You pretty much nailed it in your review. I hold many of the same feelings about the game.
You pretty much said the exact same thing I did. Or to be chronologicaly correct, I pretty much said the exact same thing you did.
A sidenote, it makes me think what @ratamaqâs point was. He called my assesment BS froms start to finish and upvoted you calling Somtaaw ships ugly and their textures fairly unpleasant and you using the words as hyper gimicky and one-dimensional.
We both said that fleet is small and we both liked the music and particular parts of the story. Perhaps you see it differently, which is very well possible, but I canât find a single thing we dissagree on.
Hereâs my other post where I agree on the âstartrekinessâ. And in that one I havenât yet read your review either:
Yeah, thatâs why I summed the post up the way I did. We both see the same negative qualities in the game, but we give those and the gameâs positive qualities different weights. While Iâm sure we could quibble over minor points if we dug down deep enough, we seem to broadly agree on all the concrete details, yet reach different conclusions about the gameâs total worth. Which isnât a contradiction, just the nature of entertainment. No need to call someone elseâs honest opinion on what they do and donât enjoy â â â â â â â â .
Fair enough, I see what you mean. The personal value and enjoyment.
Although I donât know whether your last point was targeted to me. If it was then the other debaters are far more guilty of it than I am.
My point was that Cata has a lower aesthetics standards and level of quality. And thatâs something you definitely can asses objectively.
I am minority, I donât think otherwise. But being minority doesnât make me wrong. These ships are naive and noticeably less professional than the rest of the franchise. For instance the meat texture youâve mentioned is a great example of that sort of naivity. Thatâs an objective criticism.
But sure, it has a place in peopleâs heart. I donât disrepect that. And I get people enjoyed it and it has a subjective value to them, no doubt. I didnât mean to offend anyone and I hope I clearly stated that in my original post.
But a ship design in a game about ships is neither a mere detail nor subjective.
EDIT: BTW youâre an author of HW:@, you canât hide that you have a great sense for ship design. I love your stuff and I know you know whatâs genuenly bad. 
Yeah, thatâs not aimed at you.
And yeah, while I do think that thereâs still a large subjective element to how bad they look to any given person, itâd be very hard to argue that Cataâs ship, in both design an execution, are at least a cut below Homeworld 1âs. Trying to remaster those ships would be an outright herculean task, because their problems go a lot deeper than not having enough polygons or textels. Iâd not try to say otherwise. Where the judgement call comes in is saying âHomeworld is better without it than with it.â. In terms of art design Iâd tend to agree, but in pratically every other respect Iâd rather have HWC than HW2. Which probably isnât a surprise, since youâre familiar with HW@ 
P.S. Iâm actually probably the team member who has contributed the least to the modâs visual design, but I like to think Iâve learned a lot about how good ship design works from my teammates and the other artists itâs brought me into contact with.
1 Like
Well actually I could start drawing diagrams about length to width/height ratios, about overall shape vs extruding details proportions, quote something about psychology of shapes and effect the proportions have on the human perception of scale and disect it perfectly rationallyâŚ
I might even do it, but I have a strong feeling no one is interested and theyâre rather waiting for me to finally shut up. 
Hmm, I do like HW2, so thereâs another difference. I also do perfectly remember that the first sentence in your mod descrition is âBorn of a dissatisfaction with Homeworld 2â.
I dont care about the MP thing, it would be pretty weird trying to mix cata with HW1 and 2, it was already weird enough mixing HW1 and 2.
Of course they should be able to remaster cata⌠I mean, cata is the same as HW1, just with some things added. They already have the engine and HW1 units, it just lacks the cata units which can be either copied or extracted, i doubt they cant extract them from the game. and if they couldnt recover the missions scripts, so what? just make them again.
the main effort was to set up the engine, then they sold HW1 and HW2 remastered for 30âŹ. A 10⏠dlc for cata i think would be interesting for them and for us.
so, any new word for cata remastered?
You seem to both underestimate how many things in Cata were entirely new to it and not in the HW1 engine, and neglect the classic parts of the remastered collections. HW1C and HW2C are not exactly the same as their original counterparts, for better and worse, and they could not reasonably offer a HWCC without the source code.
2 Likes
What Siber said.
1 Like
what Siber said and âŚ
⌠not a chance!
Look out in the forum for the enterview with the devs where they explain how Kuun-lan works in relation to HW1. The devs were not saying âitâs easy to doâ. They were saying âitâs easy to do if you hire usâ.
2 Likes
Sorry for necroâing a 5-month-old thread, but I was browsing the forums in search of information about the patch when this thread caught my eye. I thought it would be better to offer my opinion here rather than start a new thread. As a disclaimer, the following represent my opinions and, as such, should not be construed as facts.
Cataclysm introduced several gameplay elements that I liked within the context of Homeworldâs single-player campaign: pilot view, ship experience, and 8x time compression. Iâm indifferent to the fuel change; it made life easier for me but also withdrew a decision-making element.
I also enjoyed the campaign itself: the sense of dread inspired by the soundtrack, the pace of the campaign, and the awful screams of infected crews. Likewise, I very much enjoyed the Beast voice samples (which interwove both masculine and feminine tones). I also liked Cataclysmâs take on the Bentusi and the definition of âunbound.â
Finally, Cataclysm compared favorably with other games at the time that featured an infectious agent, horde of alien locusts, or infestation (such as Star Trekâs Borg, Starcraftâs Zerg, and Haloâs the Flood); of these, the Beast seemed most plausible to me because they simply convert the pilotâs biomass into a wetware CPU and use the slightly-modified-but-comparatively-undamaged ship to fight the enemy on their own terms; the Beast can also use automated factories to produce MORE ships with wetware control systems. By contrast, the Zerg, the Flood, and the Borg seemed to introduce too many superfluous elements to be entirely plausible to me (for example, the Zerg fight with tooth and claw against tanks and battlecruisers; likewise, the Flood and the Borg basically replace one crew with another, but the replacement crew has no infrastructure to build or maintain a fleet of its own â yes, youâve infested a crew, but that crew canât build more ships or missiles or fighters because it doesnât have any foundries). Comparatively, the Beast seems much more practical as an autonomous invasion force.
On the other hand, Cataclysm introduced several elements I DIDNâT like. For one thing, the technology in Cataclysm deviated substantially from the technology present in Homeworld. In Homeworld classic, mass drivers, plasma bombs and ion beams were the primary ship-to-ship combat weapons (missiles were generally considered impractical); of these, mass drivers seem the most plausible, whereas plasma bombs stretched the suspenders of my disbelief (offhand, a projectile capable of bottling plasma doesnât seem cost-effective). Aside from advanced composite armor, defensive options were limited to a magnetic field (to block mass driver projectiles) and point-defense lasers on Defense Fighters; the latter is almost within reach using modern technology. Gravity Well Generators were the worst offender, in my eyes: if you have the ability to produce a gravity well powerful enough to stop fighters and corvettes without crushing the gravity well generator itself, surely you can use gravity to crush/shear enemy vessels and deflect projectiles and energy beams (making other weapons of war obsolete).
Meanwhile, Cataclysm introduced energy guns (which I will loathe forever), Sentinel energy shields, Mimic camouflage, the siege cannon, and Leeches. I found all of these additions to be too exotic and implausible for my taste; I much preferred Homeworldâs formula of offering different configurations of known weapon systems on hulls of differing strength and maneuverability. In addition, the exoticism and lack of role overlap that characterized the Somtaaw fleet actually worked against diversity â since Acolytes were the only fighter class available and ACVs the only corvettes available (themselves based on two Acolytes!), Somtaaw fleets tended to be extraordinarily uniform (as opposed to the more-diverse fleets in Homeworld classic).
Iâm indifferent to Hive Frigates (which seem like a natural iteration on Drone Frigates) and Multi-Beam Frigates (with the exception of that bit of fluff in the manual that indicated that the beams were cooled âby the vacuum of spaceâ â space is not cold, you idiots!), though I should note that I far prefer Homeworld 2âs pulsar beams over Cataclysmâs Multi-Beam Frigates. Iâm likewise indifferent to the super Acolyte â since the size and potency of ion beams seems to be one rubric by which spacefaring races are measured in Homeworld, it makes perfect sense to me that the Bentusi, being top dogs, would have managed to miniaturize ion beams to the point of fitting them within a fighter chassis.
In multiplayer, I liked the interaction between Kiith Somtaaw and the Beast â though the Beast often seemed to be at a disadvantage because of Kiith Somtaawâs advanced technology (namely Acolytes with missiles and ACVs with EMP), a well-placed Infection Beam or Cruise Missile swarm could swing not only an engagement but the course of the game, since the Beast could then assimilate infected technology (effectively allowing a skilled Beast player to jump around the tech tree). The constant threat of assimilation is an excellent example of ludo-narrative harmony: it is a well-balanced game mechanic that introduces challenges, choices, and opportunities to excel, but also creates an emotional through-line to the player, making the Beast satisfying to play and terrifying to face.
Playing Cataclysm today, and responding (in part) to Poukâs screenshots, Cataclysm seems more like a mod or total conversion than an expansion set. A very good mod, true, one that iterated on the original in many useful ways; but still a mod. But I would buy a remastered version in a heartbeat. =)
Perhaps what we need is a spiritual successor to Cataclysm with the serial numbers filed off; I would certainly buy that!
6 Likes
And yet, Iâm sorry for necroâing this thread once moreâŚ
Being new and all, Itâs just that Iâve bought these âRemasteredâ versions just around a week ago, despite of somewhat multiple ânegativeâ points when playing âHomeworld - Remasteredâ version (not yet tried the âHomeworld 2 - Remasteredâ version).
I somewhat agree with Poukâs statements in the thread (based on details and screenshots, but not overall), but that question aside. Having read from the first post to the last, could someone explain (short version, please) why is there a different project between the âRemasteredâ and the Cataclysm?
I mean, all of them are considered a trilogy, from Homeworld, to Homeworld: Cataclysm, and last Homeworld 2. I donât understand much about gaming developments (or even âIPâ, as everybody might have said, of course I donât even understand it myself what is an âIPâ ?), but how come that there are 2 Remastered editions of Homeworld trilogy, when there should be 3 versions? What make the developments of Cataclysm different between the first and the last? All of them are based on âHomeworldâ franchise, it should be a trilogy, but only 2 versions (whatâs the English, a âtologyâ or something?
PS:
Sorry of my English. Iâm Indonesian and English is not my second nor third languageâŚ
Thereâs a lot of history and stuff around the homeworld games.
The short of it is that the source code for Cataclysm is missing or possibly no longer exists anywhere and that means it just isnât worth it to remake Cataclysm. The source code will significantly reduce the workload for remaking cataclysm and will allow them to add Cataclysm classic like they did with HW1 and 2. Without the source code I donât think they can even add the classic version of the game. Yes they can remake the game but I think they felt the investment to do that without the source code would not be worth the return on that investment. A lot of other factors support that decision.
Also Itâs not technically a trilogy. HW1 and HW2 follow the main protagonist (Karan SâJet) while Cataclysm is more of an expansion that has a new set of protagonists (Kiith Somtaaw).
What the!? They arenât trilogy!?
And I suspect Iâm the only one who think they are? Ha-ha-ha, damn me-self!
Anyway, back to âbusinessââŚ
So, youâre saying that before they can even make the Remastered-edition, they need the source code in order to release the Classic like the other two parts? I thought the Cataclysm source code were simply using Classic Homeworld engine and stuff like both Poukâs and Gaius_Iraeâs posts earlier: âit is simply a MOD or total conversionâ. And they fact that they generally look alike, doesnât it means that they have the source code already?
Cataclysm was developed by a different Studio (Barking Dog) although all 3 were published by Sierra. The reason for that is that after HW1 released they started work on HW2 but HW1 was a lot more successful than they initially expected. Sierra wanted to cash in on the success of HW1 and had Barking Dog make an expansion (Kinda like a mod yes) for HW1 where they took the HW1 engine and modified it Heavily. This became HW Cataclysm. Because Sierra was already busy with HW2 they told Barking Dog to not touch the HW1 story line. They could use elements from HW1 and obviously reference the events of HW1 but they could not evolve that plot.
It looks like a copy of the source code for Cataclysm was never required to be delivered to Sierra though. Barking Dog became Rockstar Vancouver and in 2012 closed. Itâs common for assets to get lost when studios change hands and close.
1 Like
âNever required to be delivered to Sierraâ?
And so it is âpossibly no longer exists anywhereââŚ
Ouch, thatâs nasty!
So that means: âno source codeâ = âno remasteringâ = âno chanceâ?
OK, I can live with thatâŚ
Final questions: If the Cataclysm were developed by a different studio [infact, Iâve never heard of it, I thought they were developing Cataclysm based on whatever licensing from Relic], how in the world was this âBarking Dogâ studio âacquireâ Homeworld source codes in the first place? From Sierra? They even released it under a same âHomeworldâ franchise on a âretailâ build-up [which is why I thought they are a trilogy in the first place], instead of generally simple âexpansionâ pack.
Should they do that in the first place, it could save lots of workload to the original developers [unless Blackbird wanted to âRemasteredâ an expansion pack], donât you think?
Correct, the source code from HW1 was given to them by Relic/Sierra, but Barking Dog Studios modified that code quite heavily and this modified version was never given back to Relic/Sierra, that is why this modified source code (which is the basis for Cataclysm) no longer exists.
Yes it is part of the same franchise, but Homeworld 1 and 2 were developed by Relic and Cataclysm by Barking Dog Studios, the Publisher for all 3 games was Sierra, that is why it all belongs to the same franchise, but Cataclysm is more of a spin-off than part of a trilogy.
OK, fair enoughâŚ
So, âthis modified source code no longer existsâ, as well as being âmore of a spin-off than part of a trilogyâ thingy. If based on these facts that you kindly laid out for me, I see there are not even the slightest chances of Gearbox would even considers remastering it. And yet, many individuals on the forums actually want Gearbox to remaster it, despite of being based on âlostâ source code that was developed by another studio other than Relic themselves [some of these people have even put somekind of petition out for it, I donât remember where I last saw itâŚ].
So, if you are asked about the chances that Cataclysm is going to be âRemasteredâ, how do you answer?
No chances at all?
And, if [a huge âIFâ] Gearbox finally decides to remaster it [technicality aside], how would the license is going to be played? Is it going to be as similar as the âRemasteredâ editions [despite of different development studio]?
Well just because some people WANT something doesnât mean theyâll get it It has to be finacially viable for GBX to put the time and effort into creating a remastered version of Cataclysm and this simply doesnât seem to be the case (from my outside perspective at least)
From what I can tell, pretty much zero, yeah, but since I neither work for GBX nor have any inside scope I am just giving you my 2 cents on the matter and nothing more
As far as I know they got the license for Cata, so they could create a remastered edition if they wanted to since the studio that made Cata doesnât exist anymore and Gearbox bought the franchise in its entirety (as far as I am aware).
1 Like
@ForceUser and @maelrizzo,
A BIG, HUGE thanks from me to both of you, for kindly explaining things to me
And now, Iâm back to âdevastateâ some poor souls on the forums before my timer runs out!
Just kiddingâŚ
But, yet again, Iâm completely grateful, so thanks again!!
1 Like