Update to "Critical Reaction" Part?

Hi, this is my first and likely last post on English Wikipedia but I have to ask - does the Critial Reception part of the Article not warrant an update? It includes 5 paragraphs of text about different mainstream outlets praising the game and only one incorrect line mentioning the Steam score (it is not "Mostly Positive" at the moment - it is sitting firmly on "Mixed") that represents the view of actual players. There is also no mention of most reviewers on Youtube having generaly negative or decidedly mixed view of the game. For example Skill Ups review sitting at 2.6 million views[1] or Angry Joe's at 2.1 million[2] Skill Up's reviews are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles but here it's missing despite the media attention it garnered for the"Veilguard feels as though it was written with HR in the room” line quoted in multiple articles including Kotaku.[3][4]

Overall I strongly feel like this article is misrepresenting the overall sentiment of the game's reception both short and long-term and more than a year after it's release I would sincerelly hope someone more qualified than me can give it a cold analytical look and decide if 5 pargraphs of praise really reflects the game's reception and legacy in the global zeitgeist.

I'm a firm believer that Wikipedia is one of the greatest human achievements and I find most of the site to be very informative and true. But this article just stands out blatantly as incredibly biased and untruthful claiming one of the most devisive Bioware games was "recieved with overwhelming positivity."Especially more than a year after it's release.~2025-35882-53 (talk)18:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The whole thing feels like it was written by a Reddit user pretending that this game wasn't a colossal financial failure of about $200 million, which also lead to much of the staff getting fired from their job as a result of the negative reception, and very likely ending the Dragon Age franchise for good. I couldn't believe what I read on the wiki entry and looked at the Talk page to see if anyone said anything about it - and you did. Hopefully somebody will erase this bias drivel and write the actual response to this game. What a joke.~2026-13518-7 (talk)11:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the debate surrounding this game has already happened, you can check the archive pages to see what debates we've already had and go from there.Harryhenry1 (talk)07:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Youtubers generally aren't used as sources for reviews unless a reliable source mentions them, no matter how many views they have.Harryhenry1 (talk)07:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]