By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Halo Wars is important.

BrayanA on 27 January 2009

2m ?!?! You sure? I don't think it is possible.
I love to play RTS on my PC, but have 0 for 360.



Around the Network
chaospluto on 27 January 2009

Hum...

It's a Halo game, not the same Halo as most Halo fans are used to, but...

It has Halo in the name, that's all it needs. I bet you that people will even pick it up without knowing it's an RTS and expect it to be a new Halo like the old ones.

Because we know how people can be who don't look stuff up or track gaming faithfully like they should. They just like to play what they like, I know a lot of people like this.

However, I think RTS is the next genre for Consoles, 360 (besides HW) and PS3 is getting some pretty exciting ones. So many people who don't play games on PC, but are Consoles gamers, that don't know what an RTS is or has never been properly introduced to the genre, they may find a sweet spot for RTS.

Halo Wars however, looks Meh to me so far. It doesn't impress me fully yet, until I play it myself I guess.



  • 2010 MUST Haves: WKC, Heavy Rain, GoWIII, Fable III, Mass Effect 2, Bayonetta, Darksiders, FFXIII, Alan Wake, No More Heroes 2, Fragile Dreams: FRotM, Trinity: SoZ, BFBC2.
  • Older Need To Buys: Super Mario Bros. Wii, Mario Kart Wii, Deadspace, Demon's Souls, Uncharted 2.

There is definitely more to list that I want, but that's my main focus there.

Jereel Hunter on 27 January 2009
Willem said:
Given that Red Alert 3 only sold 0.19 mill while it's a proven RTS franchise, don't you think that 2 million is a bit high ?

 

Because proven RTS franchises are proven PC franchises. As an RTS fan, if Halo Wars came out for PC and 360, I would get it for PC *no question*. And any C&C fans would have done the same. Halo Wars is only coming out on the 360, and it's got the Halo name, which is huge. I think 2 million makes sense.



Jereel Hunter on 27 January 2009
Khuutra said:
Lafiel said:

@ Khuutra )

trying to be an elitist with oh so tactical turn based strategy games huh? nothing as relaxed as TBS games can be anything but casual j/k

I'm being intentionally ironic. I apologize if I came across as acidic.

A slowed down RTS game would just introduce the possibility of having greater strategic elements added into it. And yes, I'd argue that TBS games (which is what "SRPGs" are, I don't know why people call them that) are considerably deeper than RTSes where your APM (actions per minute) often is directly proportional to your ability to win games. I can't help it! I just see them as being deeper.

 

I disagree. APM is still secondary. A very fast gamer with terrible strategy will lose any well done and balanced RTS. However, between two players of equivalent strategic ability, yes reflexes matter. Yes, RTS games sometimes have less options than TBS, but there are so many more involved games that I really think have the same or even less depth than an RTS. Options do not equate to depth. In a RTS, you must be able to shift your production and priorities based on your opponent. How fast you click is far less important than how fast you think.

In all, I'd say they arent' deeper, just different. I love strategy games, and I can generally outthink my opponents, but I'm also impatient. So I like games like speed chess better than chess, RTS over TBS, and games that limit stalling. And stalling is not an option in a real-time game.



Khuutra on 27 January 2009

Fair enough, Jereel, but that's a pretty good argument for playing Defcon.



Around the Network
haxxiy on 27 January 2009
windbane said:
haxxiy said:
blue-lady said:

Depending on the success (or otherwise) of this title, we may see RTS's find a genuine home on consoles. Of course I don't mean this to the exclusion of the genre's existing home on PC's, but rather the games may see invigorated interest and sales in general if they find a standard to launch them on consoles.

Though I only expect Halo Wars to sell two million copies, and hope for three, what is more important is that the title is well-recieved. By that I mean it receives generally high review scores (say eighty and above) and is well-respected amongst hardcore gamers. I don't anticipate Halo Wars bringing RTS popularity to consoles as Halo brought FPS popularity to consoles, but I would hope for some measure of success.

Ever heard about two games named GoldenEye and Perfect Dark?

 

 

yeah, but halo made console FPS mainstream.  try playing goldeneye now.  the controls are terrible.

 

 Agree with first part, but about the second one I think you need to be fair. The game isn't to blame about the worst controller design ever on a major console.



 

 

 

 

 

windbane on 27 January 2009
haxxiy said:
windbane said:
haxxiy said:
blue-lady said:

Depending on the success (or otherwise) of this title, we may see RTS's find a genuine home on consoles. Of course I don't mean this to the exclusion of the genre's existing home on PC's, but rather the games may see invigorated interest and sales in general if they find a standard to launch them on consoles.

Though I only expect Halo Wars to sell two million copies, and hope for three, what is more important is that the title is well-recieved. By that I mean it receives generally high review scores (say eighty and above) and is well-respected amongst hardcore gamers. I don't anticipate Halo Wars bringing RTS popularity to consoles as Halo brought FPS popularity to consoles, but I would hope for some measure of success.

Ever heard about two games named GoldenEye and Perfect Dark?

 

 

yeah, but halo made console FPS mainstream. try playing goldeneye now. the controls are terrible.

 

Agree with first part, but about the second one I think you need to be fair. The game isn't to blame about the worst controller design ever on a major console.

controller was bad, but the control system wasn't dual-stick, either.

 



windbane on 27 January 2009
Jereel Hunter said:
Khuutra said:
Lafiel said:

@ Khuutra )

trying to be an elitist with oh so tactical turn based strategy games huh? nothing as relaxed as TBS games can be anything but casual j/k

I'm being intentionally ironic. I apologize if I came across as acidic.

A slowed down RTS game would just introduce the possibility of having greater strategic elements added into it. And yes, I'd argue that TBS games (which is what "SRPGs" are, I don't know why people call them that) are considerably deeper than RTSes where your APM (actions per minute) often is directly proportional to your ability to win games. I can't help it! I just see them as being deeper.

 

I disagree. APM is still secondary. A very fast gamer with terrible strategy will lose any well done and balanced RTS. However, between two players of equivalent strategic ability, yes reflexes matter. Yes, RTS games sometimes have less options than TBS, but there are so many more involved games that I really think have the same or even less depth than an RTS. Options do not equate to depth. In a RTS, you must be able to shift your production and priorities based on your opponent. How fast you click is far less important than how fast you think.

In all, I'd say they arent' deeper, just different. I love strategy games, and I can generally outthink my opponents, but I'm also impatient. So I like games like speed chess better than chess, RTS over TBS, and games that limit stalling. And stalling is not an option in a real-time game.

yeah, watching high-level replays of Starcraft, for example, was quite the strategic show.

 



scottie on 27 January 2009

You're basing this off the mistaken belief that Halo 1 brought FPS to consoles I assume?

Sorry, Halo Wars is no more significant that any other console RTS



blue-lady on 27 January 2009
scottie said:
You're basing this off the mistaken belief that Halo 1 brought FPS to consoles I assume?

Sorry, Halo Wars is no more significant that any other console RTS

Not at all.

I'm basing it off the highly substantiated notion that Halo 1 made FPS relevant on consoles at large.