Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard

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)

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)

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)

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)