THE REASONS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE DIFFERENT SUCCESS STORIES OF SPACE RTS GAMES - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The reasons that contributed to the
different success stories of space RTS games
Homeworld and O.R.B.
Faculty of Arts
Department of Game Design
Author: Rokas Paulauskas
Bachelor Thesis in Game Design, 15 hp
Program: Game Design and Programming
Supervisor: Masaki Hayashi
Examiner: Patrick Prax
May, 2021
Abstract Sometimes games that belong to the same genre achieve different levels of success among the player base of the genre. As an example, of two space RTS games Homeworld (released in 1999) and O.R.B. (re‑ leased in 2002), which feature a similar setting and similar gameplay mechanics, Homeworld has been more successful. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the reasons for the different popularity of the two games, using game reviews as the primary source of data to learn about the strengths and the weaknesses of the two games. Thematic analysis has been applied to a total of 27 game reviews of space RTS games Homeworld and O.R.B. Codes describing various strong and weak aspects of both games have been extracted from the texts. The codes have been grouped into various categories tradi‑ tionally described in game reviews, such as the story line, the UI, the graphics, etc. Using these codes as a basis, a number of explanations have been suggested as to why the game Homeworld has been more successful than the game O.R.B. The main reasons discovered are that Homeworld was released several years before its competitor and that some of important game features of O.R.B. suffered from poorer technical execution in comparison to equivalent features in Homeworld. Key words: Homeworld, O.R.B., space RTS, game design, thematic analysis, game reviews
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Background 2
2.1 Target games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.1 Space RTS game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.2 Homeworld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.3 O.R.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Popularity of the two Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Game Review Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Methodology 6
3.1 Thematic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Process of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2 Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3 Grouping the Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Results and Analysis 10
4.1 Full 3D Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2 Storyline and Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 UI and Camera Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4 General Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5 Models, Textures and Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6 Cinematics and Cutscenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7 Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8 Music and Soundtrack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.9 Multiplayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.10 Technical Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.11 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.12 Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 Conclusion 19
References 21
Appendixes 231 Introduction
Whether a game becomes a successful product or not depends on various factors and often without a
deeper look at the context surrounding the development, release and critical reception of the games in
question it is not easy to understand why games of seemingly comparable quality achieved different
levels of success.
Two games, Homeworld (1999) and O.R.B.: Off‑World Resource Base (2002), target similar audiences
of game players who play space RTS (Real‑Time Strategy) games. Homeworld has been more successful
of the two, although both games feature a similar setting and similar gameplay mechanics. Different
outcomes after the release of the two games raise the question why they have been received differently
by the space RTS player base.
This paper introduces a case study of two games of the same genre, aiming to suggest an expla‑
nation for how specific differences in the two games made the game Homeworld more successful than
O.R.B. The case study in this paper can be useful to RTS game developers by presenting a comparative
study of two similar RTS games and revealing gaming community reactions to various aspects of these
games so that developers working on future products can hopefully find useful examples appropriate
to their projects.
Therefore, the research question is: “Which factors made the game Homeworld more successful
than the game O.R.B.?”
The thematic analysis method was used to analyze game reviews of the two games to discover
each game’s strengths and weaknesses as perceived by the reviewers and players. The subjective
player experiences are linked back to the underlying game design decisions and other factors in the
two games. Then it becomes easier to reason about how a specific factor succeeded or failed in helping
each of the two games to achieve its current standing with the player base of space RTS fans, where
Homeworld is clearly seen as superior to O.R.B.
12 Background
2.1 Target games
The two games chosen for this case study are Homeworld (1999) by a Canadian video game developer
Relic Entertainment and O.R.B. (2002) by another Canadian video game developer Strategy First. Both
games are RTS games set in space and feature a full 3D game environment where units can freely
move in any direction.
(a) Screenshot from Homeworld (b) Screenshot from O.R.B.
Figure 1: Screenshots from Homeworld and O.R.B. single player campaigns
The games belong to the RTS genre and make use of typical RTS gameplay elements, such as
resource harvesting to gain money, building units and researching technologies to unlock more pow‑
erful units and special abilities. As in most RTS games, the objective is to eliminate the opposing force
using an army that the player has built.
2.1.1 Space RTS game
RTS (Real‑Time Strategy) is a video game genre that appeared in the 1990s and was very popular
since then until around 2010. Famous RTS games and game series like Warcraft (1994), Command and
Conquer (1995) and StarCraft (1998) contributed significantly to the growth of the genre.
In a strategy game, the player usually controls multiple units instead of just the main hero (the
avatar) to represent the player. The player also owns structures (land buildings) which produce new
units to build an army. The army is then used to destroy the opponent’s army or achieve a particular
goal in the game.
2The gameplay mechanics of a strategy game imply that the player is in control of a whole military‑
economical system rather than just the units. In most strategy games, it is necessary to gather resources
to be able to build new structures and units as well as research new technologies to improve existing
or unlock new units.
Strategy games belong to either of two broad categories – turn‑based strategy and real‑time strat‑
egy. In a turn‑based strategy game, players take turns issuing orders to their armies. While the player
whose turn it is is planning what to do, the other players have to wait for their turn. In a real‑time
strategy game, there is no concept of “turns”; instead all players act simultaneously and the game
world experiences the consequences of the player’s actions as soon as they are issued.
A space RTS is a real‑time strategy game set in space. “Space” here refers to the overall premise
of the game; players might be able to control space stations and build ships, harvest asteroids for re‑
sources and fight using advanced futuristic technologies. The conflict is fueled by extreme differences
in the motivations, values and nature of large‑scale opposing forces, such as two civilizations based
on different planets or even galaxies, each seeking domination in space, or by a civilization’s fight for
survival against a powerful destructive force.
The first RTS games were strictly confined to 2D terrain even if they depicted a conflict in space.
The players would control two‑dimensional units, usually from a top‑down perspective, similarly to
how chess pieces are moved around the chessboard.
In the second half of the 1990s the first game titles were released which featured units and other
in‑game objects that were animated using an isometric perspective, thereby creating an illusion of 3D.
However, it was only with the release of the PC game Homeworld (1999) by Relic Entertainment that
introduced a completely 3D game environment where there was no “terrain” and where the units
could move in any three‑dimensional direction. All in‑game objects were actual 3D models that could
be viewed from any angle. Several titles, such as O.R.B. (2002) by Strategy First were released later and
also featured a completely 3D environment.
2.1.2 Homeworld
Homeworld is a 3D RTS game set in space that was developed by Relic Entertainment and released in
1999. It was the first RTS game that used a fully 3D game environment and this feature was noted and
praised by game critics and players.
Homeworld follows the journey of the protagonist race, called the Kushan, from their home planet
Kharak to what they discover to be their true home planet, Hiigara, from which they had been expelled
long ago for some unknown reason. As they travel across the galaxy, they have to stand their ground
against the Taiidani Empire intent on destroying them.
Apart from the innovative 3D environment, Homeworld has all the characteristic features of a typ‑
ical RTS game – harvesting, researching and building units (space ships) to fight the enemy. The 3D
environment expands the strategic possibilities of the RTS genre since attacks on the player can come
from any direction and likewise, the player can plan and attack from any angle.
32.1.3 O.R.B.
O.R.B. is another RTS title set in space that was developed by Strategy First and released in 2002. Its
similar 3D game environment following the success of Homeworld set the basis for extensive compar‑
isons between the two games by the gaming community.
The game documents the conflict between two opposing races living on different planets in the
same solar system, the Malus and the Alyssians. Their mutual dislike is based on their different inter‑
pretations of the same religious text that the two races inherited from their ancestors independently.
Just like Homeworld, O.R.B. allows for complete 3D movement in space and all game models are
truly three‑dimensional. The game also follows the established formula of typical RTS gameplay –
the player has to harvest resources to be able to build new ships, research ship improvements and
unlock new ship types to fight the enemy. However, O.R.B. also adds aspects that were not present in
Homeworld, such as manpower management and some basic game unit AI programming.
2.2 Popularity of the two Games
Homeworld and O.R.B. were not equally successful. After its release, Homeworld has won multiple
game awards, for example, Game of the Year by IGN and PC Gamer and Strategy Game of the Year by
Computer Gaming World. Homeworld also launched its own IP franchise as can be seen from a number
of sequels and prequels set in the same game universe (Homeworld: Cataclysm in 2000, Homeworld 2 in
2003, Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak in 2016). The aggregated score for the game is 93/100 based on 20
reviews on the popular review aggregator site Metacritic.
O.R.B. did not manage to establish a stronger presence beyond a single title. The game did not re‑
ceive any sequel and did not win any awards. It holds a 68/100 score on Metacritic based on 13 reviews.
Interestingly, the game developer Strategy First website makes no mention of O.R.B. anywhere.
Therefore, the two games enjoyed different levels of popularity despite belonging to the same
genre of space RTS and sharing similar gameplay mechanics.
2.3 Game Review Analysis
The source of data analyzed in this paper are game reviews of the games Homeworld and O.R.B.
Game reviews are a form of journalism that provides a wealth of information about concrete games,
the context surrounding the development of those games and places them in the broader picture of
gaming trends of the time. While one can consider game reviews as “shopping guides” that help
potential buyers identify the game they want to buy, game reviews often play a broader role by “in‑
cluding game design suggestions, hypothesizing about the intentions and goals of game creators, and
offering advice to readers on how to approach and best enjoy particular games” (Zagal et al. 2009).
The usefulness of game reviews in the games discourse has been investigated in the said study
of game reviews (Zagal et al. 2009), in which the researchers manually read and coded a number of
game reviews to derive a list of recurring themes, such as Design Suggestions, Media Context and
4Design Hypotheses. Game reviews have also been used to identify common classes of usability (user
interface) problems in various games and propose a heuristics to detect usability problems in early
game prototypes (Pinelle et al. 2008). In some studies, game reviews are made subject to automated
text processing algorithms, e. g. to extract user opinions and emotions (Sirbu et al. 2016) or to com‑
pare game reviews to mobile app reviews to discover if knowledge gained from studying mobile app
reviews can be applied to inform game developers (Lin et al. 2019).
Working with game reviews might impose specific limitations. It has been shown that the pro‑
portions of positive and negative statements in game reviews differ between reviews composed in a
collectivistic culture and reviews composed in an individualistic culture (Tsang et al. 2009). Separating
helpful game reviews from spam or reviews not containing useful information in online game plat‑
forms where large numbers of reviews are posted daily is another issue that is becoming increasingly
more relevant with the advent of such platforms as Steam and research is made to develop systems to
automatically perform such tasks (Baowaly et al. 2019).
Game reviews, despite following a more or less established structure of describing game features,
strengths and weaknesses, often also contain the reviewers’ personal sentiments towards the genre,
the wider context of the game market, past experiences playing games and can provide valuable
unique insights into the games under review. For this reason, thematic analysis and related method‑
ologies have often been used in analyzing game reviews (example studies which used coding or sim‑
ilar methods to analyze game reviews and gain a better understanding of the reviews themselves or
what a game review can tell about the game are Zagal et al. 2009; Bond et al. 2009; Strååt et al. 2017).
53 Methodology
The method of thematic analysis is used for the analysis described in this paper. This method has
been chosen because the data to be analyzed here is in the form of game reviews and other subjec‑
tive impressions of game players. Thematic analysis allows reviewing similar subjective input and
discovering if there are recurring themes throughout the data. The groupings then form the basis for
reasoning about the object of research.
3.1 Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis consists of the following steps (adapted from Kiger et al. 2020):
• gathering of data
• reading the data
• assigning codes to important pieces of information
• refining and grouping related codes together
• deriving themes from codes
The central concept in thematic analysis is that of code. A code is a short phrase that summarizes what
a piece of data (often text or interview transcripts) is about. As the researcher works through the data,
a number of codes will be produced to capture important aspects of the information. Some of the
codes that are closely related will be grouped together and suggest a possible theme emerging from
the reviewed data.
3.2 Process of the Analysis
This section describes the flow of the analysis used for this paper. Here details are provided regarding
the choice of data, how coding was done and how the codes were grouped together to reveal the
themes.
3.2.1 Data
The data used in this research consisted of game reviews of the games Homeworld and O.R.B. Such
reviews, as is typical in video game journalism, contain the reviewers’ objective observations and
commentaries about various aspects of the games under review as well as the subjective experiences
while playing the games.
Game reviews are normally readily available online. In this particular case, the games chosen for
comparative analysis are old games so a lot of the old reviews published about twenty years ago, have
been removed. The reviews that were used for analysis came from the following two sources:
6• available online as search results when searching for “O.R.B. review” or similar phrases
• recoverable from waybackmachine.com when the link was no longer working
An important aspect to note is that Homeworld reviews are more readily available online than O.R.B.
reviews. In this case, 17 Homeworld reviews and 10 O.R.B. reviews have been used for the analysis, 27
reviews in total. However, an appropriate number of reviews was analyzed for both games to achieve
a solid all‑round understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both games so as not to skew the
results of the analysis.
Since thematic analysis is a qualitative (rather than a quantitative) research method, the exact
amount of text does not matter as long as it adequately uncovers the themes of the subject being
researched. In this case, once the positive and the negative observations about the two games start
repeating in the game reviews, it reasonable to assume that the most important aspects of the games
have been revealed.
3.2.2 Coding
The process of the review analysis and coding consists of the following steps:
1. carefully reading every review from the beginning to the end
2. writing down parts of sentences that I found to be important regarding the game’s features and
the reviewer’s subjective impressions
3. reducing the citations from the reviews to short, informative phrases (codes)
4. grouping closely related phrases under a single category
5. marking each phrase as either positive or negative based on whether the reviewer saw it as a
strong or weak point of the reviewed game
6. deriving themes from the codes
The following is an example of the analysis process. The user “MadCat” writes in their Homeworld
review published in MobyGames on July 20, 2000:
“The two sides are almost the same, with the exception of two units. As different as
they may look, they are still [the same and]1 all do the same thing. This doesn’t take away
anything from the game, but just lacks the depth in that area that Starcraft revolutionized.”
1
added by me for clarity
7Here the user is describing the fact that the two playable races in Homeworld both have functionally
identical units, even if they look very different. This sentence appears under the part of the review
which describes the shortcomings (“The Bad”) of the game. While, as the reviewer writes, “it does not
take away anything from the game”, it is clear the reviewer thought that Homeworld could have been
better if the two races had functionally different units – something that the game StarCraft did and it
did it well.
There are two key pieces of information here: (1) that Homeworld has identical races, and (2) this
is bad (the races should have been more different). Therefore, a good candidate phrase (code) to
summarize the essence of this paragraph is “identical races”.
Having identical races in a game is a conscious design decision made by the game’s developer
team (as opposed to technical issues, such as bugs, bad unit AI, graphical glitches, etc.). “Identical
races” can therefore be fittingly categorized under the category “design decisions”.
In and of itself, a specific design decision is neither good nor bad; it depends entirely on how the
outcome of the decision worked out in the final product as seen by the game’s audience. In this case,
the reviewer thought that having two identical races was not a benefit. Therefore, it is appropriate to
mark the code “identical races” as negative.
The process described above establishes that having functionally identical units in the two playable
races is one of the design decisions that the reviewer considered to be a negative aspect of Homeworld
and the code that stands for this idea is “identical races”, which is marked as negative.
3.2.3 Grouping the Codes
Continuing the coding in the manner described above, many codes are extracted that are placed under
various categories (“storyline”, “UI and camera control”, “general graphics” to name a few). Each
category represents a specific game aspect and contains the codes derived from information in the
game reviews. The categories can be thought of as containers containing related codes.
Categories make managing the many codes easier. It is also reasonable to arrange the codes into
categories because texts of the game review genre are highly structured and often follow a clear pattern
wherein various aspects of the games under review are described one after another, such as the plot,
the controls, the graphics, etc.
The code “identical races” was placed under the “design decisions” category, as mentioned pre‑
viously. Table 1 shows a selection of other codes in the “design decisions” category.
After bringing related codes together it is possible to derive the themes that summarize the weak‑
nesses and the strengths of the two games being analyzed from a higher perspective. For example,
nearly every review noted Homeworld for its true 3D game world since it was one of the games to
pioneer the concept. In the case of O.R.B., which also features a similar 3D game world, this was men‑
tioned less often. The two parallel themes form the basis for a possible conclusion as to why the same
game feature was received differently in the two games.
The examples in this section are not exhaustive and serve only to exemplify the process of analysis
of Homeworld and O.R.B. game reviews. Results and discussion are described in detail in the next
8Table 1: Example codes describing the Design Decisions in Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good persistent fleet nice ship design
nice physics model good variety of ships
unique style of gameplay dynamic asteroids
the bad identical sides (almost) identical sides
cannot see enemies HP ships travel too slowly
short singleplayer too few resources in missions
section.
94 Results and Analysis
The codes extracted from the game reviews are grouped into categories, and for each category (except
the full 3D environment) a table is presented in the following text. Each category and the correspond‑
ing table cover a specific game area, such as graphics, sound, etc. Listed in the table are codes that
describe various strong and weak aspects of both Homeworld and O.R.B. (if such were found) as seen
by the reviewers.
The codes in the tables below have been chosen to adequately reflect the reviewers’ opinions on
the given aspects of the games, including the variation of opinions observed when commenting on the
same game aspect. Exactly matching codes are not repeated, however, similar codes (“simple”, “easy‑
to‑use”, “user‑friendly” UI) are quoted to render the variation in the subjective feel of the reviewers.
Since a review always contains the author’s subjective understanding and judgment of the game
under review, it is reasonable to expect disagreements between different opinions. Indeed, I found
differing opinions regarding the same gameplay element in the reviews of both games. For example,
Homeworld’s soundtrack was often praised (“brilliant music”, “great music”, “good ambient music”)
but there was one particular review where the author thought that “the musical score [was] forget‑
table”. Likewise, O.R.B.’s story was described as “nice, mature” and “thorough and engaging” in
some reviews, yet as “boring” or “not compelling” in others. Such contradictory codes are included
in the tables, however, they do not obscure the overall tendencies that can still be seen throughout the
reviews.
4.1 Full 3D Environment
Homeworld reviews that were analyzed would usually begin by noting that Homeworld was set in a true
3D game environment, where unit movement is also available in 3D. This feature was highly praised
by the reviewers. At the time of the release (1999), Homeworld was the first game to pioneer a true 3D
environment and 3D movement.
O.R.B. features the same 3D game environment, including unit movement in any direction. How‑
ever, since O.R.B. was released three years later (in 2002), it did not have an edge as Homeworld did
with regard to this particular game feature. Of all the O.R.B. reviews, only a few paid special attention
to the 3D environment in the game.
This particular finding confirms that a game’s success depends not only on the quality of the prod‑
uct itself but also on the context of what other products had already been introduced into the market
and what features they had. O.R.B. could have received additional accolades if one of its defining fea‑
tures, the 3D game environment, had not been shadowed by a similar feature in Homeworld released
a couple of years before.
104.2 Storyline and Plot
Storyline is an important part of any strategy game; Homeworld and O.R.B. are no exceptions. The
codes that describe the storyline of both games are given in Table 2.
Table 2: The codes describing the plot of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good compelling, epic, great nice and mature
strong, good, fantastic presentation thorough and engaging
the bad not stellar, not huge boring, not compelling, uninteresting
It is clear that in Homeworld, the story was seen as very well‑developed, attributed qualities such
as “epic”, “great”, “strong’”, “presented fantastically”. As can be expected, several reviewers felt the
storyline was somewhat lacking (“not huge”, “not stellar”). However, even these criticisms do not
openly say the plot was bad, only that it could have been better.
When it comes to O.R.B., the opinions are more divided. Some reviewers noted the storyline was
“nice and mature”, “thorough and engaging”, while others summarized it as “boring”, “uninterest‑
ing” and “not compelling”. This is a general observation when analyzing reviews of both games –
the reviewers often agree that a particular aspect Homeworld was well‑executed and are much more
divided about a similar aspect in O.R.B., often leaning towards the negative.
The analysis of the game reviews shows that Homeworld’s story was received more positively than
O.R.B.’s.
4.3 UI and Camera Control
User Interface (UI) and camera control is another important aspect of RTS games as the player has to
control many different units, select and de‑select them, build selection groups and be able to efficiently
issue orders to them. This becomes absolutely vital in a fully 3D game where viewing, selection and
movement happen along any of the three axes of the game world. For this reason, reviewers spend
considerable time evaluating and describing game control schemes and interfaces.
The codes describing the UI and camera control in both games are shown in Table 3.
Homeworld’s interface was praised just like its 3D environment; examples of qualities often ascribed
to the UI and camera control are “uncluttered”, “intuitive”, “user‑friendly” and “excellent”. Aspects
of ease of use and comprehensiveness were often cited.
In O.R.B.’s case, some of the same qualities were also mentioned (“detailed”, “easy‑to‑learn”, “or‑
ganized”, “clean”) but the opinions again varied a lot, since some reviewers criticized the game’s UI
for exactly the opposite (“cluttered and unwieldy”, “harder than necessary”, “complicated”). Similar
criticism occurred in a few Homeworld reviews as well, but was by no means as systematic.
11Table 3: The codes describing the UI and Camera Control of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good uncluttered, intuitive and unique detailed, easy‑to‑learn
simple and comprehensive good and organized
simple, user‑friendly, easy and brilliant impressively slick, clean
easy‑to‑use, excellent, non‑intrusive decent and unobtrusive
camera easy, camera polished excellent ship control
camera panning without unit selection
the bad convoluted, not powerful enough cluttered and unwieldy
harder than necessary, complex
arcane and unwieldy, complicated
hard navigation structure
too many clicks needed
On the other hand, O.R.B. provides several functions that are not available in Homeworld, for exam‑
ple, it is possible to pan the game camera across the game world without selecting any unit, or view
what orders are currently issued to any individual unit which is not available in Homeworld. Such
additions were noted by some reviewers but they seemed not enough to sway the overall judgment
of UI and camera control to the better.
4.4 General Graphics
In Table 4, the codes describing the visuals of both games are shown.
Table 4: The codes describing the General Graphics of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good amazing, exceptional, incredible good‑looking, top‑notch, beautiful
striking, impressive, good and polished some of the best, nice, decent
good, stunning, animations detailed beautiful when viewed from a distance
ship animations stunning
the bad backgrounds boring
Visuals and graphics is one of those aspects where both games fare equally well and there are no
notable differences between how the reviewers evaluated both games’ visuals.
The graphics were described as “amazing”, “top‑notch”, “impressive”, “beautiful” and similar for
both Homeworld and O.R.B.
124.5 Models, Textures and Details
This section describes the graphics from a technical perspective – what various objects look like in‑
game, if the special effects (often called “sfx” or “fx” in short) are convincing, etc. This is in contrast
to the previously introduced section on General Graphics, which describes the general look and feel
of the game, what it is like to play the game, whether it looks good or decent or bad.
The codes describing the Models and Textures in both games are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: The codes describing the Models and Textures of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good textures fantastic good, detailed, wonderful sfx
impressive, detailed, excellent colorful
acute
the bad lack details, fx bad, uninspired
Analyzing what the reviewers had to say in this regard, it can be seen that Homeworld textures and
models have been described as “fantastic”, “detailed” and “acute”. O.R.B. textures have also been
praised, e.g., “good”, “detailed”, “colorful”, however, again contradicting impressions can be found,
such as “lacking details”, “uninspired”. Similar contradictory opinions were not found in Homeworld
reviews.
4.6 Cinematics and Cutscenes
A cinematic is a game segment in which the player has no control over the game world and is put into
the role of a passive viewer where the game story is presented and advanced in a movie‑like sequence.
In strategy games, cinematics are often used in singleplayer campaigns between missions to present
the game plot in a livelier, more compelling manner.
Cinematics are often actual filmed footage with real‑life actors or computer‑generated imagery
(CGI) that are different from the graphics used by the game engine. The game engine can also be used
for cinematics, instead of live footage or CGI; then cinematics are called pre‑rendered cutscenes.
The codes describing the cinematic sequences in both games are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: The codes describing the Cinematics of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good great, well‑done, artful cutscenes well‑done, cutscenes good
hand‑drawn
cutscenes well‑done
13O.R.B. does not use cinematics between the missions but it does feature several CGI sequences
in the game intro and the outro. The loading screen is also presented as a CGI sequence. Inside the
missions, recent storyline developments are shown using the game engine.
Homeworld similarly makes use of the game engine inside the missions to show the immediate de‑
velopments in the game storyline to the player. However, Homeworld also uses true cinematics, which
are hand‑drawn black and white moving stills, giving a sci‑fi noir‑like aesthetics to the singleplayer
campaign storyline.
Because of this unique approach to presenting the game story, the reviewers often specifically men‑
tioned the hand‑drawn cinematics and described them as “great”, “artful” and “well‑done”. O.R.B.’s
sequences were also described as “well‑done”, “good” but were not particularly praised.
4.7 Sound
The codes describing the Sound in both games are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: The codes describing the Sound of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good great, good, consistent well‑executed, decent
good use, rather good inconspicuous, excellent
decent, impressive creative
voice‑overs top‑notch
the bad distracting generic
When it comes to sound, both games received positive criticism (“great”, “consistent”, “impres‑
sive” and “well‑executed”, “decent”, “excellent”). One Homeworld reviewer thought the sound was
“distracting”, and one O.R.B. reviewer described the game sound as “generic”.
Since the developers of the two games took quite a different approach to how they wanted the
sound to feel in their respective games, each game features unique characteristics not found in the
other game. Homeworld makes extensive use of voice‑overs within missions, between missions and as
multiplayer status reports; these voice overs have been described as “top‑notch”. O.R.B., on the other
hand, uses unit confirmation sounds in their native languages, which has been noted as “creative” by
some reviewers.
To sum up, it is reasonable to argue that sounds were equally well received for both games.
4.8 Music and Soundtrack
The codes describing the Music in both games are shown in Table 8.
14Table 8: The codes describing the Music of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good great, brilliant, eerie ambient and pleasant, well‑done
non‑distracting and soft decent, sublime, adequate
good and ambient, decent, ok mood‑inspiring and very well‑done
the bad forgettable
Like sound, the soundtrack has been positively received for both games, except one or another
occasional outlying opinion (e.g., “forgettable” in one Homeworld review). For the most part, the music
has been described as “great”, “well‑done”, etc. for both games.
4.9 Multiplayer
Both games feature a multiplayer gameplay mode where it is possible to play against either computer‑
controlled opponents or human opponents online. The codes describing the Multiplayer of both
games are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: The codes describing the Multiplayer of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good good choices, good, well‑integrated fun, superb, varied AI settings
good options, excellent support, good settings easy and customizable
the bad random drop‑outs and crashes suffers from some singleplayer problems
Both Homeworld and O.R.B. were praised for the wide variety of multiplayer match settings. In the
case of O.R.B., some reviewers noted that the multiplayer is more fun to play than the singleplayer
because some of the problems that are seen in the singleplayer campaign can be alleviated by the
flexible multiplayer options.
Overall, both games can be seen as faring equally well as far as the multiplayer is concerned.
4.10 Technical Execution
This section describes how well various technical aspects of both games have been realized. This
includes reviewers’ opinions on unit balancing, unit AI, etc. The codes describing the Technical Exe‑
cution details of both games are shown in Table 10.
It should be noted that no game is completely bug‑free. Therefore, it is very likely that a game
player will encounter minor or more severe problems with unit movement, graphics, AI, balancing,
15Table 10: The codes describing the Technical Execution of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good balance good, balance adding depth balance adequate
AI fairly intelligent
the bad balance lacking balance bad (fighters vs capitals)
AI lacking, has issues AI lacking, flawed, abysmal
twitchy pathfinding, doctrines flawed
etc. under an extended play session. As expected, the reviewers noted that both games had issues
with AI and unit movement. Opinions varied with respect to unit balancing, e.g. some reviewers
found balancing in Homeworld “‘good and adding depth”, while a few others said it “had issues”.
The same can be said of O.R.B. where some reviewers thought balancing was “adequate”, yet others
said the balance between fighters and capital units was “bad”, especially in the second half of a long
game match where higher‑tier units get into play. It is important to note that in the case of O.R.B.,
the criticism to balance was more consistent, multiple reviews saying that cheaper, early game units
(fighters) become useless in later singleplayer missions or later parts in multiplayer matches since they
simply cannot survive against capital ships.
In addition, O.R.B. received criticism for lacking unit AI, “twitchy” pathfinding and some of the
game features, such as doctrines, not always working as expected. A specific piece of criticism that
was not found in Homeworld but existed in O.R.B. reviews was geared towards very basic game func‑
tionality, such as issuing orders to ships. According to some reviewers, sometimes game units were
not moving in the right direction or simply ignored orders altogether.
4.11 Other
This section briefly summarizes the decisions the game developers have taken regarding the material
that ships with the game itself. The codes describing the extra material shipped with both games are
shown in Table 11.
Table 11: The codes describing the Miscellaneous of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good manual superb, excellent, complete manual hefty
campaign editor powerful, complex
the bad no campaign editor manual lacking, poor
Both games were praised for their detailed manuals, however O.R.B.’s manual was met with mixed
16opinions, as some reviewers felt it was “poor” and “confused”.
Some reviewers felt Homeworld should have been bundled with a powerful mission editor tool that
could have extended the game’s life a lot, especially given the brevity of the singleplayer campaign.
O.R.B.’s campaign editor was noted and praised by the reviewers.
4.12 Design Decisions
In this section, opinions on various game design decisions are given for both games.
Design decisions affect a wide range of game areas, from very specific technical decisions like
whether or not the player can see the enemy unit health bars and what gameplay settings are available
to the player, to less technical and more high‑level decisions, e.g. how the singleplayer campaign is
structured and presented and what ship design style is adopted to harmonize with the themes and
aesthetics of the game.
In Table 12, the codes for various Design Decisions in both games are shown.
Table 12: The codes describing the Design Decisions of Homeworld and O.R.B.
Homeworld O.R.B.
the good persistent fleet good variety of ships, nice ship design
varied challenges dynamic asteroids, doctrines, manpower
tactical possibilities nice tech tree, “shadowing”
spaceship design impressive strategic 3D battles
gameplay simple, excellent, great flexible campaigns, promote experimentation
gameplay unique, intuitive, addictive
nice physics model
formations, hyperspacing
the bad cannot see enemies HP visuals lack details and logic
identical sides (almost) identical sides
short singleplayer, single storyline side ships travel too slowly
no singleplayer difficulty setting too few resources in missions
gameplay confusing in big battles drawn‑out, boring objectives
difficult missions, too large maps, slow pace
mundane tech tree, lacking formations
no voiceovers, text windows vanish too quickly
lack of ambition, creativity and focus
not fluent enough gaming experience
feels unfinished
Regarding Homeworld, a lot of reviewers noted the unique aspect of the singleplayer campaign that
17the player fleet is persistent, i.e. the units the player has built in a mission carry over to the next one.
This was rather unusual at that time when typical RTS games required the player to build an army
from scratch at the beginning of a new mission.
Reviewers also mentioned the richness of the tactical possibilities in gameplay due to the 3D game
environment where attacks could come from any direction. It was also mentioned that Homeworld’s
gameplay style was unique because it differed radically from the gameplay structure that was typical
to an RTS of the time.
Of the main criticism to Homeworld was the fact that the sides of conflict, the Kushan and the Taiidan
races were identical (their units look different but have identical functions).
Some criticism was targeted specifically to the singleplayer campaign. The singleplayer, while it
allows the player to choose either of the two races, is exactly the same for both sides; they just switch
roles, the player‑controlled race always being the oppressed and the enemy becomes the oppressor.
The singleplayer campaign was also often described as “too short”. Another shortcoming was the lack
of a difficulty setting for the singleplayer.
Several reviewers complained that it is not possible to view the enemy units’ health bars. In addi‑
tion, it has been pointed out that gameplay can become confusing in big battles with many ships.
O.R.B. was generally praised for the unique additions to the typical RTS formula, such as dynamic
asteroids in maps which slowly move and can leave the playable map area completely. Among other
useful additions was the user‑defined tactics menu (the doctrines), manpower management and the
“shadow” command which allows ships to follow enemy ships while staying just outside their sensor
range all the time to remain undetected.
Other positive design decisions included good variety of ships and a nice research tree. Strategic
battles promoted by the 3D game world were also noted by some reviewers although not nearly as
often as in Homeworld reviews.
Criticism to the singleplayer campaign in O.R.B. was especially noticeable and very consistent. A
lot of reviewers repeated that the missions in the singleplayer campaign were “boring” and “long”
with too few resources which repeatedly resulted in slow game pace, unnecessarily difficult missions
and low singleplayer replay value.
Some of the criticism seen in Homeworld reviews recurred in O.R.B. reviews. This is primarily the
“identical sides” problem, where both the Malus and the Alyssians share almost identical units in
regard to their function, even if they look different.
Several reviews missed voice‑overs in the mission briefings, something that Homeworld made ex‑
tensive use of. It was also observed by multiple reviewers that O.R.B. was easier to play in the 2D
perspective (the tactical view) than in the primary 3D view because of the confusing UI and complex
controls (even if some reviewers thought the interface was “clean” and “powerful”).
To summarize and compare the overall look and feel of both games, it can be noted that Home‑
world’s gameplay style was described as “simple”, “unique” and “excellent”. O.R.B.’s gameplay was,
on the other hand, often described as “decent” but also as “lacking inspiration and focus” and “feeling
unfinished”.
185 Conclusion
The game reviews analyzed in this paper reveal several possible explanations as to why of the two
games compared and contrasted in this analysis, the space RTS game Homeworld was more successful
than the game O.R.B.
To begin with, the context of the RTS genre at the time is important. A time span of about three
years separates the release of the two games (Homeworld was released in 1999, O.R.B. was released in
2002). When Homeworld was released, it was the first game to pioneer a full 3D game environment;
almost every review of Homeworld started with noting and praising this game feature. O.R.B., which
was released later, also plays in a 3D environment but at the time it was released, that was no longer
new and fresh. Indeed, just a few game reviews noted the 3D game environment of O.R.B. Therefore,
the same game feature that was seen as revolutionary in the case of Homeworld, was received as a mere
fact in the case of O.R.B. The reviewers were looking for other features in the latter game that would
set it apart from its predecessor.
There are also a number of other reasons, which are more subjective and nuanced. Overall, it
should be noted that opinions on various aspects of Homeworld were mostly one‑sidedly positive,
with some minor outlying criticism. The most important aspects of a game, such as the UI, the plot,
the graphics, sound effects and the soundtrack were highly praised by the majority of the reviewers,
while the criticism to any of these aspects was for the most part inconsistent (such as a particular
reviewer saying they experienced random drop‑outs in the multiplayer or another reviewer saying
the soundtrack is mostly “forgettable”). The only recurring criticism was that the playable races were
identical, the player could not see the enemy units’ hit points and that the singleplayer campaign was
too short and lacked a difficulty setting.
In the case of O.R.B., the criticism seemed to be exactly the opposite. Opinions were divided on
most aspects of the game, the areas criticized were quite consistent and the praises were occasional.
Some reviews mentioned that O.R.B. offered its own unique additions to the RTS genre (such as the
manpower management, the doctrines window and the moving asteroids), however, this was either
ignored in many other reviews or was received with reservedness stating that these features “do not
warrant a whole new game”. For every big aspect of the game, such as the UI, the plot, the graphics,
some reviewers thought these areas were well‑executed, others thought they were lacking; the only
areas of O.R.B. that were met without significant criticism were the sound effects, the music and the
multiplayer. The singleplayer campaign design was criticized especially consistently for its slow pace
caused by the too difficult missions, boring objectives and resource scarcity. In addition, according
to some reviews O.R.B. suffered from flaws in the basic functionality, such as the units moving in
the wrong direction or refusing to follow orders altogether. This kind of criticism was not found in
Homeworld reviews.
In conclusion, the greater success of Homeworld can be explained by its earlier release, which en‑
sured some of the game’s defining characteristics were seen as fresh and new, and the fact that some
of the important O.R.B. features suffered from subpar technical execution, which caused additional
frustration for the players.
19There are several directions in which the present investigation could be continued to further the
understanding of the differences between Homeworld and O.R.B. As an example, it could be valuable
to obtain the opinions of RTS fans who do not write professional game reviews. Players who are not
professional reviewers often look at games from a different perspective and can bring up new and
unexpected angles. Such an inquiry could be done by building a questionnaire about the features of
Homeworld and O.R.B. and collecting the input from players who have played both games. A location
frequented by such players is the active Facebook group Homeworld 3 where a lot of individual space
RTS players gather to discuss various genre‑specific matters and share their experiences playing both
old and new games of the space RTS genre.
20References
Anthropy, Anna and Naomi Clark (2014). A Game Design Vocabulary: Exploring the Foundational Prin‑
ciples Behind Good Game Design. 1st ed. Addison‑Wesley Professional. URL: https://www.pearson.
com/uk/educators/higher-education-educators/program/Anthropy-Game-Design-Vocabulary-
A-Exploring-the-Foundational-Principles-Behind-Good-Game-Design/PGM1064260.html
(visited on 05/23/2021).
Baowaly, M. K., Yi‑Pei Tu, and Kuan‑Ta Chen (2019). “Predicting the helpfulness of game reviews: A
case study on the Steam store.” In: J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 36, pp. 4731–4742.
Bond, Matthew and Russell Beale (Jan. 2009). “What makes a good game? Using reviews to inform
design.” In: People and Computers XXIII Celebrating People and Technology ‑ Proceedings of HCI 2009,
pp. 418–422.
Kiger, Michelle E. and Lara Varpio (2020). “Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No.
131.” In: Medical Teacher 42 (8), pp. 846–854.
Lin, Dayi et al. (2019). “An Empirical Study of Game Reviews on the Steam Platform.” In: Empirical
Software Engineering 24, pp. 170–207.
Pinelle, David, Nelson Wong, and Tadeusz Stach (2008). “Heuristic Evaluation for Games: Usability
Principles for Video Game Design.” In: pp. 1453–1462.
Schell, Jesse (2015). The art of game design. 2nd ed. A K Peters/CRC Press. URL: https://www.oreilly.
com/library/view/the-art-of/9781466598645/ (visited on 05/23/2021).
Sirbu, Dorinela et al. (2016). “Extracting Gamers’ Opinions from Reviews.” In: 2016 18th International
Symposium on Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing (SYNASC), pp. 227–232.
Strååt, Björn and Harko Verhagen (2017). “Using User Created Game Reviews for Sentiment Analysis:
A Method for Researching User Attitudes.” In: GHITALY@CHItaly.
Strategy First (2021). Strategy First. URL: http://www.strategyfirst.com/ (visited on 05/23/2021).
Tsang, Alex S.L. and Gerard Prendergast (2009). “Does culture affect evaluation expressions? A cross‑
cultural analysis of Chinese and American computer game reviews.” In: European Journal of Mar‑
keting 43.5/6, pp. 686–707.
Various authors (1999–2002). Homeworld. Metacritic. URL: https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/
homeworld (visited on 05/19/2021).
— (2002–2003). O.R.B. Metacritic. URL: https : / / www . metacritic . com / game / pc / orb (visited on
05/19/2021).
Zagal, Jose, Amanda Ladd, and Terris Johnson (2009). “Characterizing and understanding game re‑
views.” In: pp. 215–222.
21Ludography
Barking Dog Studios (2000). Homeworld: Cataclysm.
Blackbird Interactive (2016). Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak.
Blizzard Entertainment (1994). Warcraft.
— (1998). StarCraft.
Relic Entertainment (1999). Homeworld.
— (2003). Homeworld 2.
Strategy First (2002). O.R.B.: Off‑World Resource Base.
Westwood Studios (1995). Command & Conquer.
22Appendixes
Appendix A O.R.B. Reviews
Adams, Dan (2002). O.R.B. – Could this be the successor to Homeworld that we’ve all been hoping for? IGN
Games. URL: https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/11/25/orb (visited on 04/11/2021).
Canker (2003). O.R.B. REVIEW. Game Watcher. URL: https://www.gamewatcher.com/reviews/o-r-
b-review/10439 (visited on 04/11/2021).
Dulin, Ron (2002). O.R.B. Review. Gamespot. URL: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/orb-review/
1900-2897315/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
Ernst, Rick (2003). O.R.B. (Off‑world Resource Base). p. 86. Computer Gaming World. URL: http://www.
cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_224.pdf (visited on 05/19/2021).
Fryman, Avi (2002). O.R.B. : Off‑world Resource Base. Game Spy. URL: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/
orb/558363p1.html (visited on 04/11/2021).
Kleffmann, Marcel (2003). Test: O.R.B. 4 Players – Das Spielemagazin. URL: https://web.archive.
org/web/20180122033614/http://www.4players.de/4players.php/dispbericht/PC-CDROM/
Test/2591/2117/0/ORB.html (visited on 04/11/2021).
Liew, Justin (2002). O.R.B. The Armchair Empire. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20070202094837/
https://www.armchairempire.com/Reviews/PC%20Games/orb.htm (visited on 04/11/2021).
Smith, Mark (2002). Off‑World Resource Base Review. Game Chronicles. URL: https://www.gamechronicles.
com/reviews/pc/orb/orb.htm (visited on 04/18/2021).
Unknown (2019). ORB: Off‑World Resource Base. Old PC Gaming. URL: https://oldpcgaming.net/
orb-off-world-resource-base/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
— (Unknown[c]). O.R.B.: Off‑World Resource Base. GameFabrique. URL: https://gamefabrique.com/
games/orb-off-world-resource-base/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
Appendix B Homeworld Reviews
Du Plessis, Franscois (2002). Homeworld. Future History. URL: https : / / web . archive . org / web /
20020624195523/http://www.futurehistory.co.za/reviews/reviews_homeworld.htm (visited
on 04/11/2021).
Hinson, Byron (2000). Homeworld. ActiveWindows. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20040205074604/
http : / / www . activewin . com / reviews / software / games / h / homeworld . shtml (visited on
04/11/2021).
Jube (1999). Homeworld. Game Over. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20000819074903/http:
//www.game-over.net/review/oct99/homeworld/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
MadCat (2000). Homeworld. Moby Games. URL: https : / / www . mobygames . com / game / windows /
homeworld/reviews/reviewerId,2002/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
23Martin, Terry (2000). Homeworld. Game Surge. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20000901000053/
http://www.gamesurge.com/pc/reviews/homeworld_2op.shtml (visited on 04/11/2021).
Oshiro, Victor (1999). Homeworld Review. Target PC. URL: https://www.targetpc.com/software/
games/homeworld/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
Portax (1999). Homeworld Review. TeleFragged. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20010620103431/
http://www.telefragged.com/reviews/homeworld/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
RobbyD (2000). Homeworld Review. Maximum3D. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20040703131807/
http://www.maximum3d.com/reviews/homeworld.htm (visited on 04/11/2021).
Sage, A. (1999). Homeworld. Strategy Gaming Online. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/19991128153632/
http://strategy-gaming.com/previews/homeworld/index.shtml (visited on 04/11/2021).
Samuel, Jason (1999). Prepare yourself for Homeworld. CNN. URL: https : / / web . archive . org / web /
20160327214801/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/02/homeworld.idg/ (visited on
04/11/2021).
Simon, Jon (1999). Homeworld Review. Sharky Games. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20100521024616/
http://www.sharkygames.com/games/reviews/relic/homeworld/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
Soropos, George (1999). Out of this world – Homeworld. icon. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/
20000620092309/http://www.smh.com.au/icon/9910/23/games1.html (visited on 04/11/2021).
Stoo (2002). Homeworld. A Force For Good – Classic PC Gaming. URL: https://www.forceforgood.
co.uk/strategy/homeworld/ (visited on 04/11/2021).
Thompson, Ryan (1999). Homeworld. Gaming Age. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20030914221807/
http : / / www . gaming - age . com / reviews / archive / old _ reviews / pc / homeworld/ (visited on
04/11/2021).
Unknown (2002). Homeworld – the Game. h2g2. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20050223183253/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A818048 (visited on 04/11/2021).
— (Unknown[a]). Homeworld. Deaf Gamers. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20040623094537/
http://www.deafgamers.com/homeworld.htm (visited on 04/11/2021).
— (Unknown[b]). Homeworld Review. Yahoo Games. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20100224013911/
http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/pc/reviews/homeworld- 024c0c.html (visited on
04/11/2021).
24You can also read
