Halo Wars: are you surprised by gamespot's review?

I guess Microsoft didn't buy enough advertising space to bribe gamespot into a better review score lol.

But seriously, I can't say I'm surprised by the review score. Reviews tend to focus on how a game compares to other recent good games in its genre. There are 2 things the game does well; takes halo into a different genre than fps, and is the first console rts to have unusually good controls. But when you do a side-by-side comparison of Halo Wars to any recent rts, it's very shallow and boring to anyone who has played rts games on the pc. If you were to take the gameplay and remove the halo universe out of it, you'd have a game that absolutely nobody would give a damn about.

Thoughts?

After reading IGN's review of Halo Wars- not really surprised.

"Hmm, it's apparently a simplistic RTS, with only one race playable in campaign..."

"Yeah... Gamespot's gonna be scoring this MUCH lower than IGN me thinks..."

Sure enough- I saw Gamespot's Halo Wars review the same day- and not surprised at all by the 6.5.

Actually, yea, I am surprised. Didn't Bungie make RTSes before they made Halo :??Video_Game_King

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]Actually, yea, I am surprised. Didn't Bungie make RTSes before they made Halo :??xfactor19990

The guys behind Age of Empires? Either way, something's up.

Very much so. Majority puts it at an 83%, though...

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/halowars?q=halo%20wars

So yeah, Gamespot's score doesn't worry me much. I feel bad they trashed Ensemble's last game so badly, though.

[QUOTE="xfactor19990"][QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]Actually, yea, I am surprised. Didn't Bungie make RTSes before they made Halo :??Video_Game_King

The guys behind Age of Empires? Either way, something's up.

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]

[QUOTE="xfactor19990"] but bungie did not work on this right? It was ensembleIceman8012

The guys behind Age of Empires? Either way, something's up.

Keep in mind that I'm an old school gamer, meaning I'm hyping FF10 and the Nintendo Dolphin :P.

C&C 3 had perfect controls for a console in my opinion. You can't even make groups in Halo Wars you can only frantically paint units you want to pick while you are being attacked or move all units on your screen/gameIceman8012

this sucks to hear in a way...i was looking for a good console RTS to get me into the genre and i actually had C&C3 in my collection but thought that halo wars would trump it easily (and i was interested in playing an RTS in the halo universe), so i ended up trading it in for another game and i never played through it...

after reading the review i might just go ahead and repurchase C&C3 for my RTS fix, wihich won't be hard anyway since it's a bargain bin title now...

I pretty much laughed at the reviewer.

The Bad

"Covenant not playable in campaign mode, Flood not playable at all

Small unit counts and map limit the scale of battles

Very few multiplayer options."

Very poor reasons to give a game a 6.5 (except the multiplayer options),I would love to see a review of GS reviewers (I would predict most of them would get a 2.5).

When I played the demo, I thought it was fun, but it seemed a little shallow. Everything is so streamlined and you never feel any incentive to build in one direction or the other. Basically, every unit requires the same two basic structures and only has one path of upgrades. It really lacked the sort of strategic options you can typically find in an RTS.

Also, both playable factions are very similar. There are some unique options, like the ability to add shields to your structures for Covenant forces, but overall each army has its version of a particular troop class that differs really in looks only. Allowing the Flood to be playable in MP would have helped. Some people say there is no sensible way to do this because the Flood don't gather resources, they don't build bases, etc. But I say, look at a game like Universe at War (also on the 360 - and it controls just as well as Halo Wars) where you have a faction that can gather resources by zapping up cows and humans. There is even a unit in this army that can infect human populations and turn them into hostile zombie like creatures. This is not so different from the Flood. Had Ensemble really had the mind to, they could have easily made the Flood into a playable faction. Instead, you have two factions that feel the same, but look different. The Flood could have at least breathed some variety into this game.

Neverthless, I think a lot of people who don't typically play RTSs will enjoy this. It's diet RTSing for the console gamers out there. I think keyboards will always be better for this genre (just as controllers will always be better for just about everything else), but there are still some quality attempts, like the aforementioned Universe at War, available on consoles. Games like UaW show that while you will have to simplify the controls for console, you don't need to simplify the gameplay. I think Halo Wars may be guilty of the latter, and I won't be surprised if a couple of sites call them on it. But I haven't played the final game, so none of these opinions are set in stone.

Gamespot's review said the same thing every other review did, they just took points off for stuff others didn't. For example IGN's review mentioned the fact the Flood isn't playable, but the reviewer stated he (or she) hated the Flood anyway whereas Gamespot took off points for the lack. Everybody mentioned the fact that only one of the two playable factions has a campaign mode. Building only being able to be build in specific location is a little odd too. Dune 2 and Command and Conquer on the old 16 bit systems allowed one build pretty much anywhere (anywhere in this context not being literally everywhere, but say, the rocks in Dune 2).

Also, no one else seems to be bothered by this, by I think its a little odd that Halo Wars assumes unfamiliarity with real time strategies. A few real time strategies have made their way to consoles and many of us have dabbled in PC gaming at one time or another. *Shrugs* Still, that aside, there is no getting around the fact real time strategy games (and every other type of strategy game) are massive successes on PC but only a niche genre on consoles.

Personally, I don't think the fact said games are complicated is a problem for console gamers, its just that most don't find the concept fascinating. That being said, I suspect that much like the FF name and being released hard on the heels of the megapopular FF7 allowed FF Tactics to sell to people who otherwise have no interest in the genre (there was initially a backlash against FFT by those who were expecting an FF7 style game, but I don't expect that to happen with Halo Wars, which boasts a popular demo), being set in a popular universe will inflate sales the sales of Halo Wars. Like with FFT many will walk away and never come back, but some will developer an appetite for such games.

I think a really great, really complicated rts could be made for consoles (think Herzog Zwie using a Warhawk type control system and universe in which the lead vehicle had the ability to broadcast commands to groups or even all unit types on a map) and the success of Halo Wars would encourage the creation of such a game, so while Halo Wars doesn't excite me as an rts vet, I hope it does really well.

I thought the demo was pretty good so I was a bit surprised by the score, but after I watched the video review, it makes sense to me. Extremely short campaign, two almost identical factions, poor controls, simplistic design, not much content. Fact is, the biggest draw to this game is the Halo universe. That's the only reason why I even bothered to play the demo and that's pretty much the only reason why I'd consider playing this if it ever gets released on PC (I just can't stand the controls).

Also, the notion that console RTS games shouldn't be compared to PC ones is a completely stupid one. Those kinds of reviews are then relevent to console gamers only. Games should be compared to set standards within their respective genres, period. Otherwise you're just making silly excuses and encouraging lacking design.

Also, the notion that console RTS games shouldn't be compared to PC ones is a completely stupid one. Those kinds of reviews are then relevent to console gamers only. Games should be compared to set standards within their respective genres, period. Otherwise you're just making silly excuses and encouraging lacking design.

Nope and I CAN'T WAIT for Zero Punctuation's review on it. edgewalker16

Does he play RTSes? We'll find out if he'll touch strategy games if he responds to all the Fire Emblem ads...and inevitably messes with the wrong man.

A strategy game made for consoles is gonna be mediocre right out the gate. That's one genre consoles will never steal from PC no matter how badly they want to.Saije

Also, the notion that console RTS games shouldn't be compared to PC ones is a completely stupid one. Those kinds of reviews are then relevent to console gamers only. Games should be compared to set standards within their respective genres, period. Otherwise you're just making silly excuses and encouraging lacking design.

UpInFlames

Nice, so moderators can flame people now. (I'm the only person who offered that view in this thread so please don't pretend it wasn't aimed at me, at least have the guts to quote me directly next time, indirect flaming is still just that) I know people have extremely odd even borderline fanatical attachments to this simply hobby, but I expect more from a leader of the community than "Your idea is stupid" in reaction to a view he doesn't agree with. If someone in this thread had an idea, and I said "That's a stupid idea" I'd be moderated by the overbearing nanny mods, hell I've been modded for much less before. So I expect you to man up and edit this post, rather than showcase a blatant double standard of do as I say, not as I do behavior. It's a console game, why shouldn't it be relevant to console gamers only? It's a game designed only for console gamers. I'm sure the people who made this game were fully aware that the PC crowd was not going to be sold on this game, no PC gamers wants to play RTS on a console, not a single one. So why would they? This is a game designed for people who own a console, likely don't have an updated PC game rig at all, and have some curiousity about the genre.

These people may have played some of the other games in the genre on the console, like that LOTR game, or the Command and Conquer stuff. They can easily compare the game to them. (and apparently the C&C stuff at least is seemingly a much better set of games, I wouldn't know, I don't give a flip about RTS) This may sound "stupid" to you, and I apologize for my stupidity offending your sublime tastes and standards in videogames,but the next time you feel I am being stupid please feel free to have the basic adult trait of keeping it to yourself, as saying that to my face would have resulted in the loss of at least two teeth, and I hate it when people hide behind computer monitors and act tough. It's cowardly and childish.

Lets face it. A strategy game made for consoles is gonna be mediocre right out the gate. That's one genre consoles will never steal from PC no matter how badly they want to. That being said, this was more a way to flesh out the IP of HALO in my opinion then anything else. Allow gamers to experience HALO from a different perspective. I would get burnt at the stake for this, but personally I always thought HALO was the most overrated game in existence. The idea of space marines existed way the hell before master chief donned the mask and they have been done better. All in all the only thing to set HALO apart from everything else was timing, it showed up at the right time to become the darling of a new maturing generation of gamers, aside from that HALO is pure mediocrity. Not bad, just not good. So to answer your question, no it does not surprise me. By the way, there ARE better multiplayer FPS experiences out there, just none that have managed to stoke the fires of this ages impressionable and ultimately shallow youth. Saije

Do PC's have some sort of proprietary rights to certain genres? Because that was seriously one of the lamest things I've ever read in here.

I guess the marginalized, overly defensive PC gamer is the new trend this generation, which is surprising considering how well PC gaming is doing overall. Some of you are starting to sound like Nintendo fanatics from a few years back and trust me when I tell you that isn't a compliment.

Well seeing as this game is a console game i think it's easy to say that the review should be relevent to console only gamers. I also think it would be unfair to hold a game to standards of another system when the person may not own another system. How would the review help that person if the comparisons are made to a game that person doesn't have any possibility of owning or comparing?I think certain points should be mentioned and compared but the score shouldn't reflect such comparisons.smerlus

I was surprised mainly because of the developers behind it. I figured if there was any company out there that could nail a traditional RTS on a console it would have been Ensemble. Truth be told I have/had no interest in the game since I don't care about Halo or have a 360 for that matter, so there was no personal investment here, but I've always been a fan of Ensemble so I did follow this one. The review seems fair enough, and most of the complaints were echoed by other reviewers. Guess I just hoped Ensemble would bow out on a higher note than this.

WHET;)

Not the slightest, all RTS on consoles are pure crap, because they can't be controlled properly. ikwal

Well seeing as this game is a console game i think it's easy to say that the review should be relevent to console only gamers. I also think it would be unfair to hold a game to standards of another system when the person may not own another system. How would the review help that person if the comparisons are made to a game that person doesn't have any possibility of owning or comparing? I think certain points should be mentioned and compared but the score shouldn't reflect such comparisons.smerlus

Nice, so moderators can flame people now. (I'm the only person who offered that view in this thread so please don't pretend it wasn't aimed at me, at least have the guts to quote me directly next time, indirect flaming is still just that) I know people have extremely odd even borderline fanatical attachments to this simply hobby, but I expect more from a leader of the community than "Your idea is stupid" in reaction to a view he doesn't agree with. If someone in this thread had an idea, and I said "That's a stupid idea" I'd be moderated by the overbearing nanny mods, hell I've been modded for much less before. So I expect you to man up and edit this post, rather than showcase a blatant double standard of do as I say, not as I do behavior. It's a console game, why shouldn't it be relevant to console gamers only? It's a game designed only for console gamers. I'm sure the people who made this game were fully aware that the PC crowd was not going to be sold on this game, no PC gamers wants to play RTS on a console, not a single one. So why would they? This is a game designed for people who own a console, likely don't have an updated PC game rig at all, and have some curiousity about the genre.

These people may have played some of the other games in the genre on the console, like that LOTR game, or the Command and Conquer stuff. They can easily compare the game to them. (and apparently the C&C stuff at least is seemingly a much better set of games, I wouldn't know, I don't give a flip about RTS) This may sound "stupid" to you, and I apologize for my stupidity offending your sublime tastes and standards in videogames,but the next time you feel I am being stupid please feel free to have the basic adult trait of keeping it to yourself, as saying that to my face would have resulted in the loss of at least two teeth, and I hate it when people hide behind computer monitors and act tough. It's cowardly and childish.RandolphScott

It's funny that you got all worked up over my comments which you view cowardly and childish - but at the same time dished out a totally grown up threat. Anyway, next time I'd appreciate it if you actually read what I wrote before you go on to lecture me about the rules here. I said that the notion is stupid, not you. My harsh comment was directed solely at the notion, believe it or not, you're not the first one to come up with such an idea as I did hear it before. I did not, nor did I intend to, insult you in any way. Your argument, however, is fair game.

Say what you will, eventually Halo and its universe will fade into obscurity, along with the rest of you and your opinions. Saije

Say what you will, eventually Halo and its universe will fade into obscurity, along with the rest of you and your opinions. Saije

Wasn't a threat, it was a straight up promise. I've been in fights for less insulting words being thrown around. If you said it to me in person, yes, I would clip you one, and tell you to mind your bloody manners. (I've been there and done that, usually in gamestop with some loathsome smelling nerdlinger who smells like out of date cheese, though I can already tell that in a face to face conversation, you'd be too weak to say that to me) But if thats the way you want to play, then I think the idea that the notion I presented (which you didn't present a competent counter argument to at all) is stupid, is itself.... stupid. Way to go setting the tone for a quality discussion, moderator.RandolphScott

The fact that you have an obvious issue with people expressing differing opinions is solely your problem and one you will need to overcome if you plan to keep posting here - or going to game shops, it seems. After reading your last few posts, I find it hilarious that you should lecture anyone about maturity and manners.

Regardless of points or generic gameplay, Halo Wars is slated to be a top-seller this year.

Is it good that RTS's have purchase power again? Yeah

Should we inform people who buy the game of higher quality and more-indepth titles already on the console? Absolutely

Is Microsoft's plan of making RTS's viable going to enhance the genre in the future? Maybe, but the DS has nearly stolen the entire SRPG genre, there is a good chance this will backfire and cause Nintendo to get the next wave of RTS games as well.

The fact that you have an obvious issue with people expressing differing opinions is solely your problem and one you will need to overcome if you plan to keep posting here - or going to game shops, it seems. After reading your last few posts, I find it hilarious that you should lecture anyone about maturity and manners.UpInFlames