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. 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
  2. Euangelion3o9
    Apr 20, 2020
    9
    An excellent RTS, I am late to playing it, but it holds true to the Homeworld story, atmosphere and gameplay. Some may not like the minimalistic world and spares deserts in favor of modern, over the top RTS of today, but I really got into the atmosphere of this game as well as the story. I enjoyed the pacing, limited unit numbers (making you think before expending units needlessly), andAn excellent RTS, I am late to playing it, but it holds true to the Homeworld story, atmosphere and gameplay. Some may not like the minimalistic world and spares deserts in favor of modern, over the top RTS of today, but I really got into the atmosphere of this game as well as the story. I enjoyed the pacing, limited unit numbers (making you think before expending units needlessly), and unit variety. My only complaint is the AI was somewhat lacking in intelligence, but then good AI is really really hard to do. Overall, if you are a fan of Homeworld, pick this title up!… Expand
  3. Wiebe
    Feb 27, 2020
    4
    Old game showing its age. Just to old, slow and shallow for a game today...
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. belaggio79
    Feb 18, 2018
    10
    Fantastic game. Epic campaign. I don't MP so I won't speak to that but in terms of a tour de force single player campaign, this is it.
  7. 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
  8. DukeBalek
    Nov 29, 2017
    10
    A mega surprise. At first i thought " meh...homeworld on ground ? weird" but as soon I launched it, I was stuck by the quality of the scenario and the artistic beauty of the cut scenes. The game it self lacks some depth in the gameplay, but overall it's quite addictive and fun. The sound is very good and the ambiance is perfect. Homeworld vets are going to really enjoy it. The game isntA mega surprise. At first i thought " meh...homeworld on ground ? weird" but as soon I launched it, I was stuck by the quality of the scenario and the artistic beauty of the cut scenes. The game it self lacks some depth in the gameplay, but overall it's quite addictive and fun. The sound is very good and the ambiance is perfect. Homeworld vets are going to really enjoy it. The game isnt built for mutiplayer (Sc2 is far better on this side), but the solo campaign is amazing (one of the best i played since.... Homeworld).. In fact, if the writing of a game is perfect , you can accept some defaults..
    I put 10 because of the surprise, because of the bravery to launch this kind of game, because it has been created with the hearth and with passion, and you can feel it directly after the first minutes. I also put 10 because of the 0 i saw or less than 5 ,with some crazy argumentations like"the cut scenes wich are not skippable".
    "Unskippable Cutscenes put the max score to 4. After 4 minutes of my time, I still could not play. Since they locked me out of the game with this choice, I can only give it Zero." are you serious ? this is the worst comment i red for many times.
    very good game, it reminds me the "Mad Max" game, wich was totally unexpected and revealed itself to be a great game    … Expand
  9. 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
  10. SoakerCity
    Mar 6, 2017
    4
    They took out the tactical pause. This means that you play the whole game from the ugly radar view, and it devolves into franticlicking and overuse of strategic control grouping, with almost no tactical action. This is a fail.

    Lots of people will hack at the gamers, like me, who want tactical pause for the main reason that it it makes the game look beautiful. My favorite part of    They took out the tactical pause. This means that you play the whole game from the ugly radar view, and it devolves into franticlicking and overuse of strategic control grouping, with almost no tactical action. This is a fail.

    Lots of people will hack at the gamers, like me, who want tactical pause for the main reason that it it makes the game look beautiful. My favorite part of homeworld was pausing huge battles or vistas to take in the graphics and let the imagination run wild. The lack of a tactical pause removes this key element.

    To be clear- I try to avoid tactical pause, because it makes the game much easier. I am not willing to give it up though, as it ruins the game for me to have to stay in the overhead view, and not be able to be the Director of my own space opera. The original games were challenging with tac pause. Why? Why remove it?

    The removal of tactical pause holds this game back from a much higher score, and it was a stupid decision to remove the option entirely. Sorry, I played the game for a few missions, but I will not be completing it because of this horrible decision to remove a fundamental gameplay element from Homeworld.    … Expand
  11. akarnokd
    Dec 4, 2016
    8
    I liked this game, not many RTS' come out these days. I played the campaign and loved each mission, too bad it was that short (8 hours). I got it on 66% sale and since I'm not interested in multiplayer, it was a worth purchase at that price.
  12. 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.
  13. Jayson2016
    Mar 31, 2016
    4
    I love it for the fact it's trying to revive the RTS genre and ending the Homeworld universe. However, there are too many negatives for me to give it a higher score. First off, the need for AI to gather resources is removed from this game, all enemy units are spawned using scripts. The ENTIRE enemy unit catalog consists of about 8 units (heavy railgun, assault railgun, assault platform,I love it for the fact it's trying to revive the RTS genre and ending the Homeworld universe. However, there are too many negatives for me to give it a higher score. First off, the need for AI to gather resources is removed from this game, all enemy units are spawned using scripts. The ENTIRE enemy unit catalog consists of about 8 units (heavy railgun, assault railgun, assault platform, sandskimmer, production cruiser, honorguard cruiser, missile platform, repair frigate, air units only exist in the last mission) and with those it ends up being a contest of how long you can survive the endless script spawns.

    As to the campaign quality, the animation hearkens back to the original, but has improvements as it should be. I loved it, but it was TOO SHORT. They could have fleshed out this story so much more, and extended the playthrough. The entire campaign takes anywhere from 9-12 hours to finish, and for 50 dollars for the basic version and 69 for the DLC packs, it is awful.

    They had so much potential to make this a game series better than the Starcraft empire but fell short, swing and a miss.    … Expand
  14. mikhailmaldonag
    Mar 12, 2016
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Review en Español para los interesados.

    Sepan lo siguiente, la mayoría de los que pusieron notas altas al juego lo hicieron: 1) por amor a homeworld original (fan services) y 2) porque pusieron la nota después de jugar el primer día.

    Las primeras horas el juego está bien. Pero no pasa de ser lo mismo.

    Multiplayer nulo. A.I. NULA.

    Las misiones single player son lo único que van a hacer, si bien la historia es interesante está llena de cliches y hasta la forma de hablar es repetitiva, diálogos muy gastados de otros juegos y los "twist" son un remedo de ello.

    El juego no está terminado, no es lindo, hay pocas texturas, está mal optimizado. El juego en sí es muy lento y todas las unidades son innecesarias después de la 3ra Misión. Usas tu base como vehículo de ataque principal y saca unidades a medida que necesites nomas, ZERO TÁCTICA necesitas. La computadora solamente hace lo mismo una y otra vez, 1 tanque grande, + 2 o 3 o 5 unidades a distancia (railgun) + 5 unidades pequeñas.

    No hay estrategia y este juego sin terminar, sin muchos detalles es la prueba que el RTS está muriendo :D.

    Resumen:

    Gráficas: 1
    Sonido: 1
    Jugabilidad: 1 (super límitada para el 2016, es como jugar Dune 2000)
    Historia: 1
    Nivel de Estrategia: 0
    Horas de juego en Hard solo modo historia sin Skirmish: 6
    con Skirmish: 10 (menos mapas que dedos de las manos y 2 razas exactamente iguales y la pc repite el mismo patrón de ataque siempre, te desafío a jugar mas de 4 veces sin aburrirte)

    En resumen, si gastas 60 dolares por este juego vas a invertir un promedio de 5 dólares/hora.    … Expand
  15. 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.
  16. ZaPaAl
    Mar 3, 2016
    9
    Singleplayer is just great. Exceptionally atmospheric, engaging story, fun gameplay. Campaign is a bit too short. Multiplayer could add a little fun, as the units allow for quite some tactics. But only if you find someone to play with.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. troyshaun
    Feb 14, 2016
    8
    The game is beautiful as is the story.

    The two main things holding this down are the map - because the desert is so bland, you can't really get an idea of the high ground form in game, it requires the topographical from the strategic map. Screen navigation also requires the strategic map to navigate and for map awareness. The need to use the strategic map so heavily does hurt the    The game is beautiful as is the story.

    The two main things holding this down are the map - because the desert is so bland, you can't really get an idea of the high ground form in game, it requires the topographical from the strategic map.

    Screen navigation also requires the strategic map to navigate and for map awareness.

    The need to use the strategic map so heavily does hurt the game play.    … Expand
  20. elyh
    Feb 14, 2016
    8
    Great games for homeworld fans.

    Skippable cut scenes would of been nice, but the game offers pleasant gameplay. I would of preferred it to be in space but the desert offers some nice gameplay. Every unit has lots of options/abilties and the carrier is a one of a kind. Haven't played an RTS with such a unique unit productionweapons platform/air strip all wrapped into one huge unit. I    Great games for homeworld fans.

    Skippable cut scenes would of been nice, but the game offers pleasant gameplay. I would of preferred it to be in space but the desert offers some nice gameplay. Every unit has lots of options/abilties and the carrier is a one of a kind. Haven't played an RTS with such a unique unit productionweapons platform/air strip all wrapped into one huge unit.

    I regret that they didn't include more capital ships like the heavy cruisers in Homeworld2 but yeah a really refreshing game.

    All in all I really liked playing this game even though the campaign lacked a litlle challenge and depth IMO. A bit expensive at 45.99 but yeah it's a good polished game.

    Didn't even try multiplayer homeworld is all about the campaign for me.    … Expand
  21. 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
  22. maniksdi
    Feb 8, 2016
    10
    Consider yourself lucky to have this game come out in this day and age. A spectacular game in the best and the qualities that made it great then is clearly visible right now. I would be happy if they added some new story points and plot twists to the old game, the terrain addition and slightly improved graphics is just extra.
    Nothing else can take us far enough ;)
  23. Mikimax
    Feb 8, 2016
    8
    Great RTS hindered by bad camera controls, small strategic view, outdated ''region view" (Supreme commander had the best strategic view with mouse scroll without pressing button "space", minor bugs.
  24. clarky
    Jan 31, 2016
    0
    Unskippable Cutscenes put the max score to 4. After 4 minutes of my time, I still could not play. Since they locked me out of the game with this choice, I can only give it Zero.
  25. Fiasco69
    Jan 28, 2016
    2
    A tremendous disappointment. 16 years after the original, it pales in comparison to the original Homeworld. It is a $20 game, not a $50 game. I've replayed the SP missions in HW1, HW2 and Cataclysm multiple times over the last 10+ years. I doubt I'll ever play this one again after completing it.
  26. McColl
    Jan 27, 2016
    9
    Homeworld was the game that addicted me to PC games in the new millennium and I was looking forward to this title to see the continuation of the franchise but was concerned that it would be very hard to pull off and at the same time remain faithful to the original.

    Initial learning curve was a little steeper than I would like but I am 15 years older since learning to play HW so I will    Homeworld was the game that addicted me to PC games in the new millennium and I was looking forward to this title to see the continuation of the franchise but was concerned that it would be very hard to pull off and at the same time remain faithful to the original.

    Initial learning curve was a little steeper than I would like but I am 15 years older since learning to play HW so I will put it down to age. The game for me really showed it's value when I started playing multi-player. A lot of fun and a lot of depth to the game play. Do yourself a favour and give this title a go!    … Expand
  27. Terrier
    Jan 27, 2016
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This review is based in the single player campaign mission:

    This story is mostly jewish vs white/arabs in planet Arrakis. Why?. Let's me explain you. This game uses the next sets of names:
    a) silly names = for name the ships.

    b) Random names may be pronounced in Klingon, such adding K, X and apostrophes at random.

    c) Jewish names for the main characters (the main character and his brother).

    And the enemies are exactly than a stereotyped arabs (their acts, believed and even their accent) with the difference of the masks and without the mask they are nordics. And of course, some videos show arabs songs.

    BUT, its not the problem, the problems so far:
    -The story is stupid, the enemies found the technology but they do practically nothing in 3 years, while our good guys advanced exponentially in just days. And in the end, the game explains nothing, but who cares, they killed the enemies (even when they was defending his soil). And guess that?, the "technology" exists since forever. How?. Beats me.
    -Also, the story talks about the NORTH, and they should go to the NORTH but the maps shows the EAST. I know that its a rotate maps but its just a burden.
    -The game honors his name : its all deserts with little or not variation.
    -Technically the game is so-so, its not optimized and it lags here and there.
    -Visually the dunes are done fine but everything else is generic.
    -The units (as most players are saying) are disposable.
    -Its not the kind of RTS when you build building. Its one of those new RTS when you build units and collects resource.
    -It has a strategic map and its really important to use. But the strategic map doesn't show the impassable terrain.
    -The AI is simple :some units are suicides, other units hits and run and others just patrols around the map.    … Expand
  28. Viridovix
    Jan 26, 2016
    2
    The game does not have a tactical pause, as Homeworld did. I wish I could get my money back. The came is playable, but not enjoyable. If I needed a maddened click fest, there are better games to play.

    Don't waste your money here.
  29. 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.
  30. 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
prev
Page:

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 »