Poll: Why was Halo Wars considered a bad RTS?

Recommended Videos

Motiv_

New member
Jun 2, 2009
851
0
0
I'm going to try not to sound like a PC elitist here, but RTS works best on the PC. The end. No contest. I find Racing games and Fighting games easier and funner to play on consoles, but a console RTS that manages to be great will simply become "Average" by comparison.

Ignoring the obvious PC comparison, it was actually very well made. The controls worked about as best as a controller can, it was fairly balanced, and forgetting about the obvious flood cash in, the story was a nice change from the pure concentrated bile that usually constitutes a "Story" to the Halo games.
 

BlastedTheWorm

New member
Jan 26, 2010
478
0
0
Pirate Kitty said:
Halo Wars was an RTS? News to me.

I see the real and the time, sure, but not so much with the strategy - beyond 'pile army on here'.
Reaper195 said:
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.
Funnily enough, this is how I play every RTS ever.

SomethingAmazing said:
Come on, the entire Halo series is a rip off of Starcraft. At least go the whole way.
And the Starcraft series is an even bigger rip off of Warhammer 40,000. Go figure.

In fact, Halo's more of a rip off of Starship Troopers.
 

Andrew_Waltfeld

New member
Jan 7, 2011
151
0
0
BlastedTheWorm said:
SomethingAmazing said:
Come on, the entire Halo series is a rip off of Starcraft. At least go the whole way.
And the Starcraft series is an even bigger rip off of Warhammer 40,000. Go figure.

In fact, Halo's more of a rip off of Starship Troopers.
I have to agree, all the marines in star-craft are in power armor and convict's aren't they?
 

xam883

New member
Oct 18, 2010
41
0
0
I liked it because you could activate the arbiters special ability and have him jump on a vulture and start wailing on it. Also the controls were good,for a console anyway.And its always fun to see a group grunts get runover buy a warthog or blasted to the borders of the map buy a vulture.The cutsceans were also nice to look at to.
 

Oktanas

New member
Apr 16, 2009
367
0
0
Because it's on a console. You can newer get pin point accuracy with analog. And it also sucked.
Just go and take a look at Yahtzee review about it.
 

random_bars

New member
Oct 2, 2010
585
0
0
Because instead of trying to use the console control scheme to its advantage and take the RTS genre in a direction where precision control isn't necessary, it just stubbornly tried to emulate a PC RTS, but without the precise controls of a mouse there wasn't really much depth to it.

Something like Brutal Legend is a much better example of a console RTS because it instead accepts the console's control limitations and builds around them to the console's strengths - it removes the need to micromanage and instead gives the player a battleaxe and puts them right in the battle, with the strategy coming from where to direct your attention at any given time, which units to team-up with, and when to use your incredibly powerful, but slow-to-recharge, solos.
 

katsabas

New member
Apr 23, 2008
1,515
0
0
Direct your questions to Yahtzee's review on the game. Sums pretty EVERYTHING up.
 

Spoon E11

New member
Oct 27, 2010
310
0
0
Its because "true gamers"* say RTS are only for PC.

*or some other BS like that

It was a game that showed people consoles can do RTS's. Except that one was just too bland. It needed spicing up a little. But it worked as an RTS. In my books I liked it.
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
tbh its limited by being a console rts, for a console rts however its quite good but compared to all other rts games out there it is terrible
again this is purely because its on the console and therefore the controls are limited meaning the game is limited
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,830
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Because it's just horrible, and broken, and even though I hate RTS games, even I know that you can only really play them properly on PC.
You hate RTS games, so you can't really be expected to make a point here that isn't biased in some way. Even if it is an unbiased point, nevertheless your points are mistaken. It's not 'just horrible', you don't even give any evidence to support that opinion or claim. It's certainly not broken, as the OP mentioned the game is very well balanced, and two half-decent players will certainly both have to keep on changing their tactics and strategy and whatnot when playing against each other. It's much more well balanced than many other popular RTSs for PC, for example, I have Halo Wars myself and also regularly play Dawn of War. In DoW, it's easy to overwhelm the opponent by simply turtling with tons of turrets in a single fortified position, and that keeps the enemy at bay long enough for even the most n00bish player to build massive amounts of whatever their most powerful units are. Victory is almsot guaranteed after that point. That, my friend, is a horribly broken RTS. Halo Wars, on the other hand, has a much better squad cap limit, and has limited base options and turrets and stuff that mean a good player has to defend as well as be able to attack. And to play a game like that takes serious skill.

Also, Halo Wars is certainly a game with a great set of controls. The lesser need for micromanagement means that the control scheme could be made more streamlined, and when I first played the game it took me perhaps ten minutes to get fully acquainted with the controls. That's about the same amount of time as it takes for me to get used to the controls of most newer FPSs I play, and indeed some games I've played have taken me a lot longer to understand the controls of (for example, Alone in the Dark, though admittedly it was mainly me getting used to being able to position my weapons on-screen to attack and having to get used to that idea...).

Overall, Halo Wars is, though by no means a perfect game (because lets face it, every game is bound to have some flaws no matter how much we may fanboy over them), it is definitely a good FPS game. Like many here, I was skeptical when it was first announced, and yet I grew to love it very quickly after buying and playing it. My view, therefore, is that the hordes of people claiming it's crap are mostly disgruntled PC fanboys and fangirls who are annoyed at the fact that their 'God Genre', that they were always most dominant in, has finally produced something that isn't only good on PC.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,329
0
0
Well I haven't played it but lots of people call it generic badly broken. Given that it is a console RTS(Even though it is developed for console) I am not entirely surprised that it is broken. There are somethings a controller is better than keyboard and mouse RTS games is not one of those things.
 

baddude1337

Taffer
Jun 9, 2010
1,855
0
0
I thought it was fun, the best Halo game there is in my opinion. I think the main problem is that the controls are over simplified, as well the strategy was underwhelming, basically just massing lots of units. What did slightly irk me was that most reviewers praised the wheel selection system as being innovative for console RTS's, but Kane's Wrath did it before Wars, and much better too (if you do want an RTS on a console, this is the one).
 

Christopher Parker

New member
Jan 13, 2011
19
0
0
Judging from the demo, it has the same problems as every game in the Halo series, IMO: it does most parts competently, but nothing particularly well. Remember Yahtzee's review of Halo 3, and where he says that Halo 3 isn't a bad game? Consider that section of the review quoted word for word.
 

tijuanatim

New member
Sep 24, 2008
677
0
0
Most RTS fans are PC purists, and most Halo fans can't comprehend a Halo game that isn't a shooter. It was fighting an uphill battle from both sides.
 

binvjoh

New member
Sep 27, 2010
1,464
0
0
I wasn't aware that it was. I remember it getting mostly average reviews leaning towards positive.
 

AlternatePFG

New member
Jan 22, 2010
2,857
0
0
Well, when it came out, me and 2 of my friends all got it, and we played through the entire campaign on Co-Op. It was quite fun. Then we did a couple Skirmish matches. Those were quite fun too. After that though, we pretty much never touched the game again. There really wasn't any lasting appeal.
 

Fishyash

Elite Member
Dec 27, 2010
1,154
0
41
I would assume it's because that since it's on a console, you cannot micromanage. This means if you want a working RTS on a console you will probably need to dumb the game down greatly.

Basically, unless you have a completely different style of RTS on a console, it is not gonna work.
 

Zechariah Riojas

New member
May 20, 2010
5
0
0
Having played RTS games on both a PC and a console, Halo Wars had great controls, a reasonable balance (although ODST were balanced fine before the first update) but didn't have a range of strategies once you got down to it. If you played one-on-one online, chances are you would get warthog rushed. If that didn't happen then the other person was either building an army of tanks or an army of hawks. As the covenant though you could actually build a strategy around having various types of units instead of a horde of one type. I've played Command and Conquer, and Supreme Commander for the console and Supreme Commander, Empire Earth, Age of Empires for the PC. As far as a console game goes, Halo Wars was not a bad RTS. It just wasn't great and probably would have done better to have more units so as to make more strategies.