Homeworld reviewed

http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/september03/homeworld2pc/
And they say it’s TO FRICKIN HARD!
To bad. The original had some frustrating missions, so if this is even worse…
:cry:

Either they broke NDA (not that I’m one to talk…) or they got the right to post an early one :(

If they broke the NDA, they’re damn proud of it.

http://www.gamerdad.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=146&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Challenge is NOT a Dirty Word

challenge in form of a racing game like F-Zero GX is a bit different from the challenge offered in the original Homeworld (and, as far as Gamespy goes, HW2).
In a racing game the obvious goal is to be a good driver. To challenge that you present difficult maps and skilled opponents.
In a RTS the obvious goal is to be good at field tactics and resource management. To challenge that you offer tactically interesting maps and clever opponents.
The original HW also added the you-never-saw-this-one-coming-factor to the mix. This leads to playing to figure out the puzzle, bit by bit. But it detracts from the RTS-part of the game.

[quote=“Bub_Andrew”]

http://www.gamerdad.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=146&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Challenge is NOT a Dirty Word[/quote]

“They’re looking for a game they can’t beat but rather that they can compete against to improve their skills.”

Sorry, Dave, but I’m 51 years old. My skills ain’t improvin’. I’m just hoping to keep them from deteriorating any faster than they are. I’m looking for a game that I can make roll over on its back and cry for its Mommy.

Seriously, I don’t mind a challenging game either. But there’s a difference between “challenging” and “impossible.” I will shelve a game that I regard as impossible to beat just as readily as one that’s too easy. Why? Well, I know it may be grounds for banning on this board, but I play games for fun. Impossible is just as not fun as too easy.

Whew, someone here is older than me.

Loyd “Trying to get past the first boss in Tron 2.0” Case

I never came close to beating Doom on the default difficulty setting (this was before I starting using a mouse however). I still had a blast playing it… the fun was in the gameplay, not in “defeating” the game.

Any game that has a plot, however… where the fun is in progressing through the plot will have a serious problem if its too hard.

So the value or lack thereof of “challenge” in games is dependent on the game design.

I have this vision of a dozen middle aged men getting up before dawn running down the beach together as the “Chariots of Fire” theme plays, they all hold in their hands a mouse whose cord dangles down, occasionally they will make a swift left/right motion. and mouse cables flay the crisp morning air.

Their Italian coach drives alongside in a motor car waving the Homeworld II manual in front of them.

Great Britain WILL beat HW2 the day of release, we WILL bring home the gold!

I am still looking forward to HW 2 :)

Actually, so am I. I gave the original Homeworld a very favorable review when I reviewed it for CGM, and my opinion of it hasn’t changed. It obviously wasn’t impossible, because I finished the sp game without cheating, but it WAS challenging. I do hope, however, that the new game allows you to issue orders while paused. :wink:

BTW, just because we’re old doesn’t mean we’re backward. We use cordless mouses for those morning exercises.

Wow, that reminds me… when are computer games going to become olympic sports?

You guys know that bridge is an olympic sport, right? No joke. So why don’t they select some great team game like Battlefield 1942 and make it part of the exhibition sports for the 2004 summer games?

Lets find out where the best gamers in the world are!

[quote=“Jason_Levine”]

Actually, so am I. I gave the original Homeworld a very favorable review when I reviewed it for CGM, and my opinion of it hasn’t changed. It obviously wasn’t impossible, because I finished the sp game without cheating, but it WAS challenging. I do hope, however, that the new game allows you to issue orders while paused. :wink:

BTW, just because we’re old doesn’t mean we’re backward. We use cordless mouses for those morning exercises.[/quote]

I pictured myself on the beach with ya. I am no spring chicken :)

That review was stupid.

“(One gem of knowledge we discovered: build a lot of different kinds of ships in every single mission, whether you need them or not. Your fleet carries over from one mission to the next, and the more ships and squadrons you have to defend you at the start of a mission, the greater your chance is of surviving that mission.)”

That has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.

have you even tried the demo? so far as i’ve seen, yes, you can issue orders while paused- not only movement/formation/etc for your ships, but build/research queue stuff, too. an improvement over what i seem to recall from HW1.

Homeworld 2 looks cool. But I will say the Homeworld missions made me mad. Those giant white ships that rammed the mothership, I could NEVER kill those in time.

I would have had to almost start over and re-plan my ship building and do a bit better in earlier missions so I could carry over a big enough fleet to beat that ONE mission.

That made me pretty pissed. Tho I will admit the skirmish mode is usually enough fun.

ORB was a pretty decent homeworld rip off, cept it was just a race through boring research trees to the capital ships then fighting was actually worth something.

have you even tried the demo? so far as i’ve seen, yes, you can issue orders while paused- not only movement/formation/etc for your ships, but build/research queue stuff, too. an improvement over what i seem to recall from HW1.[/quote]

No, I haven’t had a chance to play the demo yet. And I’m glad to read that you can issue orders while paused. That was probably my biggest complaint with the original.

I don’t mind a challenge, but I do mind having an AI that gets to break the rules or gets special advantages simply to make up for its lack of strategic abilities.

Wow, that reminds me… when are computer games going to become olympic sports?

You guys know that bridge is an olympic sport, right? No joke. So why don’t they select some great team game like Battlefield 1942 and make it part of the exhibition sports for the 2004 summer games?

Lets find out where the best gamers in the world are![/quote]

Bridge?! Seriously? In that case, they should make at least UT an olympic event. Battlefield '42 is too…relavent… to europe. It would never fly.

No.

Yep… check Paragraph 7. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/19/tech/main519184.shtml. By the way, Gates used to suck at bridge, at least a couple years ago. Maybe he’s entered into a Lea Dupont relationship since then. (Dupont pays Benito Garozzo, one of the greatest players ever, to play with her).

Good point.

If the industry wants to become mainstream, this is one way to help that along.

Sorry, I didn’t see it. Why did you say “no” to seriously? Your page lists bridge as well.