Honestly, it didn't live up to the hype for me. The ships move slow as shit, it takes far long for them to be destroyed and the tactical options are minimalistic at best. And too much of the campaign's "difficulty" is based around you just making more units to carry over to the next mission.
Might still finish the first one for the overhyped story, but the second one doesn't even have that. Disappointing.
'Seinfeld isn't funny' phenomenon.
It might have been a big deal back in the day but by now it's going to be far less special among all these newer games that borrowed elements from it.
But Seinfeld is just as funny as all the other American comedy sitcoms that people still like today.
That's the point. Once you've seen all those, Seinfeld seems just like everything else you've watched. It's really easy to get burned out on media when you consume lots of highly similar things.
But Homeworld is fairly unique as far as RTS games go, so why make the Seinfeld comparison?
And which games and what elements would those be, exactly?
>talking like an anime character
>redditspacing
lol
do tell anon
This actually has me curious now, what things did Homeworld do that were a) inventive and b) became a benchmark for other RTS games?
>3D movement
>no base building
>Capture enemy units
>formations
I really enjoyed homeworld but I don’t think it was some sort of benchmark that defined the industry like Command and Conquer or StarCraft were.
Which is funny, because after Starcraft 2, RTS's died and only the most autistic fans stuck by their darling autism simulators like Civilization, Total Wars and Paradox GSGs. I better fricking see AoE4 numbers go up, or you're not getting another RTS.
You forgot the sound design, but then again that's every Relic/BBI game. Even the bad ones have good sound design.
I dunno what the guy up above is talking about. There are video games that have good single player experiences like Homeworld, but really not many RTS games. And the other RTS games that do are either stories with lots of comedy or just aren't as good as Homeworld. Everything from the delivery of lines, the atmosphere created by the sound and music, the sense of progression. It's a really unique experience that's able to create stoic space settings mixed with the emotions you get from a story about tribal warfare.
The game is hugely influential, but not really copied, especially not in the Dune 2 style RTS genre specifically.
>The game is hugely influential, but not really copied
So what did it influence, then?
Lots of space games have tried to copy Homeworld's stoicism. The idea of pretty backgrounds with ships flying around just looking cool sounds pretty generic and it's not like Homeworld invented something like that, but a lot of times it's pretty obvious they've played Homeworld. There's also lots of people that Homeworld has clearly influenced. Defense Grid 2 was funded by one guy who just really liked Homeworld and wanted to spend some of his free cash on funding a video game.
Hell Ixion just came out and it has those Arabian music tracks that are pretty much the HW soundtrack. The beginning plot is essentially the same too.
>>3D movement
Was a badly implemented mechanic (no one's done it right).
>>no base building
Lots of RTS's did it, even before HomeWorld. If anything, it still has base building because you still have to gather resources and build up your space base and build units.
>Capture enemy units
>formations
Not even need to address these obvious "Homeworld didn't do it first or popularize it" points.
There was no true evolution in the RTS genre.
The most innovative and fun titles were never copied, and everybody else just tried to recreate what Ensemble perfected.
There will never be a traditional RTS as good as Age of Empires 2 or Age of Mythology and there never will be RTS games as innovative as Homeworld or Myth. The last truly great RTS game was Company of Heroes (1).
the 90s (and maybe early 00s) were the golden age of rts, the most creative and innovative games in the genres history were being made then and indeed the entirety of gaming.
However when Koreans adopted SC1, long falling out of popularity, and turned it into an esport. They created a problem. Blizzard started pandering to them and the genre became synonymous with Starcraft.
Producers of games didn't want to touch any rts because Starcraft was not only falsely perceived as the only style of rts game, no one wanted to gamble making a game that wouldn't become an esport, requiring millions in investment. SC1 and then 2 being turned into a Korean espirt essentially killed off the genre for everyone.
Now with the rise of indie devs the possibility for real rts made by real rts fans that are not Starcraft is entirely possible.
Agree. The chase for a competitive e sport rts game killed all rts games in the last decade. Everybody now thinks all rts have to be "fast" and "competitive" like starcraft and forget about making the game "fun".
>I really enjoyed homeworld but I don’t think it was some sort of benchmark that defined the industry like Command and Conquer or StarCraft were.
As I remember it there was like 3 spaceship game top.
And we didn't in fact get more.
>3D movement
Even today most game use GRID movements, the ship may move fluidly but still stop on a distinct grid
>no base building
So what? I actually long for games with mobile base
>Capture enemy units
Not really special yes, still cratch that space-marine hitch
>formations
the original HW1, not the remaster, made a better use of formation.
Everything since is superfluous yes.
Homeworld wasnt the first rts game to do this. Hell the first ever rts had no base building.
The idea that rts need base building is asiaticclicker syndrome
thats cause asiaticclick killed rts
>sucks his grandfather's wiener
>while being arse fricked by his other grandfather
lol
Whatever you may think, it was still a refreshing break from every other RTS game at the time that was focused on land combat.
Seinfeld is still fricking hilarious today though.
>'Seinfeld isn't funny' phenomenon.
Seinfeld absolutely holds up and is STILL the best sitcom. Youre stupid. Just because they dont have smartphones, that does not mean it doesnt hold up.
>STILL the best sitcom
that would be frasier
strategy games
Seinfeld isn't funny, it's obnoxious israelite shit with a fricking laugh track
Imagine spewing this kind of hatred during hanukkah...
No, Homeworld is still a very special RTS. If you compare it to other space strategies, it's probably one of the very few, if not the only one, where combat takes place in 3D space.
And it means fricking nothing. It's not like positioning matters.
>Hyperspace fleet on top of Vaygr battlecruisers
>Mighty trinity cannon still facing forwards, cannot hit your fleet
>Positioning doesn't matter
homeworld has not had a significant design legacy
All I want is a Freespace 2 sequel that continues the story line (whatever timeskip necessary) but is an RTS and it acts like I wanted Homeworld to act.
The most original thing about the Homeworld universe is that the main guys are like pseudo-Arabs except they're white, and all the other guys are white, in fact there are no alien races, just white people fighting white people. Maybe the first game's spin off story was good... for an RTS.
>space flight sim turned into RTS
Don't fricking ruin my Freespace, homosexual.
The Bentusi are genuine aliens, and some of the encountered derelicts were built by non-human(oid) species.
No they aren't, see
Imagine reading this and not immediately figuring out this is a shitty troll
theres actually a mod that did this, it is quite beautiful
They are Arab inspired because in the future all white people converted to Islam, insallah.
It's because it was ripping off The Dune
If you're playing the remake, then you aren't playing Homeworld 1. If you're playing the remake with the player's patch, then you need to voluntarily not use, like, 75% of your RUs because the remake still gives you shitloads more resources. It's impossible to not be in a state where you're unable to rebuild your entire fleet three times over by mission 10. Also, it's not a fast paced RTS, it's a single player RTS.
>If you're playing the remake, then you aren't playing Homeworld 1
correct, I tried playing through my old Homeworld 1 install again but it always crashes on Mission 10. I decided to at least finish the rest in remastered (with the latest players patch), and its an abomination. It's also far buggier, enemies would just move towards my ships without firing and get stuck until their AI turned off.
shut up b***h
The Remaster was good
Mandalore said so
Bought the game because heckin Mandalorerino recommended it!
The only reason anyone praises this game is because of the story. The gameplay aged terribly and wasn't even that fun when it came out, which is why it's been relatively obscure compared to other RTS of the time.
Stop getting gaming recommendations from YouTubers, especially when it's that obvious they're shilling or just capitalizing on hype.
>The gameplay aged terribly and wasn't even that fun when it came out,
Yo, Homeworld fans gonna destroy this guy's life!
Name a fun space RTS
>he couldn't
Another honehater bites the dust
RTS was already dead by the time HW1 came out. It was the only space RTS that isn't a 4x like Sins of a Solar Empire.
Is the difficulty in this game really fricking scaled towards how many units you had surviving from last mission? Seriously...
Never had that problem with the original, and I replayed it A LOT as a kid. Now home world 2 on the other hand? Yes, gigantic capital ships would magically appear just out of sight range.
I want to kill whoever made that asteroid mission. Do I seriously have to fricking click every asteroid one by one? Why can't the fricking piece of shit fleet defend itself from fricking incoming asteroids, are they moronic??
It's a really, REALLY big asteroid, and it was specifically designed to attack the Mothership. It's called 'Headshot Asteroid' for a reason.
Gather resources. If I recall, in HW1 you didn't automatically get every RU on the map.
Also, enemy ships near the Mothership disrupt the jump sequence.
>It's a really, REALLY big asteroid, and it was specifically designed to attack the Mothership. It's called 'Headshot Asteroid' for a reason.
Nope, not that one. That's literally just one asteroid. I was talking about the "clear asteroid field" mission where you fight against nothing. No matter what I tried they wouldn't shoot the asteroids on their own.
>they wouldn't shoot the asteroids on their own.
Ctrl + shift + click. Can drag select with that option too, but be careful because your dudes will shoot EVERYTHING selected, even your other dudes.
whomever
>eternally stuck in mission 12 because the "sources of gravity" objective won't go away even after I destroy all the gravity wells
>apparently the game can't handle the fact that my ships start attacking it during cutscene
FRICK
YOU
Is there any reason not to jump away immediately when you snipe the objective and enemy ships are still alive?
Enemy ships being alive is fine.
Enemy ships still being crewed by the enemy is not.
Anyhow, finished the first game. Was a lot lamer than I expected. The story too.
>lived long enough to see zoomers call Homeworld lame and boring
wew
t. 21 year old who is "mature for his age"
You've never played a good RTS if you think Homeworld still holds up. From its beginning it was just carried by soifacing over muh 3D movement.
Name a fun space RTS.
The challenge of creating RTS as a genre lies in the fact that it is very easy to make strategy or tactic aspect in game tiresome and monotonous.
The most interesting thing I remember from Homeworld:
>Cataclysm
>The end of mission three.
>Forgot to get resources
>Well, there’s no such thing.
>Suddenly
>The Raider Armada Appears Out of Nowhere
>Raiders are laughing at me, pointing out my little fleet.
>Tactical Officer advises me to retreat
>A lot of Ion Array Frigates
>I want capture all shiny frigates and want it now
>On my first attempt I lost
>The mothership was destroyed because lack of control
>The next attempt was more successful than I expected
>Mimic ships proved to be useful to wipe out part of the raider fleet.
>Now I’ve focused more on destroying frigates than capturing
>While the mothership tanked most of the fighters' damage
>At the end of the battle I managed to capture 3 Ion array frigates
>Although this mission can pass less than 5 minutes, and not lose a single ship
It may seem foolish on my part, but it was so satisfying. Considering that I played repeatedly on the highest difficulty, later they helped a lot.
Not exactly a RTS, but SPAZ 2 is fun enough.
If that's the most interesting thing you remember from Cataclysm, and not how it was literally a horror game, you didn't play Cataclysm correctly.
32 or 33 year old here, i don't remember which
homeworld campaigns were definitely always a chore to play and i did it simply for the atmosphere, the eyecandy and the story. kind of like a silent hill of strategy games.
when i think of my favorite parts of other games from the era, like say myth, or ground control, i think of cool action set pieces, surviving against the odds by positioning my troops just right and managing to have good reaction time to emergencies.
when i think of my favorite parts of homeworld it's always the music and staring at skyboxes and cool ship designs.
Really, why has no one tried to make Homeworld-but-not-shit-gameplay?
>the sole reason for 80% of sales this year
So Homeworld 2 is not worth playing?
Problem with 2 is the writers got kicked out for some higher up's girlfriend. leading to shitty unmemorable plot. add in a few gameplay niggles and its not as impressive in comparison to the first.
personally I don't like the art direction for most of the ship designs either. 3 also doesn't look great.
I read the story concepts and none of them were really great, or at least not first game great. Maybe they would have been better if they got someone who did the manuals for 1 or Cataclysm to edit them.
Cataclysm's was so great, the backstory was better than the main plot in some ways.
>Cataclysm's was so great, the backstory was better than the main plot in some ways.
I respectfully disagree and think you have bad taste.
Cata do have one interesting part: miner clan go from forgettable to respected.
But the rest? It's a cheap as "cosmic horror" plot full of holes and solved with a Deus Ex Machina.
You are supposed to understand the Imperialist when you need to be extremely dumb to ally with a space-monster who will casually assimilate you after you repower it.
You are supposed to make a point to the Bentusi when you are no different than the Imperialist, trying to take the Bentusi down with you.
Oh and "exiting the galaxy" was hardly going to work against a fast replicating grey-goo creature born from an experiment to cross galaxies.
I hope Cata is not made cannon or completely retconned
>miner clan go from forgettable to respected.
That is easily the worst part of the plot foundation. Plucky underdogs who are looked-down-upon by their 'betters?' Goodness, I can't imagine how that is going to play out.
>cheap as "cosmic horror"
Cosmic horror is hardly "cheap." Yes, it can be implemented badly, such as whenever the Beast communicates directly in Cataclysm's case. Otherwise an excellent concept that is blends well with gameplay and creates an engrossing mood and tension as the plot progresses.
>plot full of holes
Such as?
>solved with a Deus Ex Machina
The siege cannon? That they salvage and doesn't work when they first use it? The weapon they spend the rest of the game looking for ways to repair and upgrade? Even going as far as to obtain a sample of the Beast from the Naggarok in the midst of a Taiidan salvage operation? "Deus Ex Machina?" Are you actually serious?
>you need to be extremely dumb to ally with a space-monster who will casually assimilate you after you repower it.
The Taiidan could simply not have grasped the full danger the Beast presents, or they may have believed they could fully control it. Arrogance and hubris on the part of an antagonist is not bad writing.
>you are no different than the Imperialist, trying to take the Bentusi down with you.
Kiith Somtaaw don't wish death on the Bentusi. They are desperate, so much so that they even sacrifice a ship to prevent the Bentusi leaving. Certainly they are under no obligation to stay and help and Fleet Command's speech is by no means an impenetrable bastion of logic, but pure reason is a luxury for those who feel death approaching.
>"exiting the galaxy" was hardly going to work against a fast replicating grey-goo creature born from an experiment to cross galaxies.
So you admit Kiith Somtaaw were right all along, even if they didn't know it themselves. You just invalidated your previous point.
The Somtaaw did mesh well with Kiith backstories, the setting of scavenging/building fleet and self-discovery odyssey.
Most of that cheesy "underdog story" is because of that cosmic beast "they" beat.
>Yes, it can be implemented badly
Like a self-replicating "hyper intelligent" cosmic horror grey-goo capable of easy retro-engineering feat, beaten because it didn't flee/replicate/counter the anti-beast whatever added to weapons after "analyzing the original".
If you weren't contrarian you would admit it really is no effort writing.
Next, that premise of an intergalactic ship that accidentally fished a cosmic-horror, when later the Bentusi open a "slipgate" to another galaxy like they've done it before.
Ooops! Convenient plot-device send a mixed message: there should be monster everywhere.
And no it didn't invalidate anything I said, the "desperate" Somtaaw lost any sort of ethic/moral high-ground trying to condemn to eternal tortures Bentusi ship containing "entire world" making Somtaaw no better than suicidal imperialists.
It was stupid to make the Bentusi look like coward because "fate worse than death" (cheap way to make the cosmic horror look scarier), they provide you with basically all the technologies to beat the beast including cheat-fighters, to the point it look stupid they don't beat the beast themselves after getting all that "anti-beast" data.
Then there's the imperialist:
>Arrogance and hubris on the part of an antagonist is not bad writing.
Even religious fanatics who die for a cause aren't that level of stupid, that's not what Imperialist defend. They know how dangerous the beast is from having studied it more than the Somtaaw and FAILED to counter it, they had no reason to think it would ever hold up its side of the promise from the start.
Again, a cheap attempt at a "villain team-up" and making the Somtaaw "reason them" with rousing speech.
Free to you to like cheesy plot like this but be honest it's "Death-Star blow-up" cheap.
>Most of that cheesy "underdog story" is because of that cosmic beast "they" beat.
The cheese comes from them being a minor faction among more powerful and prestigious counterparts who treat them disdainfully. The fact that they would undergo some great challenge to eventually earn the respect of their peers was evident from the end of mission one. Not 'bad' so much as it is predictable, and easily the weakest part of the story.
The fact the challenge is the Beast changes nothing.
>self-replicating "hyper intelligent" cosmic horror grey-goo
How exactly is the Beast "hyper intelligent?"
The fact it has been receiving signals from the Galaxy's civilizations for eons does not make it a genius. Information is not magic.
The Beast may be able to ape our speech patterns and present us with concepts like 'bargains' and 'territory' in order to modify our behaviour, but this by no means qualifies it as "hyper intelligent."
Also grey-goo is a hypothetical nano-machine swarm that converts all matter it comes into contact with into more nano-machines. This is not what the Beast is.
>beaten because it didn't flee/replicate/counter the anti-beast whatever added to weapons after "analyzing the original"
The Beast can only create what it absorbs. Absorbing the Kuun-Lan would mean game over for the player anyway, another option is just destroying it, same result for us.
As for fleeing, the Beast has a decent chance of defeating the Somtaaw fleet, why not try? I has a fairly powerful ship in the Naggarok.
Again you seem to conflate characters and entities making judgments that may not be purely logical as 'cheap' or evidence of being 'stupid.'
>underdog topic
In clans there's usually weak ones, that's plain reality.
The cheese is giving them a custom enemy/adventure/weapon to make them come out glorious.
>How exactly is the Beast "hyper intelligent?"
You mean beside being able to retro-engineer everything it touch? Regenerate spaceship up to full functionality? Taking over an unbound super-civilization world-ship? Convincing (not-moronic) Imperialist it only want HALF the galaxy?
Pretending such cosmic horror still have easily-baited animal-behavior is exactly what make it very cheap as plot device. I'll just admit that "pretending to be dumb with ape talk" would clearly suffice to make (You) drop your guard.
Saying "it's not exactly grey goo!" is deflection, it is far worse than grey goo since it knowingly make anything into bodies, including complex spaceship it have never seen before while absorbing technical and tactical knowledge of everything it consume.
>Beast not fleeing
Plain logic: If it stay it's risky, if it retreat, multiply, improve, absorb entire planet worth of easier target then it can take over everything.
With its special engine it's even easier.
I too wish we could discuss this rationally without resorting to personal attack but I see you defend such unethical behavior it's hard to believe you are arguing in good faith.
Speaking of contrarian: Everyone know SW Death star is cheap by SF standard, convenient single-point total-failure on the important superweapon? I could have chosen worse plot-hole thought.
>Naggarok / Slipgate
You missed all points, the "cosmic horror" was literally brought in by an hyperspace experiment, it don't need the gate. It also mean that any such experiment risk bringing beasts everywhere and that Bentusi should have knowledge of such cosmic-beast trope if they mastered "slipgate".
Speaking of bad sense of scale, millions-year old ship (and progenitor tropes) feel cheaper the easier galactic travel is.
>If you weren't contrarian you would admit it really is no effort writing.
Demanding that people share your flawed opinion or risk being labelled 'contrarian' is infantile. Disagreement is not contrarianism.
Contrarianism is consciously choosing an opinion that diametrically opposes the majority, and considering Cataclysm is regarded positively by most who have played it I suspect this is projection.
>Ooops! Convenient plot-device send a mixed message: there should be monster everywhere.
At no point is it suggested the Beast would could use the gate. Considering their fears it would be reasonable to assume the gate would self destruct after the last vessel passes through.
>And no it didn't invalidate anything I said
Yes it absolutely did. You condemned Somtaaw for pressuring the Bentusi to remain and risk fighting the Beast and immediately followed up by stating that the Bentusi escape was pointless (an assumption,) which would make Kiith Somtaaw correct.
>the "desperate" Somtaaw lost any sort of ethic/moral high-ground trying to condemn to eternal tortures Bentusi ship
So you think Kiith Somtaaw WANTED the Bentusi to be consumed by the Beast? I think you'll find they wanted to destroy the Beast and preserve both themselves and the Bentusi.
In their anger at the destruction of the gate, the Bentusi destroy a Somtaaw ship that really stood no chance against them. So, yes, I think we can safely grant Kiith Somtaaw the 'ethic/moral high-ground.' But, as I stated, this is not fundamentally an issue of 'ethics' or 'morals.' It is an issue of survival.
After all your complaints about the 'stupid' Beast and 'stupid' Imperialist Taiidan you take issue with Kiith Somtaaw seeing a significantly more advanced ally departing forever, potentially taking with them the last chance to defeat the Beast, and not standing by and doing nothing? Amazing. Simply amazing.
>stating that the Bentusi escape was pointless (an assumption,)
You jumped to claim it made Somtaaw "Right" (it doesn't) implying it wouldn't be right if fleeing that way was possible, even admitting Somtaaw reaction wasn't rational.
Now you are contradicting yourself.
>So you think Kiith Somtaaw WANTED the Bentusi to be consumed by the Beast?
Deliberate destruction to force Bentusi to stay against a lethal threat that could kill them (if Somtaaw misjudged)?
At most they didn't CARE if the Bentusi were consumed.
Being aware you can hardly expect someone to cooperate after you condemned them to death?
Sure look like they wanted to as a "revenge for trying to leave".
"Stay here and help us or I'll try to make you die with us" is not ethical by any interpretation.
If "issue of survival" don't include the ones you claim to be an "ally" the Bentusi, it make you a panicked/ungrateful primitive racist using terror to coerce others into a choice. Logically the Bentusi would just regret having to kill them then hope to have time to build a new slipgate FOR THEIR SURVIVAL.
It would actually have been glorious to see the Somtaaw sacrifice ships to HELP Bentusi escape and seeing such devotion have the last Bentusi ship decide to give it a chance.
>the last chance
You are now in a mental gymnastic between "Beast can take over entire galaxy then beat even prepared Bentusi" and "It only need extra push to kill it but let's not let the Bentusi reach a safe place to prepare".
Again, it's a really bad attempt at making Somtaaw look courageous and "superior" to the mighty Bentusi.
>It was stupid to make the Bentusi look like coward because "fate worse than death"
The Bentusi fear of being conscious while being part of the Beast is entirely understandable and in no way cowardly. Fleet Command accuses them of being cowardly since they don't understand the unique impact the infection has on them. Having said that, the effect of on the 'bound' is hardly much better so Somtaaw were still justified in wanting to survive.
>cheap way to make the cosmic horror look scarier
So showing that a biomechanical virus differentiates between crew that merely inhabit a vessel and crew integrated into the vessel's systems is 'cheap?' Alright then.
>provide you with basically all the technologies to beat the beast including cheat-fighters
>to the point it look stupid they don't beat the beast themselves after getting all that "anti-beast" data.
Most of the improvements Somtaaw made themselves during the course of the campaign that I, against my better judgement, am going to assume you actually played.
The "anti-beast" data allowed the siege cannon to overcome the Beast's regenerative properties. I could be wrong but I don't recall seeing siege cannons on any of the Bentusi exchanges.
>FAILED to counter it
Wrong again. They failed to CONTROL it, they were perfectly capable of destroying it, as shown when their experiments failed. Somtaaw integrated these findings into their own methods of eradicating Beast infections.
>biomechanical virus
>biomechanical
>virus
First, it's irrelevant, result is the same especially for you who couldn't care less if Bentusi suffer this "fate worse than death" if you misjudged your chance.
Second, pretending such self-improving machine would not use the material/knowledge/power/space is illogical in the first place.
So yes it's a cheap way to push visceral scare at the cost of setting consistency.
>The "anti-beast" data allowed the siege cannon to overcome the Beast's regenerative properties.
Just the "infect other through a laser" alone scream cheap SF, star-trek level, "super regeneration" is another of those cheated cheap trope.
Even if HW1 isn't especially realist and a game, good developers chose their tropes carefully.
>I don't recall seeing siege cannons on any of the Bentusi exchanges.
You mean the weapon so old the Bentusi would know better? I found out the wiki even suggest "ancient Bentusi design".
>They failed to CONTROL it, they were perfectly capable of destroying it
Play on words.
Not controlling a self-replicating creature who can devour the entire galaxy (including the superior Bentusi) mean not being able to counter it.
They couldn't even counter its "persuasive argument".
>They had no reason to think it would ever hold up its side of the promise from the start.
That in no way precludes that the Taiidan would try to use the Beast to eliminate their Hiigaran, Bentusi and Republican enemies and then wipe out whatever was left.
Is this them over-estimating their own power? Maybe. But Somtaaw managed to turn the tide and they don't have the resources of a galactic imperial navy (even a diminished one.)
>Again, a cheap attempt at a "villain team-up" and making the Somtaaw "reason them" with rousing speech.
Separate antagonist factions forming tenuous alliances are absolutely reasonable story-telling devices.
>Free to you to like cheesy plot like this but be honest it's "Death-Star blow-up" cheap.
Had the vent weakness, Luke's interest in piloting, his recognised skill in that department and brief experimenting with the Force not been established, you'd have a point.
Thank you and good night.
>Is this them over-estimating their own power?
They can't beat Bentusi, the beast could and then kill them.
So it's a stupid suicidal move, "I'll take everyone with me" level and that's not supposed to be the ex-Imperialist mindset
>Somtaaw managed to turn the tide
The beast went extra moronic letting them kill its most important body and Somtaaw had the only max-DPS weapon around plus cheated fighters.
>Separate antagonist factions forming tenuous alliances are absolutely reasonable story-telling devices.
But this is not what was used in this game.
It was suicidal/dumb antagonist giving to a super-smart entity it know/expect to be able to absorb half the galaxy, the means to do so based on a promise he shouldn't trust.
Seriously, even kid-cartoon at least make the "cosmic-evil" lies very convincingly claiming it want something NOT in direct contradiction with the other villains goal (that or some mind-control).
Yeah 2 is the weakest but even the weakest HW game is still a great game on its own. It's really one of the few untarnished series.
Isn't deserts of kharak the weakest? It only has like a 7 hour long campaign.
So is everyone human/looks like human, except the space israelites who are cyborgs?
The Bentusi are human as well, they're just fused with their ships.
Everyone is implied to be human except the Beast in Cataclysm and it seems even the crew of the Naggarok were human even though they are from a different galaxy.
For Homeworld 2 they were originally going to make the Vayger aliens but then Makaan is clearing some bald dude.
I guess aliens don't really add anything to the setting since it's about ancient prophecies, forgotten ruins, an exodus, recovering lost artifacts and stuff like that.
It's kind of like the Conan setting where all the great civilizations have already passed and Conan and everyone else are just living in their shadow.
Or even more closely like New Eden in Eve online. They are stranded for 30,000 years in another part of space and more advanced human civilizations have already rose and gone dormant before the playable ones even got off their local planets.
We dont know if they sre human. We only vaguely see their humanoid shapes from afar. I always assumed they were all aliens cause earth is never mentioned anywhere, hell its probably not even our own galaxy.
>all aliens
According to the wiki the only aliens are Bentusi (HW1), The Progenitor (HW2) and the T-MAT (cut out HW2 concept).
https://homeworld.fandom.com/wiki/T-MAT
All the other civilization in the game galaxy and part of the Galactic Council are as humans as Karan S'jet.
I like the original concept of HW2 because it explained the lack of contact with previous civilization as being
1) a matter of distance, you need gates for galactic travel and better than hyperspace cores to reach other galaxies
2) a supercivilization willing it that way they seed gates to help civilizations and if they met some criteria they open the gates to other galaxies
The original concept also seemed to use the concept of "ascended civilization" somewhat the Bentusi are Unbound and live in their ships, the progenitor would live within hyperspace cores.
>Honestly, it didn't live up to the hype for me. The ships move slow as shit, it takes far long for them to be destroyed and the tactical options are minimalistic at best. And too much of the campaign's "difficulty" is based around you just making more units to carry over to the next mission.
>Might still finish the first one for the overhyped story, but the second one doesn't even have that. Disappointing.
Sucks to be you, I guess. For me it was like the second coming of christ when I played it as a wee lad in '99. And then Cataclysm (now Emergence) came and it was fricking kino as well.
>For me it was like the second coming of christ when I played it as a wee lad in '99.
That's cringe, I couldn't stand 3D games when I was a wee lad in '99. I thought they were all ugly and preferred 2D hand drawn adventure games, or isometric 2D background RPGs and RTSs.
christ, what a homosexual you must be to say such a thing
>oh you liked THESE games when you were a kid? well i liked THOSE games so i was a better kid than you were
presumably you're a 30+ year old man right now too. how embarrassing to be saying shit like this at your age
How is it embarrassing to say that I had good taste when I was a little girl?
>I couldn't stand 3D games when I was a wee lad in '99.
Again. Fair enough. I had fun with Homeworld. And I am still having fun. But then again, you probably want to call me a tasteless moron anyway because I also think that Deserts of Kharak is fun.
Exactly like me and pretty much anyone who played it then.
Space strategies should always be turn based. Real time just ruins it on so many levels, including the immersion.
Is there a good source that shows all the units stats? I don't trust the
>good vs
>bad vs
shit. Gimme the hard stats.
Only homeworld 2 has stats
https://www.homeworldaccess.net/shipstats/units.html
So just play 1 and then Emergence, only hardcore fans like 2 and Deserts?
Deserts is worth playing
They are all absolutely worth playing, HW 2 getting shat on is a fandom meme at this point.
the real question is why dont people play this game multiplayer
i have with a friend several times and
>you dont really have time to stare at the fighting if you wanna do well
>vaygr carriers are fun because they can teleport
Does the player patch fix the enemy fleet scaling with you in HW 1 remaster?
Never had a problem with scaling in homeworld 1 remastered, 2 remastered can get fricked though.
>do capture sajuuk mission
>get roflstomped by 11 vagyr battlecruisers and a blob of vagyr destroyers
They are going to frick up the 3, aren't they?
Of course. Always assume the worst, so you may be pleasantly surprised if you are wrong.
But most importantly:
DO
NOT
PRE-ORDER
maybe its just the one level they've shown but it looks very small scale and cramped.
the ship designs are also bleh.
BI seems pretty commie (expected of a canacuck company.)
Plus they hired Scheurle, so they are either as repugnant as her or are appallingly-bad judges of character, neither inspires confidence.
I don't know who or what that is
Old game can only do so much...
Also things you must know:
>HW1 remaster
Isn't HW1 gameplay as it was, things like "fuel" and formation disappeared and they slapped HW2 interface on it.
The story is ok, more of a pretext for the gameplay but more original than your average Sci-Fi.
>HW2 remaster or not
The game you see is half of what was planned originally.
See the giant structure in this pic? With the computer of the time they couldn't load a quarter of it without killing FPS
That station and giant gates were supposed to be core element of the game, since the whole station was scrapped and there's only one gate should tell you how much was lost.
You'd fight as army for controls of those area, while your mothership use its hyperspace core to seek a solution.
There's a scrip "HW2 Dust war" going around with the original concept for HW2 story.
From the look of it Homeworld 3 will take over what HW2 failed to deliver.
Am I the only one who don't mind Homeworld 3 carrier is shaped a lot like HW2 fighter?
The design is cool and now I get to appreciate it without needing to zoom in.
well clearly the devs thought it was good. I hate it though.
What if, bear with me. Taste was, you know, kind of subjective? (hypothetically speaking of course!)
Reminder that they exchanged it and gave the first take to the raiders.
Definitely better suited to them.
This looks cool if you aren't familiar with HW2 interceptor models, otherwise it's fricking moronic because your brain keeps screaming that it's a fighter and not a capital
This is fine, even if uninspired
Not bad at all, a homage to the ugly designs of HW1 capitals. Nothing wrong with some crude utilitarism
>your brain keeps screaming that it's a fighter and not a capital
If my memory couldn't let go of superficial resemblance I wouldn't be able to function as an human being.
Not sure I like the cruiser concept.
The frigates & destroyer look aggressive, but this one look like a fatty.
In their survey they were considering modding the big ships, I hope they go with choosing your weapons and it include missiles.
its all so fricking basic and super generic
Like real warship then.
I prefer that to flying sculpture.
I hope they have a new Kadesh type faction and not as a DLC this time.
>Like real warship
what? not at all.
>standardization
>not generic
The designers aimed specifically for modern ship design
>play the asteroid defence level
>target finding is atrocious, astroid hitboxes overlap each other and my ships don't start fireing
>finaly finish the ganulet after 4 tries
>mission gliches out
I rather been left on kherak
defenders
>got to the supernova mission
holy frick that mission is cancer, you barly even know where to move and going to anywhere takes forever
homeworld one realy was experimental, every single mission has a different gimmik where they just threw stuff on the board to see what sticks
kadash was alright and the astroid mission kinda sucked but was berable, but this is pure cancer to deal with