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)

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 [1].

@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)

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 ([2],[3],[4]) 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?

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.

---

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.

Prose

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.

---

@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

1. After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record. Versus removing the sentence.
2. 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

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. Versus Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics, according to the review aggregator website Metacritic.
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 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.
3. 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)

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.

Protected edit request on 8 December 2024

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

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 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.