Poll: Things Halo Wars Needed to Do To Be A Better Game.
- Thread starter MercurySteam
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I went into a GAME store yesterday and they had a sign on the front of the counter saying "Please note that Halo Wars is an RTS game (Real time strategy) and NOT an FPS game (first person shooter) like the rest of the series". Now... Surely people interested in gaming do research on a game before buying it? I refuse to believe that people turned up at that store complaining that it wasn't like the rest of the series. They could have at least glanced at the back of the case first.
I don't get people complaining about there not being a Covenant or Flood campaign. I thought the campaign was plenty just with the UNSC. Skirmish is there if you want to play as the Covenant and while I would have liked to play as the Flood, it doesn't kill me that I can't
I don't get people complaining about there not being a Covenant or Flood campaign. I thought the campaign was plenty just with the UNSC. Skirmish is there if you want to play as the Covenant and while I would have liked to play as the Flood, it doesn't kill me that I can't
I like the game, yes there could have been improvments but I enjoyed the experience and thats what matters.
As for the gamespot review and looking at other games they give a 6.5 to i do not agree either. I watched their halo wars gameplay marathon and they did not have a clue how to play the game, if this is anything to go by perhaps thats why they did not review it with a 7 or 8. Ive always wondered about IGN and Gamespot reviews.
But hey... its just a review... if you like the game thats the important part.
As for the gamespot review and looking at other games they give a 6.5 to i do not agree either. I watched their halo wars gameplay marathon and they did not have a clue how to play the game, if this is anything to go by perhaps thats why they did not review it with a 7 or 8. Ive always wondered about IGN and Gamespot reviews.
But hey... its just a review... if you like the game thats the important part.
Things Halo Wars needs? To never have been released on a console. RTS and Controller, should never be used together.
I think unit management could have been handled much better. I'd have preferred a small pop-up menu assigned to one button showing different classes and groupings of units rather than one button to select all and another to select all local. It just feels clunky the way it is and makes commanding units a little difficult, especially in skirmishes where you're against the computer, which does not have the handicap of having to think through a controller; it just issues the commands as fast as it possibly can, meaning that it can build and move units faster than any human possibly can with the current interface.
I mean, maybe I'm just a poor strategist, but the Heroic AI seems pretty much impossible to defeat. By the time I even have the capacity to produce units other than Warthogs or Elephants as UNSC they've already got a battalion marching towards my base.
I mean, maybe I'm just a poor strategist, but the Heroic AI seems pretty much impossible to defeat. By the time I even have the capacity to produce units other than Warthogs or Elephants as UNSC they've already got a battalion marching towards my base.
Personally I think the controls are very intuitive, a real step forward in console RTSes, and a sign of a good RTS in general, I much prefer console RTS games to the PC versions now due to their more streamlined control system, halo wars was designed as a console RTS from the ground up and it works, mien gott it works brilliantly, I understand where the hate for it comes from, but I seroiously believe that no game has done the RTS genre on consoles better.
I do think it could have been improved however, however this is all about quantity rather than controls, what it needed was a covenant story, it needed one desparately, the 14 UNSC missions were brilliant and varied, but the books give enough material to provide a story about the covenant activities on HARVEST, as well as the rise of the shipmaster.
The online is very good, I disagree with the notion that more than 2 teams would be appropriate due to the fact that the maps are designed with ground control and attrition factor in mind, more than 2 teams will lead to one player being able to turtle it whilst the others just fight it out, by the time that one team is obliterated, the other team would be fully stocked, supplied, researched and SPARTANned up!
I do think it could have been improved however, however this is all about quantity rather than controls, what it needed was a covenant story, it needed one desparately, the 14 UNSC missions were brilliant and varied, but the books give enough material to provide a story about the covenant activities on HARVEST, as well as the rise of the shipmaster.
The online is very good, I disagree with the notion that more than 2 teams would be appropriate due to the fact that the maps are designed with ground control and attrition factor in mind, more than 2 teams will lead to one player being able to turtle it whilst the others just fight it out, by the time that one team is obliterated, the other team would be fully stocked, supplied, researched and SPARTANned up!
Eh, why not? It worked in Starcraft and Warcraft. I don't mind being the villain for a little bit in a game.Eldritch Warlord said:
oh yes. even our local shops have these "warning signs"--disclaimers, as they say.Doc Theta Sigma said:
they also, apparently, aren't accepting returns due to the game not being fps, but will exchange. that *really* blows my mind--that a local shop can refuse money back.
Covenant story would basically be: "Slaughter those infidel humans! Burn them for their insolence!" Plus the UNSC is a more effective ground force (tactically, the Covenant does of course field superior numbers and technology).L.B. Jeffries said:
I just think that the Covenant has better stories to tell, they have a long history of brutal conflict.
People who will blindly buy something because of the name on the front of the box do not deserve their money back when it is not what they expected.
Seriously. Right now I guarantee there is someone who heard about this new Halo game and is running out to buy it right now, completely unaware that it's an RTS game. And I hope they get hit by a truck while they're doing it.
Seriously. Right now I guarantee there is someone who heard about this new Halo game and is running out to buy it right now, completely unaware that it's an RTS game. And I hope they get hit by a truck while they're doing it.
I'm bemused by the high levels of almost stupidity on this thread (basically people either A claiming it shouldn't have been a Halo game, or B complaining it should have been on PC.
A - Halo is a well known franchise, it has a set storyline, popular following and recognizable characters. Why wouldn't you use Halo as a setting if given the chance by Microsoft (who ere presumably behind the decision).
B - If it was on the PC the game would be a run of the mill RTS - nothing special, and the reviews would reflect that - the game is not meant to be played on a PC and its shocking how many people can't grasp the simple concept - designed for console - at the end of the day Microsoft made it console exclusive to move units, and because you can't have a RTS that works on consoles and PC's. The console users would complain its overally difficult, with the controller - whilst the PC gamers would complain about the lack of depth / micro managing.
The fact is - its not a PC RTS, and until people realize this and try to judge it as a console game (even The Escapists review seemed to compare it to PC RTS games) it will never receive the acclaim it deserves - its a good game - not perfect there are a fair number of fundamental problems - but for a console RTS its probably the best around.
A - Halo is a well known franchise, it has a set storyline, popular following and recognizable characters. Why wouldn't you use Halo as a setting if given the chance by Microsoft (who ere presumably behind the decision).
B - If it was on the PC the game would be a run of the mill RTS - nothing special, and the reviews would reflect that - the game is not meant to be played on a PC and its shocking how many people can't grasp the simple concept - designed for console - at the end of the day Microsoft made it console exclusive to move units, and because you can't have a RTS that works on consoles and PC's. The console users would complain its overally difficult, with the controller - whilst the PC gamers would complain about the lack of depth / micro managing.
The fact is - its not a PC RTS, and until people realize this and try to judge it as a console game (even The Escapists review seemed to compare it to PC RTS games) it will never receive the acclaim it deserves - its a good game - not perfect there are a fair number of fundamental problems - but for a console RTS its probably the best around.
It was a decent fps, but it did deserve more than 6.5. But heck that's only Gamespot. I don't usually trust gamespot whit reviews. But why the hell give a shit what people say about it. Buy it, play it. Do you enjoy it! Horray! Don't enjoy it? Throw it in the bin and never speak of it again.
Also, Gamespot kinda....well sucks.
Also, Gamespot kinda....well sucks.
RTS games have never worked on consoles. There is no reason to play Halo Wars when you have a slew of better and more innovative RTS on PC. I mean come on, Warhammer, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Warcraft, C&C, Supreme Commander (cringe, but still better than Halo Wars.). I mean seriously, why would I force myself to play a subpar RTS when I can play better RTS somewhere else?
Personally I think it deserves to be lower just because of the stupidity of the designers.
Personally I think it deserves to be lower just because of the stupidity of the designers.
i can't stand it when i play an rts that limits how much ground i have to build on. Now i don't mind for example being the protoss and having to expand buildable ground thats fine but i have 6 spaces and if i want to build units that actually matter 3 of them have to be fucking power plants...wth??? Why?? and an unbelievable low pop cap and with the tower/ torret building ability messed up i have to keep units at my base to protect it. And before somebody mentions "well if you find another place to build a base you can expand there" I shouldn't have to. The only reason i should have to rebuild would be to get closer to the fight or to get more resources. And the bases are not in a straight line and resource collecting is a joke
First of all, move it on over to the PC, the 360 is an insult to RTS games.
Then, not make the two races virtually the EXACT SAME THING.
Lastly, make more than two races. Seriously, two races?
Then, not make the two races virtually the EXACT SAME THING.
Lastly, make more than two races. Seriously, two races?
Sadly, the gaming developer studio that made Halo Wars was shut down the moment the game was finished so the games issues and gameplay will most likely never be fixed.
Too bad because it gave the consoles a fighting chacce in getting a decent RTS for once :/
Too bad because it gave the consoles a fighting chacce in getting a decent RTS for once :/