Homeworld2: that's no moon, its a Space Station!

Sarxis · September 14, 2003, 18:14

Heh! I've got no pics here, but its coming this week.

You can't tell me I'm the only one overly excited about this?

Nubclear · September 14, 2003, 20:45

The original homeworld was quite boring. Heck, even more boring than your averege RTS.

FrostyBoy · September 14, 2003, 22:54

I played HW2 the other day, I do love the graphics engine, I love the fact that the ships look like models (rl models) and when you zoom in on one, they appear massive. Really good scaling!

I also love the cutscenes, they are so so very well done, screw hollywood!

BUT... I played a death match... and I quickly realised that this is just another RTS, and I hate to say this to you Anunikoba, but RTS's are just so so utterly boriiinnggg.... every single one that comes out, all the same, all stupid.. doesn't matter how 'original' the story is, its all just so pointless. Do this, build that, destroy that, you win. The only RTS I have ever enjoyed throughout was the old old C&C, and I think that is because it has so much depth. Not even the Warcraft series has ever had that much depth.

If RTS's didn't make the building and balancing stuff so OBVIOUS, it wouldn't feel so much like BORING WORK rather than PLAY. RTS's are only cool once. Replayability is zero!

My opinion. But I do think that those who do love RTS's would love a proper RTS game more.

Sarxis · September 16, 2003, 03:14

I can understand your points Snoopy; I mean, its the same deal with the Beatles I guess.

Verto · September 17, 2003, 08:55

Demo?

Sarxis · September 18, 2003, 03:06

There is a demo:

HW2 Demo at Avault

Traianvs · September 18, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sn00py
I played HW2 the other day, I do love the graphics engine, I love the fact that the ships look like models (rl models) and when you zoom in on one, they appear massive. Really good scaling!

I also love the cutscenes, they are so so very well done, screw hollywood!

BUT... I played a death match... and I quickly realised that this is just another RTS, and I hate to say this to you Anunikoba, but RTS's are just so so utterly boriiinnggg.... every single one that comes out, all the same, all stupid.. doesn't matter how 'original' the story is, its all just so pointless. Do this, build that, destroy that, you win. The only RTS I have ever enjoyed throughout was the old old C&C, and I think that is because it has so much depth. Not even the Warcraft series has ever had that much depth.

If RTS's didn't make the building and balancing stuff so OBVIOUS, it wouldn't feel so much like BORING WORK rather than PLAY. RTS's are only cool once. Replayability is zero!

My opinion. But I do think that those who do love RTS's would love a proper RTS game more.

you've never played age of empires/age of kings/age of mythology

the strategy in those games (actually, especially in age of kings) is just fantastic... I haven't seen any other RTS game with that kind of strategic value... there's shogun and the sequel however, but i haven't played those..

I'm looking forward to rome: total war.. it promises to be a damn good game, i'll almost surely get it! also because the theme interests me (as an archaeologist you see...

)

Verto · September 18, 2003, 21:40

Much obliged, Anun.

Asmodean · September 19, 2003, 03:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus

you've never played age of empires/age of kings/age of mythology

the strategy in those games (actually, especially in age of kings) is just fantastic... I haven't seen any other RTS game with that kind of strategic value... there's shogun and the sequel however, but i haven't played those..

I'm looking forward to rome: total war.. it promises to be a damn good game, i'll almost surely get it! also because the theme interests me (as an archaeologist you see...

)

Nope...the word you're looking for is tactics, which has absolutely nothing to do with strategy.

Asmodean

Atahualpa · September 19, 2003, 05:26

Quote:

The only RTS I have ever enjoyed throughout was the old old C&C, and I think that is because it has so much depth.

I hope you do not mean depth as in gameplay terms

Nevertheless the MSFT RTS Suite is quite extraordinary. AoE was a great game and AoK was excellent. Rise of Nations is also a good game.
Same with Gettysburgh or Antietam, both excellent Games.

Nevertheless I love TBS more since I dont like the stress of RTS games.

Curiosity · September 20, 2003, 03:06

Asmo,

I wonder why you would argue there's no strategy in AOK? There seem to me to be plenty of distinct strategies, and the state of the game in MP has long centred around revolutions in strategy, even if tactics tend to decide the games among the very top players.

I used to be pretty into AOK, back before my 'unlimited access' ISP cut me off for overuse. I could handle tactics fairly well - I think I still hold the record for the fastest fuedal - but getting things to cohere into a strategy, and altering strategy when things don't go according to plan, is a real challenge.

General Ludd · September 20, 2003, 20:17

Games like AoK do have straegy, but it is a different kind of strategy then what a turn-based player is looking for. Primarily, the strategy relies around 'powergaming' ie. building up a base and army and issuing orders as quickly and efficiently as possible. While a turn based player is typically looking for strategy that revolves around well thought out plans and long-term goals.

This is why EU2 appeals to the TBS crowd more then it does the RTS.

Asmodean · September 21, 2003, 06:03

And why I prefer to call it tactics rather than strategy. But okay...let's not mince words. Osweld just explained why I don't like Age games.

Asmodean

Curiosity · September 21, 2003, 06:43

OK, I'll argue with Osweld instead.

Os,

what you call powergaming is a vital element in the civ-Wline, too. in almost all strategy games size is power. As for TBS lacking long tern goals... I'm really only familiar with AOK/AOC, but it's normal for the better players to have a set of goals and landmarks in mind for up to the first 45 minutes of the game. (Doesn't sound like long, but it can seem like eternity!) IMO, many of these are more distinct and varied than in the civ-line.

The main difference that I can see is that you are forced to react much more to the opponent... at least unless you play Black forest maps.

This does mean that you need a much higher skill level to fully enjoy the strategic element, but I've found it worth the effort.

General Ludd · September 21, 2003, 07:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Curiosity
OK, I'll argue with Osweld instead.

Os,

what you call powergaming is a vital element in the civ-Wline, too. in almost all strategy games size is power. As for TBS lacking long tern goals... I'm really only familiar with AOK/AOC, but it's normal for the better players to have a set of goals and landmarks in mind for up to the first 45 minutes of the game. (Doesn't sound like long, but it can seem like eternity!) IMO, many of these are more distinct and varied than in the civ-line.

The main difference that I can see is that you are forced to react much more to the opponent... at least unless you play Black forest maps.

This does mean that you need a much higher skill level to fully enjoy the strategic element, but I've found it worth the effort.

No, it does not mean you need a higher skill level.

It means you must react quickly. That is what I was geting at - RTS is about quick decisions and efficiency, TBS is about creating huge complicated plans.

Curiosity · September 22, 2003, 05:52

Os,

I'm not saying that you need a higher skill-level to play RTS than TBS; more like, there's a steeper learning curve.

Take a simple strategy in AOC; I intend to feudal at 10:30 with 3 forwards builders, tower his wood and palisade his gold, support my position with a few archers in case of a man-at-arms counter, cease building villagers at number 30 and castle at about 18 minutes, following up with raids on his economy by eagle warriors and siege to threaten his town centre, then begin booming not too long after 22 minutes. After that I'll make it up as I go along.

Getting to the point where you can even reliably fuedal at 10:30 takes considerable practise, never mind managing the economy during fuedal battles well enough to castle at 18 minutes. Once you have that degree of nervous control and economic intuition (speed is much overrated, btw) then there are many fascinating and complex strategies to explore.

In Civ, you can sit down, learn the rules and immediately start thinking about strategy - there's no learning curve there. You will still get killed by a player who's much more efficient - efficiency is really the key in all strategy gaming - but it typically happens after 70 or 100 turns, so there's plenty of time to have fun and do your own thing.

Grumbold · September 22, 2003, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Curiosity
In Civ, you can sit down, learn the rules and immediately start thinking about strategy - there's no learning curve there. You will still get killed by a player who's much more efficient - efficiency is really the key in all strategy gaming - but it typically happens after 70 or 100 turns, so there's plenty of time to have fun and do your own thing.

Sorry, that just had me in fits of giggles. So AoE would have a steeper learning curve than computer Chess, because its an RTS? Puh-lease. Civ may be easier than AoE (I put forwward no opinion htere), but other games are more complex. In general it is possible to make more complex and strategic games that are turn based because you are able to take time and play at the speed you think, not be restricted to thinking at the speed of the game.

Curiosity · September 22, 2003, 13:48

Quote:

So AoE would have a steeper learning curve than computer Chess, because its an RTS?

Not by my arguments; in chess you can be checkmated in 3 moves if you don't know what's going on. There is zero space to 'do your own thing' because every move is intimately connected to your opponent's position.

There are certainly TBS games that are better strategy games than AOK. SMAC, for one example. But, by the criteria of involving well thought out plans and long-term goals, AOK is right up there IMO.