This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department) Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.polygon.com/opinion/493171/taash-dragon-age-the-veilguard-queer-representation

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)[reply]

(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:

1. Should information on Steam charts be removed from the Lead? (strikethrough sentence in Lead below)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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]

¶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]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[1][2], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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. MilkyDefer 14:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. MilkyDefer 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[3] (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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]