Swen Vincke, the CEO of Larian Studios, recently posted a thoughtful thread about how we treat creators online, and then one deleted part of it.
The remaining tweets urged kindness toward the people who make things. We’re reminded that creating anything is an act of vulnerability. The deleted tweet, though, raised some eyebrows: Vincke suggested critics should be “scored” the way games are on Metacritic.
“Sometimes I think it’d be a good idea for critics to be scored, Metacritic-style, based on how others evaluate their criticism. I like to imagine it would encourage a bit more restraint. The harsh words do real damage. You shouldn’t have to grow callus on your soul just because you want to publish something.”
Swen probably deleted that specific tweet because it sounded like he wanted to silence criticism. But he did make a valid point: gaming discourse has become toxic.
Rage Sells
It’s common to see thumbnails on YouTube videos that say “It’s over.” “We lost.” “They’re cooked.” Think about it: how many times can “it” be “over”? They are rage baiting you.
Online platforms reward outrage. YouTube, Twitter (X), and TikTok thrive on negativity. The angrier the title sounds, the more engagement it gets. It’s a system that drowns out thoughtful criticism with rage bait. So when a game disappoints, developers take the full blast of player anger. The problem: these people aren’t responsible for release dates, budgets, or marketing. Meanwhile, executives who do make those decisions rarely face the same scrutiny.
Vincke’s thread wasn’t about shielding developers from criticism. It was about asking for some empathy.
Where the Anger Belongs
When video games are released in a broken state or overpriced, it’s good to hold companies accountable. What’s unfair is targeting individual developers for systemic problems they don’t control.
Executive pay, ballooning marketing budgets, and pressure from shareholders drive many of the industry’s worst decisions. The frustration players feel is real, but it’s often misdirected.
The harshest words are usually aimed at the most passionate people: the artists, programmers, and designers who care deeply and are often powerless over the business choices that frustrate fans.
Reviewers Need Some Accountability, Too
Vincke’s deleted “Metacritic for critics” idea wasn’t supposed to be taken so seriously. His point: the people who review games should have standards. The best critics explain their reasoning, differentiate taste from quality, and treat creators with respect. The worst farm outrage and treat cruelty as content. Internet culture gives the latter the biggest megaphone.
The Cost of Cruelty
Vincke shared a story about a reviewer who avoided destroying bad games because he knew every failure could lead to a future success. That’s the spirit Vincke wants to revive: restraint born of respect. When creators burn out and sensitive, passionate people stop trying, we’re left with an industry dominated by those who don’t care enough to be hurt. Which usually leads to more poor quality games being released.
What Players Can Do To Help
Constructive criticism is important, but cruelty doesn’t have a place in gaming reviews.
The best way to demand better games is with your wallet, not your words. Don’t preorder. Wait for reviews from creators who are honest about the game. Skip exploitative titles in the media. Reward care and integrity, not predatory design or cheap outrage.
Once you strip Vincke’s message of controversy, you’ll see that all he wants is for developers to be treated like humans. To be able to have meaningful dialog with consumers. You don’t have to like their work, but empathy makes the gaming industry less toxic. If cruelty drives out the people who care most, everyone loses, including the players.
