Sounds like the patch will be amazing, @goose3. Fingers crossed they optimize Classic for 16:9 display and put the Yes song back. It’s not Homeworld without Yes!!
The patch is for HWRM, not Classic. Also the omission of the Yes song is due to licensing.
1 Like
I really liked that song at the end of HW. I used to listen and watch the credits all the way through whenever I finished the campaign… just reminiscing.
Oh I know… licensing issues are so frustrating >.< Lawyers are why we can’t have nice things…
Hmm…
And with a single statement, all credibility was lost.
1 Like
Sure it have issues [maybe ‘parts’ of the issues I know of], but I thought that ‘NO’ games [excluding consoles, I think - as I can’t imagine if they were… never have a console before] are particularly effective when they just first launched. Unless the developers were starting to give up, there are always hopes for bits of pieces of perfection somewhere along the line. Just give them the time they need, surely they will come back for a big, great news as they have always.
Take an example of ‘X’-series games. Back in the day, they require of sort-of 6 - 9 months before actual updates were out. Both this and that games have completely different roles, but both have similar problems like this one: formations for space ships. But most people [at least, most people I know of] were capable to bring those issue, into a completely different gameplay: If you can’t do ‘this’, how about ‘that’-sort of things.
Still, despite of what I read on this thread from the beginning, I’m having great difficulty when reading the word ‘Multiplayer’…
I thought that most Homeworld games aren’t designed, nor built for such [unless you want to play interlocal LAN, instead of playing world-wide]. I myself was simply playing in Skirmish for more 10 years trying to justify my own strategies [which I could never cope over] against multiple CPUs. But since the inroduction of editing tools, things have gone haywire to the points were I completely lost the game before I can even begin the directions I want to play it.
So, what’s different with the multiplayer?
Is it because that some people only play multiplayer games that are perfect, right from the get-go?
Un-officially, I do understand a little bit - officially… I don’t get it at all.
In my opinion [alone, maybe], if I can’t do what I did back in the day of the Classics, I begin ‘what if I do that’ play, therefor change my strategy in its entirety. Aside from what people begin with ‘frigates are weak, and destroyers are slightly more than stronger [I didn’t write it, I just quote it]’, I think the GB-dev teams to even ‘thought’ to relive this game is more than just ‘epic’.
I mean, the entirety of Homeworld is ‘basically’ an epic singleplayer missions, each with a leveled-up challenges and stakes that require players to think ahead the plans that players will use on the late game. Pretty much that, and some want to test tactics’ effectiveness when used on Skirmish with multiple, banded-together CPUs against players alone, like what I’ve been doing for the late 15 years myself, even now. In my country [Indonesia, by the way] there were already some challenging events on how you play the HW-1R singleplayer missions using only all variants of fighters and corvettes, maximum 6 support frigates and 4 carriers, while all frigates and destroyers must be captured from enemy players. The winner takes a car worth of approx. 200-millions of Rupiah!
Not to mention that they themselves are old-way Homeworld players, and they didn’t have any particular inconveniences [that I know of… well, except for the way much higher processing power for a lifetime-guaranteed visual display based on a remastered Homeworld 1].
I get it, Homeworld had a great single player campaign. What I don’t get is how I often see people dismiss multiplayer. The original Homeworld multiplayer was amazing - great community, lots of player created maps, ladders, armadas (aka clans), etc. Homeworld and Cataclysm were absolutely wonderful multiplayer games and very much missed.
Sadly we are in the fps era, not rts.
3 Likes
Yeah … but it was fun back in the day.
3 Likes
I know! How can shooting some people in the head be better than using your brain in a good game like Homeworld? 
Because it’s a lot of fun ? I like my fast paced FPS games like Quake or UT just as much as I love Homeworld 
I’ve never understood it. FPS bores me to death…
1 Like
I might have like 2000 hours of gameplay on the battlefield franchise, bit I think that I have more hours on Homeworld franchise.
Then you simply played the wrong ones Half Life 1 and 2 (if 1 is too old for your taste, simply start with 2) are legendary for example, or Metro 2033 and Last Light, both got great atmosphere, setting and story (and super awesome visuals with good performance for it, too). Portal 1 and 2 are another 2 great examples and in these you don’t even have to shoot anyone but instead have to solve puzzles and laugh your ass off at the funny dialogues and jokes 
I get when people are bored of the 7 bajillionth modern military shooter (aka Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Battlefield), but there is so much more to the FPS Genre than those
I loved Mechwarrior.
4 was good but not as good as 3.
3 was more simulator oriented.
I wouldn’t call those your typical FPS games tho 
those are more a simulator type of game than an FPS. However, never played them myself since they came out before my time ^^, but I play Mechwarrior Online (MWO) and it is nothing like a regular shooter and quite a few people in my unit played the old ones and they told me they are similar in gameplay.
Hm I remember back in the old days when I was young I loved FPS games… Played UT in mp etc… Damn I was good and so freaking fast… I remember numerous clan folks wanted me in their clans twice my age. Anyway nowadays I’m slow and bored as well. And I read an interesting article about that recently.
The older male players get the lesser they feel to play these competition games. So in essence the older we get the less desire we’ve got to compete with one another in this case man vs man. It was about male playing behavior btw. Might be some ancient evolutionary male thing idk. They didn’t mention that.
Another aspect of that article covered RTS. It was quoted that no matter what age young, mid, old RTS was equally interesting to all age groups. So I suppose there’s a certain point that men in general like to use their brains and develop strategies to bring em closer to their goals and ultimately victory. FPS are for the young and mid aged groups. I still like FPS, TPS as long as they cover a good story plot and wont let me walk alone. Be it Mass Effect, Half-Life or Star Wars Republic Commando. If they’re on the other hand like Quake or Unreal1 then I can’t enjoy em anymore. And I got no desire for fps mp gaming unless it’s coop.
@maelrizzo,
Half Life 1 and 2!?
My goodness, those two my favourite ones!
I can’t get enough than satisfied when playing those two…
Not to mention that those MP modes are always known for their ‘bug-fest’.
I once saw multiplayer FPS [the sort-of modern ones, such as ‘Rust’ and ‘DayZ’], were freakishly buggy. Even as standard as CS:GO provide bugs, both positively and negatively. Since then, the multiplayer mode is somewhat uninteresting…