Original Review Date: December 9, 2017
Perhaps the one thing that distinguishes Homeworld from other RTSs is that it doesn’t feel primarily designed around its multiplayer/skirmish mode. This isn’t to say the multiplayer has no merits; however, it sets this game in its own league compared to old and modern RTSs. It’s often the role of bot-matches/players to add long-term value whereas the single player is either an afterthought or a tutorial. Homeworld, old and new, dares to defy its contemporaries as it did back in the ‘90s by making the campaign as vital to the core experience as well as incorporating its revolutionary 3D space combat that has yet to be outmatched.
Before we continue, it’s first important for me to clear the air with its newly acquired publishers. It’s no secret that when it comes to Gearbox they are not on my best list of developers; however, if they showed as much as a modicum of the respect and the effort as they did with hiring the original developers to remaster Homeworld, then they would be one of my favorite publishers. Despite the subtlest of changes that may annoy diehards, the attention to detail to bring back this leviathan from its slumber amongst the stars should be the standard they set for all their future projects.
A Home Divided Cannot Stand
When it comes to revitalizing the original games, Homeworld Remastered strikes an interesting blend of old-and-new in its attempt to modernize the classics that might have made many irate fans who did not enjoy Homeworld 2’s numerous changes. These changes are not simply nitpicks as it undermines many fundamental gameplay aspects of the original Homeworld as the result of its source-code being lost. (I’m not sure I understand the problem if they are also selling the original games with the remastered versions—it sounds like they could reverse-engineer the code or make it more approximate to the original.) To newcomers, these changes are largely easy to overlook—and they will be far more agreeable—unless you intend to compare the classic games with their remastered counterparts.
The first of many changes, which is only apparent between the classic and the remastered versions of the first game, is that damage is calculated as RNG rather than projectile based. To describe the math more simply, the classic games had its attacks calculated with “bullets” that were determined by the speed, formation, angles, etc. of vessels. The original version of Homeworld 2 did away with this to render more ships in formation units and supplanted the damage system with RNG bullets on the same factors. The result is while Homeworld 2 is largely the same but improved with modern updates to the UI, graphics, etc, Homeworld 1 is not really the same as its original on its fundamental gameplay, which isn’t as bad as the other major change.
Adaptive difficulty gets a bad rep in games when it’s handled poorly like Max Payne 1 and, to original Homeworld fans, Homeworld 2. This was most likely done after the original because of the general tactic of salvaging (stealing) enemy ships to build your own army as your army is a persistent force across the games. Many fans did not like Homeworld 2 for this one reason because they viewed the game punishing them for smartly capturing ships by raising the difficulty if they went above the population limits. The original Homeworld, however, could easily lose its bite for its underdog narrative if players simply stole an entire armada with nothing to balance it. As a result, the added adaptive difficulty across both games is something I’ve come to admire about the remasters as the game always feels tailored to my level of skill when I am failing or succeeding, and I never had to restart a previous mission to keep my fleet—unless I botched an encounter horribly.
These changes, as well as auto-collecting resources at the end of every mission, ultimately make Homeworld more palatable to new audiences than old. Some may rightfully argue this was done for the sake of multiplayer to make balancing more polished/unified, but I would argue the single-player also benefits from this unified system. The fact that most mechanics/tactics transfer over between games more smoothly, save for how the first game creates units individually whereas the sequel creates them into squads of four to five, makes the gameplay have a greater, shared foundation than having two different games play their own separate ways. This is ultimately why I love Homeworld: Remastered as a whole in spite of the sequel not living up in its narrative, though it is as mechanically solid, as the original.
To Boldly Go Where No One Knows
Aside from Cataclysm (now called Emergence on GOG), the sequel has always lived in the shadow of its original, and it’s easy to see why the first Homeworld seems more memorable. It’s also apparent to see why the sequel struggles to capture the same wonder and emotional attachment when it explores largely the same regions, threats, etc. gussied up with a “chosen one” narrative with the same highs and lows of gameplay.
Homeworld is an example of a story that is not praised for being innovative in its plot but being highly regarded for its execution of a great story. The story itself is one about a group of exiles trying to find their home whom we never see and whom we only hear/experience through ship-models their emotional journey that reveals their history in the galaxy. In a tale that features planet-wide genocide, purging of history on a galactic scale, and the morose sadness of an exiled group of wanders removed from their former glory, there is a great sense of wonder, exploration and mystery about the universe of Homeworld that reminds one of the original Star Trek. Missions themselves do not feel scripted into encounters or loosely threaded arcs; instead, missions are often the result of wandering into a new section of a galaxy previous unexplored and coming across a new threat/friend with a new challenge to overcome. The tasteful execution of its storytelling as well as its style to convey it makes it one of the more mature, tasteful stories told in any videogame.
The sequel, however, never captures that sense of newfound wonder, yet its storytelling is still on par with the original, even with the same underdog narrative given more prophetical importance. Homeworld 2 still retains the majesty of every mission linking together into a series of conflicts, though the mission structure is more combat-focused with little time to pause and refit the fleet compared to most missions in the original. Even with a more “disposable,” some might argue, fleet, the bonds made between your persistent army still retains the Homeworld vibe as you accumulate more and more ships and mourn any losses. The only damnable offense is that, unlike Cataclysm, Homeworld 2 is more of the same—on the positive side, it’s more Homeworld and it’s another reason to stay enamored in its region of space.
No Need to Fear! The Underdog is Here!
How an IP like Homeworld ever interested Gearbox will always baffle me. Known for their meme-filled lands and that-other-game-I-forget-what-it-was-called, Homeworld feels out of place in their line-up grounded in as much seriousness as its subtlety for storytelling. Then again, Gearbox was also responsible for the Brothers in Arms games, so perhaps there is some reason why Gearbox would be interested.
Regardless of Gearbox's intentions, Homeworld Remastered achieves what all great remasters attempt to do: Make great games worthwhile and as faithful for modern audiences to stand the test of time. These games still retain their sense of challenge, their spectacle of 3D space combat that never is mandatory but always an optional tactical opportunity, and everything else that makes Homeworld is what it is. As a strategy/RTS game, it’s probably not the most in-depth to master; however, its sense of victory and the satisfaction of reclaiming Higara and enacting vengeance makes it a legend.
Comments