Did Highguard Get Too 'Sweaty' for Its Own Good? A Former Dev Spills the Digital Beans on Why 3v3 Was a Bust.
AI Gaming News Author · Eurogamer ·
A former Highguard level designer reveals that the game's intense, "sweaty" 3v3 competitive focus alienated casual players, contributing to its downfall. This, combined with its complex rules and a secret, swift funding pull by Tencent, created a perfect storm for the ambitious free-to-play shooter.
Right, so you know that feeling when you’re trying to cast a powerful spell, and instead of hitting the dragon you aimed for, you accidentally turn your own pet into a teacup? Yeah, well, it feels like something similar might’ve happened over at Wildlight with their free-to-play shooter, Highguard. It promised a lot, garnered a fair bit of buzz post-The Game Awards, and was apparently pushing boundaries. But then… poof. Like a potion gone wrong, it faded, leaving behind whispers, a bewildered community, and some serious questions about what went sideways.
We’ve all seen games launch with a bang and fizzle out, but it’s always interesting to peek behind the digital curtain and see *why*. And that’s exactly what we got a glimpse of recently, thanks to Alex Graner, a senior level designer who, unfortunately, was among those laid off from Wildlight. He spilled some rather intriguing digital beans on the Quad Damage podcast, suggesting that Highguard might’ve just gotten a bit too… well, *sweaty* for its own good.
Graner, a bloke who dedicated himself to shaping Highguard's digital battlegrounds, talked candidly about the game's "constantly evolving" development. When he joined Wildlight, the studio was clearly ambitious, trying to "figure out this new, ambitious game" and "always pushing the boundaries." You don’t set out to create something that doesn’t work, do you? But as Graner highlighted, throughout its journey, Highguard really “leaned into the competitive side of it.” And that, he reckons (and I’m inclined to agree, mate), was the biggest turning point, and ultimately, the biggest turn-off for a lot of players. His "biggest fear," he admitted, came "when [the studio] decided to go full-in on 3v3."
Now, 3v3 isn’t inherently bad, eh? It can be intense, tactical, and an absolute blast if you’ve got your two best mates plugged in, communicating like a highly synchronised digital hive mind, pulling off insane coordinated plays. But Graner hit the nail on the head when he called 3v3 "the sweatiest version of anything." Think about it – battle royale duos, objective modes, wingman... these aren’t exactly where you go for a chill solo queue session, are they? These modes demand razor-sharp focus, constant call-outs, and a level of individual skill that often means if one player is off their game, the whole team suffers. It's a high-stakes, high-pressure environment that, as Graner aptly put it, "requires such a high intensity of communication with your team, and team play, that it doesn't leave much room for casualness."
He made a rather clever comparison to Apex Legends, which landed just as the battle royale craze was properly igniting. Apex, Graner pointed out, was "really easy to understand after you played one game." You drop, you loot, you shoot, you try not to die. Simple, elegant, addictive. Highguard, on the other hand? It was a bit more like trying to decipher an ancient spellbook mid-battle while simultaneously fending off a goblin horde. Graner described a cascade of rules: "Oh, you want to loot, now we've got to chase this objective, now we have to plant this objective, now it's overtime… It has all these rules, which I think works at a really high level, but when players are first coming in it's a lot to grasp." Bloody hell, that’s a lot to keep track of when you’re just trying to figure out which end of the gun shoots!
On top of all that intricate objective juggling, Highguard's 3v3 gameplay demanded a "high-skill movement and shooting" proficiency. This isn't just about understanding the game; it’s about having the twitch reflexes and muscle memory of a seasoned pro. Combine complex rules with a high mechanical skill floor, and you’ve built a rather imposing digital fortress, haven't you? This kind of design creates a formidable "high [bar to] entry." If you just have a few bad games, or your teammates aren't sticking together like a properly brewed potion, you're not just going to have a bad time – you're going to get absolutely *rolled*. Graner highlighted that it was "very hard to 1v2 in our game," meaning solo heroics were out, and team cohesion was everything. His conclusion was blunt, but fair dinkum, probably accurate: "People just kind of turned it off because they didn't have the team."
And this, my friends, is where the rubber meets the road for the average gamer, especially in a free-to-play title. Picture this: you log on after a long day, hoping for some digital escapism, a bit of fun. You don't have a pre-made team of esports prodigies on standby. You just want to jump in, shoot some stuff, maybe grab a win. But in Highguard’s intensely competitive 3v3 arena, if you’re not already a high-skill movement wizard with laser accuracy, and your randomly assigned teammates aren’t exactly sticking together like glue, your casual gaming session quickly becomes a frustrating chore. A free-to-play game needs to cast a wide net, drawing in all sorts of players. If it immediately tells a large chunk of that potential audience they’re not welcome without a dedicated squad and pro-level skills, it's essentially casting a self-defeating charm.
Now, as if that weren't enough to contend with, there’s another layer to this digital onion that stinks a bit of corporate intrigue. Just a day before the news of layoffs broke, reports started circulating that Tencent, the behemoth behind a frankly staggering number of gaming investments, had pulled funding from Wildlight a mere *two weeks* after Highguard’s launch. Two weeks! That's barely enough time to iron out the launch-day bugs, let alone prove long-term viability or hit the mysterious metrics Tencent evidently had in mind. Talk about a swift execution, like an investor impatiently hitting the 'uninstall' button.
And here’s the kicker: Tencent’s involvement in Highguard’s development was, for some reason, kept under wraps until *after* the layoffs. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it? What were they trying to hide? Was it to avoid association with a potentially controversial game, or perhaps to give Wildlight more perceived autonomy? We may never know the full story, but the secrecy itself just adds another curious, slightly chaotic element to Highguard’s already tangled tale. It also highlights a common industry woe: the power of a major publisher or investor to pull the rug out from under a development team with little warning, leaving a core group of fewer than 20 people to try and keep the dream alive, as is reportedly the case at Wildlight today.
This whole Highguard saga is a cautionary tale, isn’t it? It highlights that delicate tightrope game developers walk between appealing to the hardcore, competitive crowd and keeping the doors open for casual players who just want to have a bit of a laugh. Sometimes, in the pursuit of esports glory or high-level tactical depth, a game can inadvertently put up so many barriers that it scares away the very audience it needs to survive. Is it possible to design a game that caters to both? Absolutely, we’ve seen it done. Games like Overwatch, for instance, managed to offer competitive depth while still being broadly accessible and enjoyable for casual players, thanks to diverse hero kits and a more forgiving team structure. But it requires a hell of a lot of careful balancing, a deep understanding of player psychology, and perhaps, a touch more patience than some investors are willing to offer.
In the end, Highguard’s story is a potent reminder that even with big names attached and ambitious ideas, if the core player experience doesn’t click for a broad enough audience – especially in a free-to-play model – then even the most "pushing the boundaries" development team can find themselves in a bit of a bind. Here’s hoping the lessons learned here lead to future games that manage to be both brilliantly challenging *and* genuinely welcoming. Because, let’s be honest, we all want to blow up the dragon, not just sit on the sidelines trying to read the spell instructions, eh?
Tags: Game Development, Free-to-Play, Competitive Gaming, Highguard, Industry Analysis
Original article: Eurogamer