DAO was very inclusive. It went as far as implementing implicit bias in NPCs. It allowed you to experience racism the way itâs experienced usually. Which sometimes led to wondering whether or not an NPC hated your elf for being an elf, or just hated everybody. Where a kid, not knowing better asks if youâre really an elf. And explains that his dad said that elves were mean, but your character was nicer than anyone in the refugee camp. Context behind it is that the boy belonged to a family of farmers and may have run into hostile Dalish elves. Or simply bigotry. You never get to know.
It was no stranger to sexism either, and gave a fascinating perspective from female characters who took advantage of it. Both Morrigan and Liliana. One being aware, and the other less so. And another female companion was literally a walking rock. Who honestly didnât care about her being a woman before she became a golem. There was gender non-comformity there before and after she turned into a walking statue. Before people heard of GNC. But she did worry about if the crystals made her look fat. A good jab at feminine insecurities in a light hearted way.
It poked fun at Alistair for being an immature man. Which through experiences would change in the story. Heâd either stay the same, or learn how harsh life can be and that people look after themselves first. That no one owed him anything. He had to let go of the knightly stories, and grow up to take the lead.
It was not above describing and talking about awful treatment of women either. Not that they were all victims and life sucked, but some men in power took women they wanted for fun. As the targets were elves and therefore not protected by law enforcement either. Rape is a theme not-lightly touched up on in one of the origin stories. While also describing women fighting back and failing/winning depending on the gender of the PC.
DA Veilguard didnât fail due to incusivity. If failed to greed.
No, it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a messageâand not even a very good one.
I once played a D&D game where our party was hired to clear a camp of murderous orcs. When we arrived, the camp was nothing but women and children; the male orcs had already been slaughtered by someone else.
But because they were orcs, and because there was a stigma attached to their existence, we were still expected to kill them. Apparently, their heads were worth the same regardless of gender or age.
We were playing a game, but it still felt wrong, and everyone at the table was uncomfortable. That is how you deliver a meaningful message. Not by saying, âIâm nonbinaryââbecause, in the context of Dragon Age: The Veilguard, no one cares.
You donât just ram a message down your playersâ throats. You present it in a way that is playable and contextual to the gameâs world and lore.
The Veilguard is set in a magical world. There is no reason to have nonbinary or trans people with surgical scars when Dragon Age literally has polymorph magicâthey can change their gender whenever they want.
It makes no sense to have nonbinary people in The Veilguard!
No, it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a messageâand not even a very good one.
I see! So there was some kind of explicit order, or at least concerted effort with explicit goal, to make a game with âa messageâ. And I assume we have all the evidence to look at to see the day-to-day chain of events that led to the market failure.
No?
Seriously though, there were many reasons why DAV failed, and âhaving a Messageâ was not even in the top 100. Every piece of media has a message.
It makes no sense to have nonbinary people in The Veilguard!
âŠThis is literally just the âhistorical accuracyâ argument.
Youâre misrepresenting my point. I never claimed there was an explicit directive to prioritize âa messageâ over game qualityâI said it feels like thatâs what happened. Thatâs a critique of execution, not a conspiracy theory.
Yes, every piece of media has a message, but thereâs a difference between a theme that naturally emerges from storytelling and one that feels forced or out of place. The issue isnât that the game has a messageâitâs how it delivers it.
Claiming messaging wasnât in the âtop 100â reasons for failure is just hand-waving. You provide no evidence for that, and even if itâs not the primary reason, that doesnât mean it wasnât a factor.
Finally, comparing this to the âhistorical accuracyâ argument is a bad-faith deflection. Dragon Age isnât real history, but it does have established lore and internal consistency. When a game introduces elements that contradict its own worldbuilding, it breaks immersion. Thatâs the issue.
Youâre deflecting the real issue here. The issue isnât whether thatâs factual or just your personal feels. The issue is that youâre saying that was the definitive cause of its failure:
it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a message".
And what I was saying was, well, no, it wasnât the definitive cause. Far from it. Thereâs a lot of reasons for the gameâs failure.
Claiming messaging wasnât in the âtop 100â reasons for failure is just hand-waving. You provide no evidence for that, and even if itâs not the primary reason, that doesnât mean it wasnât a factor.
I fail to see how you refute my point by saying that. I never said it wasnât a factor, I said it was insignificant compared to bigger problems.
You know, I didnât list the reasons because I thought they would be obvious to anyone whoâs actually following whatâs going on. Buuuut how about the oversaturation of the AAA game publishing space? (People have giant backlogs of great games to play, and thereâs no end to this stuff.) Rising game prices? (Big game publishers are getting pretty greedy.) Increasing standards of quality from consumers? (Canât release a meh game these days, if people are paying $70+ for games, they have to be beyond excellent.)
Most importantly: people actually want games that were made by studios that give a damn about the end product. Bioware is just EAâs puppet, they make product chunks. In my opinion, the biggest reason DAV failed commercially because it was a game nobody was asking for, made by a developer thatâs a shadow of its former self and everyone knows that. People had scepticism, and rightfully so.
See? I didnât even get into whatâs in the game. Thatâs what I meant when I said the Message isnât even in the top 100 problems.
Finally, comparing this to the âhistorical accuracyâ argument is a bad-faith deflection.
No, perhaps I was being unclear. What I meant by that is that itâs in the same category as âhistorical accuracyâ whinging. Itâs a fictional setting, so arguing that it has to match some real world facts and logic is utterly pointless.
Dragon Age isnât real history, but it does have established lore and internal consistency. When a game introduces elements that contradict its own worldbuilding, it breaks immersion. Thatâs the issue.
So how exactly did it contradict the worldbuilding? Was it specifically established in DA lore that all nb/trans people will use polymorph magic? Iâm genuinely curious here.
Or did you mean that this particular logic doesnât make sense to you personally? Thatâs not âloreâ. Thatâs not a worldbuilding issue. Thatâs projecting your own assumptions.
Besides: Even if it was specifically earlier established in DA lore that all nb/trans characters will just use polymorph stuff, who cares? The writers are well within their rights to retcon their stuff. Worldbuilding is not dogma.
Youâre shifting the goalposts. My argument wasnât that messaging was the sole reason for failure, but that it was a major factorâone that contributed to the game feeling like a product with priorities misaligned from what players actually wanted. Saying there were âmany reasonsâ doesnât refute that.
Your claim that messaging wasnât even in the âtop 100â is still unsupported. Listing industry-wide problems like oversaturation and rising prices is fine, but none of that explains why The Veilguard failed specifically. Plenty of games thrive under these conditions. The difference? They connect with their audience. DAV didnât.
As for lore consistencyâyes, Dragon Age has established magic that lets people change their gender at will. If that exists, then the idea of medical transition (and scars from it) doesnât naturally fit within the world. Thatâs not a personal assumption; itâs a logical question based on the rules the setting has already established. If a game contradicts its own internal logic without explanation, thatâs bad writing.
And no, âretconsâ donât excuse anything. A writer can change their worldbuilding, but doing so in a way that breaks immersion, alienates players, or makes the setting feel incoherent is bad storytelling. Just because you can rewrite lore doesnât mean you shouldâespecially if it weakens the internal consistency of the world.
No, weâre having a simple disagreement over whether this was a major reason why the game failed commercially or not. Youâre the one whoâs making this complicated.
My argument wasnât that messaging was the sole reason for failure, but that it was a major factorâone that contributed to the game feeling like a product with priorities misaligned from what players actually wanted. Saying there were âmany reasonsâ doesnât refute that.
Insisting that the game having a message is the most major reason the game failed doesnât refute any of what I said either. Weâre still having a disagreement, nothing more. Youâve not proven your claim either.
Your claim that messaging wasnât even in the âtop 100â is still unsupported. Listing industry-wide problems like oversaturation and rising prices is fine, but none of that explains why The Veilguard failed specifically. Plenty of games thrive under these conditions. The difference? They connect with their audience. DAV didnât.
OK, so you continue to be the one whoâs making the extraordinary claim here, that DAV specifically failed because the game didnât connect with the message, and that it was specifically because it was the message.
There are still plenty of reasons why a game wouldnât connect with the audience, as I said. Youâve not exactly proven why and how this was the definitive reason. Thatâs the claim that needs to be proven, yet youâve not done that.
Whether or not youâre acknowledging it or not, youâre acting as if as you think the game having a message is the sole reason why the game failed commercially. You acknowledge that it was a âmajorâ reason, but then, above, youâre also specifically saying that industry-wide problems arenât affecting the gameâs situation at all. Why? Why isnât the industry downturn affecting this game specifically? Why canât we explain this gameâs failure in large part with the incompetence and greed of major publishers?
Dragon Age has established magic that lets people change their gender at will. If that exists, then the idea of medical transition (and scars from it) doesnât naturally fit within the world.
You didnât answer my question. I didnât ask if it ânaturallyâ fits the world. I asked if it was established that this is what is actually happening in the lore.
Because youâre still projecting your own assumptions on how the world should work on the work. Youâre not criticising the gameâs writing on its own merits. Youâre complaining that the game writers didnât write the game the way you wanted. In other words, this is still the âmy historical accuracy in my fantasy gameâ argument.
Besides, thereâs plenty of reason why, in a fantasy setting, you could have trans/nb characters who donât get to use polymorph magic. Cost. Class gap. Haves and have-nots. The class divide is a pretty common topic that is often explored in fantasy literature and people being denied this kind of magic treatment, for whatever reason, is a valid catalyst for a story. Itâd make an excellent fantasy plotline. But thatâs not relevant to DA specifically.
Youâre asking me to prove that the gameâs messaging and story issues were a major reason for its failure, but youâre not holding yourself to the same standard. You claim that industry-wide issues like oversaturation, pricing, and publisher greed were the real reasons, yet youâve provided no evidence that these factors impacted The Veilguard more than any other game.
The backlash against DAV wasnât primarily about price, oversaturation, or competition. The loudest complaints were about the gameâs tone, character writing, and perceived prioritization of messaging over deep storytelling. If industry trends were the dominant factor, weâd expect similar pushback against every game in this spaceânot just DAV.
The Dragon Age series once had strong audience trust, but that eroded over time, largely due to shifting priorities in writing and design. The skepticism around DAV didnât just appear out of nowhereâit was a reaction to a pattern of changes fans disliked.
If DAVâs failure was mostly about the industry downturn, weâd expect all comparable RPGs to be struggling just as much. Yet, games that focus on strong player-driven storytelling (Baldurâs Gate 3, for example) have thrived. The key difference? They gave players what they wanted.
The burden of proof goes both ways. If youâre going to claim story issues and messaging werenât significant reasons for DAVâs failure, you need to prove that too. Just pointing at industry-wide problems doesnât explain why this game failed more than others.
Youâre asking me to prove that the gameâs messaging and story issues were a major reason for its failure, but youâre not holding yourself to the same standard.
This isnât true. Iâm perfectly willing to prove my viewpoints. Youâre continuing to jump the gun here. Iâm about to explain my viewpoint, eventually. I was just hoping you would prove your viewpoints first. Weâre having a conversation online, we have all the time in the world. Everything in due time, right?
(Itâs as if youâre engaging in this kind of complaints as a stalling tactic. This conversation would go so much smoother if youâd just address the points. Furthermore, youâre repeating yourself a lot, it makes the comments hard to read. So please, address the points. Iâm cutting this down for brevity.)
The Dragon Age series once had strong audience trust, but that eroded over time, largely due to shifting priorities in writing and design.
Are you absolutely sure it had nothing to do with several key players in Bioware leaving over the years and EA quietly gutting the studio, replacing the talent and increasing their meddling? Because, as I said before, that raises the fanbaseâs eyebrows. The Bioware that made DAV simply isnât the same company that made DAO. Bioware hasnât really been independent of EAâs meddling since 2016 at least - Mass Effect Andromeda was the clearest example of what happened when EA decided to assume more direct control of the process. Fans have had every reason to be suspicious of Biowareâs output ever since. Itâs frankly a miracle Dragon Age Inquisition was anywhere near as good as it was.
Bioware doesnât exist in vacuum, theyâre not the only ones who are making decisions here.
Who exactly made the shifting writing decisions here? Can you give me concrete examples? Iâve not played DAV so itâs harder for me to compare the things.
Iâve seen EA put this same kind of ruin on a lot of studios over time. Many classic game series - including celebrated RPG series - have been ruined by EAâs meddling. What happened to Origin Systems has been happening to Bioware for over a decade now.
That is part of provable history. I would link to sources, but I suggest you read up on the history of EA and their studios (in particular Origin) on yourself - the information isnât hard to find, the ones in Wikipedia are a very good start.
If industry trends were the dominant factor, weâd expect similar pushback against every game in this spaceânot just DAV.
Just reminded me: Are you seriously saying DAV is unique in this regard? This kind of pushback is levied against a lot of games these days. Thereâs so much of this kind of cries aimed at a lot of games these days. As long as people keep making lists about âwokeâ games on Steam, I donât think DAV was a special case at all.
[Sources]
These sources appear to confirm that Dragon Age Veilguard was not as great success commercially as EA hoped. This was not part of our dispute, and I was never even claiming that DAV was a financial success story. The opposite, in fact.
These sources do not, however, appear to support your particular claims about the message being the primary reason why the game failed commercially.
Also, I see you did not respond to the more interesing questions I asked earlier, so allow me to reiterate: Was the whole polymorph magic issue ever addressed in the Dragon Age lore? And allow me to expand on that - what did you think of the narrative ideas I presented? Iâm just curious about that.
DAO was very inclusive. It went as far as implementing implicit bias in NPCs. It allowed you to experience racism the way itâs experienced usually. Which sometimes led to wondering whether or not an NPC hated your elf for being an elf, or just hated everybody. Where a kid, not knowing better asks if youâre really an elf. And explains that his dad said that elves were mean, but your character was nicer than anyone in the refugee camp. Context behind it is that the boy belonged to a family of farmers and may have run into hostile Dalish elves. Or simply bigotry. You never get to know.
It was no stranger to sexism either, and gave a fascinating perspective from female characters who took advantage of it. Both Morrigan and Liliana. One being aware, and the other less so. And another female companion was literally a walking rock. Who honestly didnât care about her being a woman before she became a golem. There was gender non-comformity there before and after she turned into a walking statue. Before people heard of GNC. But she did worry about if the crystals made her look fat. A good jab at feminine insecurities in a light hearted way.
It poked fun at Alistair for being an immature man. Which through experiences would change in the story. Heâd either stay the same, or learn how harsh life can be and that people look after themselves first. That no one owed him anything. He had to let go of the knightly stories, and grow up to take the lead.
It was not above describing and talking about awful treatment of women either. Not that they were all victims and life sucked, but some men in power took women they wanted for fun. As the targets were elves and therefore not protected by law enforcement either. Rape is a theme not-lightly touched up on in one of the origin stories. While also describing women fighting back and failing/winning depending on the gender of the PC.
DA Veilguard didnât fail due to incusivity. If failed to greed.
No, it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a messageâand not even a very good one.
I once played a D&D game where our party was hired to clear a camp of murderous orcs. When we arrived, the camp was nothing but women and children; the male orcs had already been slaughtered by someone else.
But because they were orcs, and because there was a stigma attached to their existence, we were still expected to kill them. Apparently, their heads were worth the same regardless of gender or age.
We were playing a game, but it still felt wrong, and everyone at the table was uncomfortable. That is how you deliver a meaningful message. Not by saying, âIâm nonbinaryââbecause, in the context of Dragon Age: The Veilguard, no one cares.
You donât just ram a message down your playersâ throats. You present it in a way that is playable and contextual to the gameâs world and lore.
The Veilguard is set in a magical world. There is no reason to have nonbinary or trans people with surgical scars when Dragon Age literally has polymorph magicâthey can change their gender whenever they want.
It makes no sense to have nonbinary people in The Veilguard!
I see! So there was some kind of explicit order, or at least concerted effort with explicit goal, to make a game with âa messageâ. And I assume we have all the evidence to look at to see the day-to-day chain of events that led to the market failure.
No?
Seriously though, there were many reasons why DAV failed, and âhaving a Messageâ was not even in the top 100. Every piece of media has a message.
âŠThis is literally just the âhistorical accuracyâ argument.
Youâre misrepresenting my point. I never claimed there was an explicit directive to prioritize âa messageâ over game qualityâI said it feels like thatâs what happened. Thatâs a critique of execution, not a conspiracy theory.
Yes, every piece of media has a message, but thereâs a difference between a theme that naturally emerges from storytelling and one that feels forced or out of place. The issue isnât that the game has a messageâitâs how it delivers it.
Claiming messaging wasnât in the âtop 100â reasons for failure is just hand-waving. You provide no evidence for that, and even if itâs not the primary reason, that doesnât mean it wasnât a factor.
Finally, comparing this to the âhistorical accuracyâ argument is a bad-faith deflection. Dragon Age isnât real history, but it does have established lore and internal consistency. When a game introduces elements that contradict its own worldbuilding, it breaks immersion. Thatâs the issue.
Youâre deflecting the real issue here. The issue isnât whether thatâs factual or just your personal feels. The issue is that youâre saying that was the definitive cause of its failure:
And what I was saying was, well, no, it wasnât the definitive cause. Far from it. Thereâs a lot of reasons for the gameâs failure.
I fail to see how you refute my point by saying that. I never said it wasnât a factor, I said it was insignificant compared to bigger problems.
You know, I didnât list the reasons because I thought they would be obvious to anyone whoâs actually following whatâs going on. Buuuut how about the oversaturation of the AAA game publishing space? (People have giant backlogs of great games to play, and thereâs no end to this stuff.) Rising game prices? (Big game publishers are getting pretty greedy.) Increasing standards of quality from consumers? (Canât release a meh game these days, if people are paying $70+ for games, they have to be beyond excellent.)
Most importantly: people actually want games that were made by studios that give a damn about the end product. Bioware is just EAâs puppet, they make product chunks. In my opinion, the biggest reason DAV failed commercially because it was a game nobody was asking for, made by a developer thatâs a shadow of its former self and everyone knows that. People had scepticism, and rightfully so.
See? I didnât even get into whatâs in the game. Thatâs what I meant when I said the Message isnât even in the top 100 problems.
No, perhaps I was being unclear. What I meant by that is that itâs in the same category as âhistorical accuracyâ whinging. Itâs a fictional setting, so arguing that it has to match some real world facts and logic is utterly pointless.
So how exactly did it contradict the worldbuilding? Was it specifically established in DA lore that all nb/trans people will use polymorph magic? Iâm genuinely curious here.
Or did you mean that this particular logic doesnât make sense to you personally? Thatâs not âloreâ. Thatâs not a worldbuilding issue. Thatâs projecting your own assumptions.
Besides: Even if it was specifically earlier established in DA lore that all nb/trans characters will just use polymorph stuff, who cares? The writers are well within their rights to retcon their stuff. Worldbuilding is not dogma.
Youâre shifting the goalposts. My argument wasnât that messaging was the sole reason for failure, but that it was a major factorâone that contributed to the game feeling like a product with priorities misaligned from what players actually wanted. Saying there were âmany reasonsâ doesnât refute that.
Your claim that messaging wasnât even in the âtop 100â is still unsupported. Listing industry-wide problems like oversaturation and rising prices is fine, but none of that explains why The Veilguard failed specifically. Plenty of games thrive under these conditions. The difference? They connect with their audience. DAV didnât.
As for lore consistencyâyes, Dragon Age has established magic that lets people change their gender at will. If that exists, then the idea of medical transition (and scars from it) doesnât naturally fit within the world. Thatâs not a personal assumption; itâs a logical question based on the rules the setting has already established. If a game contradicts its own internal logic without explanation, thatâs bad writing.
And no, âretconsâ donât excuse anything. A writer can change their worldbuilding, but doing so in a way that breaks immersion, alienates players, or makes the setting feel incoherent is bad storytelling. Just because you can rewrite lore doesnât mean you shouldâespecially if it weakens the internal consistency of the world.
No, weâre having a simple disagreement over whether this was a major reason why the game failed commercially or not. Youâre the one whoâs making this complicated.
Insisting that the game having a message is the most major reason the game failed doesnât refute any of what I said either. Weâre still having a disagreement, nothing more. Youâve not proven your claim either.
OK, so you continue to be the one whoâs making the extraordinary claim here, that DAV specifically failed because the game didnât connect with the message, and that it was specifically because it was the message.
There are still plenty of reasons why a game wouldnât connect with the audience, as I said. Youâve not exactly proven why and how this was the definitive reason. Thatâs the claim that needs to be proven, yet youâve not done that.
Whether or not youâre acknowledging it or not, youâre acting as if as you think the game having a message is the sole reason why the game failed commercially. You acknowledge that it was a âmajorâ reason, but then, above, youâre also specifically saying that industry-wide problems arenât affecting the gameâs situation at all. Why? Why isnât the industry downturn affecting this game specifically? Why canât we explain this gameâs failure in large part with the incompetence and greed of major publishers?
You didnât answer my question. I didnât ask if it ânaturallyâ fits the world. I asked if it was established that this is what is actually happening in the lore.
Because youâre still projecting your own assumptions on how the world should work on the work. Youâre not criticising the gameâs writing on its own merits. Youâre complaining that the game writers didnât write the game the way you wanted. In other words, this is still the âmy historical accuracy in my fantasy gameâ argument.
Besides, thereâs plenty of reason why, in a fantasy setting, you could have trans/nb characters who donât get to use polymorph magic. Cost. Class gap. Haves and have-nots. The class divide is a pretty common topic that is often explored in fantasy literature and people being denied this kind of magic treatment, for whatever reason, is a valid catalyst for a story. Itâd make an excellent fantasy plotline. But thatâs not relevant to DA specifically.
Youâre asking me to prove that the gameâs messaging and story issues were a major reason for its failure, but youâre not holding yourself to the same standard. You claim that industry-wide issues like oversaturation, pricing, and publisher greed were the real reasons, yet youâve provided no evidence that these factors impacted The Veilguard more than any other game.
The backlash against DAV wasnât primarily about price, oversaturation, or competition. The loudest complaints were about the gameâs tone, character writing, and perceived prioritization of messaging over deep storytelling. If industry trends were the dominant factor, weâd expect similar pushback against every game in this spaceânot just DAV.
The Dragon Age series once had strong audience trust, but that eroded over time, largely due to shifting priorities in writing and design. The skepticism around DAV didnât just appear out of nowhereâit was a reaction to a pattern of changes fans disliked.
If DAVâs failure was mostly about the industry downturn, weâd expect all comparable RPGs to be struggling just as much. Yet, games that focus on strong player-driven storytelling (Baldurâs Gate 3, for example) have thrived. The key difference? They gave players what they wanted.
The burden of proof goes both ways. If youâre going to claim story issues and messaging werenât significant reasons for DAVâs failure, you need to prove that too. Just pointing at industry-wide problems doesnât explain why this game failed more than others.
https://www.polygon.com/analysis/520290/dragon-age-the-veilguard-sales-ea-bioware-layoffs
https://thatparkplace.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard-sales-lower-than-reported/
https://gameworldobserver.com/2025/01/23/dragon-age-launch-sales-veilguard-vs-previous-games
This isnât true. Iâm perfectly willing to prove my viewpoints. Youâre continuing to jump the gun here. Iâm about to explain my viewpoint, eventually. I was just hoping you would prove your viewpoints first. Weâre having a conversation online, we have all the time in the world. Everything in due time, right?
(Itâs as if youâre engaging in this kind of complaints as a stalling tactic. This conversation would go so much smoother if youâd just address the points. Furthermore, youâre repeating yourself a lot, it makes the comments hard to read. So please, address the points. Iâm cutting this down for brevity.)
Are you absolutely sure it had nothing to do with several key players in Bioware leaving over the years and EA quietly gutting the studio, replacing the talent and increasing their meddling? Because, as I said before, that raises the fanbaseâs eyebrows. The Bioware that made DAV simply isnât the same company that made DAO. Bioware hasnât really been independent of EAâs meddling since 2016 at least - Mass Effect Andromeda was the clearest example of what happened when EA decided to assume more direct control of the process. Fans have had every reason to be suspicious of Biowareâs output ever since. Itâs frankly a miracle Dragon Age Inquisition was anywhere near as good as it was.
Bioware doesnât exist in vacuum, theyâre not the only ones who are making decisions here.
Who exactly made the shifting writing decisions here? Can you give me concrete examples? Iâve not played DAV so itâs harder for me to compare the things.
Iâve seen EA put this same kind of ruin on a lot of studios over time. Many classic game series - including celebrated RPG series - have been ruined by EAâs meddling. What happened to Origin Systems has been happening to Bioware for over a decade now.
That is part of provable history. I would link to sources, but I suggest you read up on the history of EA and their studios (in particular Origin) on yourself - the information isnât hard to find, the ones in Wikipedia are a very good start.
Just reminded me: Are you seriously saying DAV is unique in this regard? This kind of pushback is levied against a lot of games these days. Thereâs so much of this kind of cries aimed at a lot of games these days. As long as people keep making lists about âwokeâ games on Steam, I donât think DAV was a special case at all.
These sources appear to confirm that Dragon Age Veilguard was not as great success commercially as EA hoped. This was not part of our dispute, and I was never even claiming that DAV was a financial success story. The opposite, in fact.
These sources do not, however, appear to support your particular claims about the message being the primary reason why the game failed commercially.
Also, I see you did not respond to the more interesing questions I asked earlier, so allow me to reiterate: Was the whole polymorph magic issue ever addressed in the Dragon Age lore? And allow me to expand on that - what did you think of the narrative ideas I presented? Iâm just curious about that.