Holy shit this is the best game I've ever played

Holy shit this is the best game I've ever played.
Why didn't you faggots tell me about it before??

Attached: HC.jpg (800x987, 160.57K)

I try talking about it but no one reply's, its literally better than homeworld 2 in every way.

Never tried this one. I didn't like in number 1 the scaling difficulty that made some missions a complete clusterfuck if you happened to be competent at keeping your shit alive.
Did they fix that BS?

We did even before mandy video
The series is too niche for Yea Forums

OG Homeworld was better. Cataclysm wasn't bad, in some ways it was a mechanical improvement over the original and it had some very stand-out moments, but overal both the mechanics and the story don't actually live up to the original game.

They forgot how important restraint was to the original game.

>its literally better than homeworld 2 in every way.
Yeah but HW2 is just a shitshow. Always was. Cataclysm is generally a good expansion, but I really don't understand where the meme that it's better than OG HW comes from. I think it's people remembering nothing but that admitedly REALLY good infection scene.

OP here
Just played back to back OG and cataclysm for the first time
I gotta say, cataclysm is a little bit longer than OG. Maybe oldfags thought back then they were getting more "game" for less $ with the expansion

Have you even played Cataclysm?

And Cataclysm is a masterclass in restraint compared to 2

>I gotta say, cataclysm is a little bit longer than OG.
I genuinely don't remember how long Cataclysm was, but I don't think the lenght plays a role here.
I do realize the impact of some scenes. And I will admit, that fucking beast introduction is an amazing scene and I understand why it stuck so much with people. And for a different-studio made expansion of that era, to produce a moment almost as memorable as the Kharak is Burning scene is an amazing achievement.

Plus some of the additions both story and mechanic-wise are very much appreciated. The introduction of order-while paused was a fucking god-send, the idea of gradually re-building and upgrading your ship was great, and making it actually mobile was also a good move. The voiceacting is top notch, almost on par with the original, and so was the art direction and design for most of the ships. Hell, they even got the whole concept of the Kiith social structure correctly, and in fact managed to build up on it.

And I like the storyline in general too, aside from what I do find to be the biggest problem: The fucking Bentusi. Which are symptomatic of a larger problem. Lack of restraint which made the first game so damn elegant.

>Have you even played Cataclysm?
Yep, several times, hell I still remember most of the fucking manual by heart.

>And Cataclysm is a masterclass in restraint compared to 2
Yes, I can agree on that. But it's still nowhere near as good in this respect as HW1 was. HW2 is just a really bad frame of reference. That game didn't get a single damn thing right. Not even the control scheme.

>No free cam
>Powerpoint animations
>Gigantic, low res menus to build and upgrade rather than a menu on the side of the actual screen

I love Cataclysm but it's grossly unintuitive from a gameplay perspective.

playing it today feels like navigating enterprise software, its a shame it wasn't remade along with the other 2.

>No free cam
This is actually a good decision. HW2 fucked up by introducing free cam, it was one of the many major steps back in design that game has made.

This post has absolutely convinced me that you mongoloids are contrarians for the sake of being ones.

Not a single strategy game is better with a forced camera perspective constantly following one unit.

>This post has absolutely convinced me that you mongoloids are contrarians for the sake of being ones.
No, it's just that you know nothing about actual game design.
There was a very strong function to the orbiting camera of Homeworld 1. And it was one of the game's biggest selling points.
You want more bland, lazy design that makes every game play identically? OK, good for you, but for people who like to see actual innovation in design from time to time, it's a terrible step back.
Let me help you because you are no doubt completely clueless right now:
It has something to do with the game being fully 3D and set in space.
I'm sure if you try hard enough, you'll figure out what I'm talking about eventually.

>duh for 3d space battles to work you need to follow units bro..

What the fuck am I reading

>What the fuck am I reading
Well, I've said you are completely clueless and understand nothing about game design.
I'm going to give you another hint: What is the spatial nature of most RTS freefloating camera?

>This is actually a good decision. HW2 fucked up by introducing free cam
kek

Look, I get that you can't answer even a basic question about game design, but samefagging like this is really fucking sad. Get some dignity.

I'm happy for you, OP.

You made this thread because of the Sseth video dumb retard.

The fuck are you talking about? Sseth does not have video about Cataclysm.

I thought you must be wrong because there's no way could be that schizophrenic, but nope, you're right. How embarassing for him.

It seems the lack of restraint will continue to be a problem with HW3.

I'm not interested in arguing with you, I'm just laughing at you because all your posts are retarded, you can pretend only one person could ever disagree with you if it makes you feel better. Keep posting about how you're an expert game designer, I want to laugh more.

>It seems the lack of restraint will continue to be a problem with HW3.
We'll see.
I thought that despite how much it raped the lore of the first game, Deserts of Kharak wasn't a trainwreck of tone.
It was painfully obvious that it was NOT intended to be a Homeworld title until very late into development, so they clearly had to hastily over-write or repurpose half of the story and the gameplay elements, and I always found that a shame. I think DoK would genuinely be better if they stuck to their original premise, which was supposed to be a successor to Homeworld in spirt only.
But despite all that, I found it capturing the atmosphere of the good Homeworld games fairly well.

HW3's initial trailers did make the error I was honestly expecting now: over-humanizing the Khushans, which is a bad habit these games got recently, and the extreme focus on the S'jet female family members isn't exctly making me SUPER optimistic. I do understand that in modern mainstream gaming, having a memorable and recognizable human face probably helps, but I don't think it's ideal for this IP. They did this in HW2 as well.

But again - going back to DoK, which ALSO did this in it's promo's, they ultimately ended up handling it reasonably well.
So I'm cautiously curious about how it all ends.

>I'm not interested in arguing with you
You are not arguing with me because that would require you having an actual argument, and that would require you understanding what the we are talking about.
I gave you an incredibly simple question, if you were able to answer it (and thus prove you are at least in the same universe as the actual subject of this discussion), you would have answered it.

Instead, you are now explaining to me why you totally could but won't. Because you are mentally on a level of a 7 years old child.

I do get that most people don't really consider subjects like geometry relevant when discussing their favorite button mashers, but come the fuck on, kid.

kek, keep making 100 word essays that allude to a point but never actually make it.

It's kinda hard to make a point when you are trying to discuss something that might as well be talking details of a car engine with a chimp.
And I think even chimp would be smarter than to desperately start samefagging when faced with a simple question.

And I've given you enough clues that really, you have no fucking excuse not getting what I'm refering to.
But since I'm feeling especially charitable, here is the point.
Most RTS have their camera affixed to a plane. Do you know what that means?
A plane is a 2D object. You can only move in two dimensions, or as smart people would say, along two axes. Look that word up, it has other meaning than the tool one.
Having your camera move along a 2D space is fine for MOST RTS games. Firstly because it's a convenient translation of your mouse movement, which is also fixed to a 2D space, but even more importantly, because the same principle applies to the actual game entities and world. Units in most RTS, even those that are modeled in 3D, have fixed Z axis coordinates, as they are naturally moving along the surface of the terrain. Even flying units are generally speaking fixed in this regard, as very, VERY few RTS games give you any direct control over the air units flight altitude, and/or they play a very limited role in the majority of the gameplay.
Even most space RTS like Battlefleet Gothic or that old Startreck space RTS game from early 2000'nds have their units fixed to a 2D plane for simplicity of design and convenience.

But Homeworld isn't like that. It is entirely designed to encourage thinking in all three dimensions. Z position of your units is never fixed and was intended to be as relevant as the other two axes.

Are you starting to understand why free floating camera, which really means actually LESS free camera, being locked into a plane movement, is not a good fit for the 3D focused design of Homeworld?
Because if you don't understand it now, you are genuine a lost cause.

Oh yeah, and by the way: You don't have to track a specific unit in HW1 or Cataclysm. You can actually use any unit GROUP as a focus point. the game will calculate a median position as the anchor for the camera, alowing you to orbit along the whole battle space.

But then again expecting you to understand controls of this game is as naive as expecting you to understand why geometry is relevant to game design.

If you think Cataclysm's camera is bad wait until you play Sacrifice or any other FPS/RTS or similar

Jesus Christ, I haven't laughed that hard in a while. You just made 50 posts and used a thousand words to tell me homeworld has 3d movement. The reason I was laughing at you is because I knew you had nothing to say but you had to dress it up like you were a game designer. Believe it or not i really am not the original guy you were arguing with, I just like to poke people who write massive essays about how they don't have time or energy to make their point.

In response to your point the 3d aspect of homeworld games was always a gimmick, there was very little in the way of advanced tactics that came from the new axis, at their heart they were always traditional RTS games with overly cinematic aspirations. Strategically, being locked to a ship forces you to play the game in the tactical overview map which is retarded and why they put in a free floating camera. DoK is actually the most interesting homeworld game strategically despite being stuck to a 2d plane.

>If you think Cataclysm's camera is bad wait until you play Sacrifice or any other FPS/RTS or similar
I think you mean HW2. Cataclysm had the exact same camera controls as HW1.
And the thing about HW2's camera is not that it's broken or anything. It just disencourages the one mechanic that makes HW games unique. It pushes player towards ignoring the Z position.
There are other aspects to HW2 design that also do this. It's a deliberate decision to make the game more accessble and similar to more "standard" RTS formula. Which works. I like Battlefleet Gothic 2 and that games is ENTIRELY fixed to a 2D plane.

I just think it was one of many step backs from the unique nature of original Homeworlds.

Also I did play a lot of RTS hybrids, Sacrifice included.
I ended up really disliking Sacrifice, but it wasn't because of the camera, I just found switching between 3rd person gameplay and strategy controls frustrating and annoying on principle.
I did stick with it for very long because of how unique and cool the settings and story was in Sacrifice.
I also use to play a lot of the old Battlezone (1999-ish?) back in the day.

>The reason I was laughing at you is because I knew you had nothing to say but you had to dress it up like you were a game designer.
Yeah, that is as pathetic answers as I expected. Not a single argument, just desperate pleas to believe you are totally above this.

>In response to your point the 3d aspect of homeworld games was always a gimmick,
Look, kid, you have not learned how to control the game, so you trying to make claims like this is pretty fucking empty.

>DoK is actually the most interesting homeworld game strategically despite being stuck to a 2d plane.
It really isn't, but I guess it's tailored to your very simplistic sensibilities. Yeah, removing the 3rd dimension does make the game more accessible for retards, I suppose.

Homeworld as a series sucks. It's pretentious, flat voice acting, and bland design. It's probably one of the worst rts

Would it really hurt for you to try at least a little?

You just made a thread because you were butthurt about being proven an idiot in this thread, so you made this one but it died within fifteen minutes, so you came back here to try again.

That is almost adorable.

It's still a shit series

You can pretend all you want that 3d makes homeworld 4d chess but it really doesn't, desperately trying to suck your own dick seems like standard procedure for you though. Ironically, DoK makes more conscious use of changes in elevation, it plays into more hard strategic decisions whereas it almost never does in HW. Homeworld is special for its aesthetic alone.

if you like that, try this. best game of all time.

Attached: file.png (250x319, 169.32K)

>HW2 fucked up by introducing free cam
Three dimensions too many for you?

Homeworld 1 is objectively better but Cata is still my favorite.
Horror atmosphere in an RTS is rare and underrated.

Kid, you got filtered, you got told so hard you had to go and make a separate thread whinging and whinning about the game, but everyone just laughed you and then the thread died, and now you are back here literally trying a "I'm laughing meaning I win" argument, because you really are mentally on a level of a 7 years old child.

Homeworld isn't a game for you. You are too dumb for it. Move on with your life, you pathetic creature. It is beyond sad.

>its literally better than homeworld 2 in every way.
I really dislike homeworld 2. Everytime I replay it I feel disappointing about how everything feels. Fuel and strike craft being squadrons were the best improvements. I also don't like how S'Jet was brought back and is the chosen one. I'd of much preferred the Hiigaran's became the big bad's again, or I dunno literally anything else. Then again Homeworld is what feels like lightning in a bottle, so nearly anything they did would likely have the same reactions.

>Three dimensions too many for you?
It's the other way around. The irony of a free floating camera is that it reduces the importance of the third dimension.

That is true, and I would love to see more games playing around with that formula. And given the resurgence of survival-influenced strategy and management games, I think we might see it some day.
But I found the lack of restrain (aside from the major retconing) is what ultimately undermined the horror in the second half of Cata's story.

I have never played these games but I am wondering how any game, especially one that allows positioning in all 3 axes, is worse for being able to view the battle from any angle?

Being a shchizo isn't how you win an argument, it's a coping mechanism when more than 1 person disagrees with you. Engage with what is being said or save your time. A word of advice, there's nothing more pathetic than an idiot who is desperate to sound smart, don't allude to points, make them. If you can say something in a paragraph don't use 50, especially when you have nothing interesting to say.

>, is worse for being able to view the battle from any angle?
Well, if you had played the game, you'd know that in both models - HW1 and HW2's control schemes, you are able to do this.
The lack of a free-floating camera in HW1 means the camera is permantly fixed to a center point - a unit or a group of units.
But the camera movement itself is binded to a SPHERE around that anchor point. You move along the surface of the sphere just like you would move around a flat plane, and your zoom (middle mouse button on modern computers) alters the radius of the sphere (essentially zooming in or out of the selected anchor).
Meaning that you have perfect vision of whatever is within the sphere from quite literally EVERY ANGLE POSSIBLE. It's actually giving you far more angles to look at than a "normal" free-floating camera would have, because you really do move along the whole surface of the sphere, where as the "freefloating" (that is to say, panning) camera of HW2 makes you instead slide along the surface of a flat plane. You can adjust the angle you are looking for, but you don't do that nearly as naturally - as you'll quickly get into the habit of having a fixed angle and just panning all over (above) the battlefield.

The only "downside" of HW's orbiting camera is that if you want to relocate your camera, you have to select a new target and press "F" to shift the centre of sphere.
Which really isn't a headache, it becomes incredibly natural after a while.

And the fact that there is no clear "up" and "down" because you move along the sphere further reinforces the 3D nature of the game, as you naturally scan and move along all three axes at the same time. It makes you think of ship positions being relative to each other rather than viewing them relative to an absolute reference point (the terrain plane).
Which is what the ship design and consequently, the combat itself, was designed around.

Sure thing kid, it's about as impressive as your "I have no argument but I'm saying I laugh at you" schtick you already tried.

>It makes you think of ship positions being relative to each other rather than viewing them relative to an absolute reference point (the terrain plane).
This is a good point. Thanks.

I was laughing at how pompous you are while getting you to make your point which turned out to be
>Did you know? Homeworld has a z-axis.
No shit, you have yet to explain how they made this interesting tactically or how being stuck to a ship is anything but an aesthetic choice, one that is in HW 2 if you want it.

HW3 is going to be about finding the ultra special MEGA unique snowflake and use it to do/prevent X. My expectations are extremely low so that I'm not disappointed. Hopefully it's great and I'll be overjoyed to have a good modern space rts

I enjoy all versions of homeworld because I'm not a contrarian retard.
:)

Attached: idort.png (100x99, 6.65K)

>I was laughing at how pompous you are while getting you to make your point which turned out to be
Keep saying that over and over. Because desperately clining to a repetetive, self-delusionary act instead of actually responding to the problem is totally not a textbook example of a clinical definition of "coping mechanism".

>No shit, you have yet to explain how they made this interesting tactically
You see, that would require more explaining of gameplay systems you have proven yourself UTTERLY unable to grasp. How long has this discussion been going on? You claimed I don't have a point. I gave you a detailed explanation why geometry relates to camera control and how that further alters the gameplay experience, and you have responded to that like a TODDLER.

What is the point of continuing to explain shit to you when you still have not actually fucking acknowledged you were wrong on previous subjects?

For the record - the way that ship behave in HW1, namely the way the can attack while moving in different directions, and the fact that the angles of defense are always limited and unique to each ships means exploiting attack angles becomes incredibly powerful and important (if you think you can salvage-corvette capital ship without manouvering around them and attacking them from their current blindspot, go and actually play the game once more).

But really, again - I am making points and explaining this to you, a person by default refusing to actually acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, while simultaneously admitting that only the single most simple, shallow, basic and easy game in the franchise is also the only one that managed to actually keep you involved.

This whole exchange is a joke, and you are the butt of it.

>The only "downside" of HW's orbiting camera is that if you want to relocate your camera, you have to select a new target and press "F" to shift the centre of sphere.
Having no functional tactical awareness is a massive downside in a strategy game. It forces you to constantly switch to the tactical overview which is just as if not more 2d than the main camera in HW2.

Immersion is more important than a basic quality of life feature present in most other space games.

>Having no functional tactical awareness is a massive downside in a strategy game.
You only have no tactical awareness if you are unable to grasp the fairly simple control system. You don't need to switch to tactical view very often, only if you have multiple battles in different locations and you move between them, which generally you don't want to happen, and it is also not very different from having to quickly jump between different locations in an RTS.
And no, the sensors menu isn't "as much if not more 2D than the actual in game view. Just because you have an overlay centered on the Z coordinate of the mothership does not mean it's any different spatially than the same exact space in the normal view it represents, you mongoloid.
Hell, if you have your units hotkeyed you never really need to use the sensor's menu for anything but sending out probes. Which you don't need to do outside of three story-mandated moments.

Again, I'm pretty sure you never figured out you can actually use any group of units as a reference point, and the whole thing is just too much for you.

You are unironically some 50+ year old grognard who can't accept a fucking basic feature like free camera.

You know the reason they had those focus cameras were so PC's wouldn't blow the fuck up during battles at the time. It wasn't a design choice. It had to do with technical limitation.

Dude. I'm not that guy but I'm pretty sure that you can play with both version just fine. I think it's fine that you prefer the other one but you're not the majority. In the end it doesn't really matter anyway and instead of arguing with someone you should focus on the positives instead of the negatives.

Attached: 1444246840711.png (641x608, 24K)

Please stop pretending that an orbital camera is a difficult geometric concept to grasp, you sound fucking retarded. There is little to no functional difference when approaching a ship from above or below, it will quickly angle to face you. Flying for 10 minutes to get above an enemy nets you no tactical advantage, which is why nobody truly gives a shit about 3d tactics in HW. Moving and attacking is not a unique concept, it exists in almost all other RTS, all your posts are an elaborate exercise in dressing up a pig.

if they cared about immersion above all they should make a space sim, not an RTS. Their artistic aims don't mesh with the style of game they are making.

>You are unironically some 50+ year old grognard who can't accept a fucking basic feature like free camera.
You are beyond pathetic. This is what this discussion is about.
Me explaining this and you screeching ad hominems. And not even very good ones.

You have no fucking point to make. Nothing to actually say. This is the second time you claimed I don't have a point, I've explained the subject, and then you went for "U must be old!" response.
Do you even realize that every further post like this you make just shows how INCREDIBLY butthurt about losing you are?

>but you're not the majority
I know, that is why they changed it. People prefer more dull, more safe and familiar systems and gameplay.
It's one of many things about HW2 that was simplified to make it more main-stream appealing.
But it's a shame because what we got was a game with far less unique qualities. It's far blander. Which also extends to ship design, ship mechanics, and even writing and voiceacting.
But it is a major mechanical change, it has pretty serious implications for how it plays.