Tell me about Homeworld

[sturmhauke]

The remastered version uses the Homeworld 2 engine. The graphics look a lot nicer, but in terms of gameplay it's a bit dumbed down. In the original engine, squad formations were important. Some were better for pure offense, some for mobility, and some for defense. But the newer engine doesn't account for that, and the formations are mostly cosmetic.

[Klapaucius]

5 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

The remastered version uses the Homeworld 2 engine. The graphics look a lot nicer, but in terms of gameplay it's a bit dumbed down. In the original engine, squad formations were important. Some were better for pure offense, some for mobility, and some for defense. But the newer engine doesn't account for that, and the formations are mostly cosmetic.

For a first-timer, is there a better one to start with--that is, original vs remastered?

[XLjedi]

28 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

For a first-timer, is there a better one to start with--that is, original vs remastered?

I have not played remastered...  but I recall in the original, I found myself using wall formation almost exclusively for capital ships and maybe Claw for formations of fighters/bombers.  I'd go ahead and play the remastered version and not worry too much about the formations.

[Vanamonde]

I CAN'T STAND IT ANY LONGER! EVERY TIME I SEE THIS THREAD ON THE LIST I THINK OF THIS! 

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c164290f-a3ad-4bce-a0d7-2cec46749e94

[sturmhauke]

NANI CHANI?!

[Klapaucius]

Well, I started along, but it is obvious that not having played an RTS before the learning curve is taking some time.  I'm still not quite sure what I am doing. The tutorials give you the bare bones, but I still don't know what a lot of the symbols mean on screen--like why there are green lines on certain ships at certain times.  I'm sure there are some things that would be fairly obvious to a regular gamer that are not so to me.

I've been watching Scott Manley's playthroughs. Funnily enough, because he is not an expert at it (and because he is Scott Manley) I find it easier for a beginner to follow him because he is finding his way as well.

If anyone has suggestions for a good absolute noob tutorial (or updated manual), please chime in. It's less strategy than just getting the mechanics down.  I did register for the Gearbox forum and asked this question, but it does not seem nearly as active as this one.  If you post a question on KSP, you have a thoughtful response sometimes within minutes.  This is a great forum 

Oh, and the music is the game is great!

[XLjedi]

38 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

 The tutorials give you the bare bones, but I still don't know what a lot of the symbols mean on screen--like why there are green lines on certain ships at certain times.  

IIRC, I think green lines on the ships just means they have move orders and the lines are maybe showing where you ordered the ship to go to?

If not a long line to a destination and more like a small green bar.  Those are typically health bars that get smaller as the ships take damage.  If no green bar, then there may be no damage at all.

Edited November 3, 2018 by XLjedi

[Klapaucius]

Well, after an aborted start in which I got stuck at the Kalash site and then lost my save because I reinstalled Windows 10 and forgot to look for the save folder, I have finished it! That is, Deserts of Kharak. I decided at the end that was an easier introduction, and I think it was a good decision.

I played on easy--because I had never done this before--and offtimes I still had to restart with a fresh fleet.  Though, I would always try at least once (if I made it), to get through the the next mission on the bare bones of what I had.  It was quite fun and I got a real sense of the just trying to hold it all together.  I think Mission 9 was the hardest for me.

I did go back at the end and replay "The Boneyard" on classic. It was a lot easier once I had a sense of what the heck I was doing.  Having not played Homeworld yet (and not knowing the lore), I think the ending was a bit anticlimactic, but overall, I thought it was very cool.  I'm not sure when I will tackle Homeworld...

Edited April 2, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Klapaucius]

Well, I almost finished Homeworld Remastered. I got 15 of 16 missions, but if anyone has any advice on the last one (Hiigara)... Ugh...

 

If I go in with a reduced fleet: 5 destroyers is about all I've got, is it simply unwinnable that way? I cannot get anything built fast enough to resist the onslaught, and it took me ages to get through the previous mission. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Klapaucius

[sturmhauke]

It's been a long time since I've played, but yeah that's not a lot to work with. The main thing to remember is that you can take ships with you from previous missions, so you want to try and keep them alive. I cheesed it and captured everything I could get my hands on. You know that mission with the sphere of ion frigates guarding the hyperspace gate? I captured all of them. The trick is to draw some out of position with some fighters, then bring in a capture crew on the flank. They are slow to turn, and only have the one weapon on the long axis. You can capture larger ships too, but that gets more dangerous.

[Klapaucius]

51 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

It's been a long time since I've played, but yeah that's not a lot to work with. The main thing to remember is that you can take ships with you from previous missions, so you want to try and keep them alive. I cheesed it and captured everything I could get my hands on. You know that mission with the sphere of ion frigates guarding the hyperspace gate? I captured all of them. The trick is to draw some out of position with some fighters, then bring in a capture crew on the flank. They are slow to turn, and only have the one weapon on the long axis. You can capture larger ships too, but that gets more dangerous.

Yeah, I had a bad feeling the only way to win this mission was redo the last 2... Sigh...I started on Homeworld 2 and will leave that mission on the back burner.  I did watch the last one so at least I know where the narrative is going.

 

It is quite fun once you get your head around it.

[Vanamonde]

I can't stand it anymore! I've tried to avoid saying it, but it pops into my head EVERY TIME I see this thread on the list!

 

[Klapaucius]

I have now completed Deserts of Kharak, Homeworld 1 and Homeworld 2 Remastered. What a ride. Loved them all (though I was ready to tear what little hair I have left on my shiny scalp out more than once.)  I'll probably go back and replay them at some time as well.

 

I'm now playing Cataclysm, and for any of you old Homeworld hands out there I'd be curious to know: why is Cataclysm so beloved?  Many cite it as their favoirite Homeworld.  I went in really expecting to be amazed (not by the graphics obviously) but by the story and so far, I am very underwhelmed.  What am I missing, or is it just that I am middle aged, never played it as a kid and it is 2019 and not 2001?  I'm on mission 8 at the moment, so about halfway through.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Klapaucius
clarification

[ARS]

Probably because the generation of gamers during Homeworld's release is prioritizing action instead of patience as a measure what constitutes as "fun gameplay". The slow pace, 3D mechanics and tricky interface did not endear it to the RTS community, who at the time were in the early stages of a long reign for the king of the fast-paced RTS, StarCraft. Though it lacked comparable staying power, the game became well-known  thanks to its extremely pretty visuals that do stand the test of time and were remarkable for 1999, the haunting soundtrack and voice acting a level above the usual for video games at the time, a great story and gameplay that rewarded patience. I personally feel better in Homeworld compared to other RTS games. While I do play fast-paced RTS like Red Alert 2 and Starcraft series, I feel that Homeworld's slow pace is a merit on itself, since it actually allows me to plan better strategy during gameplay

[sturmhauke]

Cataclysm multiplayer was a lot of fun, and rewarded unconventional tactics. You could develop your mothership to be more mobile, have higher production, or add basically a wave motion gun. Technically you could get to the late game and have all those things, but usually you were limited by the available resources and, you know, other players shooting at you. And as in the original game, pulling off stuff like a 3D hyperspace envelopment attack was deeply satisfying.

[Klapaucius]

7 hours ago, ARS said:

Probably because the generation of gamers during Homeworld's release is prioritizing action instead of patience as a measure what constitutes as "fun gameplay". The slow pace, 3D mechanics and tricky interface did not endear it to the RTS community, who at the time were in the early stages of a long reign for the king of the fast-paced RTS, StarCraft. Though it lacked comparable staying power, the game became well-known  thanks to its extremely pretty visuals that do stand the test of time and were remarkable for 1999, the haunting soundtrack and voice acting a level above the usual for video games at the time, a great story and gameplay that rewarded patience. I personally feel better in Homeworld compared to other RTS games. While I do play fast-paced RTS like Red Alert 2 and Starcraft series, I feel that Homeworld's slow pace is a merit on itself, since it actually allows me to plan better strategy during gameplay

My question was specifically about Cataclysm, which so far seems like a poor cousin, yet many cite it as the best in the series.  As for the original (which I played in  remastered), I agree with all your points  It is fabulous.

2 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

Cataclysm multiplayer was a lot of fun, and rewarded unconventional tactics. You could develop your mothership to be more mobile, have higher production, or add basically a wave motion gun. Technically you could get to the late game and have all those things, but usually you were limited by the available resources and, you know, other players shooting at you. And as in the original game, pulling off stuff like a 3D hyperspace envelopment attack was deeply satisfying.

Interesting. I have not played multiplayer on any of these so have no point of comparison.  I am finding the Cataclysm voice acting pretty cringeworthy and the music seems rather pedestrian compared to the others.

[sturmhauke]

1 hour ago, Klapaucius said:

Interesting. I have not played multiplayer on any of these so have no point of comparison.  I am finding the Cataclysm voice acting pretty cringeworthy and the music seems rather pedestrian compared to the others.

In those respects, yeah it wasn't as good. Homeworld 1 and 2 were developed by Relic, which would later go on to do Dawn of War and Company of Heroes. Cataclysm was by a different studio called Barking Dog.

[ARS]

1 hour ago, Klapaucius said:

My question was specifically about Cataclysm, which so far seems like a poor cousin, yet many cite it as the best in the series.  As for the original (which I played in  remastered), I agree with all your points  It is fabulous

For homeworld fans, yes, it is the best in the series. Cataclysm is the closest in my opinion, the RTS that's also a survival horror. But at the time of Cataclysm's release, it was the age of consoles, where PS2 and XBOX emerges. It was a time where gaming community shifted to consoles as interest in  PC gaming wanes. Nevertheless, PC remains viable for strategy game, but Cataclysm simply didn't stand a chance, since it was also the age where Blizzard's masterpiece came out, The World of Warcraft, which garnered critical reception. Combined with Cataclysm's plot that seems alien for those who haven't played previous homeworlds before, and slow-pace gameplay, it simply fades into obscurity. Only the first 2 homeworlds are remastered, since the source code for Cataclysm has been lost

[Klapaucius]

@sturmhauke, @ARS

 

I have a feeling that maybe it is one of those those things you needed to have gotten into at the time. (In the same way that my wife somehow managed to not see The Wizard of Oz as a kid, and while she enjoyed it as an adult, I don't think it resonates with her in the same way it does with me,  who grew up watching pre DVD and VHS when it when it would get its yearly TV broadcast.)  I'll keep at it. It is certainly not a bad game, but it just does not have that epic feel to me that the others do. Perhaps the horror take just does not jive with me in this game.  

And again, things like good voice actors and good music really add to that atmosphere.  In Kharak especially (which I know is a newer game) I was invested in the characters.  Rachel S'jet felt real and I felt responsible for. her safety.   If her rover was destroyed, I felt I hadI had let her down.  And there was something about the authoritative and almost ethereal voice of Fleet Command in HW1 and 2, or the otherworldly wisdom of the Bentusi.  As someone who has worked in video and has made a film, I just loved the "camera" work in the cutscenes.  There is a cinematic sense of awe that Relic created that I don't think Barking Dog managed. 

I feel no investment so far in this game.  It's like I've just experienced Lawrence of Arabia and expecting more of the same, I got an episode of Starsky and Hutch.  Not bad, but not exactly an epic David Lean masterpiece.

The reason I am writing this is I was quite surprised. I went in fully expecting to be wowed at what everyone says is the best of the bunch. I really wanted to love this, and it is not doing much for me.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Klapaucius]

Whoa, how did I miss this one:

 

 

[Klapaucius]

Wow!  With all the KSP2 stuff going on, I completely missed this until a reference to it appeared on my Youtube today.

 

https://www.fig.co/campaigns/homeworld3

 

[XB-70A]

I will have so many "likes" to give once the option will be back...

Meanwhile:

[Bill Phil]

Yeah I heard about it. Seems interesting.

[shdwlrd]

Saw that a few days ago. Hopefully they don't screw it up like the 2nd one.

[KerikBalm]

I think the 2nd one (HW2) was better than HW-Catalcysm