Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Neutrality of inclusivity section

{{archive top|There is no source provided to support the concerns about the IGN review. It is inappropriate to assume the author is unreliable based solely on their gender identity. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)}}

{{edit semiprotected|Dragon Age: The Veilguard|answered=yes}}

the author of the IGN review has admitted they only rated the game a 9 due to their own personal politics.

Much like the one star "Wired" review of Hogwarts Legacy, I believe the IGN review of this game shouldn't be cited due to it's author being dishonest.

I understand IGN is considered Reliable, but the Veil-Guard review written by them is not representative of the games actual merit. 2600:100A:B034:C060:B469:FFF:FE96:B9C (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:Where did they admit this? Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::On their social media.

:: Im not sure how to link that, but Its easy to find.

:: I don't think their review should be considered legitimate, because they only gave it a 9 out of 10 due to the transexual story elements.

:: They should have Let someone from IGN who isn't personally interested in politics review the game. 2600:100A:B034:C060:B469:FFF:FE96:B9C (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The author's Twitter/X account is currently protected, and I'm not following her so I can't verify what they said. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::That's unfortunate. There was a lot of coverage of the situation, but that isn't really a fair citation by Wikipedias standards.

:::: In a perfect world the IGN review would be removed for being written with clear bias.

:::: it's a similar situation to the "Hogwarts Legacy" Wired review. 2600:100A:B034:C060:B469:FFF:FE96:B9C (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I ask again, what did this reviewer actually say to make people think they only gave it a high score due to their personal politics? Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think anything was said. A reviewer wouldn't openly admit the score that they gave a game was only based on their political beliefs, and reading Hafer's review doesn't indicate any one "political" aspect held more weight over anything else. The only people I've seen taking issue with the 9/10 are those on the right that point out Hafer is trans and therefore must be favourably biased towards the game, because they can't conceive the game is deserving of such a score. I've never seen anything coming out exposing this as a fact, and it's not half as notable as the concern around Wired{{'}}s review of Hogwarts Legacy (which again was predominantly from the right). I didn't know Hafer even had a Twitter/X account as I can't seem to find it? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hafer does have an account (it's shown in the video version of their Dragon Age review at the start) but it's protected and thus inaccessible unless you're already following them. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Even as far as unsourced claims go, this is a pretty weak claim. I barely see evidence for this claim being worth a talk page discussion, let alone a mention in the article. WP:DFTT. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{ping|DAFanMirwoofen}} - please explain why removing sales information from the lead is an improvement. If the revert reason was unclear, it was also unclear how your edits improve the article. I, personally, would have labelled them as "unexplained removal of content". OceanHok (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Since there are significant parallels between this discussion, Talk:Star Wars Outlaws#Contested changes on article, and the ongoing RfC at Forspoken, I also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games regarding the inclusion of publisher's statements about sales in general across video game articles. OceanHok (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:My edit summary when I reverted {{reply to|DAFanMirwoofen|p=}} said it wasn't an improvement because the editor made changes that deemphasized aspects of the game such as making headings less specific by removing the section's main subject. For example, they changed the "{{xt|Staff turnover and completion}}" heading to "{{xt|Completion and release}}" - the first two paragraphs are entirely about changes in staff (ie. who left, who was laid off, an occasional who returned). The third paragraph is primarily about staff changes - of the 7 sentences, only the first 2 are about the game's completion and the rest are about staff changes. Removing "{{xt|Staff turnover}}" from the heading doesn't make sense since it is the main subject of the heading. Similarly, not sure why "{{xt|and challenges}}" was removed from "{{xt|Early development and challenges}} when that section's subject is about the challenges during early development. Also, not sure why they removed that that combat system shifted from tactical in the lead. Making the article less specific is not an improvement. As an aside, I tagged with good faith because WP:NEWBIES. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Callanecc}} Since the page is protected, I want to point out that it is true that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard&diff=prev&oldid=1290570822 this] is the last stable version. Per WP:BRD, the last stable version should be maintained, instead of the contested version. The current protected version is the contested version. OceanHok (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't have a strong feeling about the actual changes, but I agree that it's good form to revert to the last stable version. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::BRD is an essay not policy. It also does not apply when multiple editors are reverting. BMWF (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard&diff=prev&oldid=1290603816 this diff] by BMWF with the edit summary "Reverting sock", apparently directed towards MSMareCrisium from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard&diff=prev&oldid=1290570822 previous edit] (which restored to the last good version between all editing) but without any sign on their talk page or block log to suggest a sock, I think that BMWF's revert is a problem here. Just because one says they are a returning editor doesn't mean they are a sock. Masem (t) 18:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There was a brief & closed (due to insufficient evidence) SOCK investigation after NutmegCoffeeTea reported me for using MSMareCrisium & Vestigium Leonis as socks due to the most recent reverts... Repeating a bit of what I said there, I have no idea why my initial revert triggered a bunch of edit warring but I don't think this is a case of SOCKs. More likely this boils down to two roughly different groups of editors struggling to not edit war after of months of conflict and then wild SOCK accusations to try and shutdown "the other side" (for lack of a better phrase). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Someone please revert these weird drive-by changes by DAFanMirwoofen and restore the last stable version.61.8.154.126 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:The individual section titles were strange to the point that I was surprised to see them on Wikipedia.

:"Early development and challenges" is not a neutral title. "Early development" is fair.

:"Staff turnover and completion" is not a neutral title. "Development and completion" seems standard.

:The "EA's expectations" line isn't sales information and seemed out of place where it was and like someone was trying to highlight negativity in a way that ignores that Veilguard overperformed compared to Bioware's portfolio. DAFanMirwoofen (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Staff turnover" is neutral because it describes the subject exactly; there was a lot of staff turnover during this game's development. The word "layoffs" is also used in headings; it is neutral to call a thing exactly what it is. 15 out of 18 sentences are about staff changes so changing "Staff turnover and completion" to "Completion and release" obscures what the section is about & is not a neutral change. I also disagree that inclusion of EA's expectations is unwarranted; the lead should include something that reflects more of the Reception section than just the Accolades which means both a summary of the Critical Reception & Sales should be highlighted. As an aside, the publisher type statements are being discussed over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Should we mention publisher's statements in the lead paragraph?. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There was staff turnover, however most big games have reboots and staff turn-over. It's insanely common. I've never seen a level 2 header with "Staff turnover" or one with "Challenges" in it. They're not fair titles. EA's expectations isn't a summary of the sales section it's more of a cherry-pick and feels out of place. DAFanMirwoofen (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have no particular feeling on the change in subheading, but missing EA's sales expectations is legitimate sales information. Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda (a good article) have something similar in its lead paragraph, and we don't shy away from something negative. RS are literally [https://www.ign.com/articles/as-dragon-age-fans-fear-the-death-of-the-series-one-former-bioware-developer-offers-words-of-reassurance-dragon-age-isnt-dead-because-its-yours-now running] [https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/is-this-the-end-of-dragon-age-veilguard-was-good-but-bioware-needed-an-all-timer-and-im-nervous-about-whats-next/ articles] about [https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dragon-age-games-veilguard-dead/ the death of a franchise] after EA announced that it missed sales target by 50%. RS are also running critical commentary on [https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/ea-has-learned-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-dragon-age-the-veilguard-and-its-going-to-be-disastrous-for-the-future-of-mass-effect-if-it-even-has-a-future/ EA's] [https://www.polygon.com/analysis/520290/dragon-age-the-veilguard-sales-ea-bioware-layoffs remarks]. They are very much SIGCOV that is suitable for the lead, perhaps more so than your usual run-of-the-mill sales announcement. It is absolutely ok to say positive things about it and include it in the lead (1.5 million player engagement/the most successful EA single-player game on Steam), but having positive things about it is not a reason to skip negative things (especially when the negative part is just as significant). OceanHok (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is misleading because Anthem is a live service game that stopped service, and because Mass Effect was put on hiatus. I'd also argue that it should probably be removed from Mass Effect: Andromeda as there are slight WP:SYNTH issues. That said Dragon Age is not on hiatus nor was Dragon Age: The Veilguard taken offline. Good Articles for games more similar to Veilguard have been offered, and none of them include publisher expectations in the lead despite them all missing expectations and having the same news coverage. Super Mario Sunshine, Tomb Raider (2013 video game), Resident Evil 7, Halo etc. BMWF (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The lead is meant as a summary of the body. Since the sales section of Veilguard is pretty long, this information should also be present in the lead. The examples you mentioned don't make much sense. The games were mayor successes and are described as such in their respective articles (Tomb Raider: "The game sold over 14.5 million units worldwide by October 2021, making it the best-selling Tomb Raider title to date."; Resident Evil 7: "By November 2024, the game sold 14 million units."; Mario Sunshine: "The game sold over five million copies worldwide by 2006, making it one of the best-selling GameCube games.") 61.8.152.153 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If Anthem sold 2 million copies in a week and still prompt EA to abandon it and declare it a disappointment, what does it tell us about Veilguard (1.5 million in 3 months)? FYI Anthem is not taken offline. Feel free to remove it when EA said Veilguard sold 14 million copies and declared it the best-selling Dragon Age game in 2027, because by then initial slow sales will not have mattered as much. Crysis 3, Titanfall 2, Syndicate (2012) are all counterexamples (all acclaimed AAA single-player games from EA, also sequels, also missed expectations, two of them didn't kill the franchise in question, all of them are still playable, all of them has no follow-up sales figure). Do you still not understand at this point why WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is terrible? OceanHok (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with this. The status quo is short, neutral, and respects a global perspective. If Veilguard does better in the future, we can easily adjust the lead information. We should probably focus on taking a closer look at the commentary that followed the publisher information, though. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Wyll Ravengard}}: While I am pleased that you have turned the clock back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard&curid=64676774&diff=1291030057&oldid=1290987763 my preferred version] of the article, I disagree that reversion was the method to achieve that. The status quo should have ruled until consensus was reached. There I was going to make a structured post outlining my case for these changes, but from my POV that's no longer necessary. Far more likely is that your reversion has reduced the prospect of productive conversation and made any editors who oppose these changes unhappy.

More broadly, there are 2 recently created accounts with Dragon Age usernames and less than 30 edits involved in the dispute. This isn't something I've come across in my years of editing. An increase to EC500 protection might be useful to avoid single-purpose accounts (although this probably just delays, rather than solves, the problem given the persistence of this issue over many months). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:My name is from Baldur's Gate. I don't think people should be prevented from contributing, really, the problem with these articles is that there aren't enough contributors so it's easy for them to become slanted to one direction. The more people who edit the article the more balanced it will be. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::The page literally stated that {{xt|Reverting to the stable version returns the article to neutral ground, and thus may help de-escalate a situation better than protecting one party's preferred version would}}. At this point, it is quite apparent that (at the very least) BMWF, Wyll Ravengard are uninterested in de-escalation and would rather, force their way to keep their version of the article in a disruptive manner, going against a consensus, decades of common practice, and advice from experienced editors. From reverting before participating in the this particular discussion (Wyll), to accusing random IP editors as socks of other editors (BMWF), to actually opening a bad faith sockpuppet investigation on an experienced editor (NutmegCoffeeTea), the behaviors of you three have been ridiculous and unacceptable. OceanHok (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::How about actually reverting then instead of only talking about it? Maybe Callanecc also wants to do something about this considering they were responsible for the two page protections. {{ping|Callanecc}} This is the last stable version: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard&oldid=1287074536 LINK] 61.8.155.217 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Edit warring from both sides is not encouraged and does not solve the content problem. OceanHok (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@OceanHok For transparency, I invited Callanecc yesterday to provide some input on this topic. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Forcing your preferred reversion back—on the same day full protection is lifted on an article designated a controversial topic—is not how consensus is reached. It is how conflict escalates. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• While the stable version may be restored doesn't mean it will or should. Consistent with the protection policy, unless there is policy or gaming issue with the protected version, I generally won't revert to a different version. Given that the edit war has started again I've reapplied full protection. I want to make it very clear that if anyone continues edit warring after this full protection expires without a consensus they should expect to be blocked. I'd also point out that making accusations about other editors without evidence is a personal attack and will result in warnings and blocks. If you believe another editor is editing inappropriately you should report that behaviour, with evidence, at the appropriate venue which is not an article talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Possibly the worst admin decision ever on this site. Now we're stuck with a vandalized version for a month that a bunch of single-purpose accounts put in. Next time just don't get involved at all. 61.8.155.253 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::No you're not. Establish a consensus in favour of the other version then request that change or removal of the full protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::How many people have said the article should be reverted to the last stable version? Was it 6 or 7? Have you fully read this discussion? 61.8.155.253 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::While I disagree with BWMF and DAFanMirwoofen's edits, no actual vandalism has taken place here. They're just edits you disagree with, which isn't the same thing. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Censorship / mass removal of content that an editor doesn't like to read, from the lead, is a form of vandalism 61.8.155.253 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::An important rule of this site is to take edits in good faith, and your attitude here isn't helping, even if I agree that the additions should be restored. I disagree with the additions they made, but I'm taking them in good faith since I have no reason to think otherwise. Again, you asked for more edit-warring to happen, which is not in keeping with this site's culture. Better to lock it and keep it here than go through yet more back-and-forth edits. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: If you think this is "the worst admin decision ever on this site", you have not used this site for very long or very widely. Please do not use my language to attack an administrator's decision; your comment above advocated for more edit warring. Protecting the page to force editors to reach consensus is a valid outcome because an administrator is not going to de facto rule which content is preferred when they are both essentially compliant with policy. While I prefer the current version, I wrote a fair amount of the content you want restored. This is a very, very petty dispute from all sides. I suspect that's why nobody is bothering with an RFC—nobody cares enough to do anything but moan on Talk and revert. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It definitely is a valid method to lock the article down longterm and have a discussion, but only after the longstanding version is restored. 61.8.155.253 (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::: This is only important if there are egregious policy violations. There are not. Censorship is the wholesale removal of information. Fortunately, if a reader wants to read commercial context or how the gameplay compared to Inquisiton{{'s}}, they can still find that in the article. You are free to make a start a discussion about {{noping|Callanecc}}'s action, but it will waste some of your precious time on Earth. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe I will start a RfC somewhere down the line. A vibe check has already been done at WT:VG about the issue in general, and we still have an ongoing RfC at Talk:Forspoken on essentially the same issue on an individual article. Once these discussions are closed/archived, we will more or less have a pretty clear idea on where this should go. OceanHok (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:: For any RFC, I’d recommend providing a list of options (solicited from editors on this Talk) rather than a simple Yes/No question. The WT:VG showed light consensus that it’s fine to include commercial context but universally acknowledged complexity over the way it’s presented (FWIW, I wrote the sentence that was removed via Wyll’s revert). IMO, we can definitely improve on my last attempt given the complexity Shooter highlighted (i.e., directly address the source of conflict). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Feel free to come up with any alternative wordings that will satisfy both side. They are demanding complete removal of any negative information about their sales though, so reaching a middle ground between 100% inclusion and 100% exclusion will be difficult. Anyway, the WTVG discussion seems to suggest we should decide on a case-by-case basis (an expected, sensible conclusion which has always been our practice, one that didn't need a discussion until now), and the RfC is probably about building that case from both sides. Other than that, I think we can reach a consensus on other parts fairly quickly. OceanHok (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not 100% inclusion or 100% exclusion. One side wants to put negative clickbait in the first paragraph (on games famous for being targeted by the Gamergate mob) while the other side is still fine with it at the right place in the article. I could understand if some people wanted it out entirely and I'd be against that. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is your point of view, and I wish you and some others would understand that. It is honestly more like this: One side wants to remove sales information from the lead because they oppose some unfavorable points about the game, while the other side is fine with presenting the article in a neutral way (regardless of whether something is seen as positive or negative). I would fully support your stance if unreliable (or "clickbaity") sources were used, but that is not the case here. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is your point of view and it's not an accurate one, which is obvious based on the games Gamergate is angry about. Publisher comments out of context are very clickbaity. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Commercial context that is unambiguously due in the lead is one thing, such as accolades or important thresholds, but I didn't see any consensus on mostly meaningless publisher comments from quarterly earnings calls. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You do realize that YOU are the one who suggest {{xt|The answer is frankly it depends on the article and the respective situations}} at WT:VG? If you want to defeat the argument you made just several days ago, be my guest. OceanHok (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Which is entirely consistent with my comment above, because it's an example of it. I will direct you to WP:CIVIL. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

What I would like to know is why the parts {{tq|Veilguard foregoes Inquisition's open world in favour of discrete levels accessed via fast travel. Likewise, tactical elements were deprioritized over a new combat system emphasizing combo abilities}} was changed to {{tq|Veilguard foregoes Inquisition's open world in favour of discrete levels accessed via fast travel and emphasizes a new combo ability system.}} {{ping|DAFanMirwoofen}} Since you made this edit, what was the thought process behind that? What exactly is a combo ability system? It only makes any sense in the context of a combat system, so why would anyone cut that part out?61.8.155.218 (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wrote the first part you quoted, so the context I can add is that I swiped the format (of comparing against the previous game) from Dragon Age: Inquisition. Reviewers generally cited combat as the largest change between instalments, and I knew any discussion of the RPG elements would be controversial, so I decided to keep it limited to traversal and combat. I could get behind an argument for changing “deprioritized” to something else.

:I don’t believe discussing via this method of @‘ing users to ask what they were thinking can be productive or lead to bulletproof consensus, and we should wait until the RFC to discuss in more detail. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I only plan on doing an RfC on the part about EA's expectations though. I think we can sort the rest out quickly. I believe the new change to gameplay in the lead is more concise, because readers shouldn't really need to know Inquisition that much to understand this game. I will probably support getting rid of the subheadings entirely, or reduce it to two. We don't need staff turnover as a section, because it is unclear what each of them actually do. The current topic sentence is sufficient. It is worth noting that ME team helped, Darrah (who is the face of the franchise) briefly left BioWare, and the pre-release layoffs and lawsuits. Post-release turnover is something for the BioWare article, because firing people after a project is completed is common. Maybe it is something for the sales section if RS made that correlations, but I will genuinely keep them short. OceanHok (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with basically everything you propose, but the warring has been so persistent – and so many new accounts kept appearing during the dispute – that I’ve basically lost faith in this Talk’s ability to determine consensus. I think, at the very least, each proposed change should be a separate edit request that can be discussed, reviewed by an admin, and implemented by them. That’s the only way this sticks and sanctions can be fairly applied for breaches in future. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This approach looks fine to me. I have no objections. I think I recall some RS linking the post-release layoffs directly to the game's performance, but I would need to research that again. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: For a controversial topic, I can't get on board with "We await that user's response to the hostile IP who just attacked an admin" being the correct approach for resolving a content dispute. The "What could you possibly be thinking?" ABF subtext is barely sub; it's virtually text. Much prefer Sariel's approach below.— ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{u|OceanHok}} & {{u|Vestigium Leonis}}: If I were that user, I wouldn't respond to the IP (for the reasons I outlined above). In that case, if "this" was the approach you decided was appropriate, no further discussion would take place. At the point of the article's protection disappearing, in 30 days, if your next step would be revert back to the version of the article you prefer... we're in exactly the same boat. Article gets locked again because consensus never developed. This is why {{noping|Callanecc}} protected the article: to force consensus gathering. So let's discuss, folks—the disputed content can't really be edited again without it being an extension of the same edit war (+30 days).

:::: If no one has started the conversation in a few days as Sariel has, I'll do it, but it'll take me a few days due to my availability. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I just considered this as exchange on what to do next - Sariel's approach followed after my comment. Structuring this into subheadings is something I would support as well, though. With "Headings" already initiated, maybe something like "Lead: Gameplay adjustments" and do the same approach (A new, B old)? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::The last RfC was never closed so just added a closure request. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is also an option to try & generate consensus; the structure of it should prevent some of the bludgeoning aspects that seem prevalent here, however, the process can take a while & it only works if the editors involved in the dispute join the discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::: It's a bit tough to understand what's being contested in that thread, if I'm being honest. I'll do my best to participate in ongoing discussions from now on, but not likely to return to an archived/inactive RFC that's a few months old now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think even if they decide to close it as "no consensus" that helps establish the current state of things and then those ideas could be revisited in smaller & better worded chunks. I had never organized a RfC before that one and definitely learned a lot about the process as a result... Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750770070}}

{{rfc|media|rfcid=F7606A5}}

This RfC concerns subsection headings.

;3.1 Early development and challenges

{{Ordered list |type=upper-alpha

|Early development and challenges

|Early development

|2015–2017

|Eliminate the heading entirely & start the {{xt|3. Development}} section without an immediate subheading

}}

;3.3 Staff turnover and completion

{{Ordered list |type=upper-alpha

|Staff turnover and completion

|Completion and release

|Staff turnover and release

|Staff changes and completion

|Staff changes and release

|Staff changes and post-release

}}

Breaking this off into a chunk to generate heading ideas; feel free to update above with suggestions. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this but if not, I assume we'll be able to eliminate a few options & figure out how to structure a more formal discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3.1 {{strikethrough|A or D}} A, C or D - I'm not seeing the issues with the word "challenges"; Project Joplin's development was challenging & then it was cancelled so let's call a spade a spade but we also don't need to start a section with a subheading at all so removing it could work.

: Option 3.3 {{strikethrough|A or C-E}} A or C-F - It's a section almost entirely on staffing (15 out of 18 sentences are about staff changes) so the heading should include the subject. I don't think "turnover" is unneutral (again spade a spade) but would support swapping it with "changes" if people felt that was a more neutral word. I don't have a preference between "Completion" & "Release" besides not making that the only thing in the heading (if it is only 2/18 sentences then it shouldn't be the sole heading subject). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Updated to include additional options based on ImaginesTigers argument below. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Heading 3.1: Option B or C — This section has 200 words. I can understand why using two separate clauses to define this period would concern some readers / editors. Being descriptive and communicating purely a chronological timeline is the frictionless path. Anthem had a (thoroughly reported) nightmare development cycle, and even then it didn't warrant "challenges". We have quite a lot less information on Veilguard{{'s}} early development. While I understand {{noping|Sariel Xilo}}'s point about calling a spade a spade, the section is already so short that I'd suggest, "let's not put a hat on a hat" (esp. on a controversial topic).

: Heading 3.3: Option F or E — I concur that these headings are required, but "turnover" is a loaded word to use. I use "turnover" as part of my job in its classical definition—i.e., rate of natural attrition [and subsequent replacement] of a workforce. It is inappropriate to classify forced terminations (and a resulting lawsuit) as part of "turnover". Regarding "release", I feel less strongly about this, but there is only a passing mention of the release in this paragraph—{{tq|With the game's release}}—so "Post-release" is more aligned to the content (i.e., "We are not releasing more content"; "More staff have been let go"; "The restructure is a permanent change"). "Turnover" feels morose and "release" seems wrong. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Heading 3.1: D or A - I would assume that the reader understands the section starts with the early phase of development. However, if I'm alone in this thought, option A is fine as well. "Early Development" alone feels a bit too general, and using "2015-2017" seems out of place, especially if it's the only time we use years as a subheading.

• Heading 3.3: F - I don’t have a strong opinion on this overall, but staff changes should be mentioned in the subheading, as Sariel pointed out. To avoid ending up with a fourth one down the line (post-release), I prefer option F overall.Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion. Subheadings generally help with organization. For 3.1, I'd say "not C". For 3.3, I'd pick an option that says "completion" (I guess A or D), since we usually reserve the "release" heading for information about ports and regions and eventual re-releases. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750784473}}

{{rfc|media|rfcid=7AB371B}}

This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead, starting with the sales information.

;Sales information

{{Ordered list |type=upper-alpha

|Do not include Veilguard{{'s}} commercial performance

|Include unit sales only; e.g., {{tq|By year-end 2024, Electronics Art said the game had reached 1.5 million players}}.

|Include commercial performance in relation to publisher's expectation only; e.g., {{tq|According to Electronic Arts, the game missed their commercial expectations by around 50%.}}

|Include unit sales and publisher expectations; e.g., {{tq|Veilguard reached 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, missing EA's expectations by nearly 50%.}}

|Include unit sales, publisher expectations, and performance against previous EA releases; e.g., {{tq|Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations}}.

|Other; provide proposed content alongside your vote.

}}

— ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• E - All three points were reported on directly by third party reliable sources. All points should be present to give the most accurate overview of the situation. There's no reason all three couldn't be summarized pretty concisely like this either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• E: It has a neutral statement (1.5 million players), a positive fact (surpassing other EA's single-player game), and a negative fact (missing EA's expectations), both of which give sufficient context to understand that number. All of them are supported by RS (no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH). You cannot possibly be more neutral than this (no WP:NPOV issue by giving WP:DUE weight to both sides of the picture). It is still short enough to give a general picture for the game's sales (a good, WP:PRECISE WP:LEAD summary). Given that the game's underperformance received significant RS discussion concerning the future of the franchise and the future of EA's single-player games,[https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/is-this-the-end-of-dragon-age-veilguard-was-good-but-bioware-needed-an-all-timer-and-im-nervous-about-whats-next/][https://www.polygon.com/analysis/520290/dragon-age-the-veilguard-sales-ea-bioware-layoffs][https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/former-dragon-age-developers-are-not-happy-with-ea-ceos-suggestion-that-the-veilguard-should-have-live-service-features-id-probably-quit/], it should be remarked in the lead paragraphs in some capacity. I don't think it is accurate to say it "outsold" other single-player EA games since when we only have Steam data. Maybe just say it has the biggest launch for a EA single-player game on Steam. OceanHok (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• E for the reasons outlined by the others above. I concur with {{noping|OceanHok}} "outsold" was not the right word, and I've updated it to "outperformed". We can always refine further if consensus develops for this option, either on the Talk or via BRD. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Most of this is based on estimates so the term commercial performance is probably incorrect. I vote B or A. Normally I would consider E which is an improvement, but after reviewing around 200 major game articles and almost none of them put publisher expectations in the lead even though a majority of them missed expectations with RS coverage (like Life Is Strange: Double Exposure which is one of my favorite games) which tells me that the nuances of publisher expectations are generally not DUE in lead. Many games, like Metro Awakening don't only not mention it in the lead, but they don't even put it in the article at all. This leads me to believe the importance is being enlarged here in a way that suggests that [https://www.thegamer.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-bomb-woke-metacritic/ Veilguard is being singled out]. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :As the user who wrote the disputed text (represented above as option D), I very much resent the baseless accusation. If your sense of a game being “singled out” is one wherein I vote for an option calling the subject successful, I pray the world will someday also be so charmed. It’s entirely appropriate include a product’s commercial performance in the lead if reliably sourced—it is much rarer to see such an inclusion disputed (for example, it has never been disputed on the previous game’s entry). When faced with the dispute, adding some positive context seems like a fair compromise that will only upset extreme positions (i.e, summarise only negative information or include no information). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :None of those examples are GA/FA, or any sort or reviewed, so its not clear to me why they would particularly be a standard to aspire to here. Its unfortunate that the game was review bombed by people off-wiki, but that really has nothing to do with writing the WP:LEAD of this article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option E followed by F: OceanHok outlines above why E is balanced, precise, & follows NPOV. There are other parts in the lead pulled from the Reception subsections (a good summary of the Accolades and a non-specific sentence on the Critical Reception) & E is the best at summarizing the Sales subsection. I mention F because I think the only thing missing from a MOS:LEADPROPORTION perspective is a similar sentence for the Critical Reception (assuming E is implemented). It currently states "{{xt|The game received generally positive reviews from critics}}" – a previous (and debated iteration) was more robust: "{{xt|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}}". Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• E: The most balanced option for me. I agree with Sergecross73's and OceanHok's points and have not much more to add to that. Side note: We might need to split "Vote" and "Discussion" into separate categories, but for now it's fine. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• B followed by A per Wyll Ravengard. "Missed expectations" is nearly meaningless. Shareholder expectations of quarterly revenue growth are far removed from commercial success because publishers often expect a 10x return on investment, so this doesn't provide value to readers and is WP:UNDUE. Acceptable for the Sales section though. Recently, these sort of attempts to put opaque investor's call comments into leads has been isolated to games targeted by Gamergate which is a problem in itself. See Resident Evil 7 which is a GA and, similar to Veilguard, missed expectations with similar source coverage but does not put publisher expectations in the lead. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Resident Evil 7 has sold 14M units, making it the 2nd highest selling Resident Evil game (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1241675/resident-evil-top-selling-games-units-sold/) and one of the highest selling games of all time. 61.8.155.233 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I can't understand how the creator's own thoughts on how well it's product achieved their own goals is somehow UNDUE. It's the entire purpose of the creation of their product. They're a business, that's what they do. It can affect whether further entries in the series are greenlit or not. It can change the trajectory of the company's product, or even ability to function as a company. This was a major project in the company's history, and they weren't happy with how it went. That's important. I don't understand the personal opinion that this is "nearly meaningless". Comments like this show a complete lack of understanding of how the modern business world works. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• : One way to paraphrase this comment might be, Isn't it strange that we don't include the publisher saying 3.5 million sales was bad in April 2017, and instead we instead say it had sold 14 million units by November 2024?. If Veilguard sells 15 million copies, I will advocate for removing the publisher comment from the lead... because it would be synthesis to say it disappointed them with 15 million units sold. If something is undue, you need to prove it: you can't just point at another article and say "Well this doesn't do X". And as Serge notes above, there's nothing undue about it; the argument that only works if you ABF. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• B - The only scenario where publisher estimates are due for the lead is when the comments are tied to some sort of special notability, but in Veilguard's case they are not. Good Articles for games more similar to Veilguard have been offered, and none of them include publisher expectations in the lead despite them all missing expectations like Veilguard and having the same news coverage.

:Super Mario Sunshine - According to reliable sources, A year after the game's release, CEO Satoru Iwata said sales did not live up to expectations. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Good Article):

:{{Blockquote |text=Super Mario Sunshine received critical acclaim, with reviewers praising the game's graphics, gameplay, story, soundtrack, and the addition of F.L.U.D.D. as a mechanic. The game sold over five million copies worldwide by 2006, making it one of the best-selling GameCube games. The game was re-released as a part of the Player's Choice brand in 2003. It was re-released alongside Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy in the Super Mario 3D All-Stars collection for the Nintendo Switch in 2020. The game is set to be re-released for Nintendo Switch 2 as part of the Nintendo Classics service on Nintendo Switch Online }}

:Tomb Raider - According to reliable sources, Square Enix released a detailed explanation of its "shocking" financial performance today, Tomb Raider has sold 3.4 million copies, failed to hit expectations, and was short of the company's minimum forecast by a significant amount. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Good Article):

:{{Blockquote |text=Tomb Raider received critical acclaim, with praise for the graphics, gameplay, Luddington's performance as Lara, and Lara's characterization and development, although the addition of a multiplayer mode was not well received. The game sold over 14.5 million units worldwide by October 2021, making it the best-selling Tomb Raider title to date. A remastered version, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, was released for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in January 2014 and for Windows in April 2024, containing improved graphics, new control features, and downloadable content. A sequel, Rise of the Tomb Raider, was released in November 2015 and a third installment, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, was released in September 2018. }}

:Resident Evil 7 - According to reliable sources, Resident Evil 7: Biohazard has failed to meet the sales expectations of publisher Capcom, the firm's latest financial report has revealed. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Good Article):

:{{Blockquote |text=The game received generally favorable reviews and was considered a return to form for the series; critics praised the visuals, gameplay, story, innovation, and uses of virtual reality, but the boss battles and final chapter drew some criticism. By November 2024, the game had sold 14 million units.[1] It was nominated for several end-of-year accolades. A sequel, Resident Evil Village, was released on May 7, 2021. }}

:Halo - According to reliable sources, Halo underperformed and had an insanely long tail sales rate below Bungie's expectations. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Featured Article):

:{{Blockquote |text=More than six million copies had been sold worldwide by November 2005. A remaster of the game, Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, was released for Xbox 360 by 343 Industries on the 10th anniversary of the original game's launch. Anniversary was re-released alongside the original competitive multiplayer as part of Halo: The Master Chief Collection in 2014. }}

:There are many more. Conclusion: We aren't being evenhanded here and none of us would even be having this discussion (which is a pretty big waste of time) if Veilguard wasn't involved in GamerGate ([https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/11/25/gamergate-backlash-diverse-industry/ context]). Why? Because it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. It would be a brief mention in the sales section, which is fine and roughly the weight it deserves as investor expectations don't represent actual sales performance or provide useful information to readers. Only on games that are politicized do we see warring to insert this kind of undue commentary into the first sentence or the opening paragraphs. BMWF (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:: This argument only works if you assume bad faith: we cannot oppose the inclusion of content because you doubt the motivations of editors. I wrote option D, and some of my featured content is a frequent target for anti-"woke" nonsense. I agree that GamerGate is causing this argument, but it's not because of GamerGaters (who are, for the most part, quite easily slapped down): you are being paranoid and guessing as to why others have written content. Nobody here is trying to remove that the game won an LGBT+ representation award from the lead (we provide a list of the game's awards!). The majority of votes so far prefer an option emphasising the game's success compared to previous releases. Your argument here is basically "it's UNDUE because OTHERSTUFF and my mind-reading powers". When someone argues that content is UNDUE, they are saying a small, irrelevant view is being given precedence—in what world is the publisher's commentary on the game's performance an irrelevant view? It isn't, so you aren't arguing on the basis of DUE—you're just casting aspersions on the motivations of other editors and citing content we didn't work on as proof. It's a total non-starter. If you respond, we may be required, as someone suggested before, to split Discussion up from Votes. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::2 of your examples, [https://venturebeat.com/games/tomb-raider-meets-square-enixs-lofty-sales-expectations-after-all/ TR2013] and [https://www.pcgamer.com/resident-evil-7-hits-capcoms-4-million-sales-target/ Resi 7], don't work because they ultimately met expectations. If DA Veilguard met expectations several years later, we can remove it. I brought 13 video game articles that directly mention they failed their publisher's expectation in the lead to GA (with Alpha Protocol, Bulletstorm, Ryse: Son of Rome, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist being examples). The game being review bombed/dragged in cultural war has nothing to do with this particular dispute. This so-called "observation" that editors involved are pushing a pro-Gamergate POV is blatant nonsense. If you really believe this, I recommend you report to WP:ANI with evidence. OceanHok (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Resident Evil 7 never met its publisher's expectations. It hit all of its targets extremely late which from the publisher's perspective is failure. These have the same situation as Veilguard in respect to not meeting their publisher's expectations, and none of them mention it in the lead. >99% of games do not, despite it being a pretty common thing, because it's not useful information unless you are a stock investor curious about a temporary stock price fluctuation, nor is it linked to actual commercial performance. Maybe due for a mention in the body is not the same as due for the lead. BMWF (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• B per BMWF. It's unclear to me why this must be in the lead for in particular this game when it's misleading and isn't a common practice. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• E - giving the full picture is the only thing that makes sense here. Only saying it "reached" 1.5 m players (what does that even mean, is it the same as sales?) but not whether it was a success or not is like stating a film's box office numbers but not its production budget. How someone would ever advocate for that is beyond me. Even not stating sales info at all would be better than that 2A00:FBC:EEE0:76E3:0:0:0:2 (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• B - This is closest to how this is typically handled. Most games miss publisher expectations and don't place in lead. 125.236.190.108 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I don't feel strongly, but I'd lean "A or B", and definitely "not C or D". There isn't a clear data point here, and we shouldn't privilege one over the other. It did do better than other single player games for BioWare and for EA. EA did make comments during a shareholder call that also included other titles from the same quarter. Option E isn't bad, but even that starts to go down a slippery slope of how much context is needed to really understand what's going on. I would rather say less, and direct readers to the body. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• B Some type of sales metric is always appropriate for the lede. However, unless there were clear effects on the publisher, developer or the like (eg to take the case of Concord, the developer was shuttered a few weeks after the game was shut down), or the other way, a significant positive event like for Monster Hunter World, then there's no need to go into the publisher's take on how well it did. Masem (t) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• E - When we have all this information, we should put it in the lead. That we haven't some existing good/featured articles is a problem with those articles. The facts of the matter can be summarised very succinctly, and contextualise the raw numbers. 1 million would be a big number for an indie title, but not so much for AAA. Publishers are the ones who fund these works, and if it is a failure in their eyes, it is as important to note their opinion as well as outsider (critics etc) opinion. While we may see publisher expectation as completely unrealistic, publishers have a legal duty to accurately report their financials. - hahnchen 20:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a need to clarify a few things, since quite a lot of editors are choosing that "A/B" option:

• I think some of the editors do not understand that video games are a product/software whose sole purpose was to make money. The game missed EA (the company)'s expectations. Its shareholders/investors merely reacted to this news, and we are NOT documenting whatever happens to EA's spreadsheets, guidance, or stock price. Info from an investor call is relevant for the "general public" if they capture the attention of the press (RS coverage). Also, a game missing sales expectation is 100% linked to actual commercial performance. Each game comes with its own situation/baggage. An indie game selling 4 million copies may be a big success but GTA 6 selling the same will be a total disaster. You cannot form a full picture of a game's "actual commercial performance" if you do not account for the perspective of its creators who have exclusive access to a game's sales data in relation to its budget/marketing cost and data on industry trends.

• OTHERSTUFF is comparing apples to oranges most of the time. Other articles don't have it because (1) they sold well (2) publisher did not share sales info (3) initial negative sentiment lost their significance over time because they sold well enough eventually. While the lead paragraph often have flexible wordings, it is a common practice to add publisher's commentary to lead paragraph (their significance is explained by the first asterisk, and it was evidenced by multiple existing GAs/FAs), so the opposing side is essentially arguing for changing the status quo or asking for an exception here. Both require compelling policy-based arguments, perhaps more than is typically needed. Their interpretation of undue is questionable at best.

• The only consistent thing about the opposing side over the course of multiple discussions (also see here and here) is the argument/baseless accusation that editors are pushing some kind of pro-Gamergate POV. However, EA themselves blamed the game's poor sales on the lack of live service elements, rather than politics. The edit in question made no attempt to link the game's poor performance to politics, so all the culture war stuff is entirely irrelevant, and I strongly urge all of you to stop bringing it up unless you have evidence.

Editors need to attempt to find a middle ground to find a consensus. ImaginesTigers wrote option E, which included both positive and negative information in a single statement. Editors agreed to review the relevance of this statement if EA provide an update on sales in the future. I provided RS to demonstrate that EA's comment was more notable than run-of-the-mill sales announcement/investor call, as well as counter-examples that share a similar background to Veilguard. It was unfortunate that all of them are ignored by the opposing editors, who are keen on regurgitating the same set of OTHERSTUFF that do not remotely share the same situation as here. OceanHok (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

: FWIW, most of the people opposing including the content are using varied but weak arguments, ranging from "seems sus" (assumes bad faith), "it's not on THIS article" (it's clearly on several) and "this information from the publisher is bad info" (we don't judge what info from RS is "meaningless"). When every editor opposing inclusion has a different reason, but experienced editors in favour agree it's compliant, I don't there's too much to worry about. This is all very silly culture war shenanigans, and therefore attracting a lot of IPs or accounts with <20 edits whose primary contributions to the project are deleting sentences they don't like. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead's first paragraph:

;Previous game comparison

{{Ordered list |type=upper-alpha

|No comparison; e.g., {{tq|The player character is controlled from a third-perspective perspective, uses discrete levels accesses by fast travel and combat includes a combo ability systems.}}

|Comparison of traversal or combat only

|Comparison of traversal and combat to previous game; e.g., {{tq|Like its predecessor, the player character is controlled from a third-person perspective, but Veilguard foregoes Inquisition's open world in favour of discrete levels accessed via fast travel. Likewise, tactical elements were deprioritized over a new combat system emphasizing combo abilities.}}

}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImaginesTigers (talk • contribs) 12:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• A or B. A minimal amount of comparisons can help, though it shouldn't be written from the perspective of another game. "{{tq|Likewise, tactical elements were deprioritized}}" is a bit strange. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• C - its a bit hard for me to pick 1 of the 3 options above, but generally speaking, I believe its fine to discuss both, but that it should be kept pretty brief. Sometimes editors get carried away extended tangents and it starts to sound like a compare/contrast essay, and we don't want that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• C, with the disclaimer that I wrote that version as it existed on the article for the past half-year. I based it almost exclusively on the first paragraph of Dragon Age: Inquisition (a Good article). Agree with {{noping|NutmegCoffeeTea}} that "deprioritized" isn't the best word, so would support a tweak to that. I think removing all comparison with the previous game is a straight downgrade/less useful to readers, though. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option C - Highlighting how games in a series change is pretty standard and it contextualizes the description of gameplay. If there are concerns about the exact phrasing of the second sentence ("{{xt|deprioritized}}"), maybe something like this would work (pulled parts from the Gameplay section directly): {{xt|Instead of the tactical strategy approach of earlier Dragon Age titles, Veilguard has a new real-time action-based combat system which emphasizes combo abilities.}} Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I like this suggestion and it dovetails nicely with Masem’s suggestion of utilising content from the main body. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• A - Simple and to the point. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• C - the combat system was changed dramatically compared to previous entries in the series and readers should be informed of that. There's no need to save space here 2A00:FBC:EEE0:76E3:0:0:0:2 (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• A - Or the other option without the last line. 125.236.190.108 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• A - save the comparative stuff for any summary of the game's development. Initially, just describe how the game is. Less is clearer. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• A but can lean C - For C to be better supported, there should be discussion from either a development statement or reception to explain why this change was done or how this was received by critics. To use a similar example Monster Hunter World's lede discussed the transition from zones to open world, which is discussed why they did that in the development section within the body. If it is just a comment on a gameplay change without showing a why or how it was taken, it feels close to OR in the lede. Masem (t) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• I think it is worth comparing Veilguard to Inquisition when discussing the game's structure (linear vs. open world). I don't think we need to compare combat to Inquisition or other DA games because Inquisition itself is not very tactical, and Dragon Age II is a very straightforward action game. The franchise has never been consistent in terms of gameplay. OceanHok (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)