Highguard has emerged as one of the most talked-about titles of January, capturing attention with its unique premise as a high fantasy extraction FPS. However, the game’s post-reveal marketing strategy has been notably subdued, leaving many intrigued yet uncertain. Despite its potential, the title did not leave a lasting impression at The Game Awards, appearing to blend elements from various shooters released in recent years. The reception following its launch has been mixed, with Steam reporting that only 37% of players have left positive reviews. Yet, when filtering for those who have logged over five hours of gameplay, that figure rises dramatically to 78%, indicating a significant disparity in player sentiment.
The conversation surrounding Highguard has ignited a spirited debate on social media, with defenders passionately advocating for the game while detractors express their disdain. This polarized response seems somewhat exaggerated; while it may not have been the grand finale of the TGAs, the intensity of the backlash is puzzling.
Voices from the Industry
In this heated climate, Larian Studios’ co-founder, Swen Vincke, has stepped into the fray. Fresh off the heels of a backlash against AI in gaming, Vincke has voiced his frustration with the negativity directed at new titles. Although he does not specifically reference Highguard, his comments resonate with the current discourse.
“I don’t like people shitting on things others have created,” Vincke asserts. “Putting something out into the world makes you vulnerable, and that alone deserves respect, even if you dislike the creation. It’s easy to destroy things; it’s a lot harder to build them. The best critics understand this. Even when they’re being critical, they do their best not to be hurtful.”
Vincke proposes an intriguing idea: what if critics were evaluated, Metacritic-style, based on how their criticism is received? He believes this could foster a more measured approach to reviews. “The harsh words do real damage,” he continues. “You shouldn’t have to grow calluses on your soul just because you want to publish something.”
He acknowledges that while there are games he personally finds unappealing, he recognizes the passion and effort that developers pour into their creations. “It’s incredibly rare for one to be made without there being someone behind it that truly cared about what they were making,” he reflects.
Vincke recalls a reviewer he admired who refrained from critiquing games he deemed failures, believing that every misstep could pave the way for future successes. “So yeah—be nice to people that create things is what I’m trying to say. You need them,” he emphasizes.
The Cost of Critique
The reality of today’s gaming landscape is that many titles come with a hefty price tag, often ranging from to . This financial investment places pressure on players to make informed choices. Vincke acknowledges this concern, stating, “I get that if people are charging money, you want to know if it’s good or not. But reviewers can simply express their personal experience without resorting to personal attacks for clicks or headlines.”
While there is a general consensus that unconstructive criticism is unhelpful, Vincke’s remarks have sparked some contention. One response encapsulates this sentiment: “This is true until money is involved. Then it’s not ‘putting something out into the world’; it’s charging for a product, and the customer has every right to scrutinize it.”
In an addendum to his thread, Vincke clarifies, “I don’t like developers or publishers shitting on players either. And I certainly don’t like those that milk players who love their game. I understand why players are upset by it. It upsets me too. I hate it wholeheartedly and vowed that Larian would never engage in it.”
He concludes with a call for empathy: “Most creative souls are sensitive souls, and those sensitive souls are the ones that care the most. When they check out because they can’t handle the vitriol, we all lose because what’s left are those that don’t care.”
In an industry grappling with its identity, Vincke’s perspective sheds light on the delicate balance between critique and respect. As the ecosystem evolves, it’s clear that constructive dialogue is essential for fostering growth and innovation.
Larian boss is sick of players “shi***ng” on new games, and it feels like he’s talking about Highguard
Highguard has emerged as one of the most talked-about titles of January, capturing attention with its unique premise as a high fantasy extraction FPS. However, the game’s post-reveal marketing strategy has been notably subdued, leaving many intrigued yet uncertain. Despite its potential, the title did not leave a lasting impression at The Game Awards, appearing to blend elements from various shooters released in recent years. The reception following its launch has been mixed, with Steam reporting that only 37% of players have left positive reviews. Yet, when filtering for those who have logged over five hours of gameplay, that figure rises dramatically to 78%, indicating a significant disparity in player sentiment.
The conversation surrounding Highguard has ignited a spirited debate on social media, with defenders passionately advocating for the game while detractors express their disdain. This polarized response seems somewhat exaggerated; while it may not have been the grand finale of the TGAs, the intensity of the backlash is puzzling.
Voices from the Industry
In this heated climate, Larian Studios’ co-founder, Swen Vincke, has stepped into the fray. Fresh off the heels of a backlash against AI in gaming, Vincke has voiced his frustration with the negativity directed at new titles. Although he does not specifically reference Highguard, his comments resonate with the current discourse.
“I don’t like people shitting on things others have created,” Vincke asserts. “Putting something out into the world makes you vulnerable, and that alone deserves respect, even if you dislike the creation. It’s easy to destroy things; it’s a lot harder to build them. The best critics understand this. Even when they’re being critical, they do their best not to be hurtful.”
Vincke proposes an intriguing idea: what if critics were evaluated, Metacritic-style, based on how their criticism is received? He believes this could foster a more measured approach to reviews. “The harsh words do real damage,” he continues. “You shouldn’t have to grow calluses on your soul just because you want to publish something.”
He acknowledges that while there are games he personally finds unappealing, he recognizes the passion and effort that developers pour into their creations. “It’s incredibly rare for one to be made without there being someone behind it that truly cared about what they were making,” he reflects.
Vincke recalls a reviewer he admired who refrained from critiquing games he deemed failures, believing that every misstep could pave the way for future successes. “So yeah—be nice to people that create things is what I’m trying to say. You need them,” he emphasizes.
The Cost of Critique
The reality of today’s gaming landscape is that many titles come with a hefty price tag, often ranging from to . This financial investment places pressure on players to make informed choices. Vincke acknowledges this concern, stating, “I get that if people are charging money, you want to know if it’s good or not. But reviewers can simply express their personal experience without resorting to personal attacks for clicks or headlines.”
While there is a general consensus that unconstructive criticism is unhelpful, Vincke’s remarks have sparked some contention. One response encapsulates this sentiment: “This is true until money is involved. Then it’s not ‘putting something out into the world’; it’s charging for a product, and the customer has every right to scrutinize it.”
In an addendum to his thread, Vincke clarifies, “I don’t like developers or publishers shitting on players either. And I certainly don’t like those that milk players who love their game. I understand why players are upset by it. It upsets me too. I hate it wholeheartedly and vowed that Larian would never engage in it.”
He concludes with a call for empathy: “Most creative souls are sensitive souls, and those sensitive souls are the ones that care the most. When they check out because they can’t handle the vitriol, we all lose because what’s left are those that don’t care.”
In an industry grappling with its identity, Vincke’s perspective sheds light on the delicate balance between critique and respect. As the ecosystem evolves, it’s clear that constructive dialogue is essential for fostering growth and innovation.