Poll: Why was Halo Wars considered a bad RTS?

[Dogstile]

It's not too strategized.
Me and my friends sadly win our online matches due to spamming the same Uber Unit over and over.
The control's and what-not were fine, but the game just felt a little slow, It's not bad, it's definitely a great console RTS, but compared to stuff like StarCraft? There's no comparison.

Apparently it was just too damned easy. You just pile a bunch of really strong units on your enemy's ass and that's it.

Technically it all worked very well, but in the eye of the player that doesn't mean much if you can't make an exciting and challenging game with it.

Ah yes, in 3v3 multiplayer, you could do that. But that can be the same in any multiplayer RTS. In one v one if you scouted the enemy to check what they were building it was rather easy to counter a force of 20 grizzlys with the hornets.

 

[Simalacrum]

Probably cause it was on consoles - I'm a BIIIIIG strategy game fan and even I think that it's virtually impossible to do RTS's on consoles.

It's a shame that it led to the downfall of Ensembles Studio's though, they were a brilliant developer despite Halo Wars and I wish they could live on to make more Age of Empires games

 

[Warped_Ghost]

Its good but would you consider halo wars as good as age of empires or starcraft?
There are just far better RTS on computers and not many RTS fans on the console.

 

[Chibz]

Because it's Halo.

 

[FinalHeart95]

One of the best console RTS games around.

That being said, it's a console RTS, so it has its issues.

 

[RA92]

Seriously though, its the best console-RTS there is to be honest.

Herzog Zwei would like to have a word with you...

 

[Flac00]

I honestly don't understand the level of putrid bile this game gets covered with every time its brought up as being a decent RTS. From my playing of the multiplayer it really did show how much two competent players had to adjust on the fly to different tactics employed by eachother.

It also seems that balance was also accounted for. Aircraft decimate tanks, tanks decimate infantry, infantry are competent but need support unless garrisoned and in great numbers, and can take down aircraft pretty handily, while still being needed in every army due to said garrisoning ability.

Is it the only being able to place x number of buildings in a base or something, because after playing this game (finally) I see nothing wrong with it.

I think most people (myself included) have a problem with the lack of resource gathering. That was always an integral part of an RTS of both balancing your strategic movements of your army and keeping yourself economically strong. Halo Wars lacked this sort of economy. Also, the balance can't be as cut and dry as you said (i know you were probably just generalizing), each unit has to be unique and act differently then all the others, counters included. Take a look at a game like StarCraft 2. Each unit is completely different except for the workers, and even they have inherently different abilities (one dies when it makes a building, one has to stay working on a building to make it, and one can just drop a building wherever and leave as long as it is near a power source). Halo wars other problem was its controls weren't really up to snuff, but for a console rts it was pretty good. I will say, Ensemble Studios (the makers of the game) did a really good job despite the fact they had to mix everything with the halo universe. I will end by saying, the game wasn't bad, it just lacked a sort of depth that a lot of other RTS's have, which just gives ammunition to the Halo haters and PC fanboys everywhere.

 

[Irridium]

Seriously though, its the best console-RTS there is to be honest.

Herzog Zwei would like to have a word with you...

I have no idea what that is.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

Because Ensemble was too good of a studio to have its talents wasted on the Halo franchise and a console RTS.

 

[Everian]

RTS + Consoles = ice Cream + a Pile of Gravel

 

[Reaper195]

It wasn't that bad as half the world says. It just wasn't really that strategic. Just save some =...money?...get a dozen tanks and flying tanks, destroy everything.

 

[Woodsey]

It was? I thought it was one of the best console RTSs out there, at least in this generation and at its time.

There's not exactly a pool of games to choose from.

 

[Sebenko]

Because it's not SupCom. Giant laser spider robots never get old.

Oh yeah, that there's that resource management thing that worked pretty well.

 

[CyberGenesis]

Simplicity and bad controls are my understanding

 

[Tucker154]

I dont know,but realy enjoyed playing it and thats all that matters to me.

 

[General BrEeZy]

because it wasnt on pc. idk if its the use of the extra keys for shortcut moves, or the lack of a mouse to select troops, but halo wars was very slick to me, but im not an rts player, thats my only rts experience cuz my computer is too trashy to support any games. it barely runs as it is..

 

[Catalyst6]

Consoles are inherently inferior when it comes to RTSes because unit selection is clunky and difficult.

However, it's mostly because the game had too many "build a bunch of units, then press the 'kill all' button" moments.

 

[Jzolr0708]

Because in RTS gaming, where we have things like Warcraft 3 and such, a game like Halo Wars with such little customization, choice, and strategy involved, just isn't worth the time. It's fun to build up an army of Zerglings for a trap, pull some of your opponents better units along just to have a mass of banelings destroy them. The wonderful glee that comes when, in the confusion of battle, you call in a nuke right ontop of your opponents entire base. Sending in Frost Wyrms to disable your opponents defenses, then one by one knock down your opponents structures.

Know what Halo Wars had? Spawn Tanks. Send tanks to point A. Wait til point A dies or is saved by you. Win game. No strategy at all, it was just a Real Time Game.