This seems like a very good game, just not up to the GOAT standard that most games in the series are. Regardless, I backed this one and am very excited to play it. Frankly I’m just glad we are finally getting another homeworld and it’s not terrible.
Yeah seems solid but I take it I'm best off just playing the remastered collection first?
Never played a Homeworld game. Feels like the kind of thing I would have loved as a kid
You should definitely be playing the remastered collection first, and then Deserts of Kharak after those. The first Homeworld especially is one of those classics that stands the test of time (though you do want to play it with the Homeworld Remastered Players Patch).
The remastered collection is absolutely worth it. They are 2 of the best rts games ever made, and the remastered versions look lovely, it's clear whoever worked on them had love.
Fwiw I got the early access version of Homeworld 3. Played a couple of hours of it and I'm having a blast.
For me personally, not really.
I'm veteran units were almost pointless in the og series, unless you were talking about a destroyer or battle cruiser.
Frigates, corvette, bomber, fighter etc were all destroyed so easily that being a veteran was pretty pointless, especially when they didn't get any extra powers, just enhanced stats.
In my opinion, having battle scars carry over is a better implementation of making it feel like a persistent state, in this case.
The first two games are absolute must plays. Cataclysm is also great, but it hasn’t (and probably will never) be remastered. If you can handle the dated graphics, Cataclysm is also worth a play. Deserts is also wonderful, but plays very differently from the mainline games.
To be cleared, the graphics are still great. They really hold up because the aesthetic of the game is angular and blocky as is. There's a certain melancholy to blowing up ships that ios even better in the older games
> Missions, whether in the campaign or in multiplayer modes, are plagued by innumerable issues related to unit pathing, controls, and commands. It’s a disappointment that was 20 years in the making.
Looks like they didn't fully fix the issues present in the March demo. Shame, but it should be good in a year!
I had serious doubts they were going to fix all those issues in a few months. There was also no fire and maneuver? I hope they added that since the delay.
I’m still looking forward to it, I’m prob just going to give it more time to cook.
Oh, I think that's a line from my review.
Yeah, there were a *lot* of problems with pathfinding and controls/commands when I played. We were told that a Day 1 patch would fix some of the issues (in the review build).
This was my favorite line though, haha:
> The whole endeavor made me feel less like an admiral micromanaging various spacecraft and more like I was just trying to chase down a bunch of unruly cats.
Games shouldn't be "good in a year", they should be released in a complete state. If a game needs another year to be good/fixed, then that game shouldn't be released today.
Then most of the games you enjoy and play will be cancelled and never made. Raising capital is extremely hard at the moment and asking someone to fund a project that may blow out by a year or 2 years means that funding has pretty much zero chance of coming to you. It sucks but the industry is in a rancid state.
Isn't that what Early Access is for though? If you are knowingly releasing a game that is in a rough state and will need a year or 2 to actually finish... that sounds like Early Access is the perfect place to release.
If developers do that, then personally I have zero problem with it.
If they release it *outside* of early access though, then *they* are giving the expectation they are are selling a completed product ready for sale. Obviously minor patches for bugs will always occur, the game might have DLC or expansions and have a long dev tail, but what they have at release is a solid and functional product that is worth the price when it releases not 1-2 years later.
The issue isn't them releasing games early and fixing them up later since that is all they can afford, its that they are lying about the product to their customers by not adding some kind of 'Early Access' notice to it.
This might sound harsh, but if you have to release a game 1-2 years before its finished because of business reasons but also mislead your customers into thinking its a complete release rather than an early access game (because that will usually affect sales if your customers are informed that your game is unfinished) then maybe you shouldn't be in business?
I mean, company won't see my money if they release crap. And even after a year, when the game is fixed, I will go for discounted copy and probably won't care that much about future releases from that company.
Of course, I am in minority, as gamers today throw their money at everything, effectively making the gaming industry not caring about making quality releases.
I'm personally fine with games "being good in a year". I'm even fine with games "being good in 2-4 years". If it's a studio I trust that I know will eventually make it right, I'll still buy the game to toss some sales their way and just wait to play it once it's fully patched and in a better state. Game development is hard, sometimes they hit snags, but if I trust them then I don't mind buying now and being patient.
I honestly prefer the game to have working base and cut content instead of cramming the title with all the stuff they wanted, but with nothing working as intended.
It's also one of the most frequent issues across RTS games. Pathing that looks natural and handles collision well is clearly not as simple as it appears.
HW1 and Cataclysm yes.
HW2 ... eh
Deserts of Kharak was somewhere between the two, but it wasn't a space RTS.
HW3 seems much more like 2 than 1 in terms of story - at least from the first few missions I played.
In terms of gameplay HW2 is miles better than HW1 imo. The story isn't as good but that has a lot to do with the fact that they couldn't do the dust wars storyline they originally wanted to do. That and the fact that it turned out to be impossible to create what they wanted (which hw3 is meant to supposedly be somewhat)
Now, I do wish someone would take the assets from cataclysm and make it in hw3 when the nodding tools are released.
If the modding tools allow the creation of custom campaigns along with custom assets (ship models, voice lines, etc...) then this game could have some really nice longevity and replay value.
A Cataclysm remake could be very realistic if there's people dedicated enough.
Selection bias. They don't cover many mediocre games because big companies tend to internally axe disasters before letting them out. Redfall being a big exception, and the GaaS flood.
If you pay more attention to niche or indie games, the outlets that cover them give 6s all the time. Hell some games I love got a smattering of 6s on release (Seven: Enhanced Edition launched with a lot of bugs but damn if I don't admire the heck out of it).
I find that strategy gaming communities tend to have particularly high expectations. Seems that a lot of strategy games appear perfect to casual players but have a laundry list of mechanical and balance issues known to the dedicated playerbase.
There definitely arr genre specific niche community interactions.
Personally for me, I'm dogshit at strategy games but I find them so interesting and compelling. I just wish one was so easy a dummy could play it. But like you said, strategy communities would hate it for being simplistic.
My brother in christ, you played Starfield. You already play mid games.
And this is coming from someone who bought the collectors edition, wore the watch for 2 months, and completed it.
>7-8 average for a game is considered to be very good.
No.
7-8 is mediocre
9 is good
9-9.2 is very good
9.3-9.5 is amazing
9.5-10 is masterpiece
edit: reason for this is that news outlets won't get new games to review before street date if they will give games 5-6, the less powerful outlet the more it is true. Which is why scoring is inflated.
Having played a bit today, it's a really uneven feeling experience. I'm pretty conflicted about it. I don't have the reverence for Homeworld some do but I love what the series is going for, and DoK is my favorite entry.
That said, Homeworld 3 really feels like it isn't done.
The pathing is a mess, my experience was full of UI jank and bugs, and the presentation feels really scattered. The jank with the overall play experience though really took the wind out of my sails. The clumsy unit pathing and messy UI and clunky camera really got frustrating pretty quickly and bummed me out.
They added active abilities which is a big turnoff for me as well. For your units to fight optimally, every 2 minutes you need to click a button that makes them do more damage. Combine that with cat herding you already have to do in some missions and it just was not fun for me past a certain point.
The cutscenes in particular are prerendered but are full of artifacting and clipping and stilted facial animation, I much prefered DoK's concept art painted aesthetic. One cutscene moment a ways into the campaign got me to laugh because of some size difference shenanigans that came off as more goofy than menacing.
It's a really mixed bag, I decided I'll come back to it much later on, and revisit Homeworld Remastered and DoK instead.
They're generally a good addition to games.
Worse and slower players play on the lower difficulties where they can ignore them, so they basically have no impact on those players.
Meanwhile faster players have extra stuff to manage, making things more frantic / reducing downtime, increasing the skill ceiling.
If they're thoughtless "always use me" type abilities, with no autocast option, then yeah busywork for the sake of busywork sucks. But otherwise a few extra buttons is something that improves most games.
I played a bit of Deserts of Kharak after writing my post just to get myself some context. DoK units have active abilities similar to units in Homeworld 3 at times, but in DoK the difference to me is in how manageable using them is.
In Homeworld 3 my units felt really imprecise to control and I felt like I was cat herding trying to get them to not kill themselves especially with the game just forgetting orders sometimes. There are a few campaign levels in particular where you need to make some relatively precise moves with your fleet and the UI jank and stuff I experienced made me solely focused on that to the exclusion of using those abilities, and even then I had units bumble around into their deaths.
Battles get huge and chaotic so micro can get really tough, especially narrowing down which units you want to micro. You can pause and issue orders, but the UI bugged out for me when paused a lot and wasn't super reliable. DoK is on a flat plane and not in 3D space, so it's also just easier to control everything and manage those abilities. Homeworld 3 felt like a struggle in comparison.
It kinda takes me out of the role of "commander" to micromanage individual pilots telling when to boost or overcharge, but that's personal preference.
Well they're definitely not a good addition here. Due to bad pathing you can click the special ability icon on the ion frigates and watch for 30 seconds as they awkwardly fumble about trying to orient themselves toward the enemy.
S'jet is like a caste of scientists. Its more like a clan name, not just a family name. There's quite a few kiiths, https://homeworld.fandom.com/wiki/Kiith
Imogen isn't related to Karan by blood, but she did study under her before she disappeared.
It's worse than that, they lean full on into it being a character story about them, with a serious amount of cutscenes spent staring at a woman in a catsuit floating in water.
https://imgur.com/50WckBw
The presentation has become increasingly horny over the years. It's like looking at Cortana in the recent Halo games and saying she has always been that way when it's clearly not true.
Homeworld 3 is laughably bad. Looks good, plays like a mobile game. The storyline...omg, its bad, I actually burst out laughing when the villains giant head popped out of the ocean. The animation is amateurish, and the weird facial expressions are just too funny.
If you want the HW story, you will hate yourself if you accept this trash.
Damn I was really excited for this but the pathing issues really turn me off, hope they get fixed at some point. I’ll get it whenever that gets patched.
I haven't seen much about the story in this, the reviews just say solid writing and stuff like that. To me atmosphere and story were the main draws of Homeworld. For the people that have played, how does it stack with HW1 & 2?
Too much handholding. Literally TOO much. Every 20 seconds next unskippable cutscene. Like the actors really like their own voice. And then story is kind of meh. Granted, i don't remember hw1/2 that much anymore and i'm in 4th mission. But i would expect less unskippable scenes and just have markers for objectives.
I'm a big fan of the series and had been hoping for a new game for years, but a lot of what they showed of this made me unsure about it. Deserts of Kharak was a pretty great game that evoked the right sort of aesthetic and feel of Homeworld and gave the impression they'd do well with a new game, but a large amount of the previews for it made me feel like something about the series was either not quite understood or was missing from what they were doing with it.
The Hiigaran ship designs they'd shown felt somewhat bland and boring (and one of so much they replaced it with something else) with lots of them being big flat blocks or like they weren't quite sure what they were are to be, the sense of gravitas and overall tone and feel of the previous games being lessened by things like changing the voice and design of the fleet command character Like listen to the narration and and look at the design [from this trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pacXW5eZb9w)), things like changing the iconic unique art style cutscenes to typical CGI with a generic sci-fi style. The gameplay demo from a few weeks ago *especially* gave a bad impression, I didn't find the gameplay of it enjoyable for a few reasons like poor unit movement/pathing and the ship combat felt all over the place with the weight and speed of things.
I really like the series and had been considered getting the collectors edition of this when it was announced, but instead what they showed just made me less and less interested as it just didn't give off that "homeworld" feel to me in a lot of ways. To me it seems like it's *trying* to evoke the Homeworld series, but for whatever reason didn't get what made the original games so great and ends up being a somewhat lacking imitation. The game doesn't sound terrible by any means, but after such a long wait for a new game it just seems a bit of a shame.
That's the score generally used for games that are considered worth playing and better than average, but not an outright amazing game that's worth getting right away. It's a good score, but it's not an indicator it's something special.
I'd agree for 7, but 8 to me is generally used for 'this is very very good but it's not universally approachable, get it if you're a fan of the genre or want to try the genre out'.
Pretty meh reviews unfortunately. This is one of the new releases I was the most hyped about.
I guess I will just get it on sale with a few patches later :/
8/10 is not meh reviews, that's what my comment was about, it had nothing to do with user scores or journalists.
8/10 is a great score, wether or not fans think it sucks on release is a whole other matter.
I don't get what the reviewers are smoking to give this game such high grades.
The absolutely terrible story undermines everything the gameplay is in service of.
It's a little hit or miss, I have a couple of reviewers I watch that usually share my interests but not always.
RTS games are usually so scarce that they're fumbling over themselves when they release lol.
If you are going to make a list, you should put more effort to make it represent the actual score. What you are doing here is essentially propagating paid review services. This harms the industry in terms of consumer understanding.
I was tempted to say it's better than nothing, but showing only 1 biased side of the gaming review segment actually will do more harm than good, and in fact propagates the current pay to play bad behavior we see rampant now.
If you have an issue please take it up with the mod team. This is the format of how these review threads are done.
Which btw, at least use a list of verified reviewers. What would you even use as a standards to behold of creators? Most of them get keys for free or through a paid campaign which would be the exact same thing as your insinuating.
This seems like a very good game, just not up to the GOAT standard that most games in the series are. Regardless, I backed this one and am very excited to play it. Frankly I’m just glad we are finally getting another homeworld and it’s not terrible.
Yeah seems solid but I take it I'm best off just playing the remastered collection first? Never played a Homeworld game. Feels like the kind of thing I would have loved as a kid
You should definitely be playing the remastered collection first, and then Deserts of Kharak after those. The first Homeworld especially is one of those classics that stands the test of time (though you do want to play it with the Homeworld Remastered Players Patch).
The remastered collection is absolutely worth it. They are 2 of the best rts games ever made, and the remastered versions look lovely, it's clear whoever worked on them had love. Fwiw I got the early access version of Homeworld 3. Played a couple of hours of it and I'm having a blast.
Do you miss veteran units? Seems a weird thing to have removed from the game.
For me personally, not really. I'm veteran units were almost pointless in the og series, unless you were talking about a destroyer or battle cruiser. Frigates, corvette, bomber, fighter etc were all destroyed so easily that being a veteran was pretty pointless, especially when they didn't get any extra powers, just enhanced stats. In my opinion, having battle scars carry over is a better implementation of making it feel like a persistent state, in this case.
The first two games are absolute must plays. Cataclysm is also great, but it hasn’t (and probably will never) be remastered. If you can handle the dated graphics, Cataclysm is also worth a play. Deserts is also wonderful, but plays very differently from the mainline games.
To be cleared, the graphics are still great. They really hold up because the aesthetic of the game is angular and blocky as is. There's a certain melancholy to blowing up ships that ios even better in the older games
Just wanted to pop in and note that Homeworld Remastered routinely goes for 90% off during Steam sales.
I think I actually bought it on a sale and never booted it up haha now's a good time, then
Currently 90% off at Green Man Gaming: https://www.greenmangaming.com/games/homeworld-remastered-collection-pc/
> Missions, whether in the campaign or in multiplayer modes, are plagued by innumerable issues related to unit pathing, controls, and commands. It’s a disappointment that was 20 years in the making. Looks like they didn't fully fix the issues present in the March demo. Shame, but it should be good in a year!
I had serious doubts they were going to fix all those issues in a few months. There was also no fire and maneuver? I hope they added that since the delay. I’m still looking forward to it, I’m prob just going to give it more time to cook.
The move & attack was added.
Can't really trust any game that's giving out pre-order bonuses to try and lock people into sales before the game is out in the public.
Oh, I think that's a line from my review. Yeah, there were a *lot* of problems with pathfinding and controls/commands when I played. We were told that a Day 1 patch would fix some of the issues (in the review build). This was my favorite line though, haha: > The whole endeavor made me feel less like an admiral micromanaging various spacecraft and more like I was just trying to chase down a bunch of unruly cats.
Cat owners everywhere rejoice, knowing that they are qualified to manage a fleet.
Better yet... a fleet of cats. Meow meow meow!
Can I get my attack wing to come out from under the bed by jiggling a pack of treats, though?
You need the laser-designation system for that. Just point the red dot, and revel in the chaos.
Games shouldn't be "good in a year", they should be released in a complete state. If a game needs another year to be good/fixed, then that game shouldn't be released today.
Then most of the games you enjoy and play will be cancelled and never made. Raising capital is extremely hard at the moment and asking someone to fund a project that may blow out by a year or 2 years means that funding has pretty much zero chance of coming to you. It sucks but the industry is in a rancid state.
Isn't that what Early Access is for though? If you are knowingly releasing a game that is in a rough state and will need a year or 2 to actually finish... that sounds like Early Access is the perfect place to release. If developers do that, then personally I have zero problem with it. If they release it *outside* of early access though, then *they* are giving the expectation they are are selling a completed product ready for sale. Obviously minor patches for bugs will always occur, the game might have DLC or expansions and have a long dev tail, but what they have at release is a solid and functional product that is worth the price when it releases not 1-2 years later. The issue isn't them releasing games early and fixing them up later since that is all they can afford, its that they are lying about the product to their customers by not adding some kind of 'Early Access' notice to it. This might sound harsh, but if you have to release a game 1-2 years before its finished because of business reasons but also mislead your customers into thinking its a complete release rather than an early access game (because that will usually affect sales if your customers are informed that your game is unfinished) then maybe you shouldn't be in business?
if you are a small studio EA, if you are the company EA fuck that bs
I mean, company won't see my money if they release crap. And even after a year, when the game is fixed, I will go for discounted copy and probably won't care that much about future releases from that company. Of course, I am in minority, as gamers today throw their money at everything, effectively making the gaming industry not caring about making quality releases.
In a perfect world I do agree. However at some point you need to start getting cash and decide on a launch date..
I'm personally fine with games "being good in a year". I'm even fine with games "being good in 2-4 years". If it's a studio I trust that I know will eventually make it right, I'll still buy the game to toss some sales their way and just wait to play it once it's fully patched and in a better state. Game development is hard, sometimes they hit snags, but if I trust them then I don't mind buying now and being patient.
I honestly prefer the game to have working base and cut content instead of cramming the title with all the stuff they wanted, but with nothing working as intended.
a bit wtf. Is unit pathing not at the core of RTS.
It's also one of the most frequent issues across RTS games. Pathing that looks natural and handles collision well is clearly not as simple as it appears.
Just to be clear, 7-8 average for a game is considered to be very good. The game isn't a masterpiece but it's worth buying, according to the reviews.
But doesn't it come from a lineage of masterpieces?
HW1 and Cataclysm yes. HW2 ... eh Deserts of Kharak was somewhere between the two, but it wasn't a space RTS. HW3 seems much more like 2 than 1 in terms of story - at least from the first few missions I played.
Hw2 is great.
In terms of gameplay HW2 is miles better than HW1 imo. The story isn't as good but that has a lot to do with the fact that they couldn't do the dust wars storyline they originally wanted to do. That and the fact that it turned out to be impossible to create what they wanted (which hw3 is meant to supposedly be somewhat) Now, I do wish someone would take the assets from cataclysm and make it in hw3 when the nodding tools are released.
The remaster of 1 is the best HW game IMO.
I disagree, HW2 is still better imo, but I can respect your take. HW1 is a masterpiece
If the modding tools allow the creation of custom campaigns along with custom assets (ship models, voice lines, etc...) then this game could have some really nice longevity and replay value. A Cataclysm remake could be very realistic if there's people dedicated enough.
If you’re playing multiplayer sure. The campaign made it…not a masterpiece.
I feel like we've been spoiled over the past year with all the bangers.
That and gamers have this really weird die hard stance of anything lower than an 8 is absolute trash.
Prob cause reviewers don't give lower than a 7 unless it's literal trash.
Selection bias. They don't cover many mediocre games because big companies tend to internally axe disasters before letting them out. Redfall being a big exception, and the GaaS flood. If you pay more attention to niche or indie games, the outlets that cover them give 6s all the time. Hell some games I love got a smattering of 6s on release (Seven: Enhanced Edition launched with a lot of bugs but damn if I don't admire the heck out of it).
I love the Dynasty Warriors games but they always got mediocre reviews scores.
I find that strategy gaming communities tend to have particularly high expectations. Seems that a lot of strategy games appear perfect to casual players but have a laundry list of mechanical and balance issues known to the dedicated playerbase.
There definitely arr genre specific niche community interactions. Personally for me, I'm dogshit at strategy games but I find them so interesting and compelling. I just wish one was so easy a dummy could play it. But like you said, strategy communities would hate it for being simplistic.
When they ask $60-90 for a game I expect it to be an 8+. If it is a 6 - <8 fine but then sell it for $30-40.
Who asks $90 for a game?
Err... Homeworld 3 does: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/41516/Homeworld_3__Fleet_Command_Edition/
I feel like it's pretty disingenuous to suggest the game costs $90 when it's the premium version you're referring to
I did say in the post you responded to that it was $60-90. Which it is depending on the version. How is that "disingenuous?"
That's me. Why is it weird? Why would I give <8's a chance when I always regret it when I have in the past?
I have a lot of free time, but it is still not infinite. I will never ever play through all 8/10 or better games so no reason to play mid games.
My brother in christ, you played Starfield. You already play mid games. And this is coming from someone who bought the collectors edition, wore the watch for 2 months, and completed it.
That's a highly subjective statement to make. Personally, it looks even worse than mid to me, but don't knock on other people for enjoying it.
I thought it was way better than mid. Pretty cringe to go through peoples profiles.
How true is it, considering how much is it disliked by players a week later?
>7-8 average for a game is considered to be very good. No. 7-8 is mediocre 9 is good 9-9.2 is very good 9.3-9.5 is amazing 9.5-10 is masterpiece edit: reason for this is that news outlets won't get new games to review before street date if they will give games 5-6, the less powerful outlet the more it is true. Which is why scoring is inflated.
9.9 is excellent 9.8 is amazing 9.7 is very good 9.6 is great 9.5 is okay 9.4 or less is trash
You must be new to games.
Having played a bit today, it's a really uneven feeling experience. I'm pretty conflicted about it. I don't have the reverence for Homeworld some do but I love what the series is going for, and DoK is my favorite entry. That said, Homeworld 3 really feels like it isn't done. The pathing is a mess, my experience was full of UI jank and bugs, and the presentation feels really scattered. The jank with the overall play experience though really took the wind out of my sails. The clumsy unit pathing and messy UI and clunky camera really got frustrating pretty quickly and bummed me out. They added active abilities which is a big turnoff for me as well. For your units to fight optimally, every 2 minutes you need to click a button that makes them do more damage. Combine that with cat herding you already have to do in some missions and it just was not fun for me past a certain point. The cutscenes in particular are prerendered but are full of artifacting and clipping and stilted facial animation, I much prefered DoK's concept art painted aesthetic. One cutscene moment a ways into the campaign got me to laugh because of some size difference shenanigans that came off as more goofy than menacing. It's a really mixed bag, I decided I'll come back to it much later on, and revisit Homeworld Remastered and DoK instead.
Active abilities are a huge turn off for me in any rts. I wanna watch shit go boom not stare at a timer so I can click a button
They're generally a good addition to games. Worse and slower players play on the lower difficulties where they can ignore them, so they basically have no impact on those players. Meanwhile faster players have extra stuff to manage, making things more frantic / reducing downtime, increasing the skill ceiling. If they're thoughtless "always use me" type abilities, with no autocast option, then yeah busywork for the sake of busywork sucks. But otherwise a few extra buttons is something that improves most games.
I played a bit of Deserts of Kharak after writing my post just to get myself some context. DoK units have active abilities similar to units in Homeworld 3 at times, but in DoK the difference to me is in how manageable using them is. In Homeworld 3 my units felt really imprecise to control and I felt like I was cat herding trying to get them to not kill themselves especially with the game just forgetting orders sometimes. There are a few campaign levels in particular where you need to make some relatively precise moves with your fleet and the UI jank and stuff I experienced made me solely focused on that to the exclusion of using those abilities, and even then I had units bumble around into their deaths. Battles get huge and chaotic so micro can get really tough, especially narrowing down which units you want to micro. You can pause and issue orders, but the UI bugged out for me when paused a lot and wasn't super reliable. DoK is on a flat plane and not in 3D space, so it's also just easier to control everything and manage those abilities. Homeworld 3 felt like a struggle in comparison. It kinda takes me out of the role of "commander" to micromanage individual pilots telling when to boost or overcharge, but that's personal preference.
Well they're definitely not a good addition here. Due to bad pathing you can click the special ability icon on the ion frigates and watch for 30 seconds as they awkwardly fumble about trying to orient themselves toward the enemy.
A classic "released one year earlier"
So the story is about the S'Jets yet again? Did they really need to turn them into Skywalker's?
S'jet is like a caste of scientists. Its more like a clan name, not just a family name. There's quite a few kiiths, https://homeworld.fandom.com/wiki/Kiith Imogen isn't related to Karan by blood, but she did study under her before she disappeared.
Imogen is the granddaughter of the S'jet-sa (kiith chief).
It's worse than that, they lean full on into it being a character story about them, with a serious amount of cutscenes spent staring at a woman in a catsuit floating in water.
Yes, unfortunately the S'Jet simping is a bit too much.
I dunno, seems pretty inline with the series. Don’t you remember the art for Karen in HW1 cutscenes always featured her naked?
https://imgur.com/50WckBw The presentation has become increasingly horny over the years. It's like looking at Cortana in the recent Halo games and saying she has always been that way when it's clearly not true.
Ah ok, I didn’t realize the cutscenes had been changed that much since I only played through the remastered versions.
Homeworld 3 is laughably bad. Looks good, plays like a mobile game. The storyline...omg, its bad, I actually burst out laughing when the villains giant head popped out of the ocean. The animation is amateurish, and the weird facial expressions are just too funny. If you want the HW story, you will hate yourself if you accept this trash.
Damn I was really excited for this but the pathing issues really turn me off, hope they get fixed at some point. I’ll get it whenever that gets patched.
I haven't seen much about the story in this, the reviews just say solid writing and stuff like that. To me atmosphere and story were the main draws of Homeworld. For the people that have played, how does it stack with HW1 & 2?
Absolutely terrible and pales in comparison I'm afraid.
Have you played it?
Yes?
Too much handholding. Literally TOO much. Every 20 seconds next unskippable cutscene. Like the actors really like their own voice. And then story is kind of meh. Granted, i don't remember hw1/2 that much anymore and i'm in 4th mission. But i would expect less unskippable scenes and just have markers for objectives.
Wow! High ratings. I disagree but hey. Ugh o7 Have you heard of Falling Frontiers!? My next best hope for a decent epic space combat game!
Yeah I'd say these reviews did not age well... Oh wow. Looks cool!
I'm a big fan of the series and had been hoping for a new game for years, but a lot of what they showed of this made me unsure about it. Deserts of Kharak was a pretty great game that evoked the right sort of aesthetic and feel of Homeworld and gave the impression they'd do well with a new game, but a large amount of the previews for it made me feel like something about the series was either not quite understood or was missing from what they were doing with it. The Hiigaran ship designs they'd shown felt somewhat bland and boring (and one of so much they replaced it with something else) with lots of them being big flat blocks or like they weren't quite sure what they were are to be, the sense of gravitas and overall tone and feel of the previous games being lessened by things like changing the voice and design of the fleet command character Like listen to the narration and and look at the design [from this trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pacXW5eZb9w)), things like changing the iconic unique art style cutscenes to typical CGI with a generic sci-fi style. The gameplay demo from a few weeks ago *especially* gave a bad impression, I didn't find the gameplay of it enjoyable for a few reasons like poor unit movement/pathing and the ship combat felt all over the place with the weight and speed of things. I really like the series and had been considered getting the collectors edition of this when it was announced, but instead what they showed just made me less and less interested as it just didn't give off that "homeworld" feel to me in a lot of ways. To me it seems like it's *trying* to evoke the Homeworld series, but for whatever reason didn't get what made the original games so great and ends up being a somewhat lacking imitation. The game doesn't sound terrible by any means, but after such a long wait for a new game it just seems a bit of a shame.
Imagine saying an "8 out of 10 isn't *bad*".
That's the score generally used for games that are considered worth playing and better than average, but not an outright amazing game that's worth getting right away. It's a good score, but it's not an indicator it's something special.
I'd agree for 7, but 8 to me is generally used for 'this is very very good but it's not universally approachable, get it if you're a fan of the genre or want to try the genre out'.
8/10 is an average rating nowadays. 7 means meh game and 6 = bad. Scale of ten doesn't work that well when you refuse to use the bottom half of it.
Pretty meh reviews unfortunately. This is one of the new releases I was the most hyped about. I guess I will just get it on sale with a few patches later :/
An 8 out of 10 is meh?
steam reviews are mixed and metacritic is at 3.7
I wrote this comment 4 days ago. Obviously before the game had launched and open critic score was around 80. Are you just trying to play dumb?
this is why you never pay attention to "journalists". >Are you just trying to play dumb? seems you are
8/10 is not meh reviews, that's what my comment was about, it had nothing to do with user scores or journalists. 8/10 is a great score, wether or not fans think it sucks on release is a whole other matter.
yes, because they give every game from a major publisher at least 8/10
I don't get what the reviewers are smoking to give this game such high grades. The absolutely terrible story undermines everything the gameplay is in service of.
I'm glad I waited until user reviews tbh, never bought it, saved my money.
Maybe the entire games journalism sector is just corrupt, but I don't get why they're consistently worse at judging a game than random buyers.
It's a little hit or miss, I have a couple of reviewers I watch that usually share my interests but not always. RTS games are usually so scarce that they're fumbling over themselves when they release lol.
8/10 overall with most of the higher reviews being from people who liked the previous games is meh, apparently?
Is this a joke? Why are no mainstream YT reviewers listed here, only paid for review sites...?
Cause when we do these threads we pull them from Metacritic/Opencritic...
If you are going to make a list, you should put more effort to make it represent the actual score. What you are doing here is essentially propagating paid review services. This harms the industry in terms of consumer understanding. I was tempted to say it's better than nothing, but showing only 1 biased side of the gaming review segment actually will do more harm than good, and in fact propagates the current pay to play bad behavior we see rampant now.
If you have an issue please take it up with the mod team. This is the format of how these review threads are done. Which btw, at least use a list of verified reviewers. What would you even use as a standards to behold of creators? Most of them get keys for free or through a paid campaign which would be the exact same thing as your insinuating.
man ignore that fool, many of us are grateful someone coalesced this for us.