The game looks great… and that’s it. I waited a little over 10 years for Homeworld 3 and I have to say this game has crushed my soul. The gameplay is dumbed down, it’s even MISSING mechanics we had in previous games (like veterancy), the campaign is the shortest in all Homeworld games (I finished it on Medium in 5.5 hours), and the story was easily the worst for all Homeworld games. The problem most people have is that Homeworld 3 really feels like a betrayal of the core themes of Homeworld. Homeworld has never been a character drama, it’s been a story about a civilisation and the human spirit delivered through characters. The Hyperspace cores were a huge retcon, and Homeworld Cataclysm (probably the second-best game in the series right after Homeworld 1) has been practically retconned into oblivion with each new title. The best way I can equate this is how after Halo 3 (HW 1 and Cat.) there was Reach (HW 2 and DoK), which a lot of people didn’t like but was objectively a great game, and after that there was the dumpster fire of Halos 4 and 5 (HW mobile and 3).
From what I understand, the game got hit* with the SBI bat combined with some brain drain. Terrible, especially considering how fantastic HW 1 and Cata are. (2 was okay. Loved the skirmish, but the campaign was a bit dodgy compared to 1 and Cata)
I suspect that, even with BBI comprising a decent portion of the original homeworld team, noone has made a space RTS like this in a decade or more, definitely not like Homeworld. I think they made a whole lot of new tools for HW3 and hammering out how all of them work together has only gotten more difficult as time goes by. It'll be revealing how well they deal with these issues and what news drops about the development history.
The music, sound, and graphics of the game are all fantastic. The rest of the game is one step forward, two steps back. For example, with the map and mission designs, I really like that they have megastructures on the playable area of the map. In the previous games, you would only see those megastructures in the background. To actually be able to navigate around those megastructures and use them as cover is really cool. But it's also introduced several problems. The maps are too restricted, there's not enough open space for you to fly around those megastructures and you're forced to move through them. You're in space, it makes no sense to artificially constrain the map like that. Putting resources near or inside those structures is more than enough to give players areas to contend over. And the AI and pathfinding is not good enough to navigate around those obstructions. There are so many times when enemies is behind a large piece of wreckage and my ships are too dumb to fly around it to attack the enemy. They would just float behind the wreckage or stick really close to it and try to slowly move around.
for me about this story, it would've been great if they explore more about the Progenitors but we got this incarnate queen who destroys dozens of planet all because she's lonely Homeworld Mobile's story did a decent job and that's sad
Heir Your Comment about the campaign pacing is spot on, but I would say they shouldn't get rid of all the immediate start and stops. With as little spoilers as possible for those who don't know, plot wise like most homeworld games a few missions in you are for "reasons" on your own and can only count on the crew of the mothership for everything. Being alone in unfamiliar place and not knowing what is going on is kinda a major part of the early plot. So while I agree with you Heir, certain missions should just instantly start and stop with out you be ready they just shouldn't be the normal way every mission is and only happen when you are actually caught unaware or pressed for time narratively. Besides that all the railing on the art direction should be ignored. I loved the painterly style and I am definitely a person that thinks art direction (not just fidelity) and good music can really elevate a game as long as the gameplay is decent. All that said people just complaining about stuff changing or being different is just a new form of gate keeping. I wanted Homeworld 1 stuff too, but I don't hate Homeworld 3's stuff so I am not a real Homeworld fan? get out of here with that crap. That is the kind of stuff that the vocal minority gets riled up about and ruins everything for people that just want a good game. Even though it wouldn't have been my choice I think the 3d animations have been done very well so positive in my books (you don't have to agree). Okay sorry rant over!
From what I've watched of it, the story seems overall a bit dumb to me. That said, I am looking forward to actually playing it, since games of this style of gameplay are just rare now.
The unit composition does seem to be very traditional military roles and an evolution of the previous designs. But you're right; I would've loved to have seen more unique ships. You don't get a lot of emergent gameplay without innovative units.
Many say, including HoC, HW 3 story is more like HW 2 than 1. And HW 2 is the title that really got me invested in the whole HW IP. I think that's why I don't find the story all that bothersome. I think it definitely could be longer, more fleshed out, with more characters. Maybe they could have made this into trilogy, and have HW3 main game be the Act 1, with 2 expansions to fill out the next two portions. Other than that, I liked the varied mission types, like how they had smaller and more contained missions like Storm Strike, but they definitely could have played around with it more. I think this game deserve at least 75%, or 7~8 out of 10, which a lot of critics scored. I think I feel more invested in this title now after seeing all the backlash. I have a thing about being in unpopular side... heh
The story has been fun and the cutscenes have some good moments. The missions are fun too. I just don't agree with the campaign hate either. Game is a 6 or 7 out of 10. Would be a 9 if they would have good pathfinding, more ship types, and longer story. DLC and updates could do great things for a game that is already fun for me. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts. I pretty much agree.
That was genuinely a really leveled response. I keep seeing a lot of hyperbole, but the game is definitely not this irredeemable mess some people paint. Hope the game gets ironed out, some easy solutions beyond what you mentioned would be larger maps, easier control group reinforcement, and maybe relooking at simultaneous construction. The last part, it works fine, but I wonder if it undermines the pacing. If they can make it easier to organize units, it would be a non-issue or at least wouldn't feel as fast paced as it currently is. Absolutely fixable, they have a GENUINE gem that they mishandled on launch, but the core gameplay issues to me feel fixable. The first few updates (Not content, just balance) will be telling.
Agreed. The bones are there. Needs some work. It is ok for people to not like the way a story plays out but the rage against this one seems over the top. Work on pacing, fix pathfinding bugs, add some ships, follow up with good content releases. My only agreement on story issues so far is the Incarnate Queen seems not menacing. But I don't yet see how that sinks everything. People are free to hate but just because they do doesn't mean all will agree.
It's not about the number of cutscenes or the quality, it's about the tone and substance of the story. Talk about completely missing the point of why fans hate this game
I never played Homeward before and I have waited for this game for the past few years. I Really love it but somethings I have noticed that I would like to see is more units - especially on the frigates - having only 5 of each available (If you want the 25 for all). The mothership to have missiles as well as guns as it is pretty poorly defended for a mothership that can make destroyers etc. Story could have been longer. The yearly updates seem to revolve around the Wargames, which tbh I am not a huge fan of :/
The problem with 3D animation is cost and when you see the things left out of the game, you can see why narration over artwork would have been the better choice, so that they could invest in more actual gameplay content. HW games don't need massive budgets or high graphical cutscenes.
Fighter combat is bad. Too many active abilities. The story is trash and disrepests what came before (as is the tradition of modern sludge writing). The art direction in cutscenes is wrong.
Hmhmhm... I'm definitely interested in the game, but on an underlying level I'm conflicted. The concept of a belated sequel/reboot of a beloved series taking what used to be a sincere sci-fi project and turning it into thematically milquetoast science fantasy mainstream movie fare is kind of offensive to me and not something I'd ever want to support. Which is to say nothing of how much less complex this gameplay appears to be than its predecessors! That said, it's not like we're starved for choice for RTS - let alone sci-fi RTS - these days. I wanted this game to be a home run so bad, this is a bummer. Maybe I'll wait until it goes on sale.
I'm curious about their DLCs. So far, three payed DLCs have been announced and each is supposed to add new factions to the game. However, to my understanding those new factions are limited to the War Games Mode (at least that's how I read the info graphic). If that's true, that would be a massive waste of opportunity...
Story is bad because the protagonist and antagonist are unbealeavable characters that don't fit the narrative. Both are insecure, spiritual wimps. Scientist or battleship navigator would not be like that. Also, its very short and maps are simple. Regarding RTS department - it has too simplify resourcing mechanics and lack of openings and strategies. There is no decision tree like should I tech or rush, or go economy. Do I go with fighters spam, or early destroyer, do I skip destroyers and go for battlecruisers, or do I go with frigates. All stuff that you had in HW2 as in proper RTS skirmish. Also, in this game resourcing and attacking resource collectors to hinder opponent economy makes no impact, because there is abundance of RU spots and every resourcer can be spread across them and they have full autonomy, you don't have to keep production vessels next to it. So, in short game lacks all proper RTS elements, like openings, rushes, techs variations. There is also no economy valid attacks and defenses that would make any impact on game.
@@DeckerdBR absolutely but if it's in space what makes a missile a missile and a torpedo a torpedo? On water that's easy but in space? Most probably overthinking it lol.
@@pichael38 in games thses days, torpedos are slower , usualy dont track, and have a much higher damage output. used vs slow ships/capital ships and stationary targets. missles are fast, agile and don't put out that much damage. use vs smaller faster ships.
Well done regarding your gameplay videos of HW 3 so far. This game looks like a really bad version of the three previous games in the series. The 7th mission was okay but a few enemy attack waves instead of one full on assault was disappointing. I also liked Cataclysm (renamed later due to naming rights), especially since I actually played the PC version with one hand on the hardest difficulty (I lost in the final mission that way though lol).
