Homeworld: Cataclysm
Despite an incredibly awkward name, there's a lot to celebrate about the Homeworld extension product Cataclysm.  Although the online press seems to have positioned this product as an add-on pack, from what I've read it's more like Homeworld 1.5, especially in light of new features such as fog of war, dozens of new ships, and 17 new missions (more than in the original game).  Furthermore, it sounds like the developers at Barking Dog are moving in the right direction with the design, which is to de-emphasize micromanagement in favor or more tactical action.  The fog of war will no doubt help elevate the intensity of battles.

Although the changes to the gameplay are all well and good, I am excited that the game will not require you to own Homeworld.  Far too often we see add-on packs require the original game when in fact they would likely sell much better as a stand-alone product. (For instance, I'd argue Opposing Force would have sold even better if it didn't require Half-Life to be installed on your hard drive).  In addition, because of Homeworld's less-than-blockbuster sales thus far, making Cataclysm a stand-alone product opens up the game's universe to a whole new audience.  I just hope everyone will soon pick up on the fact that this is a new birth for the universe, and not just an add-on pack with a couple new missions and a handful of differently colored ships.   

The 3D Engine Wars
Those who ardently follow the online news pages about 3D game development no doubt witnessed a bit of inter-company sparring last week when Jason Hall of LithTech Inc., developers of LithTech, went on the offensive against other 3D engine developers including Epic Games.  Despite the arguments on both sides of the debate, I think there is an important issue to be considered: Can a game company make good games and also license an engine to third parties?

Hall contends that the "customer always has to come first," and believes that his company's LithTech will trump other technologies in the long run because LithTech Inc.  is solely devoted to creating technology. (Of course one could likely argue that Monolith is now only licensing technology because their attempts at designing LithTech games failed…anyone remember Shogo?)  But a few bad games aside, I think Hall has a point, insofar as at least striving to solely focus on licensing.  There's no question that other game engines (Quake 3 and Unreal) were primarily designed with a specific game in mind, even if they are quite extendible. But the lingering question is this: can you make a good 3D engine for gaming if you aren't building a game yourself?  It's a fine line to balance, and if Monolith turns too much into a technology company instead of a game company, it runs to risk of turning into Motion Factory, the company that promised a ubiquitous 3D engine for games and ended up with titles like Prince of Persia 3D using its technology.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, there's no question Epic Games knows what kind of engine is needed to build a good action game within specific limitations..

With the release of the PlayStation 2 this year and the concept of middleware becoming more important (i.e. developers using existing engines to build games), the technology licensing game is going to become a very hot battleground.  Nevertheless, it's unfortunate that these 3D companies have to get into public attacks on each other when in truth no one who has licensed LithTech or Unreal has produced a blockbuster game yet. (To be fair, this will likely change quite soon when the Unreal-powered Deus Ex arrives).

  Next, I dig into why there are so few good game demos these days >>>

Back To Top

© Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 GMK Studios
Feedback? Send us your comments: feedback@gameslice.com
GameSlice is a Member of the UGO Network