Shame about the "persistent social" nonsense I guess this is something we're just going to have to get used to, if we're not already, the simple fact is that games just don't sell unless the developers shoehorn (or even outright develop purely for) multiplayer Damned shame, but oh well.
Problem is most of us are older then we were when we were young an open to new aspects. As we get older we get grumpier and stuck in our old ways. I think instead of being that grumpy old man and saying oh social that is the devil maybe go in with glass half full and wait out and see. Obviously something about the trailer has some appeal and if it's only social aspects that are dooming you to try the game then your nothing but a cynical old fart who's stuck in his ways and isn't open to any innovations no matter what the word is or how they spin it. anyway more info as I had started another thread when I didn't see this one...
If not wanting to join the "soshul, lolz" steamroller that is currently thundering through my hobby means I'm a cynical old fart then by all means, that's what I am. Rather a cynical old fart that remembers good quality games, than a naive young derp that only recognises games made after 2006. The fact is, many gamers are Homeworld fans and they sure as hell didn't want or ask for a "free to play, pay to win, online only, persistent social world" spiritual follow up. Why is that so difficult to understand?
If not wanting to join the "soshul, lolz" steamroller that is currently thundering through my hobby means I'm a cynical old fart then by all means, that's what I am. Rather a cynical old fart that remembers good quality games, than a naive young derp that only recognises games made after 2006. The fact is, many gamers are Homeworld fans and they sure as hell didn't want or ask for a "free to play, pay to win, online only, persistent social world" spiritual follow up. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Well I've been gaming longer than I can remember I'm 32 not some young derp I recognize it myself that there are things in life where I get stuck in my ways or the way I perceive something. What I'm trying to say is yes not all features are good but we haven't actually seen anything in game that indicates what they are bringing will be bad. Once they have shown it within the context of the game then judge it for what it is. Personally I've come to realizes that things evolve not necessarily the way I want in life and that I can have my opinion but to use it when appropriate. In this case I think it's to early to judge on the merits of words though to be skeptic it's normal considering a few developers have burned our trust with their tactics to lock us in. At this point I think it's more appropriate to have a wait and see approach if based off the little teaser trailer you had some nostalgic excitement no ?
If not wanting to join the "soshul, lolz" steamroller that is currently thundering through my hobby means I'm a cynical old fart then by all means, that's what I am. Rather a cynical old fart that remembers good quality games, than a naive young derp that only recognises games made after 2006. The fact is, many gamers are Homeworld fans and they sure as hell didn't want or ask for a "free to play, pay to win, online only, persistent social world" spiritual follow up. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Well I've been gaming longer than I can remember I'm 32 not some young derp I recognize it myself that there are things in life where I get stuck in my ways or the way I perceive something. What I'm trying to say is yes not all features are good but we haven't actually seen anything in game that indicates what they are bringing will be bad. Once they have shown it within the context of the game then judge it for what it is. Personally I've come to realizes that things evolve not necessarily the way I want in life and that I can have my opinion but to use it when appropriate. In this case I think it's to early to judge on the merits of words though to be skeptic it's normal considering a few developers have burned our trust with their tactics to lock us in. At this point I think it's more appropriate to have a wait and see approach if based off the little teaser trailer you had some nostalgic excitement no ?
Well I've been gaming longer than I can remember I'm 32 not some young derp
Then stop acting like one -- and please stop telling people to either embrace all the horrible nasty shit that we don't like or be insulted for their trouble. Judging by the overall reaction in this thread, I'd say it was fair to say nobody here wants a free-to-play persistent social game, certainly not one that claims to be the spiritual sequel to a fan-beloved game. Yet apparently that makes us cynical old farts unwilling to change? It has nothing to do with being "stuck in our ways" - it's about preference. You cannot, and will not, change people's preferences, you do not have that right or ability. The game may well have a ton of redeeming features, it may feel and play just like a ground-based Homeworld, but that won't excuse the fact that you're forced into playing a free-to-play social online game -- which many of us simply don't want. We hear of a spiritual sequel, see a fun looking trailer, get excited ... then get our hopes dashed by the persistent world social elements. Sounds completely normal to me.
I'll bet you're one of the ones that, despite claiming to be an aged gamer, told everyone to "suck it up" and "embrace change" about the god-awful Syndicate FPS.
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
After seeing a little of the gameplay i'm excited for this game again. Looks decent enough, and they are throwing in a lot of the story telling into the game which I like.
Although it looks more like a Ground Control / World in Conflict style RTS then it does Homeworld. It just feels like Homeworld due to the art style / music then the gameplay itself.
If not wanting to join the "soshul, lolz" steamroller that is currently thundering through my hobby means I'm a cynical old fart then by all means, that's what I am. Rather a cynical old fart that remembers good quality games, than a naive young derp that only recognises games made after 2006. The fact is, many gamers are Homeworld fans and they sure as hell didn't want or ask for a "free to play, pay to win, online only, persistent social world" spiritual follow up. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Pretty much.
And Homeworld -IS- a shining example of a quality game. It was only $50 and you got the full game including multiplayer. It came with a BOOK of an instruction manual that was also loaded with awesome artwork and was generally high quality. Finally, it came with a separate soundtrack audio CD for those that cared. Oh, and the box itself was very sturdy.
None of that cost an extra $50 for the special 'Super space lord of the kings edition' or some such bullshit.
Of course, when Homeworld 2 came out it was such a disappointment because that was around the time when all the publishers started putting those stupid 5 page pamphlets in the box without a real instruction manual.
Biggest regret I have in regards to my PC gaming hobby was when I threw out a bunch of my older game boxes. I should have kept that manual. It's a piece of art. The cover itself is brilliant graphic design. So simple yet striking. That font type. The very fact that they were smart enough to call it 'Historical and Technical Briefing' is just boss.
Games these days fucking blow compared to what they were around the time of Homeworld / Half-Life / Etc. Those were the glory days of PC gaming. Before that time (Pre-1995ish) PC games were mostly shareware and didn't have that level of production. Although they still came in awesome boxes and had massive instruction manuals. Then everything post 2000-ish it just turned to shit so fast. We really only have the internet to blame for that though. Publishers back then cared about the box/instructions because you could only buy games in stores.
If not wanting to join the "soshul, lolz" steamroller that is currently thundering through my hobby means I'm a cynical old fart then by all means, that's what I am. Rather a cynical old fart that remembers good quality games, than a naive young derp that only recognises games made after 2006. The fact is, many gamers are Homeworld fans and they sure as hell didn't want or ask for a "free to play, pay to win, online only, persistent social world" spiritual follow up. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Pretty much.
And Homeworld -IS- a shining example of a quality game. It was only $50 and you got the full game including multiplayer. It came with a BOOK of an instruction manual that was also loaded with awesome artwork and was generally high quality. Finally, it came with a separate soundtrack audio CD for those that cared. Oh, and the box itself was very sturdy.
None of that cost an extra $50 for the special 'Super space lord of the kings edition' or some such bullshit.
Of course, when Homeworld 2 came out it was such a disappointment because that was around the time when all the publishers started putting those stupid 5 page pamphlets in the box without a real instruction manual.
Biggest regret I have in regards to my PC gaming hobby was when I threw out a bunch of my older game boxes. I should have kept that manual. It's a piece of art. The cover itself is brilliant graphic design. So simple yet striking. That font type. The very fact that they were smart enough to call it 'Historical and Technical Briefing' is just boss.
Games these days fucking blow compared to what they were around the time of Homeworld / Half-Life / Etc. Those were the glory days of PC gaming. Before that time (Pre-1995ish) PC games were mostly shareware and didn't have that level of production. Although they still came in awesome boxes and had massive instruction manuals. Then everything post 2000-ish it just turned to shit so fast. We really only have the internet to blame for that though. Publishers back then cared about the box/instructions because you could only buy games in stores.
Just spent $100 to buy a brand new sealed and mint of Homeworld. Couldn't resist. Gonna do a stereotypical but epic unboxing video and make sure to post it for you guys.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
until I read that "persistent multiplayer, social strategy game" 
