Dragon Age: Veilguard (2024) failed because of negative fan criticisms on the gameplay, and an extensive development time, with leaks that caused negative discussions. Veilguard was the fourth installment in the Dragon Age franchise, preceded by Origins (2009), II (2011), and Inquisition (2014), falling under the single-player action RPG genre.
BioWare developed the Dragon Age franchise, with Electronic Arts (EA) as the publisher, and released Veilguard on October 21, 2024, with a development cost of $250 million. The 7 reasons for Veilguard’s failure, outlined below, include the poor writing and gameplay, which were exacerbated by shifting demands from EA and staff turnovers. Keep reading for more information on how these aspects pushed out the core fanbase and caused a negative pre-release, and what can be learnt from the game’s failure.
1. Poor writing and narrative
The poor writing and narrative in Dragon Age: The Veilguard were connected to the game’s dialogue, political messages and characterizations. The writing and narrative lacked the nuance of previous titles, which pushed both long-term and new players out. Rook, the main protagonist, starts the story with all information on hand, but the player doesn’t, leading to a knowledge gap as well.
I found the knowledge gap jarring, since I went into the game and immediately thought I had missed a cutscene. Rook’s extensive knowledge took away the sense of shared discovery. The game’s dialogue and scenes didn’t feel earned, but like exposition dumps. The actual information wasn’t bad, but because it wasn’t discovered with the protagonist, immersion was broken.
Veilguard’s dialogue was described by Åsa Roos, an ex-BioWare designer, to be ‘heavy-handed’ and ‘condescending’ at times on her Bluesky. The themes and moral lessons in the game were spelled out too explicitly, so players weren’t given the chance to figure it out themselves. This made it seem like character actions and the worldbuilding were shallow, without enough depth and layers for players to piece together hidden messages.
Dragon Age’s previous titles had moral dilemmas, like picking between Mages and Templars in Dragon Age II, which made players choose between freedom and security. Siding with the Templars, for example, meant betraying kin and causing the transformation of Mages into monsters to win the war. The choices in Veilguard were simple by contrast, reducing player agency, and felt patronizing to players that were expecting BioWare’s usual complexity.
The political messages were handled ‘sloppily and without tact’ according to Forbes, which means the social commentary wasn’t integrated into the narrative naturally. Veilguard instead paused the story to give explicit political lectures. Companion dialogue sequences stopped actions to explain the issues to the player directly, which broke immersion.
Fans in the Steam community pointed out that the companions, or characters, didn’t have the layered personalities that were seen in previous Dragon Age titles. Companions failed to evolve with banter in interactions, or quests, since there was little insight into their own moral conflicts.
Characters like Bellara were connected to one overarching theme without having a fully fleshed out personality, bringing down the emotional depth and investment players had in their party. Bellara was reduced to the archetype of a mysterious mage, with most of her character revolving around her connection to the Fade and the Veil. The lack of fleshed out characters and the jarring narrative stem from the constant rewrites that reshaped the story late in development.
2. Alienation of the core fanbase
The core fanbase was alienated by Veilguard’s lighter, action-focused presentation after expecting the game to continue with Dragon Age’s dark fantasy theme with morally grey and player-driven narratives. Dragon Age’s core systems of political and morally charged choices were simplified, reducing the player agency seen in previous titles. Many veteran BioWare writers from Dragon Age: Origins and Inquisition who were involved at the beginning of Veilguard left during development.
Fans felt that the loss of veteran devs was akin to the loss of institutional memory and resulted in the lack of authenticity in Veilguard. Institutional memory refers to the knowledge and practices that are retained by long-time staff, which help maintain consistency across projects. Inquisition, for example, upheld the franchise by starting with shared uncertainty, which was missing in Veilguard.
Inquisition made both the player and protagonist navigate the same situations on the same wavelength. Veilguard’s Rook starts with a full mental map whereas players don’t, which isolated both old timers that expected franchise identity and new players who felt confused. Fans also accused Veilguard of foregrounding representation in a heavy-handed manner, but it was highlighted that Dragon Age was always inclusive.
Previous titles in Dragon Age had diverse romance options like Zevran and Leliana, regardless of Rook’s gender identity. Inquisition’s Dorian is an ideal example, since his story was about being rejected by family because of his sexuality, which was integrated into his character arc. The real issue in Veilguard was that representation was handled via blunt exposition rather than detailed character arcs. This cut down on the emotional impact and relatability players would’ve otherwise felt.
3. Deteriorating development
The deteriorating development for Veilguard was because of multiple concept changes during development, which strained staff and budget in tandem. Veilguard started development in 2014, with a bigger focus on narrative despite being smaller in scale as an RPG. The 2014 version was dubbed Joplin, becoming Anthem with Dragons after EA pushed for a live-service model, so BioWare had to redo multiple systems to make space for multiplayer and In-App Purchases.
EA’s concept changes relate to the failure of other games, mainly Anthem and Forspoken, with similar concepts and systems. Anthem was BioWare’s 2018 live-service game which failed and made EA switch Dragon Age back to single-player. The other cause for Veilguard’s changes, specifically the rewrites, was Forspoken. Forspoken was released by Square Enix and Luminous Productions in 2023, dealing with backlash because of unnatural dialogue that made character banter feel forced.
EA cut out the banter between companions from early dialogue drafts in Veilguard to avoid dealing with criticisms that Forspoken faced. Players had themes explained to them instead of being given cues, which made the narrative feel shallow. EA’s multiple narrative changes also caused the lore and tone to be inconsistent, contributing to the poor writing and narrative.
Consistency was disrupted by BioWare dealing with staff turnovers during Veilguard’s development as well. Writers and designers that had worked on Origins and Inquisition left so their experience and knowledge of the systems was lost, impacting consistency. The layoffs BioWare faced between 2024 and 2025 made things worse. Development resources ended up being split between Veilguard and the next Mass Effect, so budget and staff distribution were especially tight.
4. Lack of meaningful RPG elements
Veilguard had a lack of meaningful RPG elements compared to Dragon Age’s earlier titles, like Origins, because dialogues didn’t delve into character stories or have choices that affected the story meaningfully. The choice between killing or recruiting Loghain in Origins, for example, had an effect on the entire storyline and the party setup but this was missing in Veilguard.
Companion quests in Veilguard didn’t go into characters and their pasts, so players weren’t given insight into personal lore which reduced emotional connections. Sten’s quest in Origins, where players had to get his sword back, went into his character and had morally conflicting choices. This helped players relate, or understand, him better emotionally. Veilguard’s characters were more tell than show by contrast, bringing down role-play and emotional attachment.
Players weren’t able to manage their party with as much control in Veilguard because the pause-and-play system from Origins was absent. The pause-and-play system meant players were able to send out commands to their whole party, after pausing mid-combat. This gave players time to think and replan strategies. Combat in Veilguard was flashy, but players just had to press multiple buttons to win so strategy wasn’t accounted for.
Veilguard also didn’t give players room to mess around with different builds for their characters, which reduced replayability, an important factor for RPGs. The progression system for Origins let players experiment with different builds so they were able to make Rogues either dual-wield assassins or archers, for example. Making different builds in Veilguard didn’t seem to change anything about the gameplay so players were discouraged from experimenting.
5. Poor gameplay
Veilguard had poor gameplay because combat didn’t allow for strategy, and players didn’t have full control over their party, as well as repetitive enemies. Dragon Age was known for giving players tools for strategic combat, which were missing in Veilguard. Old fans of the franchise felt that Veilguard was catering to a casual, action audience instead of the entire RPG community as a result.
Combat in Veilguard came with multiple flashy abilities and effects but these leaned more on pressing buttons instead of the pause-and-play systems from earlier titles like Origins. Fans that valued how Dragon Age usually combined combat with strategy were pushed out, feeling that the game wasn’t heeding to its roots.
Party members acted on their during combat as well, so players didn’t have full control over team members, reducing teamwork. Origins, on the other hand, let players tweak their companions’ abilities, letting them add buffs to heal other party members mid-battle for example. Companions in Veilguard came with a set of predetermined moves so they came off as NPCs instead of active team members.
Enemies in Veilguard were the same types with a limited set of movements so fighting them was predictable, offering no challenge to players after the first few rounds. Players had to repetitively use abilities in fights, reducing both immersion and replayability. Dragons in Inquisition are an ideal example of enemy variety, since they had unique mechanics that players had to prepare for and use different methods to beat.
6. Mismatched expectations
Veilguard’s marketing didn’t match actual writing or gameplay so fans built up expectations that ended up mismatched. BioWare’s trailers and interviews painted Veilguard as a faithful sequel to Dragon Age’s usual storytelling and characterization, so fans built up expectations to match.
IGN also gave Veilguard a 9 out 10, so the game looked successful and promising but in reality lacked the depth seen in previous Dragon Age titles. The choices in the game weren’t complex, and didn’t have an affect on the overall narrative. Action was a priority, so combat was flashy without mechanics for strategy or experimentation. EA appeared to be catering to a broader, casual audience and fans also felt that outlets like IGN overhyped the game, increasing disappointment upon release.
7. Negative pre-release
Fans and players awaiting Veilguard were aware of how the concept was being changed repeatedly, switching from single-player to live-service. The game looked like it had no direction so fans worried BioWare would repeat the same mistake it made with Anthem. The pre-release period had fans already unsure about Veilguard as a result, so discussions on the previews and trailers were more negative than positive.
Veilguard’s first gameplay trailer was shown during the 2024 Summer Game Fest, and was criticised for looking like a standard action game instead of the usual Dragon Age RPG. Fans compared Veilguard negatively to Origins and Inquisition as well, pointing out how combat was flashy and not strategic.
Early reviews from IGN praised Veilguard for accessibility and high-quality visuals but didn’t touch on any RPG elements or the storyline. The player base felt that this confirmed Veilguard was intended for a casual audience instead of the main fanbase, cutting out the old players.
What can game designers learn from Dragon Age: The Veilguard’s failure?
Game designers can learn from Dragon Age: Veilguard’s failure that narrative consistency, RPG depth and fan trust are integral to ensuring a franchise’s shelf life. Franchises need to maintain narrative depth in order to preserve their core identity. This means constant redirections during development need to be avoided, and the core fanbase needs to be respected.
Dragon Age’s core identity stemmed from layered narratives, morally ambiguous themes and meaningful choices; all of which were limited in Veilguard. The themes were explained to players, without room for them to infer them independently, making the overall narrative feel shallow. Players need to feel knowledge is earned, which is possible via companion dialogue or environmental ruins, with space to explore and find out more about the world. Dragon Age: The Veilguard tells, rather than shows, the world.
Veilguard’s core fanbase felt alienated by the game’s failure at carrying forward the features from Origin and Inquisition. The flashy combat mechanics and simplified choices made it feel geared more for casual players than RPG fans. It’s crucial to be able to balance accessibility with depth so that the floor is open for both newcomers and veterans.
Managing the budget realistically is a key takeaway from Veilguard’s failure. Veilguard’s budget exceeded $250 million, which meant that Veilguard needed blockbuster sales to break even, which it didn’t achieve. A decade of development was strung out by constant dialogue and narrative rewrites, adding to the overarching inconsistencies across the tone and writing. BioWare’s staff turnovers during and late into development didn’t help, either. Veilguard’s struggles show that when creative identity, audience expectations, and production scope fall out of alignment, even a beloved franchise is capable of losing its core identity.
The internal forecast for the launch quarter was 3 million players, but the actual sales amounted to only 1.5 million players. Revenue targets were subsequently missed, so it’s important to scope projects to match realistic sales expectations. The Dragon Quest III HD‑2D Remake, for example, exceeded sales expectations because it stayed true to its roots while introducing new themes.
Devs that want to go into game writing or narrative design (two different things) need to be able to write dialogue that hints at world lore and points the player to the next objective subtly. It’s important for writers to understand the player fantasy, the imaginative experience of the series, which was unclear in Veilguard.
Game Design Skills (GDS) has additional articles on narrative design and video game writing built on the professional experience of veteran devs. The articles provide a foundation for prospective designers to start from, complementing educational courses and hands-on bootcamps that offer more practical experience. The Funsmiths Club (by GDS) Discord server has information on upcoming bootcamps and courses, plus an active dev community.
