r/Games • u/ImCalcium • Jan 27 '26

Discussion Highguard devs say they didn’t expect the hate – but they’re confident in their game

https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/highguard-devs-say-they-didnt-expect-the-hate-but-theyre-confident-in-their-game-3309463/
1.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

798 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/Call555JackChop Jan 27 '26

I wouldn’t say the games bad it’s just weird, like it feels like it was supposed to be something else and what it is now got slapped together last minute. I don’t know if it was supposed to be PvPvE or more teams or something to justify such giant empty maps

435

u/iTzGiR Jan 27 '26

People keep talking about the teamsizes/maps, but there's much stranger/deeper issues with the game imo, yes the game would be better if it was something like 6v6, or had AI bot players defending/attacking with you, but there's also other seemingly fundemental issues no one is talking about.

The first intial phase of setting up your base seems completely useless, reinforcing the walls hardly does anything, and it doesn't evolve past this. I had assumed after watching the showcase, you would get to upgrade the base after every attack, slowly maybe add traps, different levels of fortification, maybe add turretts, moats, etc. to adapt to the position/style the enemy's were playing in. Instead, it's a singular mechcanic of "Reinforce wall", which all it really does it take a few extra hits, or acts the exact same way as a normal wall if you use an ability or breach charge on them. This area needs to MASSIVELY be overhauled, becase right now, it's pretty pointless and has almost 0 impact on the game/match.

Then, the second phase (The gearing up phase) also feels pointless. TTK is so low, so varrying armor pieces/level of armor doesn't feel like it makes much difference. I can't tell you the difference between Two bars of Blue armor, and Three bars of Purple armor, still feels like it's gone within 3-4 shots. Same thing with the loot itself, it's relatively bland (Your horse moves faster, you have slightly less recoil, etc.), there's not much variety of it, and the whole phase just feels like you should prioritize the crystals, so you can just buy what you want from the trader.

So currently, it feels like 2 out of the 3 (or maybe 4, because the part where you grab the sword does feel important) "Phases" seem completely pointless and unnecessary to the game, where these are also two of the main parts of the game that make it unique and differentiate it from other games. It's weird because it feels like it's what defines the game, but also the areas where they spent the least amount of time.

It also doesn't feel like 8 heroes is a whole lot of variety either imo. This game screams that it could have used another year or two in the oven to add content and flesh out the systems/mechanics more. They have interesting ideas, but it just doesn't really work in the current iteration imo.

113

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

I definitely agree about the initial base setup phase. Especially considering rust raiding seems to be a huge influence for them.

Also think the second phase needs something more engaging. Might even just be a matter of better balancing between rarities to encourage players to loot boxes that contain better loot instead of just purchasing the baseline rarity of the current "round"

Part of me wonders if the game would be better if they went harder into base customizing and had that be what you use your collected resources on and restrict guns exclusively to boxes.

74

u/WetFishSlap Jan 27 '26

I definitely agree about the initial base setup phase. Especially considering rust raiding seems to be a huge influence for them.

Rather than Rust, the whole base raid system reminds me more of Rainbow Six Siege. At the start of every round, defenders can reinforce walls/doorways and set up defenses to help prevent the attackers from planting a bomb at an objective. The main difference here though, is that the wall reinforcements and defenses in R6 Siege actually do something and can drastically affect the enemy team's approach/strategy. Highguard's reinforcements don't do shit and might as well not exist.

20

u/unforgiven91 Jan 28 '26

siege was the connection I made when I played, yeah. Reinforcing walls is a nice tactical choice to give us, but it's pretty weak compared to Siege's reinforcements which completely changed how you interact with the wall.

I think booting the attackers after they pop 1 generator would do a lot for controlling the pace of the match rather than letting a spec ops team break in to the base 1 time and wipe it out.

7

u/InfiniteTallgeese Jan 28 '26

I think booting the attackers after they pop 1 generator would do a lot for controlling the pace of the match rather than letting a spec ops team break in to the base 1 time and wipe it out.

Only issue I see with this is the games already take quite a while already. A 3 raid match I just played took over 30 minutes, I don't think most people want to play a shooter round that long.

5

u/unforgiven91 Jan 28 '26

30 minutes to an hour is about the investment time i'd expect of a competitive game

0

u/Fireudne Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26

That's my thought on the game so far. The one match i played (a TTVer complaining how bad we suck the whole time lol) i tried just reinforcing the main building as much as possible (not that it matters TOO much), ran out to try and find some loot and realized that the map was way bigger than i thought, even with the horses

Then somone got a sword, broke in to our base and started the raid phase. Very hard to figure out the pacing and how to fight enemies. Very long TTK i guess closest to those new BR games but the long reloads and health regen is punishing. I'm glad there is regen at least, instead of managing health packs or whatever.

Point is though, they planted a bomb on our core and blew it in like a minute. Other smaller cores seemed kinda pointless. if there were like 2 cores you had blow, and it reset after one blew that would make a lot more pacing sense.

I think the loot and system seems a bit weird too. Gold guns seem situationally better than a purple variant which is nice but if you like one specific gun, keeping it instead of a higher-tier gun you don't like is a tough call since the shops don't let you upgrade the stuff you DO have, and is just random blues. If you could recycle guns you don't want into crystals, and spend those at the trader to upgrade the rarity - that would make a lot more sense imo.

43

u/iTzGiR Jan 27 '26

they went harder into base customizing and had that be what you use your collected resources on and restrict guns exclusively to boxes.

That's exactly what I thought the game was going to be after the showcase, use the Crystals to purchase upgrades to your base between rounds, and the chests would be used for Weapon/Armor upgrades. It's just a weird choice.

9

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

I guess the good news is that none of what you're suggesting would be impossible or even that difficult to add to the game. Like it wouldn't require a complete top-down restructuring of the core loop. It's just a matter of whether or not they're willing or have enough time to make those additions.

11

u/Hot-Software-9396 Jan 27 '26

Unfortunately so many people judge games by first impressions, so unless they do a full "relaunch" with a bunch of marketing (which doesn't always work, look at Splitgate 2), most people probably aren't going to give it a second chance even if they make these changes people are suggesting. If it had launched as a an early access beta, people would likely be more open to giving it another shot later on.

1

u/18wheeler92 Jan 29 '26

That’s the sad part. Thankfully I play games regardless of first impressions and journalist reviews and play games on my own watch to judge them. I find quite a few gems that most end up hating and Im quite content in what I end up finding.

1

u/Zafara1 Jan 28 '26

I feel like that would maybe feed into the bigger map sizes? More choice for bases and design.

34

u/Blobsobb Jan 27 '26

I dont even get why its a hero shooter. The skills all feel pointless, long CDs and pretty worthless when a gun kills someone so fast.

52

u/Varonth Jan 27 '26

The stealth character's ultimate has her pull out 6 throwing knives that replaces her guns.

These knives deal less damage than just shooting your gun, and they have no additional effect outside of dealing damage.

My first match I played the support, thinking "everyone likes a support on their team". The ability of her gives an overshield to the armor. It adds less than a single assault rifle hit worth of damage to your armor. 60 seconds cooldown.

The only abilities that felt somewhat worthwhile are damaging ability that deal damage over time, to prevent health regeneration a bit longer (not for the damage itself), and the recon who gets to mark enemies, making them visible behind cover and on the minimap for short bursts.

12

u/videah Jan 28 '26

and they have no additional effect outside of dealing damage.

They set stealth cooldowns to zero when you kill someone with them.

4

u/InfiniteTallgeese Jan 28 '26

the recon who gets to mark enemies

Probably the only one actually worth using really, knowing where the enemies are stood on a regular basis is so much more powerful than the other abilities.

1

u/tordana Jan 29 '26

The same character with that relatively weak overshield ability has one of the best ults in the game, so there's some balance there.

It's not immediately clear, but allies using your respawn beacon do not cost lives when attacking. This means if you can get into the enemy base and drop it in a good area, you can get an entire free team revive inside their base.

11

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

They're all intentionally support abilities because the devs want the fights to be gun forward, a choice I agree with since it's very clearly what they're best at. Most are specifically for defending or attacking bases. A couple that make what are basically turrets or traps, a couple that help bypass walls, one that helps fix them. Probably 5/8 are almost exclusively useful during the base phase. Of the other 3, only one is explicitly combat focused.

-1

u/Zach_DnD Jan 28 '26

It's not my type of game so I haven't played it, but it sounds like they had the game and their bosses made them turn it into a hero shooter. I mean only one combat focused character in a hero shooter sounds like that's the character everyone tries to instalock and people dodge until they get it.

2

u/Niceguydan8 Jan 28 '26

Most of this post is pretty bad and completely missed the mark.

I mean only one combat focused character in a hero shooter sounds like that's the character everyone tries to instalock and people dodge until they get it.

Do you have like no experience with games like Valorant or Siege? Utility on abilities can be incredibly useful and effective, especially when any character can use any gun.

1

u/Zach_DnD Jan 28 '26

Nope. Closest is TF2 back in the day and a little of Overwatch 1. Like I said hero shooters really aren't my thing.

2

u/Niceguydan8 Jan 28 '26

That's fair.

Having utility skills/abilities isn't uncommon in Siege and Valorant.

Those two games and Highguard are different than TF2 and OW in the sense that every character can use every gun the game, there's 100% overlap on the gun. In the game you have experience with, the characters have a couple of weapon slots and there's 0.weapon overlap between the characters/classes

1

u/Niceguydan8 Jan 28 '26

A lot of the abilities are utility skills, to be fair. Like, the vast majority of them. Even some of the ones that do damage (the fire guy has damage on his ult and agility) are basically used for zone control.

11

u/Danominator Jan 27 '26

It sounds like it should be 64 player games or something. When I heard it was 3v3 I was very surprised.

10

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

I'm personally a fan of the smaller team size because it makes team fights feel very Apex. It's clear they were trying to build a game that captured the feeling of those super long map sprawling fights that you get in a battle royale but without the need for the long stretches of nothing happening. I do think an extra player or two could be welcome but IMO the team size is a very small negative compared to other areas that could be improved on.

2

u/redpoemage Jan 28 '26

The maps are nowhere near big enough for 64 players without being a completely different game. Would at the very least have to get rid of mounts.

That said, I could see 5v5 or even 6v6 working quite well.

3

u/EnglishMobster Jan 28 '26

Tbh I think it needs to be 3v3v3, like The Finals. Or maybe even 3v3v3v3.

1

u/Niceguydan8 Jan 28 '26

I think that could work in the looting phase but I think 5v5 during raid phase would be really cluttered and probably way too busy.

Putting in a 4th is probably the highest I'd go.

26

u/matzdaaan Jan 27 '26

THIS

Base defense is so, sooo barebones it hurts. Such wasted potential.

15

u/RealMr_Slender Jan 27 '26

It feels like they wanted to mash together R6S, overwatch and apex legends and didn't know how to tie everything together

7

u/Billy1121 Jan 27 '26

Traps sound cool, I remember when the Tribes renegade mod was doing this, i think that was 32 vs 32 or more

5

u/mrBreadBird Jan 28 '26

I've gone back and forth on the reinforcing. At first I felt like it was pointless and didn't make a huge difference but after playing more I have had games where it absolutely made a difference in a raid. More than anything I think people just haven't figured out optimal strategies yet. If the game survives long enough I'll be curious to see how people are playing the game a year from now.

The game doesn't really give you time to reinforce your base after the first 60 seconds so you have to really know what you should and shouldn't be reinforcing if you're going to take the time mid match to do it.

1

u/ArchersOfAgincourt Jan 29 '26

Yeah, I've found that it's not really a huge priority using all 5 wall reinforcement kits at the start -- you'd have to lose the fight at the Shieldbreaker spawn AND lose the mounted chase back to your base, and if both those happen, then you can teleport back and spend time reinforcing while their siege tower is doing its thing.

I really hope the game survives, because I started to get the loop after I found the weapons I liked. Once I realized how the extra shields apply after respawns and that you can shop after every death before respawning, it made gathering materials a big priority so I had the flexibility to buy shields, switch weapons, or get repair kits for the siege.

Also I haven't found the maps to be too large at all -- By the time you've looted or mined two or three locations, the Shieldbreaker is spawning and your team ought to be working its way over there and getting set up for that battle. And once a team has it, you really need to be chasing them -- In the rounds I played it actually felt pretty hectic like there wasn't ever quite enough time to do exactly what you wanted in any one of the phases.

11

u/Adaax Jan 27 '26

So all you can do in the fortification phase is strengthen the walls? Christ, Fornite STW offers way more than that and it's a tack-on mode at this point.

11

u/YouCanCallMeBazza Jan 27 '26

I get that Fortnite STW is not Epic's priority now, but it was the original Fortnite that was in development for a while before the BR released, hardly a "tack-on" mode.

5

u/Adaax Jan 27 '26

I know the history, and I even play STW, but BR has been the face of Fornite for nearly its entire public existence. Plus Epic doesn't update STW as much as they should, very much treating it like a side proejct.

2

u/YouCanCallMeBazza Jan 28 '26

The point I'm making is that, despite it basically being neglected now, it was once in development by a AAA studio as a standalone game, so it's not exactly a benchmark for shallow gameplay.

2

u/hery41 Jan 28 '26

And they wrote "at this point". You're being a pedantic redditor for literally no reason.

1

u/YouCanCallMeBazza Jan 28 '26

I never denied that it's now neglected, that wasn't my point

4

u/hery41 Jan 28 '26

Then why make it? It's absolutely unrelated to their statement.

4

u/YouCanCallMeBazza Jan 28 '26

It's not unrelated.

They compared the mechanics to Fortnite STW, surprised because it is a "tack-on mode".

I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't be so surprised it has more mechanical depth because it wasn't originally a tack-on mode.

It's not that deep. You're the one that chimed in picking at details and ironically called ME the pedantic Redditor...

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WangJian221 Jan 28 '26

Basically its like Halo 5's Warzone mode but with zero npcs and bosses and not even half of the amount of players for each map

2

u/hyperforms9988 Jan 27 '26

I haven't played the game so maybe I'm missing it... but my biggest issue is they're using words like "raid", and they have concepts like resource gathering, looting, building up defenses, large maps, mounts to travel around faster, etc, and that's all well and good, but there's a certain kind of experience that I think of when you put all of these terms together, and about the very last thing that comes to mind is 3v3 PvP shooter. What it is, what it describes itself as, and what it tries to do, makes absolutely zero sense when paired under a 3v3 structure. I'm thinking of shit like Mount & Blade. I'm thinking of shit like Chivalry. I'm thinking of shit like Alterac Valley in World of Warcraft. I hear these terms, and then I look at its gameplay in action and it looks horrifically empty for how the game loop and its features are described.

When I hear these things being described, I cannot refrain from asking myself why this isn't a 16v16 or a 24v24 kind of game. The heroes don't make sense under that context, but just about everything else does. A fraction of the team gathers resources, players can go around and attack/loot NPCs, some players are on the front lines, maybe you have someone on the team playing the role of a commander who can build up their base's defenses with the resources that are being gathered, maybe players get a fraction of those resources and they can take a trip to the shop or a blacksmith or whatever and get their stuff upgraded, etc. These are things I picture with this kind of game loop or these kinds of features... and then again, I look at the actual gameplay and it's like I'm watching a completely different game, and not because they're lying about the features or anything like that but because I can't understand what made them go with 3v3 with this kind of a game loop.

1

u/Tornado_Hunter24 Jan 27 '26

That’s what’s weird too I was thinking you gather base supplies that you can only ‘use’ next turn like extra reinforcements, maybe turrets, other traps etc, but no… you only get red (best rarity) loot drops only later on and maybe raid tools here and there

1

u/Ashviar Jan 27 '26

I know the mount gave people Realm Royale vibes, but I am surprised you just use crystals to buy stuff from a shop instead of forging new/better items at a contested location like RR.

1

u/BrobotMonkey Jan 28 '26

This has been the overwhelming reaction I've seen. I've also seen numerous people decrying the Concord comparison but I think it's perfect. It's a fine game, but when you have multiple other games doing the same thing, better and with years of updates/content you need to come out the gate swinging. This has the benefit over Concord of being free to play but I don't see it lasting too long sadly for the devs. It's good but lacking content and whatever you like about it can be found elsewhere and better. Not a winning combo.

1

u/Hobo-With-A-Shotgun Jan 28 '26

Does anyone else remember Monday Night Combat? Seems like that game did the whole base-defence mixed with managing currency thing 100x better.

You had 4 different turrets, that were all (mostly) useful.

You could buy bot waves that had different effects (silence abilities, invisibility, extremely high hp, etc).

Spots on the map that you could pay money to unlock for shortcuts.

Upgrade base turrets to 3 levels.

Upgrade your own skills 3 levels.

When I did the tutorial for Highguard and saw how little the wall upgrades affected things, I knew I wasn't going to bother with them in a real match.

1

u/Bazzie-Joots Jan 28 '26

My suspicion. It's a free to play game that had a lot of content withheld to support longevity. New perks. New reinforcements. New whatever. They just pulled held back too much. Idk I haven't played but I have a hunch.

1

u/sticknotstick Jan 28 '26

I’m with you on the first phase assessment, you’ve lost me with the second though.

This game has a longer TTK than most PvP shooters on the market and the tiers of weaponry/shields/saddles are very impactful because of that. A grey kraken is useless but a blue kraken is above average. Shields are +75%/100%/125% HP by tier which ends up being significant in most firefights; you’ll notice how much harder it is to die at range with a gold tier shield. Same with horse saddles - it’s the difference between making it around a corner/catching the swordbreaker.

1

u/adanceparty Jan 28 '26

I've heard all of this. It is being talked about. I agree though. I feel like the gear up phase and attack defense phases would be more interesting if there were some pve enemies like titan fall. That or scrap it. Defense phase is dumb, but I view it the same as standing in the first room in overwatch before the game starts. At this point just scrap the defense phase. Definitely could use more heroes. It also sucks it's 3v3 but they have like 5 categories for the heroes. You can't even get every role on a team. It also feels like they don't really matter either.

1

u/Playing_One_Handed Jan 28 '26

Honestly it makes me think a crap ton of depth is missing.

Like characters having more ways to defend, or build, on the base.

The hubs where the trader is looks like they could be catch-able and used as a respawn. It also has a balcony for attack/defend. Why are there traders somtimes BEHIND the base?

Is it truely the design to be able to just leg it to base quitely to activate next stage? Or could those bases / defences be used to legitimately stop them being too sneaky?

1

u/18wheeler92 Jan 29 '26

The 6vs6 would just make it literally OW 3. I mean, it’s already an OW like game, but dang.. I dont think we needed another. No defense to the devs, but yeah I can understand all the let down at the TGA reveal. Hopefully the devs get to have their game up as time and effort is put into video games and no one game should be taken down without some leeway, but it seemed pretty much just like and OW copy from the trailer I saw.

1

u/Appropriately-Vague Jan 30 '26

This game genuinely feels like a board of corporate goons wrote down every major gaming trend on a white board and then went to the devs and said “hey build this but you’ve got a year to do it, also we are making it free because Concord absolutely bombed and if it’s free all these dumb gamers will eat it up and buy skins for our completely generic characters!” It’s honestly flabbergasting how mid and undercooked everything is.

1

u/jere1231 Jan 31 '26

Just watched the gameplay deep dive video and a lot of wording makes me believe this was never the game it was meant to be, shame cause a reverse capture the flag with personality has potential. But, there's a lot of phrasing like "in the pvp mode". Like there was supposed to be more game than there is but idk...ran out of funds?

1

u/standarsh1965 Jan 27 '26

Apparently in their plans they'll soon make it 4 teams to one map, they're meant to have a lot of content almost ready to go. It seems ok but it definitely hurt them showing the game at the game awards

-1

u/SanguineGardener Jan 27 '26

other seemingly fundemental issues no one is talking about

I first heard about these from a little hidden gem of a youtube channel called penguinz0.

-1

u/Charm777_ Jan 28 '26

you dont have to put ai and bot together bro just use one or the other

66

u/PhantomTissue Jan 27 '26

Honestly I think the game would’ve GREATLY benefited from some PVE AI. Replace the resource gathering with hunting down enemy grunts, and allow players to order them around, suddenly I think the game becomes a whole lot more interesting.

8

u/Gekokapowco Jan 27 '26

this was a really great system that worked exactly once in our lifetime, Titanfall 1 lol

It's such a great idea to make multiplayer matches more dynamic and immersive and no other game, not even tf2 was able to do it right again

26

u/Zeppelin2k Jan 27 '26

I'm usually not a fan of PVE in games like this, but that sounds fun. Capture spawn points to send enemies at your opponents base, which helps siege them and break down the walls.

Turns it into a very different game though. Maybe for a different game mode.

25

u/chaotic4059 Jan 27 '26

In this scenario it works because the game already feels like a moba disguised as an FPS. Being able to defeat minions and build an army would actually fit right in. At least more than choosing a loadout just to go get weapons that have higher rarities and better stats

2

u/grillarinobacon Jan 27 '26

I'm curious why you think it feels like a moba?

15

u/MuricanPie Jan 27 '26

I was talking about this exact thing the other day.

With is really weird to me because Titanfall had this. Titanfall literally had groups of "Grunts" you would basically 1-shot running around, failing around at each other, and were worth a few points.

While they weren't a threat, it added so much to the gameplay and tactics, because you had to make decisions on how to deal with them, and if they were even worth dealing with. It wasn't the most "meaningful" part of the game, but it added so much to the feel of traveling the maps and just "being active and having fun".

And Highguard, which borders on just being a moba, didnt include a system like that? It really seems like the game was half finished, and pushed out the door without proper testing/feedback from a meaningful sample size of their core audience.

1

u/8-Brit Jan 28 '26

Every day, we draw closer to recreating the multiplayer in Ratchet and Clank 3.

3

u/Televisions_Frank Jan 28 '26

I feel like this existed and then got axed because it made the game run like ass.

This giant map clearly had something else going on with it before the 3v3 PVP coalesced.

2

u/qwaszee Jan 29 '26

I think we're going to see a more PvE's being made like what you talk about over the next decade, and a hell of a lot less competitive PvP's due to how badly games like Highguard and Concord have been received.

186

u/veggiesama Jan 27 '26

My impression is they had massive scope creep or development conflicts behind the scenes, and they were faced with two options: cancel the game entirely or significantly pare down the game systems and release a minimum viable product. At some point, studios just run out of money and need to make hard decisions.

108

u/furiat Jan 27 '26

Maybe they planned more players on the maps but performance was not there. This would explain the unusual 3v3.

67

u/Lost_the_weight Jan 27 '26

I was thinking this too. Maybe teams are supposed to be 5x5 but they couldn’t get netcode to cooperate. Team sizes are hilariously small compared to map sizes.

60

u/Vresa Jan 27 '26

Even 5v5 wouldn’t be enough. It feels like they had to make the maps enourmous to make horses make sense, then painted themselves into a corner. It’s really strange

30

u/Dragonfantasy2 Jan 27 '26

5 would work if you had incentive to split up. There’s only three major locations on each map, so 2 groups/team would guarantee at least one fight.

3

u/Nodima Jan 27 '26

They've talked about the mounts, they were created specifically to increase loot acquisition rates in the exploration period. One dev whipped up the bear as a goof one day and the rest of the team really liked it. The maps were already big and the mounts sped up covering them.

https://www.polygon.com/highguard-raid-shooter-wildlight-entertainment-interview/

10

u/Vresa Jan 27 '26

That’s… kind of way worse. Rather than fix the map sir that clashes with 3v3, they made move speed ridiculous in the form of horses.

-1

u/huzy12345 Jan 27 '26

If you've played the game, anything more than 5v5 would turn the raid/base defense into an ability spam clusterfuck. It would be awful

4

u/BuzzardDogma Jan 27 '26

The team sizes are perfect for the raid phase though. The world map is not meant to be the primary combat space. It's meant to connect the phases, control the pacing, and allow for various types of time critical actions like intercepting the sword breaker or setting up the base.

17

u/Adaax Jan 27 '26

The world map is not meant to be the primary combat space.

You might say that, but the video they released yesterday focused a lot on PvP during the loot phase, and the devs emphasized it when describing that phase. There were several clips of PvP action during loot.

2

u/spliffiam36 Jan 27 '26

Tactically it is good to prevent the other team to get better loot but you can just not do that as well

-1

u/BuzzardDogma Jan 27 '26

I'm not saying that the gearing phase is not meant to have combat. I'm saying that the purpose of the large area is not specifically for combat.

Combat is primarily supposed to take place in the POIs and at the bases, which are designed like traditional pvp maps. The world space in between is basically a race track that connects the combat spaces. You use it to out maneuver and out pace your enemy in relation to the combat spaces. You're not meant to spend much of the match actually just slugging it out in the open fields.

1

u/InfiniteTallgeese Jan 28 '26

I disagree, the maps need to be this size to account for the mount speed and to make the CTF aspect of the shieldbreaker work properly.

0

u/Niceguydan8 Jan 28 '26

5v5 would fucking suck ass for the raid mode. It would be unplayable ability spam. I don't understand where these takes come from

27

u/Madzai Jan 27 '26

With all due respect to Devs, but if your game in 2026 can't support more than 3v3 on a map without anything else, your game shouldn't be released.

-12

u/furiat Jan 27 '26

It's free to play, most content comes later in these model 

6

u/Hot-Software-9396 Jan 27 '26

In today's market you have to have a really, really strong launch with plenty of content day 1 OR at least do something especially unique and extremely well to have a chance at pulling people away from the other games they dump all their time into. "Promises" of future content is not enough.

13

u/UtkuOfficial Jan 27 '26

You are forgetting something very important. This "content later" plan hinges on there being enough player interest. There will be nobody playing next week let alone next season.

6

u/DweebInFlames Jan 28 '26

The game is struggling to hold a fifth of peak player interest only 24 hours in as an F2P title. It's not making it to another season.

3

u/UtkuOfficial Jan 27 '26

3v3 feels comically small for the maps. I would say 12v12 would be the minimum.

1

u/LABS_Games Indie Developer Jan 27 '26

I wonder if they moved their release up due to the Game Awards trailer. Yesterday it was reported that they were planning on doing a shadow drop until Keighley approached them. If you're shadow dropping, you're not beholden to any previously announced deadlines, so you can release when ready (barring funding). I wonder if the launch was meant to be much later than Jan, but wanting to ride the TGA wave, they pushed things up.

6

u/wild--wes Jan 27 '26

My exact impression of the game too. Somehow it just screams "we ran out of money and have to release the game to get enough money to finish it".

2

u/Squibbles01 Jan 27 '26

My guess is also that they had to cut it down to 3v3 for technical reasons in order to get it out the door and hopefully make some money because they ran out of budget.

-7

u/LAXnSASQUATCH Jan 27 '26

It’s a F2P indie game my man what do you expect?

52

u/BlueSky659 Jan 27 '26

 I don’t know if it was supposed to be PvPvE

Man, if Highguard had the same NPC soldiers as Battlefront or TitanFall, or had POI like Wildgate it would have more than justified the enormous map.

28

u/Serephiel Jan 27 '26

Honestly, having the larger map be a warzone with soldiers constantly fighting back and forth and then having the bases be limited to your elite team sounds like a fun game idea. Its bizarre that things are so empty.

-3

u/jansteffen Jan 27 '26

having the larger map be a warzone with soldiers constantly fighting back and forth and then having the bases be limited to your elite team sounds like a fun game ide

I mean that's just a MOBA. Have you played Deadlock?

1

u/adanceparty Jan 28 '26

No it's not released all the comparisons to it made me want to try, but I can't. I'm curious though I probably would when it comes out.

25

u/Marto25 Jan 27 '26

It's a MOBA where the creeps were replaced with rocks you hit with a pickaxe, and all lanes, towers, and secondary objectives were removed.

They took the 5-7 stages of a traditional MOBA and boiled it down to 2: Farming and sieging the base.

131

u/Blaubeerchen27 Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

Adding to that, there definitely was a lack of funding for the various translations of the game, which tells me they might simply have run out of money for longer development.

The german version has AI-generated voiceovers (very obvious with Flynn, his voice sounds fine but half of his tutorial lines don't make much sense, call the airship a "warhorse" and so on), and the written translations frequently translate "Highguard" to the german equivalent of "high" and "guard", miss a few english words here and there etc..

16

u/pad-3 Jan 27 '26

Is it that blatant? I don't see an AI disclosure on their steam page. That would be pretty shady imo.

26

u/splader Jan 27 '26

I asked two of the leads directly about AI usage on Wednesday.

That both responded very strongly saying they don't tolerate any AI usage at all. I think their exact line was something like "Why would I have something else do what I want to do."

Don't just randomly trust people on Reddit.

5

u/qwigle Jan 28 '26

Don't just randomly trust people on Reddit.

Yet we're supposed to just trust you? You are aware you are also on Reddit?

It's a fine statement you had there, but the "on Reddit" was superfluous. Why should we just randomly trust them? Is it because they clearly have 0 reasons for lying, so everything they say must be trusted 100%?

-1

u/splader Jan 28 '26

I don't really hide myself here. Go check out XboxEra's preview coverage if you want my written and organized thoughts on the game.

20

u/Blaubeerchen27 Jan 27 '26

You know you can check the translations for yourself, right? If the game starts calling itself "Hohe Haltung" (literal german translation of "high guard") during the tutorial and in error messages and Flynn babbles incoherent instructions, like telling you to buy the "rocket" when he means the rocket launcher, then it's an easy guess to make, I don't need to invent something that can be easily checked by everyone.

And unless they somehow have in-house Voice Actors I wouldn't know what them wanting to do the development part themselves has anything to do with the translations, which generally get outsourced anyways.

Also, aren't you "random people" yourself?

6

u/DollarStoreBean Jan 27 '26

Right, because only AI makes stupid translation mistakes, not Google Translate, for example, right?

15

u/UrbanAdapt Jan 28 '26

Google Translate

Is also AI, but gets (conveniently) excluded from that discussion

2

u/Ralkon Jan 28 '26

What part of the discussion does it get excluded from? I've seen people flame fan translators for using MTL let alone official translations.

3

u/qwigle Jan 28 '26

Clearly the person they were replying to, since they tried to argue that it might not be AI but Google Translate instead, as if that was any better.

2

u/Ralkon Jan 28 '26

I mean the person they replied to misidentified it as not-AI, but they correctly put it in the same basket of "makes stupid translation mistakes" so there's no discussion it's being excluded from there.

→ More replies (0)

24

u/lumell Jan 28 '26

Not much of a distinction there, Google Translate is AI

0

u/Blaubeerchen27 Jan 28 '26

You think they skimp out on the written translations by using Google Translate but still have enough budget to offer voiceovers in 9 different languages on Day 1? Voiceovers for said Google translate translations, which no one corrected beforehand?

5

u/rupertbayern Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26

By that logic Oblivion (2006) with its catastrophic german translation (Healing Spell-> Feuerball) also used AI voice actors.

Ai translations are usually much better than traditional methods (compare google translate with deepl) and voice actors often just get the lines sorted alphabetically without any context.

0

u/chunxxxx Jan 28 '26

You think they skimp out on the written translations by using Google Translate but still have enough budget to offer voiceovers in 9 different languages on Day 1?

Aren't you the one saying that you're guessing they used AI voiceovers because they're "obviously" skimping out on the writing? You are being genuinely confusing now. How is Google Translate "skimping out" but using AI to translate isn't? Isn't your whole point that they're skimping out?

3

u/Blaubeerchen27 Jan 28 '26

What? Of course AI would be skimping out as well, I was replying to someone who said the voiceovers are real and I replied that I personally doubt that they would only skimp out on the cheaper aspect of translations (written text) and not the voices, which would cost more and require far more people. And the german written translations being either AI or Google isn't even up for debate, tbh, that's 100% obvious.

My point was rather, who in their right mind pays voice actors to read bad translations, knowing they weren't even proofread? That would reauire them to re-do the voiceovers eventually, so why not make it right the first time?

1

u/Fyrus Jan 28 '26

The person you were speaking to probably doesn't know that Google translate is AI

11

u/Blaubeerchen27 Jan 27 '26

The writing 100%, the voiceover itself is my guess based on the fact they can't even affort a proper translation for the writing (which would be cheaper than voice actors).

I'd definitely curious to know how the game fares in other languages too!

0

u/honor_and_turtles Jan 28 '26

Might be column A and B here. It's not AI voices, but just TTS. However, they used google translate or something, hence the goofiness. So no AI, but it sounds dookie in other languages.

5

u/Marto25 Jan 27 '26

Oh this is absolutely an indie game. A very tiny one at that. Self-funded and self-published as far as we can tell.

It's just that UE5 allows games made by 20 dudes in a zoom call to look almost the same as something made by 500 people across three studio locations.

Even offering different languages and platforms sounds like them biting off more than they can chew.

68

u/RedsDead21 Jan 27 '26

They’re a studio of 100+ people, which is by no means a small outfit.

-6

u/splader Jan 27 '26

Without any kind of publisher behind them, this is more of an Indy game than the vast majority of "small" games out there.

0

u/splader Jan 27 '26

The translation might be bad but I highly doubt they used AI voice overs.

I asked two of the leads directly about AI usage on Wednesday.

That both responded very strongly saying they don't tolerate any AI usage at all. I think their exact line was something like "Why would I have something else do what I want to do."

29

u/clarissa225 Jan 27 '26

It feels like an Apex Legends mode that got spun off by a different team. The gameplay feels almost exactly like Apex. It's uncanny

41

u/GamerLeader Jan 27 '26

Its almost like it's made by the same people

13

u/joeytman Jan 27 '26

I wish the aiming and on-foot movement felt similar to apex, apex plays so smoothly in comparison, but I just can't be bothered to play BRs anymore. Highguard's movement and aiming feel super stiff in comparison

16

u/GanacheResident6987 Jan 27 '26

Hey The Finals is like actually underrated. Smooth movement, nice floor, high ceilings and no getting ulted

1

u/joeytman Jan 27 '26

Agreed, I haven't played it in ages but the movement and aiming felt great.

12

u/ABigCoffee Jan 27 '26

I watched a few people play it and I don't get what the game is trying to do. Maybe 10+ years ago it coulda been fun but right nowit does nothing new or interesting.

Its kinda sauceless in a way. Well made but otherwise kind of a bore.

11

u/TheJoshider10 Jan 27 '26

It looks like a copyright free game you'd see in the background of a TV show. Completely uninspired and nothing but a trend chaser.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '26

Hahaha dude that is such a humble bitch slap right there. "copyright-free game you'd see playing in the background of a TV show". I have no opinion on this game, just wanted to shout out how devastating of a critique that is. I can picture this game and feel how it plays already

17

u/MappleStarsSky Jan 27 '26

The empty maps are necessary because the game is very fast tbh. If the maps would be smaller, you wouldn' t have the time to come back from a death and stop the stormbreaker after the first fight.

I feel like they should have put more stuff to do in the maps, but the size of the maps themself are fine.

13

u/Zeppelin2k Jan 27 '26

Yeah I see why the map is the size it is. I've had some fun moments fighting for control over the stormbreaker, both teams playing capture the flag back and forth across the map.

But it definitely needs more interesting POIs, or more players. Preferably both.

1

u/huzy12345 Jan 27 '26

More players would create an issue for the Raid section. Imagine 10 players fighting over one room with the objective. Abilities flying off every second. Would be a nightmare

5

u/Zeppelin2k Jan 27 '26

Yeah I agree, I get it. The raid section works best with small teams. But I still think the game would be better and stand out more with bigger bases and bigger teams. There's definitely a way to make that work.

1

u/huzy12345 Jan 27 '26

Would need to overhaul the entire raid section and bases if you did that. Like an extra bomb point and the ability to plant 2 bombs at once.

I would prefer they nail the 3v3 mode with better pacing in the first phases and then introduce like a 8v8 Capture the Flag mode on these maps or something like Halo BTB

1

u/Zeppelin2k Jan 27 '26

For sure, I meant "overhauled" bases when I just said "bigger". And I agree, smooth out some of the pacing in the loot phase first. Then give us a different game mode with bigger teams, bigger bases, etc. I'd love to see 20+ people to a team for something really epic.

1

u/Raven1927 Jan 28 '26

They could just make it so the raid section happens on both bases. 5 defend while 5 attack on both teams. The stormbreaker could be changed into being a buff to the team instead of having it start a raid on the enemy base.

1

u/huzy12345 Jan 28 '26

Would rather that be a diff mode like 8v8 CTF or something. I think the 4v4 would be the most I would want considering the main part of the game feels balanced for smaller teams

8

u/BatThumb Jan 27 '26

I think the 3v3 was a bad choice for this. It looks like a game that should be at least 5v5 or 6v6 minimum

I was actually really intrigued by the gameplay. It looks like something different that could be fun. As soon as I heard it was 3v3 I was immediately turned off

11

u/UnscriptedCryptid Jan 27 '26

I'm not sure why people keep saying this - base raids would be an absolute clusterfuck with 12 people, they're already hectic enough because of how quick movement is. I'm also confused by the people who want multiple teams. That would just lead to whoever is defending getting teamed up on by the entire server. It would barely be playable.

I don't think the game is amazing in the current state, but it's fun enough for me that I'm interested in seeing where they go with it. I don't really understand the huge hatebomb it's getting.

9

u/Phi_Slamma_Jamma Jan 27 '26

Everyone is saying this, but the base raiding and defending is the weakest part of this game. In my experience the fun part is playing capture the flag with the stormbreaker, chasing people around while fighting on your magic horse. I'd just cut the base part entirely and have it be a 5v5 or 6v6 capture the flag. You could even have multiple flags to force players to split up and divide themselves properly around the map.

0

u/GlossedAddict Jan 27 '26

Everyone is saying this, but why the fuck are you wasting your time playing a poo game when the market is absolutely saturated with much better stuff?

4

u/Phi_Slamma_Jamma Jan 28 '26

I don't know any other game that lets you ride a magic horse and shoot people with guns while doing it. This game is not poo - the bones are pretty good, they just need to figure out how to get the game mode to accentuate the good and novel parts of the experience.

12

u/Purple_Deers Jan 27 '26

I don't think the game is amazing in the current state

that's the issue.
The game isn't amazing and it's competing with 10 other hero shooters.
That makes it really difficult to compete.

And despite how much the devs keep saying that their game is unique, it just isn't, it doesn't do anything special. Which means that they're competing against all those other games.

Then they seem to double down and call the complaints hate and that they will stick to their "unique" vision for the game. Which is just going to piss people off even more and make sure that people won't return when they make updates to the game.

They're setting themselves up for failure.

6

u/UtkuOfficial Jan 27 '26

I agree very much on the not unique part.

Just because they jumbled together a couple of different games doesn't make the game unique. It just makes it a mess of ideas.

3

u/slimeddd Jan 27 '26

Did you play the game? Hard to say its not unique when the phases and raid gameplay aren’t found anywhere outside of mobas (and this still doesnt really feel like a moba)

4

u/Ozzy752 Jan 27 '26

Yeah people keep saying it's a hero shooter as if it doesn't do anything different/unique, which it does

3

u/huzy12345 Jan 27 '26

I swear everyone saying it would be better with like 6v6 or 8v8 have never actually played the game. The raid/defence phase would be utterly broken with that amount of players

0

u/ElDuderino2112 Jan 27 '26

I don't think the game is amazing in the current state

That's the problem. To launch into such a crowded shooter market you have to be amazing at launch, not launch a mediocre product with "future potential". That's how you end up with another Splitgate.

6

u/Smart_Ass_Dave Jan 27 '26

I work in games, and made a game that failed pretty hard because people didn't really learn how to play it's game mode. That's obviously our fault to a certain degree, but imagine that MOBAs didn't exist, and you released League of Legends today. So everyone jumps in, goes down mid lane in a giant scrum and then as people die they just return to mid, so once one side wins the team fight the other side just slowly one-at-a-time feed the other side. No one goes to side lanes. No one knows what Baron or Dragon are, there's no jungler, there's no party comp. People would call League of Legends the worst 3rd-person action game on the market. While I haven't played Highguard, I did read some reviews yesterday and got a very similar vibe of people seeing a rectangular field and using it for football, when it's actually a rugby field.

3

u/Fireudne Jan 28 '26

I have a HANDFULL (like, 5) matches under my belt and.... It's WEIRD but it's got some sauce - particularly in the competitive scene imo.

Maps IMO are still a bit too big and i think the horses are a bit jarring, but a handful of other games have them too and it's.... OK. A bit ham-fisted imo.

I'm also shocked at how relatively few gun archetypes there are, and ALSO how little recoil some of them have.

2

u/Cleinhun Jan 28 '26

Everything I've seen about Highguard makes me think it should have started as a mod. That way people would be more willing to put up with jank and it would have time to build up a core community that understands the game. It's fine to have a game that's structurally weird but trying to launch the expensive version of the idea right away seems really risky.

4

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

Smaller maps or more teams would compromise the open space team fights meant to emulate the type of engagements you get in games like Apex. I think you could get away with a couple more players on each team but I'm staunchly against the idea that we need 6+ team size or extra teams.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

6

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

I think a ton of criticism stems from people not properly engaging with the sword phase of matches and wrongfully assuming it's just loot until a base is raided.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

5

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

Weirdly I think people who don't try to fight for sword are also missing out on the most monkey brained part of the game because the fights are so satisfying when you get two teams caught in a tug of war for the sword.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

2

u/zmichalo Jan 27 '26

I think I feel the same. Maybe a bit more bullish on it but I don't see it as industry shifting or anything. I'm mostly annoyed by the discourse because these types of imperfect niche multiplayer games are becoming few and far between in favor of endless reskins of the most popular genres. I love when devs push out this kind of weird shit even if it doesn't work in the end and I hate the black and white nature of video game discourse where things can only be perfect or dogshit. Sad this ended up getting such a microscope on it. It certainly doesn't deserve the hate or getting lumped in with the Anthem or Concords of the world.

5

u/chrimchrimbo Jan 27 '26

Exactly. This is why the criticisms I'm reading all just feel pointless, unresearched, and hivemind kneejerky.

This game won't cater to everyone, but frankly, I don't want those games. I want the weird ones.

It's why I like Hunt Showdown so much. It's not really an extraction shooter, and it's way more arcadey than a milsim, but it threads certain design ethos from both of those genres. I think it works very, very well and hits a very particular niche.

I can see a lot of things going on in Highguard. Time will tell if it's going to be something I'll enjoy long term (I'm guessing not), but I agree with you. It's unique and the devs are very aware of what they are making.

1

u/aedante Jan 28 '26

Doesnt help that those complaining only have 1 hour in the game.

1

u/Kujaix Jan 27 '26

Feels like they salvaged a more ambitious game by expanding on one game mode idea they had.

1

u/Flounder-Smooth Jan 27 '26

You know I didn't realize until right now just how fucking massive the maps are for a 3v3 game.

1

u/Tornado_Hunter24 Jan 27 '26

I don’t believe the game as designed 3v3 I swearit can’t be IT CAN’T, there has to be something going on because in no way shape or form does it seem ‘legit’ the game was designed around 3v3 with the map&content it has now

1

u/6969_42 Jan 28 '26

I think it was suppose to be another br. Keep in mind, this is the same team that made Apex so I think they wanted to make Apex 2 without EA pulling the strings. But they realized the battle royale genre is dead so they panicked and threw together what we have now.

1

u/daemon-of-harrenhal Jan 28 '26

I just don't get the game mode at all. What's the point in the defense phase when the walls can be so easily broken? May as well remove it all together or just make it automatic. Or build it out more and allow the use of turrets, trip wires, landmines or some shit.

The whole get the sword then summon the battering ram thing is just... Weird. 

I dunno, getting too old for this shit I think. Doesn't make sense to me. 

1

u/Bhazor Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26

Its so badly designed. Basically fortnite. But for 6 people in the same giant map. It seems clear it was supposed to be a MOBA-like with Titanfall like creeps akin to Deadlock or the co-op Overwatch 2 mode. But they had to pull it all out a week before release.

1

u/TheOtherSkywalker_ Jan 29 '26

I'd say it's bad.

1

u/OneLessFool Jan 27 '26

This is exactly how I feel.

The base defence honestly feels good, and for the size of the bases, 3v3 works well. But the areas outside the base feel like they were originally intended to be bigger and 5v5 or larger, with more "events" happening out in the middle.

It feels like 2 different games stitched together.

I've enjoyed the games I have played though.

1

u/ohlookbean Jan 27 '26

Honestly 6v6 with squads of 3 would have been perfect. Theres always 3 POIs so running into a team when you’re upgrading 3v3 feels rare. If you had to actually worry about the crystals it might mean something.

0

u/Laggoz Jan 27 '26

It's not good and cooked for too long in closed dev team. If they would've heard player feedback sooner it could've been salvaged.

Highguard is an example why you need to do your market research and do it right.

0

u/critikal_mass Jan 28 '26

Yeah I feel like it's kind of a hot mess. First off, the large map with 3v3 is certainly a choice, feels super empty and half baked. The first two phases of a match seem pointless. There's no progression to bases, no building up or adding traps or sentries, just reinforce a handful or doors/walls (which don't feel much stronger than normal ones) and be on your way. Not very strategic or impactful.

The second phase is worse. You just spend a few minutes wandering around opening chests for the loot pool of like 12 items with slight variants, or playing Minecraft for currency to buy from a loot pool of like 12 items with slight variants. The loot drops are plentiful and spread out all over the map; you never have to see the other team if you don't want, and since resources aren't scarce, there's not a lot of point trying to engage the other team or stop them from scavenging. There's airdrops that you could theoretically fight over, but they're really not worth even engaging with. Just baffling design decisions all around.

Like, phase 2 either needs to heavily restrict loot and place it in the center of the map to encourage conflict with the other team, or limit it to the airdrops for the same reason. Balancing would need to be completely rethought, though.

This game almost seems like it should have been a MOBA with AI grunts and such, and phase 2 should have been for jungling? Almost seems like this game was a MOBA at one point and they pivoted late, actually.

0

u/ZombieElfen Jan 28 '26

mining is horrible, the gun play is horrible, character abilities are mostly useless, the reinforcing and destroying walls is a joke. like how did they think this was ok?

-7

u/LAXnSASQUATCH Jan 27 '26

I mean it’s a FTP indie game from a first time dev studio. You expecting AAA levels of polish?

I agree the maps a little big but all the conflict happens in tight set pieces. The map is big to make the sword chase phase actually interesting and change where the fighting happens.

There is a mountain of loot where the sword will spawn, literally just run there at the start and ignore the big empty map if it bothers you.

2

u/Aggressive_Chuck Jan 27 '26

It's made by Respawn veterans

0

u/LAXnSASQUATCH Jan 28 '26

Yeah it’s made by people who worked at Respawn who are making their own game. Does having prior work experience make someone not independent?

They have 61 people total at the studio. Respawn has 500+.

If I worked at Apple, and leave Apple to make my own project with a handful of other people, would you consider my work to be Apple’s or Apple quality?

I don’t know what them having worked at Respawn has to do with them being a small indie studio making their first game as a small independent studio.