Official Halo Wars Thread - Keep It Here!

Sure the demo I will admit is fun but that doesnt mean its good. Killfox

nah, some will go crazy...

but kz2 has proved itself as a great game, AAA in mc

still could flop, some will go crazy, but people were expecting A LOT worse 2 months ago

Giancar

Using Metacritic is may not be a good idea, Halo Wars had proved itself AA in mc, and yet with GS it got a 6.5. So a Metacritic score does not mean it would be the same Gamespot score.

all these kids are trying to make a name for gamespot by making these obscure decisions that go against popular opinion but have flimsy complicated rationlizations that they dont even divulge

like not giving gears of war 2 any nods in anything and now completely flopping halo wars because its not complicated enough.... or whatever reason. since they didnt give reasons for either

[QUOTE="one_on_one"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Gamespot loves controversy -- and they love getting things wrong. ;)ocinom

I don't think GameSpot reviewing a game and scoring it based on their opinions is controversial at all.

Oh no no no. When it comes to GS, weird things can happen. Seeing that only (right now) GS gave a score bellow 70 makes one think what went wrong

Oic, but what if they scored it over a 90, will that make them more or less controversial? The way I see it, different sites have different reviewers and different standards of reviewing. I mean if all these sites followed one specific rule and standard of reviewing games and GS was the only one that was completely different, then that's when it's controversial. Also by the amount of bashing Halo Wars received in this forum, it got what it was hyped.

[QUOTE="Giancar"] nah, some will go crazy...

but kz2 has proved itself as a great game, AAA in mc

still could flop, some will go crazy, but people were expecting A LOT worse 2 months ago

Chaos_HL21

Using Metacritic is may not be a good idea, Halo Wars had proved itself AA in mc, and yet with GS it got a 6.5. So a Metacritic score does not mean it would be the same Gamespot score.

it will still sell millionsnaruto7777

31 reviews later, still at 82. Only 7 are below 80, and only 4 of those are rated at 70 or below... and only ONE is below 70. :|

Just more perspective, my friends.

musicalmac

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="PS3_3DO"]

Yeah no Co-Op, no cover in Multiplayer.

bez2083

My copy is paid in full so I'm buying it no matter what score it gets, but to be able to see the reaction of people who spent literally years hyping this game only to have it flop here would overload the lulz system.Porn suicide accounts, DC 100X, absolute freakin bedlam.

My biggest problem with this review (that seems way low to me) is that how did BFME get an 8.something when its horrible..user_nat

31 reviews later, still at 82. Only 7 are below 80, and only 4 of those are rated at 70 or below... and only ONE is below 70. :|

Just more perspective, my friends.

My biggest problem with this review (that seems way low to me) is that how did BFME get an 8.something when its horrible..user_nat

Differnt reviewer if im not mistaken.

But yeah i highly doubt the game is worse then BFME or C+C3 on 360.

Sounds like Gamespot pulled a Gamespot. So lemmings, we doing Metacritic/GR, or sales now? :P

The Good:

Superb selection of UNSC and Covenant forces

Easy to play once you grasp the controls

Engaging storyline and cutscenes

Good mission variety through campaign mode.

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.

Umm.... anyone else think the things listed in the "bad" category are ridiculous reasons to give the game a 6.5? I know I do

This is unfortunate, and I say that as a Halo fan. As glad as I am about the story and Halo feel (how well done they are, how well portrayed and realized) but the fact that Ensemble didn't pull it all together to be a realized game. Something that can stand out in its own merit and be a down right good game (like anything from Bungie) is dissapointing to me.

I say all this as a Halo fan.

The Good:

Superb selection of UNSC and Covenant forces

Easy to play once you grasp the controls

Engaging storyline and cutscenes

Good mission variety through campaign mode.

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.

Umm.... anyone else think the things listed in the "bad" category are ridiculous reasons to give the game a 6.5? I know I do

whatisazerg

My biggest problem with this review (that seems way low to me) is that how did BFME get an 8.something when its horrible..user_nat

This is unfortunate, and I say that as a Halo fan. As glad as I am about the story and Halo feel (how well done they are, how well portrayed and realized) but the fact that Ensemble didn't pull it all together to be a realized game. Something that can stand out in its own merit and be a down right good game (like anything from Bungie) is dissapointing to me.

I say all this as a Halo fan.

R3FURBISHED

The general gaming population will decide if its a good game or not, not 1 guy on the internet. You think if 1 person decides to trash Super Mario Galaxy that its gonna change anyones mind about how amazing the game is?

Now I'm not saying Halo Wars is equal to SMG, its just an example of how you shouldnt let 1 person, 1 person you don't even know determine what is good or bad. Look at some other reviews, and get a general concensus if you want a bigger picture.

The review was bull. He used PC RTS standards and applied them to a console RTS. He should have been comparing the game to the console versions of Command and Conquer. Anyway, I'll stick with IGN and Gamerankings on this one. Gamespot has a tendency all too often to purposely rate games lower to make a splash. Oh well, it will still outsell Killzone 2. PapaJohn24

Are you even being serious? When a game is developed and released to the masses, it should be compared to the best in its genre, as well as, how it stacks up against all games released across all systems. If a game released in 09 doesn't compare in terms of gameplay, quality, or graphically to even the games that have come before it, then said game deserves to be reviewed poorly. This is true regardless of whether or not a game is released on a console or the PC.

It's obvious how far RTS gaming has come, so to allow reviewers to take a step back and give a game like this a good score is insulting to everyone that truly appreciates the genre. Halo Wars is a sub-par game and it has been reviewed as such.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"] Agreed. Eurogamer just gave it an 8. All the respectable, creditable websites have been giving it an average of 8. Seems very strange that gamespot gave it a 6.5.xsubtownerx

[QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

The Good:

Superb selection of UNSC and Covenant forces

Easy to play once you grasp the controls

Engaging storyline and cutscenes

Good mission variety through campaign mode.

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.

Umm.... anyone else think the things listed in the "bad" category are ridiculous reasons to give the game a 6.5? I know I do

hopesfall2own

Halo Wars is fantastic fun :D

-

Giving a 6.5 to a game they had a blast playing is simply another brick in GS' path to being completely out of touch with reality. Want the honest scoop? Play the demo in skirmish mode. If it makes you long to play the game with your buddies, then go for it. If not, hey, it's not for you, you're out all of $0.

-

As for the score-mongers, seriously? I mean, really guys? Do I need to write a seven page long essay on this, or can we move on and accept that the review industry, the ENTIRE review scoring malarky, hasn't made a lick of sense in years? Don't make me come down there with a thesis!

What's with GS giving these quality games such low scores? F.E.A.R 2 a 7.0? Halo Wars a 6.5? Seriously? Just by playing the demo I can tell this game deserves at least an 8.

Faber Fighter, someone earlier mentioned they checked the reviewer's gamertag on live and noticed he'd only finished 1/3rd of the game, maybe thats why he says its a 5 hour game compared to other sites saying its 10 ;)hopesfall2own

RTS on consoles just doesnt work and the developers should be embarrased they even attemted it. This could have been great but they rushed and half asked the game to the extent its not even worth renting. Still idiots will still by it and it will sell a ton. bri360

This is why I prefer IGN reviews... I always get bashed for it. carljohnson3456

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"]This is why I prefer IGN reviews... I always get bashed for it. Giancar

This is why I prefer IGN reviews... I always get bashed for it. carljohnson3456

Agreed. IGN always go into a lot of detail with their reviews, GS not so much.

[QUOTE="bri360"]RTS on consoles just doesnt work and the developers should be embarrased they even attemted it. This could have been great but they rushed and half asked the game to the extent its not even worth renting. Still idiots will still by it and it will sell a ton. hopesfall2own

Most people look at a score. But fail to see the fun in a game. And just from the demo HW was fun. Just the GS reviewr went into with some anti Halo and 360 bias doesn't mean the game is bad.

Look at Metacritic, its above 8.0 there.

GS was just fishing for some hits in this bleak economic time.

[QUOTE="Giancar"][QUOTE="carljohnson3456"]This is why I prefer IGN reviews... I always get bashed for it. carljohnson3456

GS was just fishing for some hits in this bleak economic time.

HPPL3