The reasons that contributed to the different success stories of space RTS games 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 23 1 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 thegame 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 seen as superior to O.R.B.

1 2 Background

2.1 Target games The two games chosen for this case study are Homeworld (1999) by a Canadian developer and O.R.B. (2002) by another Canadian 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 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.

2 The 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 fightfor survival against a powerful destructive force. The first RTS games were strictly confined to 2D terrain even if they depicted a conflict inspace. 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 notedand 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.

3 2.1.3 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 inthe 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, 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 . 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” (Zagaletal. 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

4 Design 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 ina 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 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).

5 3 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.”

1added by me for clarity

7 Here 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 thatthegame 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 onhowthe 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 inthe 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

8 Table 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.

9 4 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 codesthat 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. Forexample, 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 oftheprod‑ 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.

10 4.2 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.

11 Table 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.

12 4.5 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 incontrast 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 beused 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

13 O.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.

14 Table 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,

15 Table 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 ofalong 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 sincethey 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

16 opinions, 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‑ 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

17 the player fleet is persistent, i.e. the units the player has built in a mission carry over to the nextone. 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, whileit 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 andthe “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 nearlyas 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”.

18 5 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 asthe 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 andthe 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 movingin 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 thatsome of the important O.R.B. features suffered from subpar technical execution, which caused additional frustration for the players.

19 There 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.

20 References

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 toinform 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 .” 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.

21 Ludography

Barking Dog Studios (2000). Homeworld: Cataclysm. (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.

22 Appendixes

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).

23 Martin, 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).

24