Homeworld 1 & 2 Remastered!

Erm- it means the game wasn't as optimized as well as it should have been/ was too big in scope for current hardware.

Additionally, from my observations, you and MrTSBC are one and the same, so... I don't know where that last bit came from.

Yes. That's not the game developer's fault, that's a problem with hardware being not advanced enough. One of the main reasons why we have so many **** games that could have been is because software developers deliberately try to keep within the scope of (then) today's hardware, which severely limits gameplay later down the road when those things appear.

which is free to be interpreted by people as either a good or a bad thing

personally i love games like that. (it wasn't badly optimised by the way Supcom code is refined gold. you couldn't make it any more zippy.)

Fun fact: Psychonauts didn't sell too well either.

that's hardly surprising
also hardly fun

then why the absolute **** do you like homeworld?! Homeworld is the PRIME example of a game held back by the developer's desire to keep within today's technology.

Homeworld has 3 games in its universe. I wouldn't call it unsecussful. More wasn't done with it because Relic went on to make Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 1 and 2. It was known among a few that Relic had always planned to return to Homeworld but didn't get a chance once THQ went bankrupt.

The whole space genre is unpopular and pretty niche. Even in TV and movies scifi Rarely does well. That's not fault of the game or devolopers. I can only speculation why scifi, some people say it's nerds amount pop culture, others argue it's only popular among men as women do not enjoy sciences as much. Who knows.

Keep in mind the first TA game was only marginally successful. And it was the only game in the series that did well. It wasn't until years later that SC was made, and it didn't do great either.

And was pressing space bar really that hard in Homeworld for you? I rarely used the different degrees of zoom in SC anyway. How is it really that much different from a wheel mouse? the ui was fine, never had issues with it. Controls could have been a bit better, I'll give you that.

E-excuse me?

Are you like a hipster in real life or something? o-o

The last homeworld game came out in 2003, that's a solid 12 years of nothing. Also, it is absolutely the developer's fault if the game fails because it was made in an unpopular genre, that's... kind of what market research is for, someone didn't do their job right. I also am aware that TA was only marginally successful, however, the money says that two different companies have decided it was successful enough to build a spiritual successor.

No, I just don't like psychonauts, so I'm not surprised it didn't do well.

don't say that you're insulting hipsters

The niche-ness of a game or genre is irrelevant to determining whether it's a good game or not. The lack of further sequels or other games in the market is irrelevant to determining whether it's a good game or not. The fact that it didn't make as much money as the latest Call Of Duty is likewise irrelevant. Targeting unpopular genres isn't a mistake; that's like saying PA shouldn't exist because RTSs are woefully under-played compared to other genres. Homeworld didn't 'fail', and the people *did* like it; the IP was simply not continued just like TA and many others. It was also far more financially successful and popular than PA, so all your arguments in regards to popularity and sales of Homeworld apply even moreso to PA. There was 10 years between Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander, so "a solid 12 years of nothing" isn't exactly saying much on it's own. It's also incorrect, given games such as Nexus: The Jupiter incident are quite similar to Homeworld 2 and came out in 2004 (before Supreme Commander).

Your main assertion though seems to be that a game without land-based terrain can't be a good RTS; the fact is that by pretty much every measurable metric, Homeworld was a success and critically acclaimed. Land-based terrain is only one gameplay mechanic possible in a massive list of RTS mechanics.

Nexus was a good game, though. It was NOTHING like homeworld, nor was it really an RTS. Nexus 2's kickstarter campaign was the disappointment of the year for me :\.

Homeworld was not successful as you are asserting, if it was, there'd have been a homeworld 3, there's no reason to discontinue a successful series unless you can't afford it, which is an indicator that the series wasn't successful.

And considering that the number 5 best selling PC game of all time is an RTS, I really don't see how the genre is somehow "underplayed". Space-rts games are underplayed, and for a damn good reason.

RTS is definitely an underlayed genre, for example they are almost completely non existent in the console market, which is a huge chunk of players.

I do not want console players playing these games, they can pollute their own platform, and you still haven't addressed that the 5th best selling PC game of all time is an RTS.

That's called a fluke. =)

starcraft wasn't a fluke, it was a genuine success and a decent game, even if TA was better

What I mean by fluke is an odd, sudden, change, an anomoly. I mean, you said TA was better... Maybe it was better, but then why did Starcraft do so well?

Reminds me of how everyone played Skymin, people I'd never expect to play an rpg.

starcraft did so well because it was well executed, regardless of how good the plan was. I mean, the concept of starcraft's fast competitive gameplay may not be my favorite idea ever, but blizzard pulled it off exactly like they originally planned.