Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak - prequel from ex-Relic devs

[Grotesque]

Ground control imo is what Desert of Kharrak devs should look at when design their game

The most important thing is that the player should be limited by resources in the mission and some units to transfer from mission to mission.
I don't have a clue what resource is available for harvest. Ground Control gave you a set number/type of units but as long there is no scarcity in, the game will suffer.
Since 2010 when production started for this game, it changed titles and direction. Personally I am glad where it is now instead of the "social strategy" the devs had in mind first.

The game has exquisite artistic direction though and the dumbfucks that shout that this is a moneygrab are hilarious. I dreamed the day Rob Cunningham will be involved in another Homeworld title and this is the day. The snobs that shout that there is not enough hype for this game so they (devs etc.) don't care about it/must/will be shit are the same that on the other hand shout that they plastered the Homeworld logo just for the hype.






- The game is not set in space!!
- Bu-Huu... now suck my cock.

 

[Beowulf]

Wasn't there some turn-based game like that, in early 00s? Mechs and stuff, destroyed mechs could be salvaged for scrap or repurposed. Fuck! Forgot the name.

You could scrap destroyed mechs in Total Anihilation, but, alas, it was a RTS.

 

[eklektyk]

MechCommander - u could save up loads of cash and buy stuff on market or salvage enemy equipment and save money for better stuffies

 

[Perkel]

EarthSiege2 scrap your enemies the game. And i fucking loved that game.

 

[Dayyālu]

I'd make scavenging a pretty key component of gameplay.

They did it, once.

Not willingly.

We'll see about this. HW2 was a huge mess, and Cata has shown that other people can make better HW sequels. We'll see if HW was merely a fluke, many, many years ago.

And of course, a RTS in the contemporary age is already a death sentence. See, how well Grey goo or Age of Aggression (whatever the Eugen game is named) performed?

 

[Angthoron]

To be fair, Grey Goo lacks something. I went in hoping to like it, but the campaign immediately put me to sleep and I'm still gathering courage to continue.

 

[sser]

Dan Stapleton seemed to be asking the devs questions they didn't care for. His questions were really obvious, too - you're a bunch of scavengers, so what role does scrap left over from battle play? Answer: none. Do the husks of destroyed vehicles do anything at all? No. If I were to make a game set in a desert featuring a bunch of scavengers in search of an artifact, I'd make scavenging a pretty key component of gameplay. Refurbished vehicles ahoy! By the time you get to the end-game all your stuff has been pieced back together about twenty times and looks the part, too. That'd be pretty cool. That might make for an interesting campaign. That might soften the loss of the Y-axis and the replacement of the mothership with a garsih aircraft-carrier on wheels. But this was a multiplayer game refurbished into a singleplayer campaign with the Homeworld logo slapped on. I wouldn't hold my breath and certainly wouldn't preorder.

Wasn't there some turn-based game like that, in early 00s? Mechs and stuff, destroyed mechs could be salvaged for scrap or repurposed. Fuck! Forgot the name.

Metal Fatigue. I always forget its name, too.



You can notice (at the embedded time) how there's multiple body parts to build from. As the mech runs off, you can see the other mechs standing around with refurbished parts. It was a pretty cool game with obvious budgetary shortcomings.

 

[Angthoron]

Dan Stapleton seemed to be asking the devs questions they didn't care for. His questions were really obvious, too - you're a bunch of scavengers, so what role does scrap left over from battle play? Answer: none. Do the husks of destroyed vehicles do anything at all? No. If I were to make a game set in a desert featuring a bunch of scavengers in search of an artifact, I'd make scavenging a pretty key component of gameplay. Refurbished vehicles ahoy! By the time you get to the end-game all your stuff has been pieced back together about twenty times and looks the part, too. That'd be pretty cool. That might make for an interesting campaign. That might soften the loss of the Y-axis and the replacement of the mothership with a garsih aircraft-carrier on wheels. But this was a multiplayer game refurbished into a singleplayer campaign with the Homeworld logo slapped on. I wouldn't hold my breath and certainly wouldn't preorder.

Wasn't there some turn-based game like that, in early 00s? Mechs and stuff, destroyed mechs could be salvaged for scrap or repurposed. Fuck! Forgot the name.

Metal Fatigue. I always forget its name, too.



You can notice (at the embedded time) how there's multiple body parts to build from. As the mech runs off, you can see the other mechs standing around with refurbished parts. It was a pretty cool game with obvious budgetary shortcomings.

Yeah, it must be it. I was looking at screenshots earlier and wasn't quite sure, but seeing it in motion definitely looks that way. Cheers

 

[Grotesque]

 

[Talby]

That's actually kind of interesting how the treaty signed by the Hiigarans has turned into a religion for some of the people living on Kharak. Later events prove them right, too - Kharak IS destroyed and most of their race is wiped out. I still find it silly that they took one line from the intro cutscene in Homeworld and turned it into an entire game, though. Just adding stuff to the backstory for the sake of it.

Was there any mention of a war with religious fanatics in the Homeworld manual? I remember it had a lot of detail about the society on Kharak and how they restructured their society with the singular goal of going back to their homeworld.

Edit: Re-reading the Homeworld 1 manual now. There's actually a lot of detail about the religious wars that happened before the events of the first game leading up to the development of space travel. This was the stuff that got me invested in the game's story to begin with.

 

[RhodokMasterRaceOfficial]

Homeworld is seriously unique in that it managed to be a storyfag game RTS and not suck. They missed the mark on Homeworld 2, but I'd like to be optimistic about this.

Also do you people seriously believe that we wouldn't build land-carriers ourselves if most of our home planet was desert? People would've said similar things you guys have been saying about sea-based carriers back before they became widespread. My main criticism of it comes out of it being a sign that they're sort of unwilling to move away from the "mothership" idea for a land game, not from the idea of having a mobile field base in a giant desert where you can't really build anything permanent is ridiculous.

 

[Talby]

I'm not an engineer so I could be way off on this, but I thought the only reason aircraft carriers are practical is because moving such a large structure through water is easier than doing so over land due to less friction from the surface. Could be wrong though.

Actually, why hasn't someone made a spiritual successor to Homeworld with navy vehicles? Suddenly I'd like to play a naval RTS with real world vehicles done in the same continuous campaign style as Homeworld.

Random thing: The land-carrier idea reminds me of an old sci-fi story about a post apocalyptic Earth where the only civilization is a giant city on wheels, with everyone outside being crazy savages driven mad by magnetic rays or something. It was a really surreal story though where stuff like age was measured by distance - it opens with the main character narrating that they've just reached the age of 650 miles. I can't remember the name, but it's a good story.

 

[Destroid]

A nit pick I suppose but if you wanted a mobile land based carrier you would use a bunch of trucks with different bits on them instead of a gigantic tank.

Or just do what we actually did which was build airfields as you you go.


Talby there are a few carrier based games like you describe: Carrier Command and Hostile Waters. It's kind of a little genre to itself, just not that many games.

 

[Perkel]

A nit pick I suppose but if you wanted a mobile land based carrier you would use a bunch of trucks with different bits on them instead of a gigantic tank.

Or just do what we actually did which was build airfields as you you go.


Talby there are a few carrier based games like you describe: Carrier Command and Hostile Waters. It's kind of a little genre to itself, just not that many games.

Yeah but those trucks wouldn't be able to support air units. And like you aid you would need to build airfields.... on dunes. Aside from that H:S seems to be road trip story like homeworld so building airfield everytime you want to fight isn't really good idea to begin with.

Also mentioned in one of dev logs is that north coalition is from poles where temperatures, sand etc is way lower than on equator. As you progress you will discover new types of filters etc stuff that will give your unitis more air time.

 

[Hellraiser]

To be fair, Grey Goo lacks something. I went in hoping to like it, but the campaign immediately put me to sleep and I'm still gathering courage to continue.

This. The RTS mechanics were so-so, but my main beef with that game was how slow-paced it was*, coupled with a very basic campaign design. It also wasn't very creative in the unit design area. Even C&C Generals (pre-zero hour) was better in those areas.

*this itself would not be a problem if the game mechanics would be suited for this, SupCom did this right, it also had a game speed throttle.

Also the art direction looked plastic as hell, adding to the blandness.

 

[Destroid]

A nit pick I suppose but if you wanted a mobile land based carrier you would use a bunch of trucks with different bits on them instead of a gigantic tank.

Or just do what we actually did which was build airfields as you you go.


Talby there are a few carrier based games like you describe: Carrier Command and Hostile Waters. It's kind of a little genre to itself, just not that many games.

Yeah but those trucks wouldn't be able to support air units. And like you aid you would need to build airfields.... on dunes. Aside from that H:S seems to be road trip story like homeworld so building airfield everytime you want to fight isn't really good idea to begin with.

Also mentioned in one of dev logs is that north coalition is from poles where temperatures, sand etc is way lower than on equator. As you progress you will discover new types of filters etc stuff that will give your unitis more air time.

 

[Perkel]

A nit pick I suppose but if you wanted a mobile land based carrier you would use a bunch of trucks with different bits on them instead of a gigantic tank.

Or just do what we actually did which was build airfields as you you go.


Talby there are a few carrier based games like you describe: Carrier Command and Hostile Waters. It's kind of a little genre to itself, just not that many games.

Yeah but those trucks wouldn't be able to support air units. And like you aid you would need to build airfields.... on dunes. Aside from that H:S seems to be road trip story like homeworld so building airfield everytime you want to fight isn't really good idea to begin with.

Also mentioned in one of dev logs is that north coalition is from poles where temperatures, sand etc is way lower than on equator. As you progress you will discover new types of filters etc stuff that will give your unitis more air time.

I think main buff here is that all air units are in Carrier protected from sandstorms and so on and they are given way to start on any land.

Honestly i don't see how it is "dumb idea"

 

[Angthoron]

To be fair, Grey Goo lacks something. I went in hoping to like it, but the campaign immediately put me to sleep and I'm still gathering courage to continue.

This. The RTS mechanics were so-so, but my main beef with that game was how slow-paced it was*, coupled with a very basic campaign design. It also wasn't very creative in the unit design area. Even C&C Generals (pre-zero hour) was better in those areas.

*this itself would not be a problem if the game mechanics would be suited for this, SupCom did this right, it also had a game speed throttle.

Also the art direction looked plastic as hell, adding to the blandness.

Yeah, pretty much all this. I don't know - it really looks like you have to either have an insane budget size and total deadline freedom a-la Blizzard with SC2 (and I don't even like SC2 that much, but at least it feels like it has pacing and individuality, even if that individuality is retarded), or it's extremely generic and bland.

Maybe RTS should go back to 2D. 3D has done absolutely nothing for the genre except robbed the mid-range budget studios of any chance to create a personality for their games. I mean, the Z-plane isn't used at all anyway, and all the good 2D RTSes were able to utilize height differences anyway. Wouldn't sprites be cheaper, AND better-looking than the shitty low-detail 3D?

It's kinda shocking to me now, to think back to Generals as a game that has more personality than just about any modern RTS - I used to think it's bland as fuck pre-ZH back then.


Also, regarding that carrier discussion, I actually do see it as fairly likely that someone'd end up building a dryland aircraft carrier in conditions like that - if you have your landing strip continuously buried by several meters of sand and get fucktons of sandstorms, might as well try to counter it somehow. Maybe it'll prove inefficient, but I'm pretty sure someone would get funding for it anyway.

 

[Talby]

Come to think of it, they should have made a spinoff set on an ocean planet. You could have surface engagements with battleships and whatnot and then go beneath the surface for underwater battles, which would allow you to use the 3D movement from the space games. (does Deserts of Kharak even have a Z plane?) Visually it would be stunning, fleets of sci-fi battleships and carriers on a cerulean ocean.

 

[Chef_Hathaway]

(does Deserts of Kharak even have a Z plane?) Visually it would be stunning, fleets of sci-fi battleships and carriers on a cerulean ocean.

It has heights from dunes and mountains that, so they've said, affect combat ability and power.

 

[Hellraiser]

Yeah, pretty much all this. I don't know - it really looks like you have to either have an insane budget size and total deadline freedom a-la Blizzard with SC2 (and I don't even like SC2 that much, but at least it feels like it has pacing and individuality, even if that individuality is retarded), or it's extremely generic and bland.

Maybe RTS should go back to 2D. 3D has done absolutely nothing for the genre except robbed the mid-range budget studios of any chance to create a personality for their games. I mean, the Z-plane isn't used at all anyway, and all the good 2D RTSes were able to utilize height differences anyway. Wouldn't sprites be cheaper, AND better-looking than the shitty low-detail 3D?

There are a couple instances where 3D makes sense. If you make extensive use of physics for one, SupCom (and of course TA before it) and Company of Heroes are such examples, both using physics for different things (SupCom for ballistics, CoH for tactical cover, terrain demolition). But if you are making, like Grey Goo, a classic C&C clone, why bother? Compare it to KKND 2, a C&C clone from ~16 years ago. The differences is 3D plastic graphics, some base construction/upgrade gimmicks (nothing you need 3D for) and cut scenes quality. Mechanically the games are not all that different, except maybe for being able to hide units in shrub.

Come to think of it, they should have made a spinoff set on an ocean planet. You could have surface engagements with battleships and whatnot and then go beneath the surface for underwater battles, which would allow you to use the 3D movement from the space games. (does Deserts of Kharak even have a Z plane?) Visually it would be stunning, fleets of sci-fi battleships and carriers on a cerulean ocean.

Submarine Titans meets Homeworld? Yes please.

 

[Angthoron]

Yeah, pretty much all this. I don't know - it really looks like you have to either have an insane budget size and total deadline freedom a-la Blizzard with SC2 (and I don't even like SC2 that much, but at least it feels like it has pacing and individuality, even if that individuality is retarded), or it's extremely generic and bland.

Maybe RTS should go back to 2D. 3D has done absolutely nothing for the genre except robbed the mid-range budget studios of any chance to create a personality for their games. I mean, the Z-plane isn't used at all anyway, and all the good 2D RTSes were able to utilize height differences anyway. Wouldn't sprites be cheaper, AND better-looking than the shitty low-detail 3D?

There are a couple instances where 3D makes sense. If you make extensive use of physics for one, SupCom (and of course TA before it) and Company of Heroes are such examples, both using physics for different things (SupCom for ballistics, CoH for tactical cover, terrain demolition). But if you are making, like Grey Goo, a classic C&C clone, why bother? Compare it to KKND 2, a C&C clone from ~16 years ago. The differences is 3D plastic graphics, some base construction/upgrade gimmicks (nothing you need 3D for) and cut scenes quality. Mechanically the games are not all that different, except maybe for being able to hide units in shrub.

Yeah, exactly. I don't mind 3D at all, especially when it's there for good reasons, but that's just the thing - all the recent C&C and -craft 3D clones simply have nothing going for them, not even the charm that 2D artists could've otherwise created for them. And of course the higher the resolution grows, the easier it is to spot just how poor the art is in these games. I hope that devs realize this some time soon so we might get something that's at least on the level of, I dunno, RA 2 or something.

 

[Raapys]

I'm not so sure it's quicker to make good 2D though. The base model standing still, sure, but the second you start doing units with moving/rotating parts, mechs with legs, etc., I think 2D actually ends up taking significantly longer(and more talent). Possible exception if you do it top-down instead of isometric, but I doubt anyone wants that.

3D assets are significantly easier to re-use, both textures and model parts, and animation is much easier as well. And then there's the physics thing that has been mentioned. It might not be essential, but it's expected in this day and age.

 

[Destroid]

SunAge has pretty great sprite graphics, but never really got much traction, I guess because it didn't have much marketing and was really just an old school RTS in a time where such games had gone out of fashion.

 

[Angthoron]

I'm not so sure it's quicker to make good 2D though.

3D assets are significantly easier to re-use, both textures and model parts, and animation is much easier as well. And then there's the physics thing that has been mentioned. It might not be essential, but it's expected in this day and age.

Yes, shitty, low-detail, generic 3D that we see in almost every RTS these days. Proper high-level detailing, animation, art will very likely cost a lot more than the 2D counterparts.

SunAge has pretty great sprite graphics, but never really got much traction, I guess because it didn't have much marketing and was really just an old school RTS in a time where such games had gone out of fashion.

Woah! Thanks for bringing this one up, somehow I missed it. Have you played it, any good?