Von Hugh
Member
Apparently Twitch viewers rather watch animals doing nothing than playing Highguard.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Highguard Debuts on Steam with a peak CCU of 97k and 21% positive reviews
- Thread starter LectureMaster
- Start date
- Platform
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Why not? Penguins are top tier animals.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
LOL. Looks my prediction was spot on this time. My first prediction was way off when I said it could hold 40-50k after the 97k start.
It's now at 7,400. It peaked yesterday at 12,700. So it'll likely top out around 10,000. And middle of the night drop to 3,000-ish.
That's tech and gaming for. Too much money floating around, too many execs greenlighting dumb shit, and too many creatives who cant wait to get their hands on buckets of money to make their crappy dream game.
How is it that a company that churns out boring shit like soap or bread can spend more time analyzing what should sell well or not before committing to making it, but a game company with tons of money cant determine what is good and destined to be junk. Crazy.
With the billions of dollars wasted over the years on projects bombing, just imagine how much better gaming could be if they used that money to make better games. And better games on time, and not 5+ year projects. Back in the day studios could churn out sequels every couple years which were quality. Somehow that 360/PS3 era had tons of great games, sequels every couple years, and it was a new era of console gaming of HD, different architectures, online MP gaming was a new thing for console gamers, etc... And they figured out how to make solid games back then. Any many were grass root IPs we still play today! So not only technically did they figure it out, but creatively too!
Last edited:
ContrarianAsshole
Member
Well, ok, but aren't you hopping on the other side of what you see as an extreme? Not only did you spend a lot of money on the most expensive version months before the game's release, but if it turns out bad you'll probably feel compelled to run defense for it anyway in order to justify your purchase. We on the other hand haven't spent any money, we're getting schadenfreude for free. Come join the dark side man, it's fun!
Last edited:
MiguelItUp
Member
Uh no, I thought it looked cool, and it had been a bit since I purchased something "big" like that so maybe the timing was right. It's a video game, I'm not going to defend anything that doesn't defend me, lmao. I know people love to do that, but that ain't me. Hell, it's happened in the past with a number of games I was super hyped for and bought the collector's. I didn't defend them at all, lol, I just wrote it off as a, "Welp, that's a shame." scenario. (Aliens Colonial Marines immediately comes to mind, lol.)
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Now that's a real life shill.
ContrarianAsshole
Member
Ah alright then I retract my comments
STARSBarry
Gold Member
Last edited:
Plague Doctor
Member
I mean does PC Gamer even thinks a headline like this works?
"Look I know the consensus says its shit but if you don't listen, it's fine"
Weird fucking cope.
Reality is what it is. This weird PR weasal talk is just fucking sad.
Last edited:
Fake
Member
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
It's definitely not "sh*t". Consensus means nothing when the online bubble hates everything competitive.
Fake
Member
Well in convinced, this looks like GOTY.
My kiss of death, by Morgan Park.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Well in convinced, this looks like GOTY.
simpatico
Gold Member
The industry was still full of OG hobbyists for the PS360 era. Just find a bunch of photos of who these project managers are and it's actually shocking that things aren't worse. I think most every game in the pipeline right now is going to flop to some extent. If they're correcting now, we'll see the fruits in 5 years. Still a long way to go. Thankfully indie is picking it up nicely. Just got Tainted Grail last night.
Last edited:
SmokSmog
Member
Well in convinced, this looks like GOTY.
PeteBull
Member
U talking like sellout reviewer, bro, according to them game is avg too, with 67meta, userscore is much more fair, sitting at 2,1/10
Highguard Reviews
From the creators of Apex Legends and Titanfall, comes Highguard: a PvP raid shooter where players will ride, fight, and raid as Wardens, arcane gunslingers sent to battle for control of a mythical continent. There they'll clash against rival Warden crews for possession of the Shieldbreaker...
www.metacritic.com
NickFire
Member
I feel sympathy for the devs of this game that I did not fail for Concord's devs.
In my opinion, and based on limited knowledge, this one is flopping because it looks soulless. Like someone said let's copy a couple good ideas at once and make a fortune by merging them. And then tried to appeal to so many they didn't appeal to anyone at all. Basically went the safe route and came up short. For which I am sympathetic.
Concord, on the other hand, pushed an agenda. To the extent the people there were duped into believing the agenda was appreciated by more than a vocal minority I suppose a little sympathy might be warranted. But they won't be getting it from me. Anyone trying to sell a product to my kids with their agenda all over it gets no sympathy from me.
In my opinion, and based on limited knowledge, this one is flopping because it looks soulless. Like someone said let's copy a couple good ideas at once and make a fortune by merging them. And then tried to appeal to so many they didn't appeal to anyone at all. Basically went the safe route and came up short. For which I am sympathetic.
Concord, on the other hand, pushed an agenda. To the extent the people there were duped into believing the agenda was appreciated by more than a vocal minority I suppose a little sympathy might be warranted. But they won't be getting it from me. Anyone trying to sell a product to my kids with their agenda all over it gets no sympathy from me.
P:axMagellanic
Member
Michael in 5 is the best GTA character, primarily because of his mid life crisis.
Moridianae
Member
Mid afternoon and still at not even 7k? Oof.
Neon Xenon
Member
PC Gamer has been Diet Kotaku for a long time now, and the collage of that tool running defense for notoriously mediocre or bad games just further proves why they should be safely dismissed.
Well then, the stupid ass industry shouldn't be shooting itself in the foot every time then? Like how is people laughing at this idiocy changes anything at all if we know the results are going to be the same no matter what?
Hero Shooter is a what, a 2014-2016 thing? Overwatch was hot back in those days, no one even cares about it anymore
I thought industry was always chasing trends, BR was the next big thing after Hero Shooter saturation, but Fortnite just got so big no one else tried to beat them so devs regressed back to this again?
You cannot have heart and be mindful and cheer and hope for their success, "because they tried hard", they're not the only ones trying, there are many others with better products out there that deserve it more than these idiots who thought making another generic lame ass hero shooter game in the year of our lord 2026 was a good idea
And you too
Men_in_Boxes
, another one of your precious games crash and burn, lmao...
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
^ Way back for any of you who never read PC gamer, it was an awesome magazine in the 90s. It was probably the first PC gaming mag that was thick with good page quality. Some of those mags must of had 100s of pages. Other PC game mags were either thin or sometimes half black and white because I guess it cost too much to be full colour pages. PC Gamer elevated all that.
My bro was a PC gamer back then and I remember his first mag. It had Transport Tycoon on it. From there, he bought it probably every month till 2000.
And the reviews were excellent. Big articles with pics and text and never afraid to grill a game with a shitty 15 or 20% rating. If it was junk, it was junk. And like all media back then you didnt get political stuff. It was just talking games with I think a letterbag Q&A section with the editors like most gaming mags had back then.
My bro was a PC gamer back then and I remember his first mag. It had Transport Tycoon on it. From there, he bought it probably every month till 2000.
And the reviews were excellent. Big articles with pics and text and never afraid to grill a game with a shitty 15 or 20% rating. If it was junk, it was junk. And like all media back then you didnt get political stuff. It was just talking games with I think a letterbag Q&A section with the editors like most gaming mags had back then.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I remember them as well and used to buy often when they showed up each month at the local markets. Same for Electronic Gaming Monthly.
Everything was just better in the 90s and early to mid 2000s.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
It's currently at 8,000 CCU at 19:00 UTC time.
At that time yesterday, it was 11,500 and as the day progressed it never broke past 13,000.
So if the trend is similar, this game will likely peak at around 9,000-ish and that's it. Middle of the night it'll drop from 4,500 to probably about 3,000-ish.
That's it boys. It'll probably get a small weekend bump like every game gets, but by next week happens and the userbase normalizes on the weekdays, this game will probably be at a daily range of 2,000 - 5,000. That's it. And from there it'll keep dropping.
At that time yesterday, it was 11,500 and as the day progressed it never broke past 13,000.
So if the trend is similar, this game will likely peak at around 9,000-ish and that's it. Middle of the night it'll drop from 4,500 to probably about 3,000-ish.
That's it boys. It'll probably get a small weekend bump like every game gets, but by next week happens and the userbase normalizes on the weekdays, this game will probably be at a daily range of 2,000 - 5,000. That's it. And from there it'll keep dropping.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Take your wins while you can get them.Well then, the stupid ass industry shouldn't be shooting itself in the foot every time then? Like how is people laughing at this idiocy changes anything at all if we know the results are going to be the same no matter what?
Hero Shooter is a what, a 2014-2016 thing? Overwatch was hot back in those days, no one even cares about it anymore
I thought industry was always chasing trends, BR was the next big thing after Hero Shooter saturation, but Fortnite just got so big no one else tried to beat them so devs regressed back to this again?
You cannot have heart and be mindful and cheer and hope for their success, "because they tried", they're not the only ones trying, there are many others with better products out there that deserve it more than these idiots who thought making another generic lame ass hero shooter game in the year of our lord 2026 was a good idea
And you too
Marathon approaches.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
A big problem with gaming is they take years to make a game and many chase fads and trends hoping by the time their game comes in 4 years, that theme or trend is still hot.Well then, the stupid ass industry shouldn't be shooting itself in the foot every time then? Like how is people laughing at this idiocy changes anything at all if we know the results are going to be the same no matter what?
Hero Shooter is a what, a 2014-2016 thing? Overwatch was hot back in those days, no one even cares about it anymore
I thought industry was always chasing trends, BR was the next big thing after Hero Shooter saturation, but Fortnite just got so big no one else tried to beat them so devs regressed back to this again?
You cannot have heart and be mindful and cheer and hope for their success, "because they tried", they're not the only ones trying, there are many others with better products out there that deserve it more than these idiots who thought making another generic lame ass hero shooter game in the year of our lord 2026 was a good idea
And you too
Just look at the zillion Souls-like games and horror thriller games now. You didnt see so many of these not long ago. The entire WWII shooter thread disappeared when it was the hot shooter setting in 2000s as an example too. Activision doesnt even make them anymore and the only ones you see are AA indie WWII shooters for $30 or F2P.
And because they cant or wont adjust their game mid-stream and most dont even tell gamers about what they are working until year 3 when it's already probably too late to turn things around, then they got to just force it through as a sunk cost and hope it still sells. Most games dont even have a demo or beta, when during the 360/ps3 days just about every game had a demo or trial.
A terrible product strategy. But that's how gaming companies seem to work half the time. Even worse, shadow dropping decent budget games as the studios first product! They treat making games with corporate money like playing poker..... ok boys, get out of the way as I'm going all in!
But since games are project based, what do most of the people really care? As long as there's another game to make or they get a contract at another studio they already got paid. I bet half the people who work on games (employees and hired gun contract workers) arent even at the same company anymore by the time the game actually releases. So whether the game is great or bombs, they are already working somewhere else. So who really gives a shit. The guy got paid to work on art or sound for 2 years so he did his part and off to something else.
Last edited:
simpatico
Gold Member
So, the concept of this game is a bad concept. Especially in the streaming age. I'm very curious of the project's budget, and how people in control of that much money didn't notice that the first 4 minutes of every match is nigh unplayable and unwatchable. I can kinda see how it went better in testing. Everyone knows each other very well, they're "playing it right" and thinking through the design of that dreadful mining phase too deeply to notice that this would be the worst thing on Twitch. In terms of systems, skipping that whole phase would change so very little, it just makes no sense. The actual raid itself looks decent, but 3v3 with 3 bomb locations doesn't seem well thought out either. If this is a $5 million dollar game, do you fellas. But if this got like ghost AA+ funding considering the dev pedigree, they just lost a fuckton of money. Sure you could fix it, but I don't think the bones are good enough to risk it. You could just start over with something new that's not fundamentally flawed.
Unironically, Concord is a full tier higher than this in gameplay concept and execution.
Unironically, Concord is a full tier higher than this in gameplay concept and execution.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That's weird though, because to me both of those ways to fail seem equally terrible. One was agenda-based and the other was soulless and pitched to maximize $$$ over creativity.
NickFire
Member
It's not weird to me. Literally just no sympathy for people promoting what I believe is a cancerous agenda that has harmed children and society.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I guess, in the opposite way I view the way they made Highguard also cancerous, but from a creative\business standpoint. But not to children or anything. It bores me to tears seeing such a lazy approach to game creation.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
ChorizoPicozo
Member
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The stutter from him says it all, in hindsight.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Unless people are wrong on forums (I didnt play the game), the game doesnt have join-in-progress gamers. Is this right?????
If a game that is only 3 vs 3 on big maps where a match can take up to half an hour, sounds like a death sentence to me. Especially since it sounds rampant performance is shaky, people cant get into a game or booted, and people quitting in frustration.
That means you probably will get many games which starts 3 vs 3 but end up 3 vs 2 or 2 vs 1. Hardly any players on a big map.
That's why for a game like this you need more players. So if a couple guys drop off it's not the end of the world if nobody subs back in. In classic COD matches that are 6 vs 6, even if nobody subs in making a team go down to 4 or 5 you can still win if the players are good enough where raw skills in small maps can still dominate. But with giant maps and objectives to defend walls and plat bombs etc.... how the hell is a team down to 1 or 2 people going to do that effectively? But I think the game probably had more players, but performance was already so shaky they culled it back to 3 during development. They knew telling gamers its 3 vs 3 was bad news, so they didnt even tell gamers till launch day.
At least in S&D 4 vs 4 modes, the matches can be super quick in small maps and easy to understand objectives. Heck most matches end by just killing the other players.
Last edited:
BigBeauford
Member
How was there not a single person in the room with an IQ above room temperature, who didn't suggest they just make a ripoff of Titanfall. Worked for Expedition 33.
Varteras
Member
Well then, the stupid ass industry shouldn't be shooting itself in the foot every time then? Like how is people laughing at this idiocy changes anything at all if we know the results are going to be the same no matter what?
Hero Shooter is a what, a 2014-2016 thing? Overwatch was hot back in those days, no one even cares about it anymore
I thought industry was always chasing trends, BR was the next big thing after Hero Shooter saturation, but Fortnite just got so big no one else tried to beat them so devs regressed back to this again?
You cannot have heart and be mindful and cheer and hope for their success, "because they tried hard", they're not the only ones trying, there are many others with better products out there that deserve it more than these idiots who thought making another generic lame ass hero shooter game in the year of our lord 2026 was a good idea
And you too
Lokaum D+
Member
It ll be fun to @ you when Marathon comes out
Last edited:
Plague Doctor
Member
Cause this was the Dev's dream game...
A f2p 3v3 on a large map that mixes the best hits of other better games, hero shooter with a character and art style that can best be described as "random sci fi-fantasy mashup grab bag with the saturation turned up to 12 and not skipping a color".
Don't shame them for following their dreams.
They spent a lot of time cultivating their own style and writing expansive and meaningful lore.
I suspect their style alone will be studied and cloned. I can see a future where we will see dozens of Highguard-likes.
Last edited:
Last Hearth
Member
I don't want to shit on the game, but the horse riding thing is the most ridiculous and pointless thing I saw. It's just a horse's head on your screen that does nothing. You vision doesn't bounce up and down like you're actual riding something, you start and stop instantly so there is no sense in terms of gameplay that you're riding a mount. A mount might be cool in the third person view that at least you can see yourself riding it. But in first person it just looks like a floating head that blocks part of your vision.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
This is a great post if you looked at Highguard for 15 minutes and thought you knew more than 100 game developers who worked on it for 4+ years.
Highguard does a bad job of communicating its "boring phase" to players. However, once you understand everything it's reasonably enjoyable. Consider...
1. The chests are "gambles" and are used to build 80% of your loadout.
2. Farming crystals allows you to finish off your loadout by buying expensive gear in the shop.
This system forces the player to ask reasonably fun questions based on time.
"Do I look for more chests and hope I pull a better gun, or can I rock with what I currently have?"
"Do I farm more or is my current economy enough to set me up for the next phase?"
When you over prioritize building your loadout, you risk the other team setting up on the objective before it pops. This system does a good job at keeping you unsteady and communicating with your team on what the group should do.
Their current system also dies a solid job of preventing smowballing because each looting phase only gives you two different rarities in color...the current phase and the prior phase rarities. If you have the ideal loadout during the first phase, do you risk taking the more powerful gun that you like less?
A take so bad that I immediately want to go to sleep. Highguard is significantly more interesting in terms of taking real creative risks.
I've put a lot of time into The Finals, Wildgate, and now this. I think the reality is that games built around teamplay are difficult to sell to the 95% of gamers who just want to jump on and relax. Most gamers do not play games with their two best gaming buddies. Coordinating with strangers is sub optimal especially when the reward for winning is so rote.
Zacfoldor
Gold Member
Karma_Games
Member
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Nobody knows multi-player game design more than the people on NeoGAF who hate all things multi-player, right?
Last edited:
