Halo wars review the second

[WrongSprite]

Quite like the review, but your capitalisation really does need sorting out XD.

 

[KSarty]

I still can't believe some game sites gave Halo Wars a better score than Dawn of War II.

 

[Reg0]

I played it briefly at a friends house, I still prefer my rts on a pc

 

[Skillswords]

I'm sorry but I'm in the camp that says this review wasn't very well-designed. While I feel I got most of your points from this, rereading was necessary to come to terms with much of it.

Besides my inability to really follow this, I believe you did a nice enough job of describing how it plays. Comparing it to another game was helpful in places, but maybe you used the comparisons a touch too much. Saying it doesn't push the boundaries and then saying how it is completely different (doesn't require skill, no stealth, blah blah blah) from the other game, while it can be true, seems, for lack of a better term, counter intuitive.

Also, you say there are three factions (Flood, Covenant, UNSC) and that each one has three generals. That would make nine generals total, not the six you say.

1. you can't play as flood

2. Thanks for the constructive crit, this is my 3rd review (RA3, original HW) so i need alot of help

 

[Skillswords]

I played it briefly at a friends house, I still prefer my rts on a pc

I don't play rts on comp because i'm already on 360 and i refuse to pay alot for a gaming pc just to play RTS, BTW my 4th 360 died so i might just switch when #5 dies

 

[Viruzzo]

Well, really for console players like me, the C&C series is the main frame of refrence because there some of the only RTS's on the console

second, my reviews not talking about how HW isn't C&C, rather to put in Kanes terms, "Nothing more then a craven pretender"

Still, continously referencing another game (and bordering on fanboyism) in a review it's quite annoying for the readers, even more so if they haven't played that game (or they, as me, don't like that particular franchise). If you want to make continuous references, quotes and comparison to C&C, make a "HW vs C&C 3" thread.
If you remove the C&C stuff from your review, probably more than half of it goes away, and that may be a good thing actually: when all you want to express is "HW does nothing original except trying to introduce good console controls" a wall of text it's nor necessary nor the best way.
Short reviews that go to the point FTW!

 

[D_987]

make a "HW vs C&C 3" thread.

Or don't.

Vs. threads are looked down upon as they reduce an opinion to either Yay or Nay.

 

[Skillswords]

Well, really for console players like me, the C&C series is the main frame of refrence because there some of the only RTS's on the console

second, my reviews not talking about how HW isn't C&C, rather to put in Kanes terms, "Nothing more then a craven pretender"

Still, continously referencing another game (and bordering on fanboyism) in a review it's quite annoying for the readers, even more so if they haven't played that game (or they, as me, don't like that particular franchise). If you want to make continuous references, quotes and comparison to C&C, make a "HW vs C&C 3" thread.
If you remove the C&C stuff from your review, probably more than half of it goes away, and that may be a good thing actually: when all you want to express is "HW does nothing original except trying to introduce good console controls" a wall of text it's nor necessary nor the best way.
Short reviews that go to the point FTW!

in rerospect you might be right, but since the only other noteworthy console RTS is RA3 or C&CKW i mainly used that as a frame of referance. for the first review i ever did with a frame of referance and 3rd ever, i think i did alright.

 

[Skillswords]

make a "HW vs C&C 3" thread.

You do realize halo wars wold get destroyed faster then a cultist under a kirov
maybe a kanes wrath versus Red Alert

 

[Skillswords]

sorry about being away for long, i was at gamereplays.org

 

[D_987]

sorry about being away for long, i was at gamereplays.org

Ok, stop bumping this thread. It's not a good review anyway, but this was a needless bump - possibly pure spam. It's an old review.

 

[Skillswords]

sorry about being away for long, i was at gamereplays.org

Ok, stop bumping this thread. It's not a good review anyway, but this was a needless bump - possibly pure spam. It's an old review.

what, every-time i've been gone for awhile on a thread, i say i've been gone so when people ask questions from weeks ago and i never respond, it's not from ignoring, besides a month isn't old. if the games still "hip" and "Fresh" then reviews of the game are still valid

 

[Skillswords]

Great job! Fairly objective review, glad to see someone's not mindlessly bashing the game. My only nitpick was:

but for the Hardcore's who played Kane's Wrath and Red Alert, nothing is very notable and not many units require the skill and finesse to master that can slaughter others in seconds .

Kane's Wrath and Red Alert are not "hardcore" RTS's, far from it. Supreme Commander or Sins of a Solar Empire are more likely to appease to hardcore strategists. (I've played neither)

The main thinng is you really bash CnC games (like in your previous review) quite a bit

i'm talkin about the closest we have to hardcore on 360, and still RA3 and Kanes Wrath are awesome games, you should stop bashing based on what people say on forums! you ALSO SAYED YOU PLAYED NEITHER, meaning your a biased opinion because of 1 of 3 reasons
1. Your an ultimate N00b who played no RTS and base your ideas from what others say on random forums trying to sound like you PLAYED THE GAME
2. Your from the company that makes either of those games and are trying to advertise while bashing competition
3. You played 1 CnC game in your life, hated it, and are holding a grudge continuing to bash the CnC games today

 

[Sipo]

i barely got through the demo before killing myself from boredom!