It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Homeworld 3?(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 08, 2009
i have no problem with change or innovation. I have no problem with simplification and easy access.
I think Dawn of War 2 seems much better than Dawn of War because it dumped a lot of the pointless things.
Fallout as an FPS makes sense, and treating isometric camera angles as a "genre" or a key part of a game is daft..
But for there were 2 things that made homeworld original and great: the story/feel and the 3d tactics. take out the second one and you're left with an RTS similar to all others.
(and there has never really been a fun space RTS on one plane).
They can take out the harvesters, make it faster and more accessible, etc.. (infact those would be improvements imho). But they NEED to keep it in 3 planes... whatever control scheme they come up with...
--
Since I bet they want to put it on consoles, I'd suggest an Endwar style setup. 3d FPS camera with voice controls for formations, etc... seems like it'd work great in homeworld.
Posted February 08, 2009

Why do people seem to feel the need to remind each other that companies that make games for profit are in it for the money? That's like saying people who eat are in it for the not starving. Just because you eat doesn't mean you have to be a glutton. The same is true with earning money. Just because you're trying to make money from something doesn't mean it has to be your sole concern and that you're willing to sacrifice everything and anything to for even a little more profit.

You're wrong. The proof is all around you. Companies want to make money, not hold on to ideals. Those that do tend to end up out of business before long (either from lack of sales or being eaten by a larger shark). Even GOG, while having goals that are aligned with many of us (e.g. old games, no DRM, etc...), are using their goals as a SELLING point.
Also, you're going way off topic in your last post.

Yes, because this thread has obviously spiralled way out of control. What can you do about it?
Post edited February 08, 2009 by TapeWorm
Posted February 10, 2009

Why do people seem to feel the need to remind each other that companies that make games for profit are in it for the money? That's like saying people who eat are in it for the not starving. Just because you eat doesn't mean you have to be a glutton. The same is true with earning money. Just because you're trying to make money from something doesn't mean it has to be your sole concern and that you're willing to sacrifice everything and anything to for even a little more profit.

You're wrong. The proof is all around you. Companies want to make money, not hold on to ideals. Those that do tend to end up out of business before long (either from lack of sales or being eaten by a larger shark). Even GOG, while having goals that are aligned with many of us (e.g. old games, no DRM, etc...), are using their goals as a SELLING point.
Also, you're going way off topic in your last post.

Yes, because this thread has obviously spiralled way out of control. What can you do about it?#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:17#Q&_^Q&Q#

What exactly am I wrong about and how does your statement have anything to do with it? "Proof is all around me" ... What you call proof, I call circumstantial evidence. 'Common Sense' which is all too commonly proven wrong.
GoG is selling to a niche market, and for far less than they have to, and they're providing far better service than they have to. They could easily make considerably more profits by selling more recent games and/or selling their games at higher prices.
Post edited February 10, 2009 by Shoelip
Posted February 10, 2009

Why do people seem to feel the need to remind each other that companies that make games for profit are in it for the money? That's like saying people who eat are in it for the not starving. Just because you eat doesn't mean you have to be a glutton. The same is true with earning money. Just because you're trying to make money from something doesn't mean it has to be your sole concern and that you're willing to sacrifice everything and anything to for even a little more profit.

You're wrong. The proof is all around you. Companies want to make money, not hold on to ideals. Those that do tend to end up out of business before long (either from lack of sales or being eaten by a larger shark). Even GOG, while having goals that are aligned with many of us (e.g. old games, no DRM, etc...), are using their goals as a SELLING point.
Also, you're going way off topic in your last post.

Yes, because this thread has obviously spiralled way out of control. What can you do about it?#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:17#Q&_^Q&Q#
avatar
Shoelip: What exactly am I wrong about and how does your statement have anything to do with it? "Proof is all around me" ... What you call proof, I call circumstantial evidence. 'Common Sense' which is all too commonly proven wrong.
GoG is selling to a niche market, and for far less than they have to, and they're providing far better service than they have to. They could easily make considerably more profits by selling more recent games and/or selling their games at higher prices.

Calling it circumstantial evidence doesn't make it so, and that common sense that hansschmucker is talking about has been proven right time and time again.
What makes you wrong is that you think that companies don't need to try and get as much of the pie as they can. Companies always try to get larger if only to survive in a world of corporate predators. Not to mention greed aspect. That's what happens when you make people rich, they tend to want to stay rich and get richer in the process. All you have to do is look at any oil company to see that in action. Sure, you don't need to become greedy and it's certainly not nice trait but it's happened all too often to just dismiss out of some hope that any company will fall back on an ideal.
Here are just 3 out of a multitude of companies/entities that will gladly sell out to the LCD to make a dollar:
Microsoft
EA
Lucasfilm (game companies are not exclusive to this).
As for GOG, they -could- sell their games for higher prices, but who would buy? Knowing what your market will pay is smart business. When you have people bitching about paying $20 for some indie games out there, I think their price point is a compromise between making money and alienating the source of that revenue.
And this is the point (if only to keep your precious thread on topic): He's saying that Relic will pander to the majority of gamers. Why do they want the majority of gamers? More gamers = more money. That isn't evil or wrong, that's just business. You claimed that he was calling modern gamers stupid. I say his motive for saying this was reflect a need to expand their player base and make more money.
Post edited February 10, 2009 by TapeWorm
Posted February 10, 2009
Make this game please Relic. I want it!
Posted February 10, 2009
avatar
Shoelip: What exactly am I wrong about and how does your statement have anything to do with it? "Proof is all around me" ... What you call proof, I call circumstantial evidence. 'Common Sense' which is all too commonly proven wrong.
GoG is selling to a niche market, and for far less than they have to, and they're providing far better service than they have to. They could easily make considerably more profits by selling more recent games and/or selling their games at higher prices.
avatar
TapeWorm: Calling it circumstantial evidence doesn't make it so, and that common sense that hansschmucker is talking about has been proven right time and time again.
What makes you wrong is that you think that companies don't need to try and get as much of the pie as they can. Companies always try to get larger if only to survive in a world of corporate predators. Not to mention greed aspect. That's what happens when you make people rich, they tend to want to stay rich and get richer in the process. All you have to do is look at any oil company to see that in action. Sure, you don't need to become greedy and it's certainly not nice trait but it's happened all too often to just dismiss out of some hope that any company will fall back on an ideal.
Here are just 3 out of a multitude of companies/entities that will gladly sell out to the LCD to make a dollar:
Microsoft
EA
Lucasfilm (game companies are not exclusive to this).
As for GOG, they -could- sell their games for higher prices, but who would buy? Knowing what your market will pay is smart business. When you have people bitching about paying $20 for some indie games out there, I think their price point is a compromise between making money and alienating the source of that revenue.
And this is the point (if only to keep your precious thread on topic): He's saying that Relic will pander to the majority of gamers. Why do they want the majority of gamers? More gamers = more money. That isn't evil or wrong, that's just business. You claimed that he was calling modern gamers stupid. I say his motive for saying this was reflect a need to expand their player base and make more money.

Yet it's also been proven time and again that that's not the only way to operate, and it's not the only way people do operate. You're just so dedicated to your pessimism and being 'right' that you refuse to even notice all the evidence against your argument. History does not advance by repeating itself. Something only really happens when something, well, happens. Considering all the history that has happened, and all the changes that have occurred as a result, it's utterly absurd to think that nothing can change ever again and that the way the majority does things is the only way things will ever successfully be done.
Acare84:
You want Star Trek Armada with Homeworld ships?
Post edited February 10, 2009 by Shoelip
Posted February 11, 2009
Nope, I want Homeworld 3 sequel of Homeworld and Homeworld 2.
Posted February 11, 2009
Wouldn't that have to include the one thing that made Homeworld truly unique for it's time? A true 3D space battlefield. Which Homeworld 3 apparently won't have. Which is the whole reason for all the ranting in this thread,
Post edited February 11, 2009 by Shoelip
Posted February 11, 2009
I loved the Homeworld series because of their full 3D gameplay. If it comes out in any other form, it's not Homeworld. The true 3D space battlefield was one thing that kept me hooked to the Homeworld series, it was different, and allowed you to think in more abstract ways when trying to approach your enemies or similar. Making it a 2D plane game will remove one of the major "gimmicks" with the series, and the shell that's left will probably be like space battles in Empire at War, with some construction and resource collection...
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Homeworld 3?(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)