "accessibility and difficulty settings" as being welcoming for more casual players.^[8] Hetfeld viewed Veilguard's combat as functional but repetitive, without "much room for strategy", and similar to numerous other games.^[11] Hafer called the boss fights the highlight of combat.^[7] Parrish praised the combo system, the new elemental effects on weapons, and the ability for player mages to switch between melee and ranged for a "kinetic, almost chaotic energy". However, she critiqued the length of encounters from the "wave after wave of tanky enemies with multiple health bars".^[12] Harper thought the combat was "hit or miss", and that the combo system was less complex than Inquisition and the Mass Effect games.^[15] Hafer stated that the game has "visual splendor",^[7] and Harper called it "graphically gorgeous".^[15] Parrish opined that the "companions and environments are arresting in their design".^[13] Bickerton thought the level design was an improvement on Inquisition's "bland open zones", and praised side quests for their depth and the rewarding of exploration with "useful loot and impactful plot points".^[8] Morton viewed each area's "incredible visual design" as a standout feature of Veilguard. She found it was better off for removing Inquisition's "giant zones" and having "more constrained maps of coiled corridors and clearings".^[9]

References

^ "Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Xbox Series X Critic Reviews)". Metacritic. Retrieved December 4, 2024.
^ "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Reviews". OpenCritic. Retrieved November 12, 2024.
^ "Metacritic responds after Dragon Age: The Veilguard review bombing". Eurogamer.net. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
^ "Dragon Age The Veilguard is getting review bombed, and now Metacritic has something to say". PCGamesN. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
^ Watson, Philip (2024-11-05). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's Poor Review Bombing Leads To Metacritic Response". CGMagazine. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Madsen, Hayes (2024-10-28). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Is a Return to Form for a Beloved RPG Franchise". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Hafer, Leana (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Review". IGN. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Bickerton, Andy (October 28, 2024). "Tonally inconsistent 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' is still BioWare's best action game". NPR. Retrieved November 29, 2024.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Morton, Lauren (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review". PC Gamer. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
^ Purslow, Matt (November 9, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself". IGN. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Hetfeld, Malindy (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review — a good RPG, but an underwhelming Dragon Age game". The Guardian. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
^ ^a ^b ^c Parrish, Ash (2024-11-28). "The hardest part of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is making a choice". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ ^a ^b Parrish, Ash (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard starts slow but strong". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
^ ^a ^b Hashimoto, Kazuma (2024-10-28). "I Played 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' and Got Myself Stuck in a Gay Love Triangle". Them. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ ^a ^b ^c Harper, Todd (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the friend group simulator we've been waiting for". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Brandt, Oliver (2024-10-31). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first triple-A game to handle gender identity the right way". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ ^a ^b ^c Randall, Harvey (2024-11-13). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's leap forward in trans inclusion comes from a heartfelt place, but its problems left me feeling frustrated, angry, and tired". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ ^a ^b Morton, Lauren (2024-11-15). "The Veilguard is the first Dragon Age game where my companions don't care enough about anything to argue with me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ ^a ^b Mora, Alyssa (September 19, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Preview: BioWare Finally Nails The Character Creator I've Always Wanted". IGN. Retrieved November 30, 2024.
^ ^a ^b ^c Bea, Robin (2024-11-06). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Makes Me Feel Seen As a Trans Player, But Still Disappointed". Inverse. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ ^a ^b Henley, Stacey (2024-11-06). "Why Dragon Age: The Veilguard Uses The Term 'Non-Binary'". TheGamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Puc, Samantha (2024-11-03). "This 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' companion's story ruined me in the best way". The Mary Sue. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Marshall, Cass (2024-11-01). "How role-playing a trans or nonbinary Rook works in Dragon Age: The Veilguard". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Support: In my view, the above version developed at DRN established there were no WP:SYNTH issues along with what was important to keep while removing less important aspects. Note: While BMWF declined to participate in the DRN, once consensus was implemented, they returned to oppose & revert it. The directions from the DRN moderator (see archive) said if this occurred, the next step was an RfC which took me a bit to open because I was away. In the mean time, other editors have come to a rough consensus (see above) to remove the sentence on Steam charts in the "Lead" section and BMWF once again returned to oppose/revert their way into an edit war. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Bad RfC RfC is extremely verbose and unclear, fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL by misrepresenting the status quo, and needs to be rewritten.

There was no DRN consensus as it lacked the required number of participants. As mentioned above:

The two editors in agreement, which include the filer and a person he invited, were already in agreement prior. DRN exists to faciliate structured discussion among involved parties, but it cannot invent a consensus that doesn't exist. Given that the discussion on this above was already on-topic, there wasn't a real need for a separate moderated discussion to begin with.

Per Talk:Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard#Prose there isn't a consensus for these changes so they should not be represented as the status quo. They are contested removals/additions that remove sourced content and replace it with POV language and WP:SYNTH violations. BMWF (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

DRN was the correct place to take the discussion after you, Wikibenboy94 and I stalled out in the December 2024 discussion. DRN states:

"This noticeboard is for content disputes only." - We disagree on whether or not the above includes WP:SYNTH which is the definition of a content dispute.
"The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page". - As seen in this page history, we also met this requirement.
We also met the other DRN requirements (notifying everyone in the dispute, following moderator instructions, etc).
Additionally, your statement that "The two editors in agreement, which include the filer and a person he invited, were already in agreement prior" is a total misconstruction as @Wikibenboy94 and I were not in total alignment before the DRN (as seen by my statements on the "Lead" section in both the above "Prose" discussion and my initial DRN statements).

If it was the incorrect venue, a moderator would have flagged it and suggested moving to another noticeboard. Instead a discussion occurred at that venue & a consensus was developed; you had multiple opportunities to participate while the discussion moved on without you (as I previously explained on 6 January 2025 on your talk page). Consensus doesn't mean you need every editor to agree (WP:NOTUNANIMITY). Constantly reverting even after other editors have reached consensus & insisting there's no consensus because you alone disagree is edit warring behavior.

I think the main issue is that you have owership issues over this article (47.97% of your edits are either of the Veilguard article or its releated talk page). You consistently claim that other editors' interpretation of policy is incorrect if they disagree with you (see your above arguments about WP:UGC/WP:VG/REC in the review bomb discussion and WP:SYNTH/WP:VG/REC in the prose discussion). When you fail to make compelling arguments and disagree with consensus, you then claim the process is incorrect. This is fundamentally bludgeoning the process especially when you engage in edit war behavior while claiming your actions are WP:BRD - BRD specifically calls out that you should not "engage in back-and-forth reverting" during the discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you are bludgeoning right now without realizing it. DRN did not have the minimum number of required participants and was not the correct venue as the discussion here was pre-mature. As mentioned, DRN exists to facilitate structured discussion among involved parties, but it cannot invent a consensus that doesn't exist among existing editors. As shown in multiple talk page discussions[13][14], there is no consensus for these slanted POV edits or WP:SYNTH violations. A RfC is the right choice if you are not satisfied as I recommended previously.

But this is an unwieldly and unclear supervote though that violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL needs to be rewritten. You should also respect policy and not reinstate contested changes that lack consensus while said changes are under discussion. BMWF (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Arguing about policies and bureaucracy isn't going to help at all. You do not WP:OWN this article. Several people disagree with your preferred wording. Please drop the WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and try to come to a solution. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick clarification question for @Soetermans: the indent level indicates this is addressed to me but the content seems aimed at BMWF so which editor were you replying to? No worries either way! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That was aimed at BMWF. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Support: I agree with this and I'm honestly surprised that the critical summary was taken out. In this version, I would also suggest adding the financial report information from EA just before the sentence about awards or after. However, we can hold off on that for now to keep things organized. The information on user reviews is backed by reliable sources, so I don't see any reason not to include it in the reception section. Overall, this helps to keep the article neutral. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Confusing, removals of verifiable content, arbitrary insertions that lack NPOV. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

NutmegCoffeeTea, please elaborate. What is confusing to you? What lacks NPOV? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I am here from the notice at the WikiProject talk page, and this RFC doesn't seem clear, or even neutral. It's not clear what the fundamental issue is, what is the source of disagreement, and what experienced editors can do to help reach consenuss. An RFC isn't a !vote on a version of a page, where the majority wins. An RFC is meant to gain feedback about a fundamental issue, and help build a consensus. As is, I'm leaning oppose just on process alone (let alone seeing a mix of good and bad changes). Shooterwalker (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with half of it and disagree with half of it. Since this is asking for one's opinion as a whole with no option to specify, I have to oppose restoring it as poorly written. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad RFC: OP did not state clearly what are the substantial differences between the two versions, also failing to provide justifications of both versions from both sides, making it nearly impossible to see through the controversy and arriving at a solution. Milky Defer 14:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad RFC: It is so unwieldy that it is near impossible to discern what the dispute at hand even is. A comparison of diffs and not a link to a DRN would do wonders in helping comprehend what exactly is at dispute. --Emm90 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Following up to some of the points above on the structure of the RfC @BMWF, Soetermans, Vestigium Leonis, NutmegCoffeeTea, Shooterwalker, Zxcvbnm, and MilkyDefer: - I've added a clarification on what I think the RfC focus is and added new subsections below for discussion. Apologies for any confusion as I thought the DRN closing instructions on going to an RfC next meant the question was "should we implement the version discussed at DRN". I think I've isolated the main questions about what should be included/removed but feel free to suggest other questions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Lead)

In terms of #2, this is a fairly standard MOS:INTRO summary of the reception section (quite similar to the lead summary in Dragon Age: Inquisition) done in the appropriate summary style:

a) positive reviews from critics - lines up directly with the first two sentences of Reception ¶1 along with other praise throughout the section

b) who praised its cast - Reception ¶4 on Rook and the game's companions which is mostly positive with the criticisms focused on structural aspects of the writing

c) representation of sexual minority characters -Reception ¶5 where this basically is the same as the paragraph's topline sentence & is then shown in that paragraph

d) graphics, and level design, - Reception ¶6 where this basically half of that paragraph's topline sentence & is shown in that paragraph

e) but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, - Reception ¶3 which has most of the criticisms of story (one source even calls the writing mediocre in that paragraph)

f) and combat. - Reception ¶6 where this the other half of the topline sentence & is shown in that paragraph.

I don't think WP:SYNTH is in play at all here given it is accurate reflection of the Reception section. In terms of #1, I also agree with previous discussions that the inclusion of just the Steam charts is WP:UNDUE for the Lead and should be removed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current version and it seems fine, if B-class.

The first paragraph is a little plot heavy. It could be better by balancing story and gameplay, and making it shorter, but it's not strictly wrong.
The development paragraph could be longer, or combined with the reception paragraph, to make a more full paragraph.
The reception paragraph is fine. I wouldn't object to more detail, but shorter is usually better here. It's not WP:SYNTH to summarize the reception section, but it depends on having a reception section that isn't WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE. (Compare Dragon Age: Origins, which is a good article with a single sentence about its critical reception.)

It's going to be hard to get a consensus for a mishmash of line-by-line changes all at once. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There are major WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues with this proposal. The addition who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat is by definition source synthesis since no reliable source actually summarizes them this way. It's original research and editor personal interpretation. The reviews are generally very multi-faceted and almost none of them fit into that mold. BMWF (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If summarising is synthesis, all of Wikipedia is breaking it. I recommend learning more about the lead: It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The only way to accomplish this is by summarising. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing on your points for #1 and #2. Shooterwalker's points seem fitting to me as well. If there's an opportunity to enhance the lead further, let's take it. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Just as some procedural advice to help reach a consensus, the lead follows the body of the article. If there are uncontroversial parts of the lead that can be fixed, then let's do it. But if any of it is controversial (particularly how to sum up the reception section), we are better off pausing any efforts on the lead until the body is settled. TLDR: let's focus on the reception for a while. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Reception)

With #3, I think it is important to have the "largely negative" Metacritc in contrast to the "mostly positive" Steam since the three sources are focused on what's going on at Metacritc; each source has single sentence comparisons to Steam to highlight what is occurring isn't universal across all review platforms but the focus isn't on Steam. Emphasizing Steam over Metacritic isn't an accurate reflection of the sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it is important to have the "largely negative" Metacritc in contrast to the "mostly positive"

The source isn't focused on this, so it would be inappropriate. The focus about what's going on at Metacritic is the review bombing, which gets not only mentioned but mentioned with additional context as well. The reason the source mentions Steam is to contrast it with Metacritic by noting that Steam, which requires players to play the game first, is not seeing the same review bombing. In a similar vein, your proposal also includes non-neutral additions like replacing "abuse", which is what the source says, with "offensive", which is not what it says - "We take online trust and safety very seriously across all our sites including Metacritic," the spokesperson said. "Metacritic has a moderation system in place to track violations of our terms of use. Our team reviews each and every report of abuse (including but not limited to racist, sexist, homophobic, insults to other users, etc) and if violations occur, the reviews are removed". BMWF (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No objections here. Makes sense to me and reflects the sources. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

With #4, not sure why there's opposition to an accurate summary style opening sentence for ¶3 and not ¶5/¶6. The guidelines at WP:VG/REC suggest to "Signpost each paragraph with a topic sentence". The main difference is that ¶3 would state "Critics were mixed..." while ¶5/¶6 state "Veilguard generally received praise..." and "Critics enjoyed...". All three of these sentences are fundamentally the same in terms of being topline opening sentences that accurately reflect the subsequent paragraph (so WP:SYNTH isn't in play). This dovetails into #5, but I think the removal of the opening sentence for ¶3 along with what language was softened (ie. replacing "criticized" with "referred to" in ¶3) & what language was hardened (ie. replacing "offensive reviews" with "abusive reviews" in ¶1) shows an editor struggling to remain WP:IMPARTIAL by overly emphasizing aspects of the Metacritic reviews while also downplaying media criticism of the game. I think the changes outlined should be impemented to restore WP:NPOV. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

While I normally don't object to summary style sentences at the start of a paragraph, it usually helps when it has sources. There's a deeper problem that the reception section is nearly 1200 words, which is twice as long as most quality reception sections, suggesting a problem with WP:WEIGHT, if not WP:SYNTH. Using featured articles about action-adventure-RPGs as our highest standard of writing:

Mass Effect 2 covers its critical reception in 650 words. (The strongest analog for this style of game.)
Fallout (video game) covers its critical reception in just over 400 words.
BioShock covers its critical response in 680 words.

I get that a lot of editors are passionate about this topic, but this critical reception is at least two paragraphs too long, and ideally should be slashed right in half. I understand the temptation to address multiple WP:POVs by layering on more and more opinions, but this is an instance where the article actually needs less. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I see your point about the length of the section, and I agree. Still, I suggest we hold off on this for now. We should first figure out if we want to keep the summary sentences (#4). As they are quite helpful to get a quick summary and used in high quality articles as well, we should keep them. If that is solved, the trimming of the reception section could follow. Just pointing this out so we do not go into too many directions (and not get stuck in this RfC forever). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

While I don't think we need a severe trim (nothing in WP:VG/REC suggests a max word count), I agree with Vestigium Leonis that we should hold off on discussing this until wrapping up the already listed RfC questions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So the game performed decent in an absolute scale but fails expectations. In this case we need to figure out whether to highlight its decent sales in the absolute scale, or underscore its tepid sales w.r.t expections.

In my opinion it should be the latter, because it has seemingly greater coverage. Stemming from this, the situation can be explained as it is highly possible that most of the players are die-hard fans. Should this be the case, inclusion of the Steam reception is meaningless and disregards the whole picture - just like how Kamala Harris performed in pre-election popular polls. Milky Defer 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Sales should emphasize the most reliable and accurate sales figures, first and foremost. Commentary and speculation about sales is going to be secondary, and we don't want to bloat this article with various opinions. Cover the facts. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Steam reception doesn't matter much anymore because EA's report on player engagement is more important. The other coverage on sales / performance, except for the IGN report I added at the end, is also from before EA shared the financial details. So whatever they say about decent sales, good instead of great etc. is also less important now, if relevant at all. EA themselves stated the game underperformed by nearly half. The information of engagement is quite vague, but we can only guess why they kept it like that. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Shooterwalker. The focus should be on the concrete facts like sales figures as opposed to anything speculatory like expectations which are often revised. Also the Steam sales performance, as the largest platform, and breaking general player records continue to remain notable. BMWF (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is these summaries are unsourced WP:OR which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The most reliable aggregator we have on this, Metacritic, says that critics are "mostly positive" and not "mixed". Similarly, replacing neutral language like The Guardian said with The Guardian criticized isn't appropriate. BMWF (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Summary style sentences are accepted on Wikipedia and also used in high quality articles, see for example featured article The Last of Us. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:VG/REC notes Be careful to not make generalizations not substantiated by the sources. A source based summarization would be "IGN says 'X' about Veilgard's waterslides, while Gamestop says 'Y'". Summarizations that don't match the sources shouldn't be used. BMWF (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If multiple sources have said the same thing, it's normal to bundle several references together. See the above Featured Articles, which have been reviewed by multiple editors to establish that they represent our highest standards.

Mass Effect 2: "Numerous publications declared that the gameplay was an improvement over the original." (four sources)
Fallout (video game): " The setting was lauded as refreshing for a role-playing game;" (three sources)
BioShock: "Reviewers did highlight a few negative issues in BioShock," (unsourced, but implied)

Summary sentences are not controversial. But my goal is to help editors here reach a consensus, and not to get stuck in the weeds. A compromise would be to use multiple sources in one sentence, with attribution more clear. E.g.:

Mass Effect 2: "Mass Effect 2 has been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time by multiple publications, including Slant Magazine in 2014,[X] IGN in 2015,[X] Polygon in 2017,[X] Game Informer in 2018,[X] and GQ in 2023.[X]"

The compromise has the benefits of potentially shortening the article. Giving multiple sentences to multiple sources creates a WP:WEIGHT issue, which leads to issues with article length and neutrality. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A compromise would be to use multiple sources in one sentence, with attribution more clear

I agree with this in the form of "Concerning so and so, IGN says A, Kotaku says B, ...". It sticks to the sources which helps avoids the issues with the proposed Critics were mixed on the game's story which isn't reflected in the sources. The proposals in the RfC have major issues and lack neutrality. BMWF (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's not cherry pick from the guidance which starts with explaining how opening summary sentences are acceptable:

Signpost each paragraph with a topic sentence. A good opening sentence summarizes the paragraph, helps the reader anticipate what to expect from the paragraph, and has references to directly support the summary. Be careful to not make generalizations not substantiated by the sources. If Reviewers praised the game's art direction, say so, and add the references that support the statement, but avoid Most reviewers praised... and other phrases that make the subject ambiguous unless you have a source that makes a claim about "most".
— WP:VG/REC (bullet point 2)

As other editors have explained, this isn't controversial especially when the subsequent paragraph backs the summary sentence up. We could add in-line citations with a range of reviews to highlight how the reception was mixed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC) See also WP:VG/MIXED. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Policy (WP:OR WP:V) supercedes all guidelines and WP:VG/REC, which is a guideline, explicitly says Be careful to not make generalizations not substantiated by the sources regardless. BMWF (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So by that, you are saying all existing featured articles who follow it are wrong as well? This whole discussion is going nowhere. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying we should follow policy. I have not seen unsubstantiated generalizations in any FA. BMWF (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors (including myself) have repeatedly explained (going back to early December 2024) why this isn't a case of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH; it appears you're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. In terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability, this is easily solved by adding in-line citations for the sources used in the paragraph. As WP:VG/MIXED explains, "Mixed" means "scattered across the board", not "medium", so reviews cannot be both "mixed" and "positive". For precision, "mixed" alone is sufficient. Supplement with specific reviews to describe various positive and negative aspects. We have both positive and negative sources so it is pretty clear that mixed is a verifiable description. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Local editors cliques do not get to override policy simply because they disagree with said policy. Mixed is not a verifiable description when most of the reviews are positive, which is verifiable and sourced to review aggregator Metacritic. Even the guideline is telling editors to stick to the facts - If Reviewers praised the game's art direction, say so, and add the references that support the statement, but avoid Most reviewers praised... and other phrases that make the subject ambiguous unless you have a source that makes a claim about "most"

There is no source that makes a claim about mixed critical reception concerning Veilguard. That is original research. Even the examples given above for various games such as Mass Effect 2, Fallout, and BioShock, and so on do not contain the word "mixed" in any instance unless it is directly citing a reliable source. Basically, summarization != unsupported generalization. BMWF (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not. And FA is not a "clique" -- it includes editors across many topic areas with the strongest knowledge of our policies. Featured articles represent our best practice. Per WP:NOTBUREAU, Wikipedia is not for WikiLawyering and letting prescriptive policies override best practices. If this is something you are unclear on, it can easily be remedied with a quick discussion at WP:FA or the relevant Video Games WikiProject. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No FA has the issues I'm referring to with policy violations and non-neutral POV, and if any do they should be corrected. By clique I'm referring to editor silos who push non-neutral POVs, commonly seen on culture war targets which have been subject to media coverage such as Veilguard[15] (see Gamergate), in violation of policy. Concerning Wikipedia is not for WikiLawyering and letting prescriptive policies override best practices, note that core policy disallows this. WP:NPOV - This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. BMWF (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker and Vestigium Leonis: For the moment, we should set aside BMWF's repeated assertions that only their interpretation of policy is correct since it is once again creating a WP:STONEWALL situation (which is also why I went to DRN in the first place). Vestigium Leonis proposed resolving the questions I listed before addressing if the "Reception" is too long. So I think all of us would agree that the opening sentence for ¶3 is fine but could be improved by adding in-line citations. Vestigium Leonis also agreed with me on restoring the Metacritic details in ¶1 (question #3) - Shooterwalker do you have any thoughts about that? Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the issues are unconnected. In a good article of appropriate length, there would be a lot less agonizing about the different score, and instead a neutral summary of the scores without WP:SYNTH. To me, that includes aggregated scores of reliable critics, and maybe a brief sentence about review bombing on both Metacritic and Steam. There is a relationship between WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and generally getting too deep in the weeds on this issue. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, seems fine to me. I feel like we are all ready to wrap this up. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

[MC_XSXS_Reviews-1] "Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Xbox Series X Critic Reviews)". Metacritic. Retrieved December 4, 2024.

[OC_Reviews-2] "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Reviews". OpenCritic. Retrieved November 12, 2024.

[3] "Metacritic responds after Dragon Age: The Veilguard review bombing". Eurogamer.net. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.

[4] "Dragon Age The Veilguard is getting review bombed, and now Metacritic has something to say". PCGamesN. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.

[5] Watson, Philip (2024-11-05). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's Poor Review Bombing Leads To Metacritic Response". CGMagazine. Retrieved 2024-11-06.

[:2-6] Madsen, Hayes (2024-10-28). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Is a Return to Form for a Beloved RPG Franchise". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2024-10-29.

[:1-7] Hafer, Leana (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Review". IGN. Retrieved 2024-10-29.

[:11-8] Bickerton, Andy (October 28, 2024). "Tonally inconsistent 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' is still BioWare's best action game". NPR. Retrieved November 29, 2024.

[PCGUS_Morton_rev-9] Morton, Lauren (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review". PC Gamer. Retrieved October 28, 2024.

[10] Purslow, Matt (November 9, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself". IGN. Retrieved November 10, 2024.

[Guardian_review-11] Hetfeld, Malindy (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review — a good RPG, but an underwhelming Dragon Age game". The Guardian. Retrieved October 28, 2024.

[Verge_full_review-12] Parrish, Ash (2024-11-28). "The hardest part of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is making a choice". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[Verge_early_review-13] Parrish, Ash (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard starts slow but strong". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-10-30.

[:3-14] Hashimoto, Kazuma (2024-10-28). "I Played 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' and Got Myself Stuck in a Gay Love Triangle". Them. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[:4-15] Harper, Todd (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the friend group simulator we've been waiting for". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-10-30.

[:8-16] Brandt, Oliver (2024-10-31). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first triple-A game to handle gender identity the right way". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[:9-17] Randall, Harvey (2024-11-13). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's leap forward in trans inclusion comes from a heartfelt place, but its problems left me feeling frustrated, angry, and tired". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[PCGUS_Morton_companions_rev-18] Morton, Lauren (2024-11-15). "The Veilguard is the first Dragon Age game where my companions don't care enough about anything to argue with me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[:14-19] Mora, Alyssa (September 19, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Preview: BioWare Finally Nails The Character Creator I've Always Wanted". IGN. Retrieved November 30, 2024.

[:10-20] Bea, Robin (2024-11-06). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Makes Me Feel Seen As a Trans Player, But Still Disappointed". Inverse. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[:12-21] Henley, Stacey (2024-11-06). "Why Dragon Age: The Veilguard Uses The Term 'Non-Binary'". TheGamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[22] Puc, Samantha (2024-11-03). "This 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' companion's story ruined me in the best way". The Mary Sue. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[23] Marshall, Cass (2024-11-01). "How role-playing a trans or nonbinary Rook works in Dragon Age: The Veilguard". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]