Did anyone pick this up? I got it but am still stuck at work. I plan on making a quick video impressions video of it tonight.
I've been researching and I'm a little disappointed with the unit variety. No infantry, no dropships or helo type transport aircraft. its all buggies, tanks, jets, etc.
I really like the look of the Chris Foss influenced units, but from what I've seen the gameplay appears to be like most other RTS games; i.e., it doesn't seem to offer anything particularly unique - and as JH points out, seems to fall short in what it could offer. I should emphasize that I've only watched gameplay on YT, so I can't be too critical.
on one side of the coin its homeworld on 2 axises/axes (?) which i approve of because i spent too long fiddling with the 3rd one in HW
on the other side, its just homeworld on 2 axises - ive waited for the game but it doesnt really look anything other than the next new RTS, build, group in a pile and point at baddies til win, wash, repeat
I've been waiting for this to release. Not so excited to pay 49.99 for it though. Searching for online discounts.
The Steam reviews are 'very positive' so far as is the Metacritic score:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak
Well, I've played through the tutorial and 2 campaign missions. It most certainly feels like the Homeworld universe. The vehicle designs, the art, the sounds, etc. They really did a great job maintaining the continuity. The second mission was pretty tough, so I'm expecting Homeworld level difficulty here too.
I'm not overly thrilled with the fact that the entire game takes place on the surface of one planet, and as I already mentioned I'm a little disappointed with the classes of units, and the fact that there are some obvious omissions (ie. infantry, troop carriers, etc.) Camera control is good, but unit control leaves something to be desired. No facing control and no formation control. This is problematic because terrain and positioning plays such a key role. Finding the perfect hull down position can easily spell the difference between victory or defeat and this can be hard to accomplish when you cant control the position of units that have been group selected.
Those are my only beefs so far. The game is positively stunning and its a real treat to be gaming again with a new entry into the Homeworld series...it is long overdue!
Videos to follow.
Worth the money, you think?
Quote from: Gusington on January 20, 2016, 10:19:23 PM
Worth the money, you think?
If you're a Homeworld fan, or like sci-fi RTS games.
I am. It looks awfully shiny to me. But I want to wait for a bit of a price drop.
Do you think there is a good chance for expansions/DLC incoming for this?
Quote from: Gusington on January 21, 2016, 09:34:30 AM
Do you think there is a good chance for expansions/DLC incoming for this?
I hope so. I guess it will depend on how well it sells. I've read a couple of commercial reviews and they are all overwhelmingly positive. I think you will really like it.
Yeah I know I will - trying to be mature about this for once and wait for a discount but for a premium title I will be waiting a while, I think.
Quote from: Gusington on January 21, 2016, 10:52:12 AM
Yeah I know I will - trying to be mature about this for once and wait for a discount but for a premium title I will be waiting a while, I think.
I don't think it will be as long as you may think. Gearbox is usually pretty good offering discounts on their game as opposed to Bethesda or friggen Blizzard
^You tease.
Looking at the Steam reviews, there are some (very few but they're there) complaints about the graphics, clipping, etc.
JH or anyone else playing notice things like that? Only one reviewer has posted that but it's a pretty well written review.
And another review says the single player campaign is only about 8 hours long...
Quote from: Gusington on January 21, 2016, 11:10:44 AM
^You tease.
Looking at the Steam reviews, there are some (very few but they're there) complaints about the graphics, clipping, etc.
JH or anyone else playing notice things like that? Only one reviewer has posted that but it's a pretty well written review.
And another review says the single player campaign is only about 8 hours long...
This game cannot be criticized for graphics. They are stunning. The artistic design is also top-notch. The only complaints I'm seeing that may be significant are ones regarding some problems with the AI, as well as the campaign mission design. Apparently, resources are finite and very limited and since you carry your army over to each successive mission, it seems if you do not maintain the composition of your force you can get stuck and forced into a position of having to start over due to not having enough forces and not having the resources to build more. This shouldn't be an issue in the skirmish or MP modes, though.
^Yeah I read only one complaint on AI on Steam.
Generally positive review over at RPS --
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/01/21/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review/ (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/01/21/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review/)
Thanks for posting
This isn't what I expected when Gearbox acquired the Homeworld IP.
Reminds me of how Aliens Colonial Marines wasn't what I expected when Gearbox acquired the Aliens IP.
Passing.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on January 21, 2016, 08:43:10 PM
This isn't what I expected when Gearbox acquired the Homeworld IP.
Reminds me of how Aliens Colonial Marines wasn't what I expected when Gearbox acquired the Aliens IP.
Passing.
You would be mistaken if you think this release is anything along similar lines to Aliens Colonial Marines. You're not spiting anyone other than yourself by writing this one off.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 21, 2016, 09:49:25 PM
You would be mistaken if you think this release is anything along similar lines to Aliens Colonial Marines. You're not spiting anyone other than yourself by writing this one off.
I'll give it a look. I just lost more than a little trust in Gearbox with A:CM and I felt pretty strongly that Homeworld should stay Homeworld (ie Space).
I won't refuse a good game if it's actually good. I'm just a bit skeptical.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on January 21, 2016, 10:57:28 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 21, 2016, 09:49:25 PM
You would be mistaken if you think this release is anything along similar lines to Aliens Colonial Marines. You're not spiting anyone other than yourself by writing this one off.
I'll give it a look. I just lost more than a little trust in Gearbox with A:CM and I felt pretty strongly that Homeworld should stay Homeworld (ie Space).
I won't refuse a good game if it's actually good. I'm just a bit skeptical.
I get that. But they shouldn't be criticized for trying something new, especially since it works. Yes, its not in space...its in a desert, but it is still VERY much Homeworld.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 21, 2016, 11:11:21 PM
Quote from: SirAndrewD on January 21, 2016, 10:57:28 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 21, 2016, 09:49:25 PM
You would be mistaken if you think this release is anything along similar lines to Aliens Colonial Marines. You're not spiting anyone other than yourself by writing this one off.
I'll give it a look. I just lost more than a little trust in Gearbox with A:CM and I felt pretty strongly that Homeworld should stay Homeworld (ie Space).
I won't refuse a good game if it's actually good. I'm just a bit skeptical.
I get that. But they shouldn't be criticized for trying something new, especially since it works. Yes, its not in space...its in a desert, but it is still VERY much Homeworld.
No one will claim I didn't give it a fair shake. Even if that means I put a bullet in it in the end.
I will admit, I love the adherence to the lore. They took a few blurbs from the Homeworld 1 manual and made a game. I'll give it a chance at least on that I guess.
I just feel that this is SO safe. Especially compared to expanding on the 3D concept of the old Homeworld Engine.
Ditto. They aren't trying something new; it feels a lot like a regression. It might be a very nicely made regression, but it still feels like a regression.
Quote from: JasonPratt on January 22, 2016, 07:47:11 PM
Ditto. They aren't trying something new; it feels a lot like a regression. It might be a very nicely made regression, but it still feels like a regression.
Have you played it? Its a "regression" why exactly? Because it takes place on a planet and not in space. So yeah, there is no "z" axis. Instead, you have terrain features that matter. Its ground combat instead of space combat. You may not like it, but that is not a reason to knock it as a step backward. There are things I don't like and feel can be improved, but its still a great addition to the series.
For me I found it to fast and to much of a hectic click fest from the get go. I just don't get RTS games, esp with base or unit buildings aspects.
I just picked this game up. Is there a manual I'm missing? I see an "expedition guide" sold as a DLC...but normally steam games have a downloadable manual
Did you do the tutorial? There really is not that much more to it.
Not yet. I will. Just curious if I was missing it. I remember the homeworld Manual with details on the ships and such
the Homeworld manual was one of the last great manuals for a game. :-\
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 22, 2016, 08:50:12 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt on January 22, 2016, 07:47:11 PM
Ditto. They aren't trying something new; it feels a lot like a regression. It might be a very nicely made regression, but it still feels like a regression.
Have you played it? Its a "regression" why exactly?
Because it takes place on a planet and not in space, so there is no "z" axis.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 22, 2016, 08:50:12 PM
Because it takes place on a planet and not in space. So yeah, there is no "z" axis.
That's why it's a regression, exactly. ;)
Suppose someone started with this game (since it's an immediate prequel to Homeworld), and then went from this into Homeworld. Wouldn't that be a progression? An obviously obvious progression? An amazing progression, for which all of us who played Homeworld were so impressed (having played standard RTS games for years before then)?
So going
from Homeworld
back to this is...
not a regression exactly, how?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 22, 2016, 08:50:12 PM
Instead, you have terrain features that matter.
As in many RTSes from Total Annihilation onwards, including some notable ones (e.g. TAnni) made years before Homeworld.
I'm not saying that makes it a bad game, or even a bad RTS. I haven't played it, and I heard good things from people who have. But neither am I rushing to pick it up. Whereas, I
am thinking about playing Homeworld again. (And H2 which I never got around to.)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 22, 2016, 08:50:12 PMIts ground combat instead of space combat. You may not like it, but that is not a reason to knock it as a step backward.
Except that it is a step backward, which is really all I was saying: of course they shouldn't be criticized for trying something new, but they AREN'T trying something new.
Now, you could argue instead that they shouldn't be criticized for NOT trying something new, and playing it safe instead. Especially since it might be rather hard to try something as new as Homeworld was. I might even agree with that. But I'm not going to give them a pass for "trying something new" when they pretty obviously didn't. They took a page of plot from the Homeworld manual and made a competent and beautiful but standard RTS from it.
Of course, if they had made a perfectly designed and implemented standard RTS, then...
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 22, 2016, 08:50:12 PMThere are things I don't like and feel can be improved...
...uh, I guess that
would have been fine, too. >:D
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 22, 2016, 08:50:12 PM...but its still a great addition to the series.
Eh, okay, everyone else who has played it so far thinks so, too. I'll probably get it someday. But not for it's own sake. Only as a standard RTS prequel campaign before starting Homeworld.
Whatever, Jason. You want to argue about not liking a game you don't have, be my guest. I'm 4 hours in and loving the hell out of it, so go ahead. Cut off your nose to spite your face. You're the one missing out. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it.
The game is a key part of the Homeworld lore. It tells the story about where the entire Homeworld series comes from. Its an important release for Homeworld fans. What you call a "regression" I simply call trying something new. You do always seem to be a glass half empty type of guy, anyway.
I'm not arguing about not liking it; I don't have the game, and I have no idea whether I don't like it or not.
I'm also not arguing about it being a regression, because there's nothing to argue about there: it's demonstrably and objectively a regression. ;) I suppose in a way regressing a series can count as doing something new, since the series has never regressed before. Again, adding a feature other RTSes have had for several game generations could count as something new for the Homeworld series, since previously they couldn't use terrain at all much less terrain that matters (although I recall them doing the best they could with that in space for HW1). Doing a prequel to the games instead of a sequel technically counts as doing something new since they've never done a prequel before.
I was as explicit as I could be that I agreed it could easily be a good game. Not having it, I HAVE NO OPINION ABOUT THAT MYSELF! I acknowledged several times that others, yourself included, regard it as a good game; which by the way I regard as evidence in favor of it being a good game. ::)
I'm not sure how buying it eventually someday as a prequel to playing through HW again, would count as cutting off my nose to spite my face; but hopefully when I get around to doing that, it won't feel like cutting off my nose! :buck2:
I am as glad as I can be that they didn't release a wreck, simply trading on nostalgia for the HW franchise, and that you and other people are enjoying it. O:-)
(I can't even imagine where always seeming to be a pessimist comes from. I suppose I'm habitually critical, but I have pretty literally the most optimistic philosophy coherently and realistically conceivable. Which tends to annoy my less optimistic religious brethren. :coolsmiley: So however pessimistic I am, it could definitely be a lot worse! O0 )
Quote from: JasonPratt on January 24, 2016, 07:01:40 PM
I'm also not arguing about it being a regression, because there's nothing to argue about there: it's demonstrably and objectively a regression.
It is demonstrably and objectively NOT a regression.
Quote
Regression
noun
1.
the act of going back to a previous place or state; return or reversion.
Since Homeworld was never an RTS focused around ground combat, Deserts of Kharak cannot possibly be a "regression", either demonstrably or objectively. You shouldn't further argue the point, because the definition on its face proves you wrong.
...and by the way, inserting little smilies everywhere does not make your posts any less antagonistic. O0 (see what I did there?)
can we stop this silliness now, please?
I'm liking it better than I can remember liking Homeworld.. *ducks*
But then, the extra dimension always foxed me. :)
I wish it had formations though.
Quote from: spelk on January 25, 2016, 09:21:02 AM
I wish it had formations though.
This is one of my major complaints and a real short-coming in the game. Formations and unit facing. Since elevated terrain plays such a critical factor in the desert combat in the game, getting into the perfect hull down positions is made time consuming and tedious without a formation and facing capability. I'm hoping they will add this, or someone will mod it.
I don't think anything will ever rival the utter feeling of awe that I had when I booted the original Homeworld up for the first time. That being said, the art direction, story and high production values of the campaign in Deserts of Kharak has drawn me in just as completely as the original two titles in the series. I find I'm also making steady progress in the campaign, and while it is very difficult at times, its still fun and rewarding. I'm on mission 8 I believe and have close to 5 hours invested. Haven't even touched the skirmish or MP options yet.
EDIT: Someone has advised me in the Steam forums that unit facing, at least, is in the game.
Quote
After selecting unit(s) press A or V and then click&hold LMB and rotate the facing/formation.
Nicely found JH, much appreciated!
Angry Joe & Other Joe in a MP match with the devs:
I've messed around a little bit with it and although it's not in space, it is not- in my opinion- a regression. Better graphics, better sound and chatter...just a prequel story-wise. No Z axis but now you have terrain considerations.
Only gripe I have is the manual...of course between Barbarossa and WitW and their 300 page hardcover manuals, perhaps I'm spoiled
I don't have the game, either, Jason, but from the way the game's fans have described it, it also sounds like a regression to me. I guess that's probably just a semantic argument. And we all know that semantic arguments on internet message boards are always super-productive!
It doesn't seem that the game is doing anything innovative in the RTS genre. That's fine--lots of my all-time favorite historical games do nothing at all to innovate and still succeed quite well (Torchlight did it for Diablo, Fantasy General did it for Panzer General, Galactic Civilizations did it for Master of Orion, and Master of Magic did it for Civilization).
If the game is doing anything innovative in the RTS genre, I'd be curious to hear what that might be.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fct.fra.bz%2Fol%2Ffz%2Fsw%2Fi55%2F5%2F8%2F8%2Ffrabz-Everytime-i-find-a-regression-I-pop-a-cap-in-its-ass-8301cc.jpg&hash=eab4834a7df364127795a74bb0c85fbe44520339)
So there are two guys here who don't have the game and say its a regression (even though it defies the actual meaning of the word) and two guys here who have the game, are playing it and enjoying it, who say its not a regression. I guess we need to find someone who knows someone who has the game, and who has access to a dictionary, in order to break the tie.
In all seriousness, I believe the word you fellas are looking for would be any one of the following: "downgrade", "abatement", "diminution", "weakening", "lessening", etc.
I would still disagree, for the most part, about that assessment, but at least it would make sense from a subjective opinion point of view.
I suspect you may be correct that "regression" is not the ideal word to apply here. Perhaps more of a combo between "diminution" and "downgrade".
I'm not trying to be a pisser here. Having concluded that further discussion of the word "regression" is a reasonably fruitless semantic argument, can you tell me whether there's anything innovative in the game when compared to other RTS games?
I'm starting to suspect that you'd rather argue about a game you like than explain why you like it.
To be fair, JH has already given quite a bit of information on what he likes and dislikes about the game. And he is actually playing it.
I'm not sure that the game is doing anything innovative in RTS. It sounds like it is building on an existing, wildly popular franchise by adding a new chapter.
To quote from a review:
QuoteHomeworld was always about loneliness. It was always about clarity and focus. Kharak isn't new in that regard, but it is special. It shows us that when you get things right -- and excel -- that formula isn't easy to exhaust. Kharak does its part to add to that, though. Its use of voice acting and efficient visuals is a brilliant addition that's far from superficial. It helps narrow the scope of what you need to manage, so that it can load you up with as much as your brain can handle. It's a fast, daunting experience that's tough to shake, making Kharak as intoxicating as Homeworld has ever been.
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review/1900-6416335/ (http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review/1900-6416335/)
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on January 25, 2016, 03:50:58 PM
I'm starting to suspect that you'd rather argue about a game you like than explain why you like it.
This is a pretty harsh assessment against someone who bled for over a decade at wargamer, posting thousands of comments in the forums about games, and who wrote dozens of formal reviews, and for over the last 4 years has been a founder, manager and dedicated contributor of grogheads.
Putting my offense at your thoughtless comment aside, I have already noted what I am enjoying about the game. Does it innovate? Not especially. I'm pretty sure that if you looked, you would find other games that have already done most things that Deserts of Kharak does. However, so what? Since when is innovation and innovation alone the sole meter for whether a game is good or not. I mean, do you only buy a game if it innovates in the genre? I doubt it, otherwise you would only have 3 games per genre. Rather, Deserts of Kharak does a lot of things really well, where other RTS games do not. Furthermore, its story, aesthetic, and placement within the lore/series, is also a very strong draw for fans.
"Near future"-ish military sci-fi with an art style to die for, is where the big draw for me is. The way they present the elevation, and tac view are excellent features. Theres something so sexy about boosting your fast strike scouts into Railgun pursuit, when they speed past and swarm around the enemy debilitating it and picking it apart. And your support cruisers have some defensive power. It just ticks the military stuff without going over the top. And it looks very good in a minimalist way, its not overburdened by someones ridiculous gaudy art palette.
My only issue, is one I get with all mission based stuff. You're biting the apple, and you get so wrapped up in it, then when its over and you're on the debrief and cool-down, I find it hard to get revved back up with the next upcoming mission. It's like the whole process is an emotional ride that builds, peaks to a crescendo of adrenalin and then recedes back as you're filled with relief, satisfaction and intrepidation of having to do the next (most likely harder) mission ahead. :)
Quote from: spelk on January 25, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
My only issue, is one I get with all mission based stuff. You're biting the apple, and you get so wrapped up in it, then when its over and you're on the debrief and cool-down, I find it hard to get revved back up with the next upcoming mission. It's like the whole process is an emotional ride that builds, peaks to a crescendo of adrenalin and then recedes back as you're filled with relief, satisfaction and intrepidation of having to do the next (most likely harder) mission ahead. :)
Wow. This is 100% dead-on balls. I feel EXACTLY the same way.
The impact of this is made even more severe because you really care for your units. They are all extremely valuable because resources are usually very finite, AND each unit gains veterancy bonuses over time. They are entirely irreplaceable, and you know most of them are going to die.
So is dead-on-balls a 10/10 score?
Quote from: Bison on January 25, 2016, 04:29:50 PM
So is dead-on-balls a 10/10 score?
I wouldn't quite rate the game THAT high, but it is easily an 8.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 25, 2016, 04:30:44 PM
Quote from: Bison on January 25, 2016, 04:29:50 PM
So is dead-on-balls a 10/10 score?
I wouldn't quite rate the game THAT high, but it is easily an 8.
So it is a regression....
Quote from: mirth on January 25, 2016, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 25, 2016, 04:30:44 PM
Quote from: Bison on January 25, 2016, 04:29:50 PM
So is dead-on-balls a 10/10 score?
I wouldn't quite rate the game THAT high, but it is easily an 8.
So it is a regression....
You fargin bastage. I walked right into that one.
Quote from: mirth on January 25, 2016, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 25, 2016, 04:37:08 PM
Quote from: mirth on January 25, 2016, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 25, 2016, 04:30:44 PM
Quote from: Bison on January 25, 2016, 04:29:50 PM
So is dead-on-balls a 10/10 score?
I wouldn't quite rate the game THAT high, but it is easily an 8.
So it is a regression....
You fargin bastage. I walked right into that one.
>:D
BAN HIM!!!!!!
Promote him!
Quote from: mirth on January 25, 2016, 06:44:24 PM
Quote from: Gusington on January 25, 2016, 06:43:19 PM
Promote him!
I'd rather be banned.
I say first we hang him...then we shoot him...then we kill him...then we promote him...and then we ban him!
Mirth is hereby promoted to Master Beta Jester. Not Alpha...Beta.
Oh...low blow...Mirth is now a beta man.
Quote from: Bison on January 25, 2016, 06:51:26 PM
Oh...low blow...Mirth is now a beta man.
At least I'm now a man.
Quote from: mirth on January 25, 2016, 06:52:40 PM
Quote from: Bison on January 25, 2016, 06:51:26 PM
Oh...low blow...Mirth is now a beta man.
At least I'm now a man.
Questionable.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.inquisitr.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2FPajamas-Boy-Obamacare-Marketing-Starts-Obama-Chris-Christie-Twitter-Fight-665x385.jpg&hash=745d2f1058a1d6d83021854d870322348b3288ac)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 25, 2016, 06:49:21 PM
Quote from: mirth on January 25, 2016, 06:44:24 PM
Quote from: Gusington on January 25, 2016, 06:43:19 PM
Promote him!
I'd rather be banned.
I say first we hang him...then we shoot him...then we kill him...then we promote him...and then we ban him!
Not crazy about the progression
Some regression then?
<rimshot> (http://www.badum-tish.com/)
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Gusington, the master of comic timing! Just remember that the 5:00 show is completely different from the 8:00 show. ;D
I've just finished the wreckage site mission, its the 4th one in the campaign I think, and I must say it was epic. I don't think I've had as much fun in a recent RTS as this.
Theres a hell of a balance between what you can afford to make, and how much limited resource you have left. Plus theres the timing of getting things to action flashpoints given their different speeds. Every unit is precious. You have to do a lot of splitting up and covering arse/ass. Bringing the right weapon to bear on the appropriate incoming target.
[possible vague spoilers for mission 4]
...
...
...
...
...
Oh man, the strike aircraft! My flyboys. Delivering ground hits at the most desperate of times. The baserunners and their ability to pop probes for ad hoc sensor work, and their turrets... mmmm... turrets.. (except overdose on turrets and you'll be stealing from the normal troop making machinery!). Damn those delicious turrets!
Trying not to spoil anything, but I have to gush a bit - each wreckage site requires planning to get the right combination of troops out there, lay down a defensive perimeter, scout and then take out enemy production cruisers with my flyboys.. slowly slowly catchy monkey... carefully planning new manufacture to roll them out, assemble them at the secured site and then leave behind a skeleton defence crew and speed the new vanguard force out towards the next site... all the while having to cope with intermittent hit and run attacks by enemy strike groups and weaving your battered troops through raging twisting sand tornadoes!
The climactic finale of the mission desperate, strung out, spread too thin defense of your carrier, and poor overworked science officer Rebecca was pure racey joy. Defense up, turret power up, flyboys launch, support cruisers lumbering back to repair major damage... get those salvagers out of here NOW!... annnnnddd relax.
Brilliant stuff. The pacing of this mission seemed spot on to me. I bungled my first attempt, took on too many sites at once... but care and planning, did the business.. and now the formation/facing is all sorted it seems to just come natural... tac view is essential for command in panic moments - clear concise view, then you can zoom in gloriously rendered desert combat, and watch the smoke billow from an enemy sand cruiser! :)
And now I'm drained. Need to chill out a bit... then come back to my desperate sandy ass crack heroes.
Yeah...strike craft are definitely my favorite unit in the game so far. I typically try to carry at least three wings. They have saved my ass on more than one occasion!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 24, 2016, 07:34:45 PMQuote from: JasonPratt on January 24, 2016, 07:01:40 PM
I was as explicit as I could be that I agreed it could easily be a good game. Not having it, I HAVE NO OPINION ABOUT THAT MYSELF! I acknowledged several times that others, yourself included, regard it as a good game; which by the way I regard as evidence in favor of it being a good game. ::)
I am as glad as I can be that they didn't release a wreck, simply trading on nostalgia for the HW franchise, and that you and other people are enjoying it. O:-)
by the way, inserting little smilies everywhere does not make your posts any less antagonistic. O0 (see what I did there?)
Apparently, neither does inserting little words everywhere. ::)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 24, 2016, 07:34:45 PMSince Homeworld was never an RTS focused around ground combat, Deserts of Kharak cannot possibly be a "regression", either demonstrably or objectively. You shouldn't further argue the point, because the definition on its face proves you wrong.
My comments about regression have always been in terms of comparing HW with other RTSes. I expect other comments about regression have had HW's position in the genre in mind, too.
Was the series a major set of innovations to the genre? Yes, demonstrably so.
Are all those innovations still in place for the new game? No, demonstrably not.
Does the new game now functionally resemble the kinds of RTSes that had been around for a while at the time of HW's initial release? Yes, demonstrably so.
Quote
Regression
noun
1.
the act of going back to a previous place or state; return or reversion.
Does that necessarily make it a bad game? I have repeatedly said not.
Is there strong evidence it's a good game? I have repeatedly said so.
Should they be criticized for trying something new? Of course not (as long as it works, and even then I agree they should be praised for trying something new.)
Are they trying something new in the genre? Of course not.
Should they be regarded as trying something new, and so praised for that, when what they're doing is the opposite of something new in the genre? I don't think so; the rationale seems contradictory to me.
Are they trying something new in terms of the series itself? Technically I agreed they are in several ways. I even bent over backwards to agree that by removing functionality they are, indeed, trying something new to the series, in that sense.
Should I praise their innovation in trying a new thing of removing innovations from the series, on the principle that attempting new things are worthy of praise? I guess we'll have to disagree on that.
Should I praise the game for its excellences in
other regards? I don't see any problems with that at all (so far as I can experience it myself, not having played the game yet), and never have.
Am I sorry our relationship has somehow regressed over this silliness? Very much so.
Do I still value your critical appreciation of this and other games? Very much so.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJAUv1HH.gif&hash=9507aa4b65ff43789685de1909f62901bb623dc0)
I've moved passed this Jason...I thought your silence over the last two days meant you had too.
I'm used to disappointment.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 26, 2016, 09:55:19 AMI'm used to disappointment.
He's known Gus waaaaay too long :)
I put a lot of effort into derailing this thread yesterday and this is how I get treated.
Quote from: undercovergeek on January 26, 2016, 09:44:19 AM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJAUv1HH.gif&hash=9507aa4b65ff43789685de1909f62901bb623dc0)
I think this thread is in regression.
yeah but it has cool units although sadly without unit facing
I'm still buying it, once it goes on sale.
Quote from: undercovergeek on January 26, 2016, 12:02:51 PM
yeah but it has cool units although sadly without unit facing
There is unit facing...see Reply #33 in this thread. Page 3, I think.
This thread needs more mammaries and/or grain based beverages, fermented or distilled. I'm not going to be picky.
So I've now unlocked strike fighters, tactical bombers and gunships. I have a full complement of 5 strike fighter wings, 3 tac bombers and 2 gunships. The strike fighters are still my favorite unit in the game. A wing of strike fighters can stop enemy formations butt cold, and quickly turn the tide of a losing fight. The tac bombers are mostly good against stationary targets, as they move very slow, have pretty poor maneuverability and don't like releasing their payloads unless the target is very slow or not moving at all. I'm still assessing the gunships. They have a very cool cluster bomb like munition. The effect looks awesome, but it doesn't appear to be very effective against heavier targets.
With a full complement of aircraft on board, I finally feel like the Kapisi has some real punch, and I am relying on it heavily for offensive operations. Moreover, at this point in the campaign, I have recovered several artifacts that have improved the systems of the Kapisi. Having the ability to boost various features and functions of the Kapisi is another cool aspect of the game.
I still wish there was infantry, APCs and transport helo/drop ship type units in game. This has been discussed in the steam forums at length, and most say infantry wouldn't make sense given the scale of the game and the size of the vehicles, but I disagree. Several of the missions have required the player to sieze and hold ground and defend it for a period of time. Infantry would have been great for this, and it would have been great to equip infantry platoons with AT, AA, or even anti-personnel weaponry. Would have added another tactical layer to the game.
Anyway, on mission 9 now. Close to 6 hours in and still totally engrossed.
So the important question is this:
Is "butt cold" higher or lower on the temperature scale than "cool assed"?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 27, 2016, 07:32:24 AM
So the important question is this:
Is "butt cold" higher or lower on the temperature scale than "cool assed"?
Thats all you took away from three paragraphs of detailed impressions?
Board gamers.... :idiot2:
Is there a solid noticeable difference between the units in the.way they operate? Does a gunship behave and move differently than a strike fighter? And if used incorrectly does the player pay for it?
Quote from: Gusington on January 27, 2016, 10:07:52 AM
Is there a solid noticeable difference between the units in the.way they operate? Does a gunship behave and move differently than a strike fighter? And if used incorrectly does the player pay for it?
Absolutely, 100%. The vehicles handle very differently and must be used for different tactical situations. For instance, light vehicles called LAVs are very quick and nimble and tend to swarm over larger, slower ground combatants, while heavier AAVs are slower, but have stronger armament and can withstand more punishment. Then you have your ranged ground combatants that are slow, lightly armored, but of course, have strong weapon systems with significant range. Its these guys that you want to move to high ground at every opportunity. Get these guys at elevation and then use lighter vehicles to scout and spot.
Your support cruisers are the slowest units on land, and although they are armed for defense, they should be protected by dedicated combat units at all costs.
Aircraft are also very different in how they function. Strike fighters are fast and highly maneuverable. They are capable of dashing in, unloading their payload and zipping away, while tactical bombers move slower and fly in wide arcs making them more vulnerable to AAA. They also seem to take longer to acquire their target and release bombs making their time over target longer.
Now that sounds great. Love me some unit variety.
This is one of the most engrossing, enjoyable, compelling single-player campaigns I have played in a game since...well, since the original Homeworld. I can't wait until I finish it and can start fresh with the Homeworld space titles with the benefit of having played this prequel. It will have so much more meaning and significance.
On mission 13 with over 8 hours. Still have not touched skirmish or MP modes. 8 hours of all campaign.
...must remain strong...
Welp...I completed the campaign. Absolutely fantastic! 14 epic missions in just under 10 hours.
O0
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 29, 2016, 10:33:13 PM
Welp...I completed the campaign. Absolutely fantastic! 14 epic missions in just under 10 hours.
Seems a little short..
:uglystupid2:(ducks for cover) :uglystupid2:
Congrats man, I'll probably pick it up on sale at some point.
Quote from: Gusington on January 29, 2016, 06:04:51 PM
...must remain strong...
We'll wait for a sale together. We can do it!
Quote from: jamus34 on January 30, 2016, 07:16:30 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 29, 2016, 10:33:13 PM
Welp...I completed the campaign. Absolutely fantastic! 14 epic missions in just under 10 hours.
Seems a little short..
:uglystupid2:(ducks for cover) :uglystupid2:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5325/8870925858_cb6a5406f3_b.jpg)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 30, 2016, 04:44:35 PM
Quote from: jamus34 on January 30, 2016, 07:16:30 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 29, 2016, 10:33:13 PM
Welp...I completed the campaign. Absolutely fantastic! 14 epic missions in just under 10 hours.
Seems a little short..
:uglystupid2:(ducks for cover) :uglystupid2:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5325/8870925858_cb6a5406f3_b.jpg)
Where'd you find that pic of me as a little tyke? :P
OK. With your guys' backing I can do this. In the meantime I will enjoy Homeworld: Remastered, Mad Max and Attila TW: Charlemagne. Easy peasy.
*looks at Kharak Steam page longingly*
I watched the Angry Joe video yesterday and it was all I could do to keep my mouse off the buy button.
^Breathe. Breathe with us.
Since completing the campaign, I've been toying with the skirmish mode, and after extremely positive initial impressions, I'm starting to get concerned.
The battle set up options are perfect. There are a handful of maps to choose from of different size, and you can play as the coalition or the Gaalsien. You can also set some victory conditions, and create teams with up to 7 or 8 AI or human players.
The problem? The AI is really kicking my ass. Even on the easiest setting, they just run all over me. No matter what strategy I employ, I am just incapable of stopping them. Within 10 minutes of game start, enemy units are starting to swarm and I've barely got my resource collection operation up and running. Furthermore, in order to build the core units in the game, you need to research the necessary technologies. So, how do you collect resources, research the basic techs AND build any offensive or even defensive units? I'm finding it impossible to keep up. I'm thinking the AI is seriously cheating or starting off with a tremendous advantage. I'm going to try adding AI players to my team...perhaps that will help.
No doubt the skirmish mode will be awesome with friends, but against the AI, I'm finding it extremely challenging to the point where it is not enjoyable.
All that being said, playing as the Gallsien is awesome. They really play differently than the Coalition. The tech is noticeably different, as are the upgrade options and several of the key units.
How many different maps are available when skirmishing?
Jarhead, are you aware of any mod support? If so, maybe someone has/mentioned making a mod reducing AI resources??
Guys...I'm uploading a video of a skirmish battle right now. Should have it posted in a few minutes. I was able to pull off a win in this one. Interesting outcome, based on my prior efforts.
Anyway, my mic volume is very low and indiscernible at points. I apologize, but watch the mission and you can tell what is going on without the commentary.
Gus, there are about 5 or 6 maps to choose from.
Mikeck, haven't looked for any mods, yet, but I'm sure they are out there...
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 31, 2016, 12:58:03 PM
Guys...I'm uploading a video of a skirmish battle right now. Should have it posted in a few minutes. I was able to pull off a win in this one. Interesting outcome, based on my prior efforts.
Sweet! O0
Here is the video. Really sorry about the low mic issue. Seems to be a common issue for recordings captured with Shadowplay, but I may have found a solution.
I set this up as a 1v1, on a 4 player map. I took the side of the Coalition and the enemy AI set on easy difficulty is playing as Gaalsien. Even though I was able to pull off a relatively straightforward win here, if you stick around until the end to see the stats page, you will see that the AI still gathered more CUs and RUs and spent more of both, as well. Additionally, although the AI was pretty aggressive with probing my defenses, it never really put together attack forces with strong or heavy core units, which I have seen in other attempts at skirmishing.
Interesting, thanks for posting. Intriguing that the AI is so devious :)
Nice!
Quote from: Gusington on January 31, 2016, 11:58:52 AM
OK. With your guys' backing I can do this. In the meantime I will enjoy Homeworld: Remastered, Mad Max and Attila TW: Charlemagne. Easy peasy.
Unleash some Danish rage! :knuppel2:
^It's coming.
"Kharaking Good Fun"
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-02-01-homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review
Thanks for the video, JH. It further eroded my ability to resist purchasing the game.
The sound track and effects are amazing.
Damn you.
I haven't bought it...yet.
Don't lie to us.
I do like the idea that I might be able to actually finish it. If JH finished it in 10 hours, I could probably get through it in 20 or 30 :P
I was thinking 50 for myself.
Quote from: Gusington on February 01, 2016, 03:21:47 PM
I was thinking 50 for myself.
That's probably more realistic for me too.
I really took my time in trying to collect most of the resources available when possible, so I think it is actually more likely that you would finish in less time. Taking the time to set up resource collecting operations would frequently delay my efforts to press on to completing mission objectives. Thankfully, I don't believe any of the missions were timed, so although there was sometimes pressure to secure a position, or prepare defensive positions prior to an attack, I almost never felt the stress of time, and this is one thing that made the missions so enjoyable.
I'm a little OCD when it comes to things like resource collecting, completing all possible objectives, etc. I imagine it would take me at least as long as you to complete the game. I have a feeling I spend more time repeating missions. I'm not great at RTS.
Quote from: mirth on February 01, 2016, 04:35:15 PM
I'm a little OCD when it comes to things like resource collecting, completing all possible objectives, etc. I imagine it would take me at least as long as you to complete the game. I have a feeling I spend more time repeating missions. I'm not great at RTS.
There are three difficulty levels. I played all 14 missions on Normal (the middle) difficulty. I do not believe I failed any mission, or had to repeat any. Some of them I managed to scrape out a win literally by the skin on my nutsack. The missions found a great balance between challenge and fun. I found the missions in the original Homeworlds to be too difficult to be truly enjoyable, for the most part.
Obviously, if you lose the Kapisi (your land carrier) its game over. I never really felt like my carrier was truly in danger, except for maybe in one or two missions. However, you also have to protect Rachel S'jet, who appears in each mission in a modified Base Runner. If you lose her, its also mission over. She came really close to buying the farm on a few occasions.
Stop shooting down my reasons to not get the game! :P
Seriously, I understand holding off on buying some games, but in my opinion, if you are fan of the Homeworld universe and generally enjoy RTS type games, this is not a title that should generate too much debate on whether to purchase, or not. Its really an A+ game and so few titles these days offer up a stellar, fully featured single player component.
With the paucity of resources and units available, I'm finding that I can't create two or more fireteams, concocted with a mix of units, in most situations I really need everything I have in the current line of fire. The only flexibility I seem to gain is with the carrier itself, using it as a long range arty style unit supplementing the Railguns. My nippy LAV's are the ones that are most useful, but which I lose a lot of constantly. Plus I am addicted to the air units. Even the bombers (now I have them).
Without giving any of the plot away (ignore the mission objectives...), this was my last stand in one of the missions, with incoming enemy air, and an enemy carrier pumping out legions of attack patrols (mainly fast LAV's, Armoured Assaults and Rail bastards).
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfKCMYAT.jpg&hash=d496804cf44d00748b670e1323e3a6b642a3d7a5)
And the scanner tac view of what I was up against...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1OlKLfd.jpg&hash=0f0c9ba2f8d35488bbc5c238c4ef90457cc61aaf)
As you can see we took a pasting trying to use that Dune crater as a base of defense... it's the Rorke's Drift fetish I struggle with... my Carrier out to the side, to prevent/interject in any attacks from the flanks and rear.
After surviving most of the waves, we threw off our trousers and made a bee-line for the enemy carrier.. just pipping the post by saturation bombing inter-mixed with staggered air strikes to soak up some of the anti-air the carrier had.. it was a costly day in the lives of my men...
Quote from: spelk on February 01, 2016, 04:42:58 PM
With the paucity of resources and units available, I'm finding that I can't create two or more fireteams, concocted with a mix of units, in most situations I really need everything I have in the current line of fire. The only flexibility I seem to gain is with the carrier itself, using it as a long range arty style unit supplementing the Railguns. My nippy LAV's are the ones that are most useful, but which I lose a lot of constantly. Plus I am addicted to the air units. Even the bombers (now I have them).
I never really felt that there was a shortage of resource collection points. This was a real concern of mine going into it because the original Homeworld games gave me PTSD in that regard. I found resources to be pretty ample in DoK.
I also relied heavily on aviation from the carrier. I had all 5 wings of strike fighters, all 3 tactical bombers and all 2 gunships. The strike wings pretty much took care of everything and really made my force powerful. Anytime ground units came under heavy fire or were in trouble, CAS from the carrier always turned things around. It was only when the opfor possessed AAA defenses that things got dangerous.
I think the strike fighters are maybe a bit too powerful, while the tac bombers should be a little more capable and the gunships payload should pack a little more punch.
Good to hear there are no timed missions...I hate that. Sorry to hear JH's nut sac was put in jeopardy.
Boy! Did I call it or what? Strike Fighter damage reduced from 175 to 120...
Quote
A new update for Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak will be rolling out the afternoon of February 1, 2016.
Version 1.0.1 - Releasing February 1, 2016
New Content
•Added new map "The Boneyard" for 1v1 Automatch, 2v2 Automatch and Public Games. The Boneyard is inspired by the second mission from our campaign and has fleets clashing for map control during a beautiful sunrise.
Bug Fixes
•Fixed an issue that was causing crashes when players were allied with AI players in 2v2
•Lowered starting resources on the Torin Crater Map to match the starting resources on all other MP maps
Balance Updates
Gaalsien Carrier
In order create more early game options for the Gaalsien, the Carrier's combat capabilities have been increased. Enabling it to deal with hordes of early game enemy units.
Gaalsien Carrier Side Turrets:
•Default Rate of Fire from 2 to 10.
•Burst Time from 1.4 seconds to 1.1 seconds
•Negative accuracy modifiers versus small units removed
•Accuracy against all units set to 100% at short range, 90% at medium range and 80% at long range.
Gaalsien Carrier Weapon Systems:
•Power level 1 - Rate of Fire increased from 5 to 17.
•Power level 2 - Rate of Fire increased from 10 to 24.
•Power level 3 - Rate of Fire increased from 20 to 31.
•Power level 4 - Rate of Fire decreased from 40 to 38.
Coalition Missile Battery
When compared to the Gaalsien Missile Ship, the Coalition Missile Battery was much more cost-effective. Price change will now better reflect its power.
Missile Battery:
•Price from 100CU/70RU to 350CU/80RU
Assault Cruiser
The upgraded Assault Cruiser turned out to be a very specialized anti-air counter. The damage has been lowered so it is more in line with other anti-air units.
Assault Cruiser:
•It now requires the Assault Cruiser Anti-Air research in order to attack air.
•Anti-air weapon will now deal 175 damage instead of 250.
Coalition Strike Fighters
The early game advantage provided by Coalition Strike Fighters is interesting but too strong. The damage has been lowered to retain air as an option but allow opponents enough time to react to it. For example, you needed 2 Strike Fighters to snipe an enemy Railgun, but now you will need 3.
Strike Fighter:
•Damage from 175 to 120
For support with Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak or SHiFT, please visit http://support.gearboxsoftware.com.
Great. They're already making the game harder :/
100 hours to complete...more bang for your scifi buck.
I don't have 100 hours.
You'll find it somewhere.
I may not live that long
You're right.
Is this discounted anywhere yet??
In Steam Sale... £14.99!!!
http://store.steampowered.com/app/281610/
Is it elegant to play or a nightmare of micromanagement. Just looking from the outside, it seems there is a big danger of getting sucked into the micromanagement and not being able to deal with multiple threats/control of attacks? Have I got that wrong?
Quote from: Boggit on June 30, 2016, 03:59:28 PM
Is it elegant to play or a nightmare of micromanagement. Just looking from the outside, it seems there is a big danger of getting sucked into the micromanagement and not being able to deal with multiple threats/control of attacks? Have I got that wrong?
ive watched youtubers play through the campaign and it doesnt seem that micro heavy. there are resources on the map to collect so just making sure you got collectors working and protected seemed to be the most micro they did
Necropost, on the off-chance you might win a key for Kharak...
RTS Guru "wayward strategist" & dev of a Starcraft II mod S.C.R.A.P. (Scavenge. Collect. Reclaim. Attack. Prevail. https://scrapmod.wordpress.com/) and part of the team working for Dream Harvest creating the cyberpunk RTS Failure https://www.failure.game/) is going to run a giveaway for Deserts of Kharak key if they get 2 more followers...
https://twitter.com/waywardstrategy/status/954355350995652610
Blog
https://waywardstrategist.com/