Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak

[JasonPratt]

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! 

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.  So however pessimistic I am, it could definitely be a lot worse!  O0 )

[Jarhead0331]

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.

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?

[spelk]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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.

After selecting unit(s) press A or V and then click&hold LMB and rotate the facing/formation.

[spelk]

Nicely found JH, much appreciated!

[Martok]

Angry Joe & Other Joe in a MP match with the devs: 

[mikeck]

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

[FarAway Sooner]

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. 

[mirth]

[Jarhead0331]

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.   

[FarAway Sooner]

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.

[mirth]

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:

Homeworld 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/

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[spelk]

"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. :)

[Jarhead0331]

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.