Halo Wars Demo

ROFLross

New member
Jan 8, 2009
226
0
0
I didn't think that the demo was all that bad, of course I'm not going to buy it, maybe rent it for a week and never touch it again.
I just think, and probably everyone else does and most likely has already mentioned it, is that the game would probably be better if it was also on the PC.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
ROFLross said:
I didn't think that the demo was all that bad, of course I'm not going to buy it, maybe rent it for a week and never touch it again.
I just think, and probably everyone else does and most likely has already mentioned it, is that the game would probably be better if it was also on the PC.
The only reason anyone cares about it, is because its exclusive to the console.
 

WhatHityou

New member
Nov 14, 2008
172
0
0
"I liked It prsonaly and maby you will to" Words that bbest descrbes what I think from a demo I will pass my opion on it when it's canadian/american relese on the 3rd (march)
Its a good demo though
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
I found it decidedly meh, the unit design didn't lend itself well to seeing what exactly was going on (colorful lasers fly, some guys fall over, no real idea what did what) and the controls felt very clumsy (was there some "switch quickly between base and army" button I missed?). I didn't really feel in control of my units, couldn't even make only one unit type use its special attack instead of blanketing the same target with fragmentation rounds, bazooka missiles, flashbangs, jeeps, etc at the same time. I remember talk about them designing the game around the controller and people actually preferring the controller over a mouse and was expecting a different control paradigm instead of the regular C&C-style point and click controls that just make you feel like the camera moves too damn slow to queue up units quickly between ordering your battle units around. Then again I'm used to Spring which makes many PC RTSes feel clumsy too.

Other than that I can only say Marines and Firebats. Why did they take SC's infantry so verbatim? The squad and base setup gives it a bit of a DoW style but overall the familiarity of those designs just made the whole thing feel bland.
 

Eipok Kruden

New member
Aug 29, 2008
1,209
0
0
D_987 said:
Anyone pre-ordered? - you might as well get the limited edition which actually looks worth the extra £10. Especially if you play Halo 3.
Yep. I can't wait for Sandbox. Coolest map ever, I have no idea what I'll forge first. :)
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
Wouldukindly said:
It was a bit of a meh experience to me, but then again, I've been playing the Dawn of War 2 beta like mad, so maybe I'm jaded?
That seems to be a common conclusion - thse who play RTS titles on the PC say meh, those who don't play RTS ever enjoy it.
 

Church256

New member
Jul 24, 2008
219
0
0
Played demo for a few days then deleted it cause I was playing too much and it might ruin it when I actualy get the game. For a demo it's good. But I don't think they've missed any units which causes me to pause at what they didn't include in it. Ok there's the 4 other commanders but that seems about all they've left out. Maybe 1 unit that's been left out. Brutes, which seem to be the brute chieftans special unit.

One question I have is what the special abilities of the other commanders in the game?
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
mendez said:
Played demo for a few days then deleted it cause I was playing too much and it might ruin it when I actualy get the game. For a demo it's good. But I don't think they've missed any units which causes me to pause at what they didn't include in it. Ok there's the 4 other commanders but that seems about all they've left out. Maybe 1 unit that's been left out. Brutes, which seem to be the brute chieftans special unit.

One question I have is what the special abilities of the other commanders in the game?
Every commander has two unique units (except the Brute Chieftain, he has three). Each also has their own power and bonus. Also larger maps have higher pop caps.

Forge has carpet bomb, Anders has cryo bomb, Arbiter has Rage (sort of like berserking), and Brute Chieftain has some sort of gravity vortex thing.

Here's the manual, if you're interested. [http://www.xbox.com/NR/rdonlyres/31804095-7B32-4CE2-A17E-3CB54A3692EF/0/HaloWars_MNL_EN.PDF]
 

51gunner

New member
Jun 12, 2008
583
0
0
I played through the demo. My impressions:

- The control scheme is slick. I like the work they managed with the 360 controller.
- The aesthetic is pretty nice. It really feels like a Halo game, even if not made by Bungie.
- The tutorial levels skip over a lot of material: either that, or it's simply not there. I know I had Forge get pretty busted up in a firefight, so I spent a minute wondering if there was a way to repair his warthog at all. Jury's still out: maybe?

It seems like a pretty standard RTS, made with a Halo license. Good for Halo fans, and I think I'll add it to the "games I'll buy if I have a pile of spare money" pile. It's no Endwar, but it's a good job nonetheless.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
Halo Wars seems very polished. There's nothing in it you haven't seen before, but that's fine with me- it's good stuff. What I don't like is the "streamlined" approach Microsemble has taken to Halo Wars:

The technologies are very neat, but very uncomplicated. Not much room for customization, really. Most upgrades (not all) are uninteresting because they improve the unit or building but don't change the way you use it.

Worse is the base building. You start with one main building surrounded by a set number of little pads. You may only build buildings (and there are no remotely interesting buildings) on these few pads. There are nodes on the skirmish maps which can be captured to start another identical base.

The resource (and there is only one) is gathered primarily by using the build slots around your base to build a building that generates it automatically. There are also "crates" on the map which can be claimed for immediate resources, and buildings which can be occupied to generate resources over time.

Worst for last: the controls. You'll really be shocked as I was when you see how little you are able to do. The controls work similar to other RTSs on the 360, except that you can't create waypoints, can't bookmark screens, can't add or remove units from your selection, can't change stance, can't use formations of any kind, can't expand the mini-map or issue orders on it, can't attack move, can't can't can't can't. And get this: you can't create groups.

Everything that made it into the game is good quality. It really does have fun units and abilities. But there is nothing new or even novel, and so much is missing it's just hard to believe. Microsemble claimed they were making a new RTS that was built from the ground up to play well on a console. Well, all they did was take the old PC RTS and strip it out to play well on a console. This game was delayed about a year. What were they doing that whole time?
 

SmugFrog

Ribbit
Sep 4, 2008
1,239
4
43
Rooster Cogburn said:
This game was delayed about a year. What were they doing that whole time?
Trying to figure out what's wrong with it and how they could make it better. The problem is, they've already dug their hole and it is too late to overhaul the game. I think it will be worth playing, but it's far from being a "must-have" game.
 

Nutcase

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,177
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
The technologies are very neat, but very uncomplicated. Not much room for customization, really. Most upgrades (not all) are uninteresting because they improve the unit or building but don't change the way you use it.
I browsed the game manual. Aren't many of the "uninteresting" upgrades on the path to an "interesting" upgrade? So if you make those upgrades, the opponent will see them and have time to prepare for the powerful one.
Worse is the base building. You start with one main building surrounded by a set number of little pads. You may only build buildings (and there are no remotely interesting buildings) on these few pads. There are nodes on the skirmish maps which can be captured to start another identical base.
No base building is a legit design decision, not strictly worse. Base building takes a good bit of micromanagement, so even though I like it a lot, I wouldn't want to be bothered by it unless the buildings can serve a tactical purpose, like walling in your base or blocking a key point on the map. I'm not sure if fighting with buildings like that would be considered "Halo-like" by fans and folks versed in the Halo lore, but that might be an issue the devs want to avoid. Moreover, they might want to slack off on balancing. Wall-in and blocking can be enormously powerful, as we know from e.g. Starcraft, and that power is map-dependent as well.
The resource (and there is only one) is gathered primarily by using the build slots around your base to build a building that generates it automatically. There are also "crates" on the map which can be claimed for immediate resources, and buildings which can be occupied to generate resources over time.
Wow, crates. I remember that from Tiberian Dawn. Talk about originality. ^_^

What about harassing the opponent's economy? Not being able to harass would potentially make this a *very* one-dimensional game, since all you'd be left with is 1) attack the enemy troops mostly head on or 2) threaten to take another base, and more resources with it.

Is the resource gathering building fragile enough to drop with a quick raid, and are there "free" base defenses which will thwart this?
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
Nutcase said:
I browsed the game manual. Aren't many of the "uninteresting" upgrades on the path to an "interesting" upgrade? So if you make those upgrades, the opponent will see them and have time to prepare for the powerful one.
I'm going to leave out the rest to avoid a quote nightmare, but I'll try to answer all your questions. You're right about the upgrades. Personally, I thought they were fine, but not particularly exciting compared to a game like AoEIII. In that game, you could play an upgrade card and virtually get a new unit. Or literally get a new unit. Or change the way your economy functions, etc.

On base building, I think it's worse, but I recognize that it is a matter of taste. In addition to eliminating the need for strategic building placement, it drastically limits the players' options concerning where they can build on the map and what strategies they can pursue. It's just not for me. In addition, the buildings strike me as pretty generic- supply building, barracks, vehicle building, upgrade buildings, etc.

There are structures which can be occupied to generate a stream of resources. You can deny these to your opponent. There are also nodes where a new base, identical to the old, can be built- you can deny them this as well. Attacking the supply buildings in their base, which have very decent health, is certainly not impossible. But it usually means fighting through their armies and defenses first. You can see, there are resources on the map which can/should be contested. And that's good. But you really won't see much raiding. You have multiple targets for an attack, but very little opportunity to harass.

Besides units, the only base defenses available are four nodes at each corner of the base. You can build a turret on each node, and then the turrets can each be upgraded to be more effective against vehicles, infantry, or air-power.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
Worst for last: the controls. You'll really be shocked as I was when you see how little you are able to do. The controls work similar to other RTSs on the 360, except that you can't create waypoints, can't bookmark screens, can't add or remove units from your selection, can't change stance, can't use formations of any kind, can't expand the mini-map or issue orders on it, can't attack move, can't can't can't can't. And get this: you can't create groups.
Holding X creates a waypoint (though issuing a move order that isn't a waypoint will override any assigned waypoints)

no, but you can quickly cycle through bases, armies, points of immediate interest, and your leader (if you have a leader)

no, but I believe the All Units and Local Units combined with subselecting with the right trigger make up for this.

no, I'm sure most people wouldn't miss stances though, they aren't all that useful

no, not much more useful than stances though, and units hold manually assigned formations fairly well

no, but you can hold left trigger to quadruple your scrolling speed

units automatically attack enemies within range, they won't stop but you'll get the "enemy engagement" warning and right on the d-pad will bring you there to stop them yourself.

armies are created automatically (for cycling through with down on the d-pad) and you can choose among types of selected units with the right trigger


Some of those are opinionated but just because it doesn't function exactly like it does on a PC doesn't mean it can't be done.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
Eldritch Warlord said:
Holding X creates a waypoint (though issuing a move order that isn't a waypoint will override any assigned waypoints)

no, but you can quickly cycle through bases, armies, points of immediate interest, and your leader (if you have a leader)

no, but I believe the All Units and Local Units combined with subselecting with the right trigger make up for this.

no, I'm sure most people wouldn't miss stances though, they aren't all that useful

no, not much more useful than stances though, and units hold manually assigned formations fairly well

no, but you can hold left trigger to quadruple your scrolling speed

units automatically attack enemies within range, they won't stop but you'll get the "enemy engagement" warning and right on the d-pad will bring you there to stop them yourself.

armies are created automatically (for cycling through with down on the d-pad) and you can choose among types of selected units with the right trigger


Some of those are opinionated but just because it doesn't function exactly like it does on a PC doesn't mean it can't be done.
I'm not comparing it to the PC, I'm comparing it to other console RTSs, all of which have far, far more functional controls. You're right that there is still a lot you can do, but one might say the same if limited to one button and a joystick. What it comes down to is, I have far fewer options and control functions. There's no getting around that point, and I don't like it. Other RTSs would be unplayable with these controls, and I guess I prefer them.

I did not know about holding X- I'll look into that later, I don't have access to the demo atm.

Still not a bookmark!

I don't think they make up for it. In other games, I need to select the units I want quick. To me, a good traditional RTS (and Halo Wars is exactly that, although lacking features) should demand it.

Stances- depends what game you are playing. In some games they are very important. I miss them, and this is nothing but a list of my complaints, after all.

Formations- not essential to every game, but unlike stances, everybody likes them, and at this point I'm waiting for Halo Wars to give me something.

Expand minimap- Again, yes, I have options, but far fewer than in other games.

Again, fewer options. What if I want to use units of the same type to kite an enemy, or use their specials efficiently against multiple enemies? It's virtually impossible, or at least excruciatingly inefficient.

We just have a difference of opinion here. I just like the controls of other RTS games that give me far more efficiency. Tasks that would be simple in other games are like pulling teeth to me in Halo Wars. I thought Halo Wars would provide a new and different console RTS experience, but it's just the old stuff with features hacked out. It will appeal to a lot of people, and I certainly have no problem with that, but I think I have very reasonable points for why I just can't like it.

Big Halo:CE fan btw. I even liked 2 and 3.

EDIT: I don't mean to sound condescending, but those for whom Halo Wars is their first RTS can't imagine the complexity of games like Age of Empires III, or even BFMEII on the Xbox 360. And they might not like it if they did, but I certainly do.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
DraconianKing said:
I'm seeing a lot of Bawwwwwing about Halo Wars not playing like a PC RTS.
Get over it.
It's an Xbox RTS.
If it played like a PC RTS, it'd be awful unless you had a keyboard and a mouse...but then you might as well BE ON THE PC.

They streamlined the base management so you don't have to worry about so you can go and crush Covenant with your awesome troops.

There's only so many buttons on a controller and if you keep wanting more functions you'll need either more buttons (like a keyboard) or stupid menus to navigate.

I think Halo Wars is good the way it is.
and Yes, I am a fan of RTS's.
Exactly how I feel, but everyone has their own opinion.