Talk:Highguard

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:NFILMS. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

Mariamnei (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Review section needs full reviews, not previews

There is a serious issue with the current text in the "review" section of the article, namely that outside of the Push Square item it's entirely composed of previews and first impressions pieces which gives a misleading understanding of full review reception of the game (which in the case of GameSpot is substantially different to the tone of their full review). I had attempted to resolve this issue at this version here and believe it would be a suitable base from which to improve the section further. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, there's also the related issue in that two of the previews are from sites where there are sourcing issues. Both The Escapist and Kotaku are not considered generally reliable per WP:VGRS, with the former's "review" page on its site now displaying clearly advertorial content promoting online casinos while the latter's entry states it should be avoided from 2023 onwards due to undisclosed AI content and concerns over content farming. So neither sources should be present on the page to begin with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

So, to avoid repetition, I'll simply summarize the gist of my previous comment here. I'd like to ask you to elaborate on the criticisms you raised about the text so I can better understand your position and formulate my response, as well as better understand how we can work together to make this section more coherent and expressive of ideas rather than simply a collection of various quotes. You mentioned some difference in tone and misrepresentation from the original Gamespot review, so I'd like to know what you meant. If Kotaku and Escapist don't meet the sourcing requirements, fine, we won't use them. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I've already explained this several times, especially in my edit summaries. The current items are "impressions" and "previews", not reviews of the game. Therefore they are not appropriate for a section on reviews.

For instance, the current GameSpot entry on the page is not a review but an on-launch initial impressions piece (because the developer/publisher didn't give out codes before release to reviewers) that suggests a far more positive view from the outlet, not their full review which instead paints a more mixed perspective as can be read here. This is therefore misleading because on glance it suggests that GameSpot reviewed the game favourably when they didn't. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, finally you need to understand that you are the one who needs to obtain consensus for the disputed content (the impressions/previews) as set out in WP:ONUS, instead of expecting me to justify removal. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't refute claims that weren't raised in the first place. How can I understand what exactly is causing your objections if you refuse to elaborate on them in the first place? Your comments are very general and lack specifics, so I want to know what exactly is causing your objection. Consensus is reached by both sides, not unilaterally, where one side sets vague conditions and the other has to guess what will satisfy the other. This pattern is already verging on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If you think these reviews are biased, you must show this through authoritative sources and provide reasons for it; your opinion alone will not be enough, as it could be interpreted as WP:OR or a conflict of interest if you directly oppose some source based on your personal opinion. Not to mention, we've already passed this stage, and now I'm simply trying to understand what you see as the main ideas of these reviews. Because to make this section more coherent, we need to expand on their descriptions in our own words, so that it doesn't look like a collection of quotes from various sources. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I quite literally explained my issue in both initial edit summaries:

"All three current sources appear to be previews, not full reviews"

"Re-removing previews. Given reviews are now out those should be used, not pre-release impressions"

And the thing is, you claim to "not understand my issue" except clearly you did given your edit summary acknowledged full reviews should be used when those are released:

"I don't see a problem when it's directly described in the section and full reviews haven't been added yet"

So I find it very hard to believe you're now repeatedly 'struggling to understand' this exact same issue. You may now say "consensus is reached by both sides, not unilaterally, where one side sets vague conditions and the other has to guess what will satisfy the other" yet all you keep doing is insisting I satisfy you when you're the one who is yet to give a single reason why we should be leaving non-reviews in a section for reviews. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

These are all just these points, and I want to hear your arguments to support them. These points alone don't constitute an argument. As I've tried to convey to you many times, discussion and consensus are a collaborative process. You can't simply make 2-3 statements and then unilaterally demand that they be worked on, deciding on your own whether the answer is "worthy" or not. And I will also ask once again to stop discussing my personality or my motives, we are discussing articles, not each other. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This is just blatant WP:SEALIONING from you now. I've literally shared the actual link to their review, demonstrated the item currently on the article is not the review, and you're still just demanding I somehow have to "prove it". Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

So, you accuse me of asking you to justify what exactly you don’t like instead of trying to understand the reason for your complaints and looking for your arguments for you, without any instructions from yourselfs? Sorry, but the burden of proof for our own claims lies on us. You can't just provide a pure link and then expect users to research and justify your thesis for you. I will also repeat that we're discussing the potential for expanding the cited reviews and their conclusions, not restoring old references. I don't understand why you continue to focus on this even after several clarifications from me. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

User Rambling Rambler's reasoning is convincing. Reviews are comprehensive evaluations of the final product after extensive play, while previews and impressions are limited snapshots from short sessions. --Cold Season (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I am no longer involved in writing or discussing the article, but to be clear, I want you to know that I have already given up on any return of previews to the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I have to disagree here. It's called a "Reception" section, not a "Reviews" section. It's not required to be a review, it just needs to be about how it's received. Reviews are the most common route to this, but not the only way. This is particularly true if there's limited reviews available.

I see both participants are already blocked for edit warring over this. Disappointing conduct all around. I'd recommend working on workshopping the content on the talk page in the future. "It's not a review" is completely invalid, but it is important to make sure the context and framing is correct too. There's a path to compromise if you can stop edit warring and collaborate. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 the issue was that they were placed in a further subsection of "reception" entitled "reviews" (which they aren't, hence a misleading representation of them) and at the time of the dispute there were many full reviews readily available which I had attempted to add in their place given we should use.

Of the three previews/first impressions pieces that were removed, two are from unreliable or situational publications (so should be avoided anyway) and the GameSpot "first hours after launch" piece was replaced by their full review from a week later. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the lack of further response in the last week I'm going to look at this as informally concluding to remove the previews currently in place due to two being inappropriate sources, and the third from GameSpot being superseded by their full review so no longer necessary. If there are other previews available from outlets without a formal review these could be appropriate for a different section of "Reception" but this doesn't appear applicable for now. The previous proto-reviews paragraph doesn't appear to have any opposition in terms of content so is suitable for inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Should we include "outgoing" in first sentence?

I remember seeing such when Anthem was being sunset so I was wondering if the same applies here ThePoggingEditor (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Developer Comments

Worth noting that the Lead Designer stated 'we don't need player counts to be super huge in order to be successful'

The founder and CEO also said 'We have a great opportunity to find our audience with Highguard'

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/we-dont-need-player-counts-to-be-super-huge-in-order-to-be-successful-highguard-devs-respond-to-posters-declaring-it-dead-on-arrival/ JackFrostyG (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Why though? It's a pre-release interview where okay they say that. But given they don't say what they consider that to actually be it's not useful for the article. We've already established that whatever it was, it clearly hasn't hit it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Because the game spent longer in development than it did as a game JackFrostyG (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If you're wanting to gravedance as this comment suggests, I suggest you find a different project. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It, factually, spent more time in development than it will being a live service game.

But you're absolutely right, the comments of the developers during development aren't worth noting. JackFrostyG (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

A quick glance at your talk page shows you're just a rude edit warrior. Nothing more to gain in this talk. Best wishes. JackFrostyG (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The fate of Wildlight Entertainment

Wildlight Entertainment itself (seemingly) shuttered soon after Highguard went offline. This should be mentioned in the article. ~2026-32139-02 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

"Seemingly" isn't good enough for inclusion. Is there a reliable source that confirms the studio is closed? Haven't found one as of yet. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)