Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak

 PC
User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 233 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 167 out of 233
  2. Mixed: 44 out of 233
  3. Negative: 22 out of 233

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. haiontop
    Feb 15, 2016
    7
    If you are a vet, the intro will make you wet.
    The voice acting is true to the original.
    Yet the music in later chapters is not as epic. The final mission is unimpressive, compare to the Homeworld 2's. Enjoyment trail as the game progress, so I was hoping that the end would be something a memorable. Combat is lacking depth, battlecruiser groups counter everything. No sub-module    If you are a vet, the intro will make you wet.
    The voice acting is true to the original.
    Yet the music in later chapters is not as epic.

    The final mission is unimpressive, compare to the Homeworld 2's.
    Enjoyment trail as the game progress, so I was hoping that the end would be something a memorable.

    Combat is lacking depth, battlecruiser groups counter everything.
    No sub-module to destroy, with guns that spin really fast and hit hard with blast radius render smaller-fast-mover-craft-group useless.
    In Homeworld 2, I remember using bombers to disable battlecruiser's engine, missle silo, then position away from main gun.
    Here there's nothing such maneuver, just amass group of 4 battlecruisers to win.

    Overall, if I give Homeworld 2 a 10 then this only deserve 7.
    Still, I'm glad there has been attempts to revive this great franchise.
    But please, if you can't give us hyperspace, then let us see some new innovative mechanic.
    Maybe the sequel could use some camouflage, boarders, sub-modules, line formation that snap on to dunes, etc.    … Expand
  2. Athena324
    Apr 19, 2016
    6
    Campaign is solid but other than that, I feel like I'm done. Combat feels like it is lacking in depth, units are a little boring. I was hoping for more. Just feels unfinished to me.
  3. Renovatia
    Mar 9, 2017
    5
    Hey guys, I have just obtained the game and played through the campaign twice already. Yes, it's that short. If you're a singleplayer minded person, then the full asking price for this game is not worth it I think. The first play-through I had no clue what I was doing but I beat the game at "normal" difficulty in about 8 hours. The second time I knew exactly the pro's and cons of the unitsHey guys, I have just obtained the game and played through the campaign twice already. Yes, it's that short. If you're a singleplayer minded person, then the full asking price for this game is not worth it I think. The first play-through I had no clue what I was doing but I beat the game at "normal" difficulty in about 8 hours. The second time I knew exactly the pro's and cons of the units and how to use them thanks to pro-commentary on YouTube. So I played it again, and again it took me 8 hours, but only because I wanted to exploit every little detail. I could have halved the time if I wanted to! And so can you.

    Next is the multiplayer: it's almost non-existent. What can I say. I don't care, but if you care then now you know.

    The AI is non-existent either. During the campaign everything is scripted, the AI doesn't even mine for resources. In singleplayer skirmishes against the AI, the AI does a standard job of attacking you early, but as soon as you settle down a bit you're in full control. At one point I decided just to spy on the AI, and it didn't even bother to exploit it's third resource location (out of 3 available). It was just sitting there to be finished off.

    Without giving spoilers away, I am going to demonstrate the simplicity of DoK's tactical setup:
    * Light Vehicles are fast and are made to hit ranged vehicles as Light Vehicles are too fast to be hit by them
    * Armored vehicles are excellent against Light vehicles
    * Ranged vehicles are good against Armored vehicles

    What do you notice? It's a straightforward rock-paper-scissor approach. Once you know this, the campaign even on hard difficulty will be a breeze.

    Then, you have additional cruiser based vehicles (expensive hard-hitters) but it's all rinse and repeat. Finally you have some flying gear, they are all meant to be hard hitters, just watch out for anti-air as they have no meaningful defenses. Major oddity: support cruisers (non-combat vehicles) have the most vicious anti-air capability of them all after an upgrade. Bit crazy right?

    DLC's are sold for "nominal" fees which offer nothing substantially. For example the DLC Soban "race" is nothing more but a copy of an existing race with a few minor modifications and the obvious graphic changes.

    The game is beautiful yet doesn't require much hardware (my I7 3820 with a GTX680 ran it on 1900 x 1200 like a boss on highest settings). But I suspect the producer planned to exploit the love for the old space based Homeworld game and made the price of DoK way too high (right now over $40 USD without any goodies).
    DoK is the prequel before Homeworld. Also, realize that DoK is a desert-based RTS, not space-based like the Homeworld series.

    The last good thing I have to say, is that in the campaign, the assets you have created are carried over. It's pretty unique. Also the mobile main base system (with extremely heavy defenses) is also fairly unique. But now a negative again: in my second play-through (when I knew what I was doing) I spent a lot of time making some of my units veterans (they can be promoted 5 times). But at one point those precious units weren't carried over! Another bug to note and another tiny disappointment to deal with.

    In short, the positives and the negatives:

    + Nice graphics, also when zoomed in
    + Offers good tactical overview (press space bar for full screen map with all functionalities)
    + Good ideas such as carry-over of units and resources and mobile main platform
    + Excellent performance
    + Very (very!) nice back chatter such as status updates, battle warnings etc.
    + Decent voice acting besides the back chatter
    + It's not one of those frantic micromanage (*click* *click* *click* *click*) RTS games.
    + Base units have a clear and distinct purpose
    + Tactical aspect of height if terrain really matters.

    +/- Advanced units pack a punch, but aren't that specialized. With just a bit of support they can hold their own in many situations.

    - Very short campaign
    - Non-intelligent campaign (every detail is scripted)
    - Almost non-existent multiplayer
    - Bad community management (reported bugs not fixed, no passion for this game)
    - Basic AI
    - Limited tactical possibilities
    - Relative high price all things considered
    - Non-inspiring DLCs
    - Long loading times of missions
    - No modding community

    5/10 because it needs a few notches extra to be worth the price. Thank you for reading all of this.    … Expand
  4. Solsixxa
    Jan 24, 2016
    7
    This review was super hard to me to write. Only because i LOVE the Homeworld universe!. i even named my dog S´jet.
    Well, fineshed the game today, and wow its was mixed feeling all the way. graphics it beautiful. just as expected. my the story was... not horrible. but they could have done some much more.
    Why couldn't we see the Hyperspace core discovered? Seeing all clans unite in peace    This review was super hard to me to write. Only because i LOVE the Homeworld universe!. i even named my dog S´jet.
    Well, fineshed the game today, and wow its was mixed feeling all the way. graphics it beautiful. just as expected. my the story was... not horrible. but they could have done some much more.
    Why couldn't we see the Hyperspace core discovered? Seeing all clans unite in peace to find there real home.

    Game was SO easy!, i completed in hard, and had 5000 RU´s to spare. This game reminds me of the 90´game Dark Reign? anybody remember that?

    Well, if you are a hardcore homeworld fan get it. If you love the story of homeworld, and would like to se more, you will get disappointed. game seams rushed :(    … Expand
  5. Midnightmare
    Jan 26, 2016
    7
    Not a bad game.....but not as epic as everyone makes it. That sense of epicness you had in homeworld just isent there...I was kinda hoping for a strategy game not just another tactics game....And it kinda feels like a pretty standard paper rock scissor game...A decent one...just feels like something i played a billion times before.

    That being said! I dont care for campaigns....And i    Not a bad game.....but not as epic as everyone makes it. That sense of epicness you had in homeworld just isent there...I was kinda hoping for a strategy game not just another tactics game....And it kinda feels like a pretty standard paper rock scissor game...A decent one...just feels like something i played a billion times before.

    That being said! I dont care for campaigns....And i guess this game is kinda made for those people.    … Expand
  6. Hseeker25
    Jan 23, 2016
    7
    Its bland and feels unfinished, no big ass vehicle in the end, just a brick with two turrets that felt realy underwhelming, its lacking in alot of aspects Its a okay game dont get me wrong but idk it felt realy empty.

    It could have been a good game if they added way more, now it feels a medioric year 2000 game.
  7. hongkong_tea
    Mar 2, 2016
    6
    I expected a lot more from these people. Being a fan of HW, Relic and RTS games all I would say is that it's a good game, but not what it should have been.
    The original HW was flawless in so many ways, this game is just average in everything.
  8. Kiseki
    Feb 8, 2016
    7
    The game is very crude and the unit design isnt well thought out from a balance perspective. Its very small scaled compared to the original homeworld games. The progression into higher tiered units and the higher tier units themselves dont feel well thought out. But the animations are quite alright. Its not flashy or anything, just ok.

    The game retains the unique features of a homeworld    The game is very crude and the unit design isnt well thought out from a balance perspective. Its very small scaled compared to the original homeworld games. The progression into higher tiered units and the higher tier units themselves dont feel well thought out. But the animations are quite alright. Its not flashy or anything, just ok.

    The game retains the unique features of a homeworld game:

    1. You have a mothership carrier that serve as mobile base, builds units and have armaments of itself. The mothership in this game have level up points, you acquire them by gathering artifacts and you can allocate points to different systems - armor, repair, weapon damage, and range. A good system.
    2. All your remaining units and resources gets carried to the next mission. It makes the game flow better and the scenario more real. Unfortuantely the scenario themselves arent that well made.
    3. User interface and controls, you have a menu on the right to control your mothership to build units and research technologies and upgrades. The move command shows you a radius of movement. You can specify a number of commands which include attack a specified group of units. Unfortunately it does not feel good on planet surface as opposed to space. Homeworld was really special because you play space battle in a 3d environment, you specify 3 co-ordinates to move units instead of 2 co-ordinates on a 2d map.

    General features:

    1. Non-unique is all units in the game have some special abilities you can activate, I quite like them.
    2. Pace combat is slower than your average RTS, difficulty is easy to average. You can mine more resources than you know what to do with. You carry over resources from last mission and each mission they made sure there are enough resources for you to win. So your carry over resources stacks up over a number of mission and you just get richer and richer and can pump out more and more units.

    Problems I have with the game.

    1. User interface and control system. But the original homeworld 2 looked and felt better probably because because its set in space. It made sense in a 3d environment, and the textures also fit in better. you dont just specify where on a plain you want to move, you also select which verticalOn the surface, its nothing but a shell that offers a different visual display.

    2. Remaining units from each mission is carried forward to the next mission. It gives the game a good follow.

    My problems with the game:

    1. AI is really really bad, in skirmish you cannot play a game with uneven teams. e.g. have to be 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3. Only a few maps to play with as well. There are not many people who play the game so multiplayer you probably be hard pressed to find people to play with.

    2. Too many chit-chat in game, the script talks almost none-stop sometimes. But this can be good too depending on the person. It gives the game more realism with things happening real-time. no timeout.

    3. Some units fire like rail guns shoot through obstacles sometimes. sitting on top of a cliff and animation of the laser just shoots through ground. the ground takes no damage of course.

    4. Story was a bit weak. Ending was wrapped up too quickly and didnt have a lot. Didnt really feel a climax and finale.

    5. Units feels are too simple and not well thought out and designed.

    If this game is not homeworld I would probably only give it a 6. But been homeworld and with all its good and unique features 6 does not do justice. I think the crude feel of the game comes mainly been a small budget title and an old game running out of ideas.

    Having said all that I feel its still a worthwhile game to buy and support. Homeworld and its gameplay is really special.    … Expand
  9. ZRaiyne
    Jan 23, 2016
    6
    The GOOD:
    1. Graphics. It's realistic and furnished to perfection.
    2. Atmosphere. It's great! Immersive story telling that bridges itself wonderfully with HW1. 3. Physics. It's definitely more polished compared to HW1 and HW2. 4. Combat. Combat looks and feels authentic (at first), much like HW1 and HW2. The BAD: 1. Interface. It's massively underwhelming. No escort patterns. No    The GOOD:
    1. Graphics. It's realistic and furnished to perfection.
    2. Atmosphere. It's great! Immersive story telling that bridges itself wonderfully with HW1.
    3. Physics. It's definitely more polished compared to HW1 and HW2.
    4. Combat. Combat looks and feels authentic (at first), much like HW1 and HW2.

    The BAD:
    1. Interface. It's massively underwhelming. No escort patterns. No siege arrangement line-ups. No smart-formation movement and strategies. No firing distance preferences. No distance info when you press the move or even in the zoomed-out view. No ETA for units who are ordered to move from point A to point B.
    2. Clipping. There are noticeable clipping issues with units and weapon line of sight firing. Eg. Harvesters stack with each other. No harvester docking animations.
    3. Path-Finding. It's decent if you group similar smaller units together. Mixing them up however with slower heavier units then it gets pretty bad; horrendous even in tight spaces.
    4. Units. Same unit types for both sides plus the fact that there are very few unit types present. It's like a demo.
    5. Detail. No main-ship and carrier sub-system building. No specific unit part targeting, eg. Sub-system targeting to disable movement, weapons, or research.
    6. AI (skirmish/MP). The AI is nothing but an auto-pilot attack everything rush type. It stops building units and harvesters midway even in the harder difficulty settings. Single player AI is mostly scripted.
    7. Maps (skirmish/MP). It has what, 5 very uninteresting maps? really?!
    8. HORRIBLE PERFORMANCE. For such a barren landscape with so few units, performance is horrendous. The latter missions plummet to single digits even when i turn off every video detail. I play the game at maxed everything and I have a good rig, mind you. I run Witcher 3 and every other game that's been released on ULTRA settings at 2560x1080 just fine.

    I'd give it a 6/10 for now, because it feels like a single player demo. Plus, it's unoptimized as fudge! Some missions run smoothly others take nose dive! It's definitely a step back from HW1 and HW2 when you look at it as a whole.

    Terrain height and line-of-sight gameplay isn't anything new in this genre. Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 2, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance/2, Ground Control 1/2, and even the classic Total Annihilation all have it. Company of Heroes and DoW2 do it better too as there is an angular projectile deflection modifier per shot that is taken into account. In this game, ballistics seem to perform like lasers.

    The game has... polish with its looks, most definitely, but so little content to be considered a true successor of the Homeworld franchise. (Until the paid DLC's come-out at least. LOL) It's way too expensive for its asking price with the content that's currently available in this initial release.

    I don't understand why such an old engine with updated textures taxes current generation gaming computers. I don't remember a game this unoptimized since Neverwinter Nights 2.    … Expand
  10. SpyderSeven
    Jan 26, 2016
    7
    It was OK. I have both Deserts and Remastered on my PC and I always choose Remastered to have some fun.

    The units seem chintzy - the combat is cool, but everything is very deadly. Units feel less like tanks and more like missiles to be disposed of in combat. Gone are the cool and logical squadrons of small units; even the smallest throwaway buggy is produced one at a time. It feels like    It was OK. I have both Deserts and Remastered on my PC and I always choose Remastered to have some fun.

    The units seem chintzy - the combat is cool, but everything is very deadly. Units feel less like tanks and more like missiles to be disposed of in combat. Gone are the cool and logical squadrons of small units; even the smallest throwaway buggy is produced one at a time. It feels like a step towards StarCraft or Command&Conquer, the way the units interact with each other and react to your commands.

    The desert is ugly. It can't be ignored. I can appreciate the varied environments; a great job was done here to make the desert look interesting, but it's still a desert. In the best possible case, this is Homeworld without the stunning and unimaginably huge vistas.

    The sensor view doesn't work as well in the desert as in space. The various shades used by the map aren't particularly intuitive, but it's a workable setup.

    The graphics are similarly OK. Doesn't look particularly stunning, but it's good enough that you don't feel jarred. The art style is very appropriate for the Homeworld universe, but the same design language that produced the flowing lines and utilitarian towers of Homeworld's ships produces some believable but very uninteresting land units. The carrier Kapisi alone is an odd contraption, fitted with tracks that look much too small and a flight deck too large and superfluous for the futuristic craft it launches. It certainly doesn't invoke the beauty and awe of the banana ship.

    There are a weak points to the graphics, too. Some units clip together, some things seem like they could be fleshed out. Repairs are conducted by the ubiquitous "health beam" projected from support units and I found that supremely disappointing. Nanolathing was an awesome solution for Total Annihilation in 1997, but in 2016 it just looks like they didn't want to animate something more interesting.

    The campaign was decent. The story pulled you in enough, and the journey into the vast desert was interesting. That said, it wasn't AAA. It's slightly worse than HW2's story, and there are a few predictable and slightly cringe-worthy lines (this was my brother's ship...)

    Which brings me to our new main character. I like Karen S'jet from HW2. She's very practical, but she displays these perfect twinges of emotion which give a lot of life to a very stoic character. The new chick, Rachel, is loosely similar to Karen, but she feels more like a mediocre imitation than a sentimental recreation. None of the characters in past Homeworlds were enthralling, but they were more than talking heads in the old games.

    Overall, I'd recommend this game. It's not the Homeworld I've been waiting for, but it's a fine and entertaining RTS on it's own merits and one of the better releases in the genre from the past ten years.    … Expand
  11. Iracundus
    Jan 24, 2016
    6
    Lot of the appeal of this game frankly will be based on nostalgia for the Homeworld series. As a prequel, we know where this will ultimately end. However the story of how we get there is unfortunately a repeat of the Homeworld 2 game. Carrier/mothership is being outfitted when there is sneak attack by the fanatical Gaalsien/Vaygr. Carrier is forced to launch early and be outfitted at aLot of the appeal of this game frankly will be based on nostalgia for the Homeworld series. As a prequel, we know where this will ultimately end. However the story of how we get there is unfortunately a repeat of the Homeworld 2 game. Carrier/mothership is being outfitted when there is sneak attack by the fanatical Gaalsien/Vaygr. Carrier is forced to launch early and be outfitted at a secondary base. Then follows a series of missions against the enemy, including a base assault, then some battlefield archaeology and finding ancient relics, rescuing a brother/comrade, culminating in a showdown with the enemy flagship over the Game Ending Relic.

    While the cutscenes were nice, they could not make up for this rehash of the Homeworld 2 campaign, much like how the Force Awakens movie plot is a rehash and rearrangement of A New Hope.    … Expand
  12. arbiter1029
    Jan 18, 2018
    5
    In my opinion this game had potential and the idea behind it was and still is very creative. But this isn't the reason why i gave the score i did...
    The reason my score is how the developers seemingly rushed the game and took way less care of it than they should've. This was immediately visible because of the lack of variation in the ships, which is something the other homeworld games    In my opinion this game had potential and the idea behind it was and still is very creative. But this isn't the reason why i gave the score i did...
    The reason my score is how the developers seemingly rushed the game and took way less care of it than they should've. This was immediately visible because of the lack of variation in the ships, which is something the other homeworld games absolutely nailed. And to add to that problem there are also only 2 races at start and sure there are more but you'll need to pay extra for these races and this is a pretty big problem to me. The lack of customization in the normal battles also got me bored rather quickly. You can't decide your own starting position and always start right next to your teammates and this always turns into a race for whoever can gather the most and is the most money-hungry player. A result of this is that teammates can turn into enemies and can block you from winning as much as the actual enemy would. It goes without saying that I also find there are far too little resources on the maps for longer games. Nevertheless i still think that the aircraft mechanics deserve a mention because they were amazingly handled.    … Expand
  13. troyusrex
    Jan 26, 2016
    7
    Good game play but the they seemed to have modeled the cut scenes on Star Trek The Motion Picture. They go on and on just panning across large ships as though we are supposed to be impressed. Worse, there's no way to skip these so you have to suffer through them. If I could have just played the game and not had to endure the cut scenes I would have given it a 9.
  14. Ayreos
    Feb 26, 2020
    5
    Etremely generic units, generic plot, generic missions, generic maps. Game looks like Ground Control from 2000. They took everything that made Homeworld unique and stripped it away. The gameplay is its only saving grace, but given the lack of the ballistics of Homeworld 1 (clearly the open source code of a game from 20 years ago was too hard for these guys to replicate) it fails to reachEtremely generic units, generic plot, generic missions, generic maps. Game looks like Ground Control from 2000. They took everything that made Homeworld unique and stripped it away. The gameplay is its only saving grace, but given the lack of the ballistics of Homeworld 1 (clearly the open source code of a game from 20 years ago was too hard for these guys to replicate) it fails to reach its potential too. On second thought, this sounds like a review for Homeworld2.

    Let's go with everything that makes this game unworthy of being put beside Homeworld i can think of on two feet:
    -The voice acting doesn't manage to convey the gravitas of the original, despite using the same techniques. The performances are simply not intense enough. Blame the voice director.
    -Radio chatter is also less grave in its delivery. Some units sound like they're on a picnic.
    -Every map is the same desert. I guess they don't mind that Homeworld had amazingly colorful backgrounds and they're failing to match up on a purely visual front to simple cubemaps.
    -All the units are the same type of truck. The design is subjective, but i find them abysmal despite nice clean lines. The salvagers look like yellow Daleks for f***'s sake. The planes are better.
    -Plot is like an expanded version of the Kadeshi encounter delivered through flat voice acting that drags on for far, far too long.
    -Let's not even pretend the plot matches Homeworld on sheer impact alone. Or creativity. Or richness. I'm speaking in objective terms: Homeworld had far more set pieces and unpredictable events. No subtlety here either.
    -The UI follows the simplistic rule of "if you notice it's there, it's done wrong!" Too bad the UI in HW1 and Cataclysm added to the game's atmosphere without taking away nearly any time at all. It definitely could have been improved, but it has been stripped away instead.
    -The music and sound design try their best to imitate Homeworld. They really do. Sadly, that's all they do.
    -Units and gameplay are slow. It helps during the more hectic moments, but gets tiresome fast. One of the most useful and varied units, the Baserunner, is one of the slowest. Terrible design choice. It punishes the player for wanting to use it.
    -Somehow, science in this game is done by blasting priceless ancient technology to pieces. I know this was a different game at one point, but it's ludicrous they thought it was compatible with their setting by the end.
    -The gameplay is overall pretty decent. However, the aforementioned issues drag it down into the sand. A mission starts and the very prospect of navigating the units through yet more dunes and rocky corridors is a drag with predictable consequences and bland rewards.
    -No modding    … Expand
  15. Chowjust
    Dec 5, 2022
    7
    Not exactly the same feel as the previous Homeworld games but still a good time for people who are fans of the RTS genre
  16. TheWaffle
    Dec 6, 2018
    7
    A very solid RTS game that will take you back into the beautiful Homeworld universe. The atmospherics are perfect and the narrative is engrossing. The simple act of detonating demolition charges on a wrecked hull to prep it for resource extraction is surprisingly satisfying, and it makes resourcing seem more gritty compared with past entries where you just siphon space dust off of things.A very solid RTS game that will take you back into the beautiful Homeworld universe. The atmospherics are perfect and the narrative is engrossing. The simple act of detonating demolition charges on a wrecked hull to prep it for resource extraction is surprisingly satisfying, and it makes resourcing seem more gritty compared with past entries where you just siphon space dust off of things.

    Even so, there are a few moments later in the campaign that feel quite rushed, and the player is not able to experience any real consequences from the major events of the game. Kharak also does not really flex its tactical muscles. There are only a handful of units, and swarm tactics with railguns will usually get the job done. The unit abilities are hit-or-miss, with some being very useful and others being far too situational. There's one mission in the campaign where they just throw so many research upgrades at you, it feels like they were planning for a longer campaign and had to stuff everything in at the end. Kharak is a great venture back into Homeworld, but it also feels like a very conservative entry. They test the waters with a few mechanics: energy/heat management for your mothership and enemy fortifications, but they don't really develop into much of anything. For a game focused exclusively on vehicles it's sad that there's no cover system to speak off, there's no weak points in enemy armor on the flank or rear, and as far as I could tell there wasn't even a way to set formations. Your army of tanks just rolls around the desert in a great big blob, which took some of the oomph out of the large-scale battles. Instead of lining my tank-killers on a ridge and deploying smoke screens so flankers could advance and target the enemy rear, it's more expedient just to steam-roll the enemy with superior force.

    TLDR: it's a great story, but a shallow game    … Expand
  17. Chaotic-Entropy
    Mar 12, 2016
    5
    Lot's of crashing, lot's of bugs, not enough character, very clipped cutscenes with no feeling of immersion involvement. Very disappointing, cookie cutter RTS with a few Homeworld vibes.

Awards & Rankings

91
#91 Best PC Game of 2016
62
#62 Most Discussed PC Game of 2016
87
#87 Most Shared PC Game of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
79

Generally favorable reviews - based on 52 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 52
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 52
  3. Negative: 0 out of 52
  1. Ragequit.gr
    Apr 6, 2016
    85
    Although Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak doesn’t reinvent the wheel, there is no denying that it is a superb example of how modern Real Time Strategy games should look, feel and play. Accessible, intense and hauntingly beautiful at times, it manages to present a gripping tale of agony and desperation through one of the best single player campaigns the genre has ever witnessed.
    Read full review
  2. IGN Denmark
    Apr 6, 2016
    80
    A rock solid take on the RTS genre, and a game not trying to be something it's not.
    Read full review
  3. CD-Action
    Mar 30, 2016
    75
    People who brought us HD editions of original Homeworlds now offer a good RTS with an engaging but rather short (9 hours) story. [03/2016, p.40]
See all critic reviews »