Talk:Homeworld

Homeworld Remastered

At the end of the section, the comment 'and from "HW1 Remastered" several game mechanic aspects of the original engine, for instance the ballistic simulation[32]'

The specified source is just an user review of the game on the gearbox forums, thus I don't believe it to be a proper indications of the how the game mechanics actually works (only the developers know that). I think this sentence should be removed. 114.134.172.66 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Blackbird Interactive

All the extant coverage associates the dev with the series. Everything said here can be said within the series section of the parent article: Homeworld czar 20:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

hmm, I have mixed feelings here. On one hand the Homeworld article is already too long and on the other hand I think Blackbird Interactive is as concept noteable enough for having a own article. Way around, I would propose extending the too short Blackbird article and shift some of the Homeworld content to the Blackbird article. Shaddim (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion didn't gop anywhere, so I'm removing the tags, but wouldn't it make more sense, if you were going to merge, to merge the developer with the only game they have made- Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, not a game that some of them worked on for a different company 17 years prior? --PresN 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homeworld/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 23:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. But is it? Find out on the next episode of Homeworld Ball Z. Cognissonance (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• "The music of the game was composed by composer" — Minimize repetition: "The music was written by composer".
• "which became considered the defining theme of the game" — Improve prose: "considered the defining theme of the game".
• "which was also highly reviewed" — Minimize repetition: "which was also critically panned".

Gameplay

• "In multiplayer games, the objective is typically to destroy the enemy motherships, though other battle-oriented victory conditions are available" — Clarify: "In multiplayer games, the objective is typically to destroy the enemy motherships, though in Homeworld other battle-oriented victory conditions are available".

Plot

• "along with a stone map marking Kharak along with another planet across the galaxy" — Minimize repetition: "along with a stone map marking Kharak with another planet across the galaxy".

Development

• "In addition to the original music compositions for the game" — Simplify: "In addition to the original music compositions".
• "for the scene in the game" — Minimize repetition: "on behalf of the scene in the game".
• "digital album bundled with the" — Minimize repetition: "digital album with the".

Reception

• "noting that it was so good" can be less informal with "noting that it was beneficial".
• "Levine claimed it was "on par with the graphics" and praised how the sound" — Clarify: "Levine claimed it was "on par with the graphics", praising how the sound".

Remaster

• "who confirmed in 2007 that they has acquired the rights to the series" — Fix grammar: "which confirmed in 2007 that it had acquired the rights to the series".

Overall

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Next episode of Homeworld Ball Z: Yes, it is good.

   Pass/Fail:

   @PresN: Cognissonance (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Content removal without consent

On edits [1] and [2] both edits don't follow the recommended good article structure of having a history chapter with sub-sections: "History: discuss development, release, impact, critical response, etc. This can easily be several different sections." Even worse sourced content was removed and independent external reception was removed (e.g. on game mechanics problems) and exchanged against the companies marketing position. Therefore I concur the following edits, and the even worse unfounded reverts of corrections and balancings. cheers Shaddim (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines is a guideline, not a flat rule. It states at the top that it is subject to common sense exceptions. A large number of good articles, even ones with remasters/post-release content, have that post-release content in a section at the end instead of merging it with development into a "history" section.
• That said, an argument could be made for merging the "remaster" section into development (combined as "history" if you must), and moving it's reception into the main reception section. I thought about it, but didn't do it, as I felt it was much more readable to keep all of the information about the remaster together rather than split apart across multiple sections.
• Subsections with a single paragraph are just plain bad formatting. There is no reason why a 6-paragraph section would need 4 subsections. I don't have an issue with subsections, or think that a flat hierarchy is better; I do think that you don't need a subsection header for every paragraph.
• Subsection titles like "Homeworld's awards and commercial success" and "Gearbox' Remastered Homeworld" are awkward, wordy, and have bad grammar
• Single-sentence paragraphs are even worse writing than single-paragraph sections, and you have a ton of them
• I don't really see the point of splitting out half of the legacy section into a short subsection of reception; how the game sold and what awards it won the following year are part of its legacy
• It's hard to tell from your edit what details you added that got reverted; it looks like it's just the GOG release, another source on the changes between the original and remaster, and a bit about why Cataclysm wasn't included? The GOG bit is just another storefront; we talk about platforms, not individual stores. The other two parts are good additions, and should be added in, though some of the sources don't appear to be RSs.
• Yes, I rewrote the entire article in one go, and nominated it for GAN. It sat unchanged for 3 weeks and got promoted, a tacit and explicit agreement that the new version was better (which does not mean that there is not room for improvement, nor that everything about the old version was worse or bad). My problem with your edit is not that it's in one big chunk; it's that you coupled a large-scale structure revamp which I think is worse than the present one with a lot of poor writing/formatting.
• I don't appreciate passive-aggressive comments like "I expect an in detail discussion about every aspect or I will consider revert". If we disagree about something, then we discuss it- WP:BRD. If we can't agree, then we ask other people into the discussion. Would you like me to start a thread at WT:VG? --PresN 21:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't appreciate overly aggressive and fast reverts where a discussion & acceptance of feedback from others would be appropriate response. I did not revert your massive push, but should have, it seems. Also, your arguing about ignoring the guidelines is quite unconvincing, I hope you rethink this position. In general, your "nomination" focus impress me not in the slightest, way around I urge you to: accept chamges from other others & write with them together as it is our mission. Your version is not the final & best possible form of this article, I can assure you. Shaddim (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • details: "we talk about platforms, not individual stores" first, give policies for such statements, second the topic of the used storefront in context with the poclies like DRM and previous announcments was indeed a heavily discussed topic and can therefore be added as otable history parts. Shaddim (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • General critic on your version: no reception chapter, no clear history, no clear separation between classical and remaster (a proper history would fix that), so quite confusing for an reader not into the topic. This was my main motivation for restructruing, I point which still stands. (+ some content removal which was debatable/unnecessary) Shaddim (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homeworld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspyr.com%2Fnews%2Fshow%3Farticle%3DHomeworld%2BRemastered%2BCollection%2BGets%2BMac%2BApp%2BStore%2BRelease&date=2017-03-06 to https://www.aspyr.com/news/show?article=Homeworld+Remastered+Collection+Gets+Mac+App+Store+Release

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Image placement

@FleetCommand: What? If the image is on the left, then the text is squished between the two boxes at lower resolution- as in, the first line is "In 2004, Relic Entertainment was", the second is "bought by THQ, which confirmed in", etc. That's why you're not supposed to put images/templates on both sides of a bit of text, but leave some room if you're going to alternate. I'm not "harass[ing you] with stating the obvious", I'm just saying that there's a problem with moving the image to the left. I don't know what problem you saw with leaving it on the right, but to put it on the left you'd have to move it down to at least the "Released digitally" paragraph (paragraph 2). --PresN 13:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: Now, you are talking! Couldn't you just include the reason with the revert?

I saw what you call "squished text". I love it.

Stacked image plus table collides with the References section. But I guess we can add {{Clear}} if the squishing problem is too serious for your taste.

Alright. I made an extra revert, so to be fair, it is your call now. Do which you want. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

PC Gamer sources

• Bates, Jason (October 1998). "SCOOP!; Homeworld". PC Gamer US. 5 (10): 44, 45. - 1, 2
• "Generation Next; Relic Entertainment". PC Gamer US. 5 (10): 152, 153. October 1998. - 1, 2

Not sure if these contain any new information, but I thought I'd drop them here regardless, just in case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: They did, actually; thank you very much! --PresN 02:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Great to hear! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

PC Player sales analysis

• https://archive.org/stream/PC-Player-German-Magazine-2000-04/PC_Player_2000_04#page/n27

• @JimmyBlackwing: I'm assuming that those chart positions are on German sales charts, right, not global? Do you know? --PresN 03:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hey! Yeah, that's Germany—there were no global sales charts in existence back then. There are some German sales figures listed in the article as well, mixed into the text body. I was actually just dropping the link here to remind myself that it exists, since I have reliable methods for translating German magazine PDFs and can harvest the valuable data from the piece myself and insert it into this article. If you'd like to add some of this stuff first, I'd caution that Leser Charts refers to player opinion-polling at PC Player, while Chart-Erfolge refers to Germany's sales charts. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• @JimmyBlackwing: Cool, that's what I thought. I manually translated the chart portions, so I got that it was reader charts and sales charts; I have an online image->text OCR site I used the other day for a Polish magazine that worked pretty well when combined with google translate (which is a far cry from a few years back when I tried to translate a Japanese book scan and I had to download a demo version and it took hours to manually correct) but it hiccups sometimes with columns so I didn't run it through yet. --PresN 05:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Plot mistakes

Hey there. I've a spotted a couple of plot mistakes that I am going to fix. I'm just leaving a record here.

forgotten 4,000-year-old treaty between the interstellar Taiidan Empire and the Kushan

"Forgotten" is problematic here; clearly, the Taiidan hadn't forgotten it.

The nascent Kushan fleet sets out for Hiigara, intent on reclaiming their ancient homeworld, but not before decimating the fleet responsible for Kharak genocide.

Actually, they destroy two fleets: One from the Turanic Raiders and the other from Taiidan.

Okay, here is the big one:

Along the way, they encounter several independent, mercenary, and pirate enemies in addition to Taiidan outposts.

That's what I'd call exaggeration getting out of hand. They encounter no independent or mercenary enemies, and only one pirate faction in the Kadesh nebula region. In fact, there is only one other enemy faction throughout the game: The Turanic Raiders, whose involvement in the game ends prior to this problematic statement.

- I wouldn't call the kadesh a pirates or mercenaries, but I do agree that there could have been a wider range/distribution of other races encountered on the originial journey. Alas, that is history & I suspect a dose of reality & fixed time scales was applied to the original devepers dreams.

During the final battle, the emperor manages to knock S'jet into a coma

"S'jet" is a clan name; a large number Kushans bear the S'jet family name. The individual that goes into coma is "Karan".

37.254.93.95 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

I love the fact that I can still play the original game after 20 years on Win 10. But I think the most important lesson to all games makers is: Keep the UI focused and simple and your fanbase will live on. (IMO Homeworld2 & the first remake were not as good as the original) This is a classic that should be remembered with the same reverence as the original Elite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.132.230 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

• Games Weekly interview (could be useless but I didn't see it in the article)
• GameSpot France Interview part 1
• GameSpot France Interview part 2
• GameSpot France Interview part 3

• Oooh, very nice; I was expecting the same questions/answers but in French, but Garden had a few anecdotes I hadn't read anywhere else. Thanks! --PresN 02:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Glad these ended up being helpful! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Next Generation review

If anyone wants to try to figure out the best way to use the review for this game, a scan of the magazine can be found here: https://archive.org/details/NextGen60Dec1999 BOZ (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Design Inspiration

Just revisited this page for the first time in admittedly quite a few years and noticed there is no longer any reference to Peter Elson, Chris Foss et al who were the artists whose works were a major influence on the game's design. The wiki page for Peter Elson refers to this specifically and there is also reference to it elsewhere on the web (https://www.gog.com/news/interview_homeworlds_rob_cunningham is an interview with the original game's art director, for one). Just wondering why mention of this was removed; Adagio for Strings and Homeworld (The Ladder) are mentioned prominently, why not the visual design work as well? 2A02:C7D:7E21:8E00:1CF0:1FDA:FB94:4BC2 (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, it's because the old statement (and most of the article around it) wasn't referenced, and it never came up in the sources I found. That's a great interview, though, I've added a bit about the design influences and why the mothership is so tall. Thanks! --PresN 03:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reviews

• Backstab #19

207.229.139.154 (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References