Homeworld has been modded to perfection. Start your journey here. I highly recommend The Complex Mod.

There is even a Battle Star Galactica mod.

Furthermore THQ which owns Relic recently acquired the rights to Homeworld from Vivendi. We might see Homeworld 3 sometime in the future.

"THQ currently owns Relic, which in turn means that we now have the rights to the Homeworld brand, however, at this time we have no comment on any future games from THQ based on Homeworld."
— Eurogamer spokesperson

From the official site:

About Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II is set in the grim, war-ravaged world of Games Workshop's (LSE: GAW) Warhammer 40,000 universe - a dark, futuristic, science-fiction setting where armies of technologically advanced warriors, fighting machines and hordes of implacable aliens wage constant war. Developed by critically acclaimed RTS developer Relic Entertainment, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II ushers in a new chapter in the acclaimed RTS series, as ancient races - including the dauntless Space Marines and savage Orks - clash across ruined worlds on a mission to claim the galaxy and preserve their own existence. Powered by the re-vamped Essence Engine 2.0, the next evolution of Relic's proprietary game engine made famous in the award winning Company of Heroes, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II will deliver fast-paced RTS action with ferocious melee and ranged combat in fully destructible environments. Immersing players in an in-depth non-linear single-player campaign and a fully-co-operative multiplayer mode, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II is set to deliver the most visually-stunning Warhammer 40,000 setting ever created. For more information on Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II, please visit www.dawnofwar2.com.

Beaten too this i see.

From http://www.gamershell.com/news_47726.html

THQ has released the first three screenshots from Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II, illustrating this sequel developed by Relic Entertainment and due to hit the store shelves in spring 2009, exclusively for Windows PC. Powered by an enhanced version of Relic's proprietary Essence Engine 2.0, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II will take players to the brutal frontlines of war where they’ll experience intense action and visceral combat through a non-linear single player experience and a fully co-operative multiplayer campaign. In addition, THQ announced that gamers purchasing copies of the recently released Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War - Soulstorm will be able to participate in an invitation-only multiplayer beta program for Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II set to take place at a future date.

This will be awesome because its Relic and Warhammer.

I remember this was the first time I ever heard Adagio for Strings (choral) by Samuel Barber. I like the aural interaction between the beautiful haunting music and the sounds of the engines and such. I think the trailer for the game used the music as well, but with a battle going on.

The same mix of classical music can be found in the newest Hitman (Blood Money), where Ave Maria is used to great effect, and in the trailer for Dawn of War, also be Relic, who made Homeworld.

btw, Douglas Preston often works on books with Lincoln Child, and they wrote Relic, one of my favorite books. Anybody else here read it?

Good point, dft. I think that the taboo against depicting sex and related matters doesn't make much sense. It's an archaic relic of religious dogma that survived when others have died.

The NATO designated Bear bomber is a relic stright from the 60s, unlike the B-52 it has not been incrementally upgraded over the years to keep up with the times, its 4 rotory engines are so loud deterent air patrols along the UK and US would hear the bomber before actually making visual contact. Occasionally submarine crews would pick up the Bear bomber ascoustics when they were flying overheard.

It's outlandish military wankery by the Kremlin, its a waste of human resources and fuel for the dubious benefit of looking hardcore. When in reality the illusion of might is simply another facade for a military that is still trying to recover and reconsitute itself.

According to Webster’s the term classic, when used as adjective is defined as:

“1 a: serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value b: TRADITIONAL, ENDURING c: characterized by simple tailored lines in fashion year after year ”.

Ok, “vintage”, which in its first form really refers most often specifically to the year when a certain wine was produced, but also has the following meanings:

“1 of wine: of, relating to, or produced in a particular vintage
2: of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality : CLASSIC
3 a: dating from the past : OLD b: OUTMODED, OLD-FASHIONED
4: of the best and most characteristic -- used with a proper noun <vintage Shaw: a wise and winning comedy -- Time>”

Webster’s defines antique as:

”1: a relic or object of ancient times
2 a: a work of art, piece of furniture, or decorative object made at an earlier period and according to various customs laws at least 100 years ago b : a manufactured product (as an automobile) from an earlier period”,
or as an adjective:
“1: existing since or belonging to earlier times : ANCIENT <antique trade routes to the Orient>
2 a: being in the style or fashion of former times <antique manners and graces> b : made in or representative of the work of an earlier period <antique mirrors>; also : being an antique
3: selling or exhibiting antiques <an antique show>”

When you speak of a vintage automobile, vintage 1. A group or collection of people or things sharing certain characteristics. 2. A year or period of origin. 3. Length of existence; age. --vin·tage adj. 1. Of or relating to a vintage. 2. Characterized by excellence, maturity, and enduring appeal; classic. 3. Old or outmoded. 4.a. Of the best. b. Of the most distinctive.

There are no set of universally recognized criteria, cept for antiques....100 yrs or more-

I suppose there is some solace to be taken from the idea that at least the American government hasn't started shooting people in its own country, although whether that should be put down to a lack of will on the part of the government to quell dissent with armed troops, or whether it is more because fewer people see the point in protesting any more to become targets is a point worth discussing.

I keep hearing comments by people around in the 60s to the effect that "We'd have been protesting events in Iraq long before now", and there is a sense that the younger generation (and I speak as part of it) are probably more socialised than that generation was. More prepared to accept infringements of civil liberties for fuzzily defined aims such as the 'war on terror' and more apathetic and withdrawn into the culture of reality television to escape the 'real reality' that we feel disenfranchised from.

But also in the 60s there was less media awareness on the part of the ruling class. On the commentary to the Hearts and Minds documentary, the director mentions that the Vietnam War was the first and last war to be totally played out in the public eye. So we have beautifully filmed images of death and destruction in Vietnam and miles of news footage of the reaction in the US, because the government didn't realise that seeing the victims gave them a face (the napalmed girl running down the road, skin peeling off her becoming an indelible image of that war)

They've learnt their lesson. No more beautiful images of war. Whatever the public is shown now is much more managed, edited, chosen for its impact on the audience. Now we have fuzzy pictures of smart bombs or films with poorly defined targets shown in gunsights being obliterated with a push of the button.

Strange that as computer games become more realistic reality is presented in a way more reminiscent of a computer game.

When reality does sometimes break through the micro-managed images we are fed, it comes through on even more grainy, poor quality images - Saddam Hussein's execution for example.

This 'managing and manipulation' of images through the media might also show how protests such as that at Kent State might never happen now. First, the people would not see the images of horror that would lead to a mass protest. Second, the protest would never get the kind of coverage, even if people were killed as a result, in today's media.

I agree with Wingoguy - it just takes one nervous guy with the safety off to accidentally shoot someone.

Very interesting to hear Nixon's speech about anarchy and keeping values by suppressing his countrymen - similar to Bush's pronouncements today. And it is always frightening to hear someone talk about their 'belief' that what they are doing is right and that sense of belief overrides everything else. That type of person can do anything, because they know that they are right, and nobody can tell them they are wrong.

That was sad with Nixon, but it becomes yet another layer of hypocrisy when I hear both Bush and Blair talk about their beliefs, or Blair talk about 'only being judged by history'. Surely the main aim in their 'war on terror' is to attack and destroy religious fundamentalists who feel that their 'beleifs' override the freedom of others. In that sense, how can we be blamed for equating Osama Bin Laden, George Bush and Tony Blair as one and the same?

Anyway, sorry to get onto a rant about current events in a comment about a video of a past tragedy. I just feel sad that I'm looking back at such disturbing footage as almost a relic of a more innocent and naive time.

I'm the first person to admit that the UN has some great flaws, is sometimes "a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism", and is in need of major reform - including the security council which is a relic of the Cold War.

There are two major causes of the UN's ineffectiveness. The first is the unilateralist attitude adopted by the US - particularly under the current administration. The second is that anytime that the the UN adopts a resolution condemning Israeli action the US will automatically veto the resolution (thanks to the power of AIPAC) regardless of whether the condemnation is justified or not. The un-objective use of the veto by the US in support of oppressive, unjustifiable and illegal Israeli government policies has severely damaged international perceptions of the UN. When Israel illegally steals Palestinian land, subjects the Palestinian people to daily abuse and humiliation, and collectively punishes the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, the US automatically vetoes any UN resolutions condemning these inexcusable actions. It is not just the Arab or Islamic states that support such resolutions - very often it is only America and Israel who condemn the resolution. The unobjective use of the American veto in favour of Israel is undermining the entire UN. For many people it symbolises the need for UN reform - particularly reform of the security council.

The problem with this clip is that while there are important objective criticisms to be made of the UNHRC and the UN in general, UN Watch is not actually making them. The speaker carefully disguises pro-Israeli government policy propaganda as objective criticisms of the UNHRC - this is why the Council President rejects the speech as inadmissable.

i have to agree with farhad on capping the number of collectives ... well, i don't HAVE to agree with him, but i do ...

what if someone starts a Kittens Only ... or ... Dogs Only collective?? where does that leave swampgirl?? or if someone starts a Vintage or Relics collective? where does that leave rick?? what about a One Hit Wonders collective and then dag's?!?!?!

and having a set number of members also makes it a bit more interesting ... what's to stop someone from inviting virtually every member that ever comes across the sift??

*random thoughts from a tipsy girl*

freaking old people.
it has a message though, which really makes me want to freaking start a revolution to rewrite ashitload of the US constitution
gahhh why does the government have to run by ancient freaking relics?

I love this play and the movie adaptation.

A Streetcar Named Desire is a famous American play written by Tennessee Williams for which he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1948.

The play is considered in modern society as an icon of its era, as it deals with a culture clash between two symbolic characters, Blanche DuBois—a pretentious, fading relic of the Old South—and Stanley Kowalski, a rising member of the industrial, inner-city immigrant class.

In 1951, a movie of the play, directed by Elia Kazan, won several awards, including an Academy Award for Vivien Leigh as Best Actress in the role of Blanche. In 1995, it was made into an opera with music by Andre Previn and presented by the San Francisco Opera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Streetcar_Named_Desire_%28film%29

When I was a young and foolish man I baulked at the ancient opening of Citizen Kane and gave up watching within the first 3 minutes, over the years the drone of how great this film was never died around me. So finally I took the plunge one day and sat through it again strapped to my chair, hoping not to be dissappointed at some ancient relic claiming status it doesn't rightfully deserve.

However it was turned into a shocking revelation that such a film was made in the 40s.

I don't know what appeals to me more, the technical achievements in camera shots and set up or the convoluted plot following the last utterance of a man the viewer tries to understand from the perspectives and narratives of many people.