It thrives on its storytelling and characterization. In terms of those things, it outdoes nearly everything before it, if not simply everything. (which helps to explain why it got first on Empire I guess) I'd put it up there with some of the better television shows and movies as well, in terms of how much of an impact the entire narrative had on me. If you like the idea of playing a third person stealth-action game that kind of reminds me of dark souls (in that it's punishing on higher difficulty settings, and manages to offer deep gameplay with a concise amount of game mechanics) on top of that, then I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Whether that means you'll come to love it as much as other people have, that's anyone's guess.
Empire Online: 100 Greatest Video Games of all time
- Thread starter spronk
- Start date
How is it a religious opinion that games should be beatable? Unless you're the computer in War Games and need a philosophical lesson on why nuclear war is bad. Difficult, sure, make the game as hard as you like so long as it is actually winnable. Game design is actually the art of inconveniencing a person in a specific way. No one enjoys a game state that is actually unwinnable, unless you think people enjoy bugs that simply stop a game from functioning. Because they have the same effect as poor design. Your anecdotal experience not withstanding, it was an issue that a lot of people experienced.
Again, except for the still questionable multiplayer, all these issues were fixed in Cataclysm while retaining everything good about Homeworld's controls and mechanics.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
It's really good, probably not #1 of all time good. But I think for anyone who's played it unless stealth mechanics are a COMPLETE turnoff it would end up in every rational top 25.
It would probably crack my top 10 personally.
spronk
FPS noob
- 22,626
- 25,698
i'm mostly sad no one went on an epic rant on how everquest or ultima online missing from the list is a crime against humanity and maybe a vow to hunt down the readers of empire and PVP them irl
metacritic rankings are also an odd duck, not sure how to sort by user rating this is just critics rating. like what da fuq is out of the park baseball
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/gam.../all?sort=desc
metacritic rankings are also an odd duck, not sure how to sort by user rating this is just critics rating. like what da fuq is out of the park baseball
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/gam.../all?sort=desc
Quineloe
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,978
- 4,463
It is beatable, you can just reach an unwinnable state.
Do you think Wing Commander fails as a game because you can get put into the Loser's campaign?
Oh please, TLOU is horribly outdated stealth mechanics coupled with a morally very questionable main character and it only thrives because of the massive bonding with a cute girl. It also has nothing to do with Dark Souls, the combat isn't anywhere near that level, nor is it as punishing as you just reload the checkpoint right before the action scene.
"Oh please, TLOU is horribly outdated stealth mechanics"
The stealth mechanics aren't the only part of the gameplay. It is that, mixed with the great transitions into gumplay/melee; and a crafting system that actually adds something to the game, which is backed up by a great scavenging system. Plus, you have to take into account that it's attempting to tell a grounded story. Perhaps not strictly realistic, but at the very least somewhat believable compared to what else is out there. That same sensibility is mirrored by the gameplay. They went as far with it as is allowed by the world they are trying to create. I'd even argue they went a bit too far (nail bombs and flame thrower), but you have to draw a line somewhere. Calling it outdated in that sense seems a bit arbitrary to me, seeing as I doubt you'd be able to point me to many games that offer the same kind of gameplay.
"coupled with a morally very questionable main character"
That's kind of the entire point.
" and it only thrives because of the massive bonding with a cute girl."
Again, kind of the point. It's the fact that they managed to convey the bond that develops over the course of the game between the two protagonists so well to the player that makes the game's narrative as good as it is.
As for "cute girl", I won't question your interest in fictional pre-teen girls here today, but you're kind of sweeping away the great characterization by implying that that is her only redeemable quality.
And "only thrives"? The multiplayer was very well received, and is regarded as one of the best and most original multiplayer experiences by the people who play it, so there must be SOMETHING to the gameplay that you're missing.
"the combat isn't anywhere near that level"
Again, I'm comparing it with the fact that it does a lot with a very limited scope in terms of amount of mechanics.
"nor is it as punishing as you just reload the checkpoint right before the action scene."
I guess you haven't played grounded yet. You can easily lose half an hour of progress in some instances, die in maximum two hits, and have VERY few supplies. It is an extremely punishing difficulty mode.
The stealth mechanics aren't the only part of the gameplay. It is that, mixed with the great transitions into gumplay/melee; and a crafting system that actually adds something to the game, which is backed up by a great scavenging system. Plus, you have to take into account that it's attempting to tell a grounded story. Perhaps not strictly realistic, but at the very least somewhat believable compared to what else is out there. That same sensibility is mirrored by the gameplay. They went as far with it as is allowed by the world they are trying to create. I'd even argue they went a bit too far (nail bombs and flame thrower), but you have to draw a line somewhere. Calling it outdated in that sense seems a bit arbitrary to me, seeing as I doubt you'd be able to point me to many games that offer the same kind of gameplay.
"coupled with a morally very questionable main character"
That's kind of the entire point.
" and it only thrives because of the massive bonding with a cute girl."
Again, kind of the point. It's the fact that they managed to convey the bond that develops over the course of the game between the two protagonists so well to the player that makes the game's narrative as good as it is.
As for "cute girl", I won't question your interest in fictional pre-teen girls here today, but you're kind of sweeping away the great characterization by implying that that is her only redeemable quality.
And "only thrives"? The multiplayer was very well received, and is regarded as one of the best and most original multiplayer experiences by the people who play it, so there must be SOMETHING to the gameplay that you're missing.
"the combat isn't anywhere near that level"
Again, I'm comparing it with the fact that it does a lot with a very limited scope in terms of amount of mechanics.
"nor is it as punishing as you just reload the checkpoint right before the action scene."
I guess you haven't played grounded yet. You can easily lose half an hour of progress in some instances, die in maximum two hits, and have VERY few supplies. It is an extremely punishing difficulty mode.
That is a different thing altogether, you're still playing the game, just a different fork. The fact that as you play along you can reach an unwinnable state and not know is poor design. Period. If I have reached a point where I cannot beat the game, I expect a "Game Over" screen. The game has ended at that point. Investing dozens more hours before the player can realize that is shitty design. The fact that it punished the weakest players is also a shitty design decision. Aside from the shitty multiplayer and technical issues that were eventually patched, this was the number one complaint about the game at the time.
Vorph
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 11,004
- 4,745
Morally questionable? Joel did exactly what needed to be done. With a goddamn flamethrower, in my game.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,040
- 19,500
I'd imagine it's almost impossible for a game to tell - to know would require that the AI knows the game on a level so far beyond you that nothing you can do can have any effect on it's victory. I don't know of any game beyond noughts and crosses where this is the case with pc hardware.
I'd also think it'd be pretty annoying too - imagine you are 10 minutes through a game of starcraft 2 and then the computer decides it's in an undefeatable position and you suddenly get a 'game over' popup.
In Homeworld you take the ships you have from a level forward each time. You don't build from scratch each level. So it is more like you make a minor mistake first level of Stacraft and 30 levels later through the entire Terran/Zerg/Protoss campaign you suddenly can't finish. And they limit resources on each level so you can't just harvest a bunch and build more ships.
They already scale the levels to be harder if you have MORE ships, they could have scaled them to be easier if you had LESS ships. It is a simple design patch. There is, in fact, a fan patch that does this. Simple fix. Not doing it is poor design. Homeworld is a great game despite the flaws, the controls and mechanics are stellar. But it has real design flaws.
They already scale the levels to be harder if you have MORE ships, they could have scaled them to be easier if you had LESS ships. It is a simple design patch. There is, in fact, a fan patch that does this. Simple fix. Not doing it is poor design. Homeworld is a great game despite the flaws, the controls and mechanics are stellar. But it has real design flaws.
Quineloe
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,978
- 4,463
I'm pretty sure your unwinnable Homeworld scenario ends with your Mothership blowing up, resulting in a game over screen. We're not talking about being stuck here on melee island, because for some reason LucasArts gave Guybrush the ability to destroy items.
I don't understand this. Aren't by definition the games easier if you have less ships when they are harder when you have more ships?
I'm at a complete loss what you are describing here, because I absolutely don't remember Homeworld as a particularly hard game.
And when you reload your save, it'll happen again. And again. And again. If it is POSSIBLE to be unable to start a level and then not be able to beat it, that is poor design. I'd rather a have a bug that was like that, at least a bug is clear error and not a retarded decision.
Quineloe
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,978
- 4,463
If it's really as bad as you say, then you're right. I didn't internet in 99, none of my friends ran into that scenario either.
let's see what Gearbox does here with the HD remakes.
I hadn't even heard they were doing a remastered edition. I imagine with all the work basically done for them via fan patches, it'll be fixed.
I'd love a new RTS based on the Homeworld contols though. Hopefully the remastering isn't just a money grab and they actually improve the game.
Elerion
N00b
- 735
- 46
It would have been as easy as deciding a baseline fleet size for each level, and if you are well below that then giving you a pop-up at the start of the mission informing you that winning will be hard, and giving you an option to A) Restart from a previous level, B) Have your fleet reinforced to the baseline and C) Proceed anyway.
Sure, it would break immersion, but so does trying 10 times to beat the level and then having to reload a previous level.
Sure, it would break immersion, but so does trying 10 times to beat the level and then having to reload a previous level.
I have to disagree on this one, you should just go back to an earlier save and do better. Nevermind that you're railing against one of the core concepts of the game.
- 7,921
- 12,571
Man I see people fail at EQ daily, and I'm playing classic in 2014.
Should I tell them all to uninstall?