After watching a few skirmish vids i think the building style is more suited as base building in cnc makes matchs go on for ages.

No strategy?  Really?  I'd like to see you play on blizzard.net with some of the higher ranked people.  It would be funny.  Just because you don't like the "type" of strategy doesn't mean there isn't strategy there.  I don't like the direction dawn of war 2 takes, but you probably do.  You shouldn't insult someones sub-genre because you suck at playing it.

Felt kind of lame after playing Dawn of War 2 beta on PC. Still I probably buy this when its price goes down.

I love it, Mad! Anyway, that was an informative preview.

Was really surprised how good the demo was.
Hope the final product is just as promising, and it will easily be a 80/near AAA game on the market. Maybe even AAA depending on how harsh the critics are.

 I think that both of you are correct. I played Starcraft for years, and what made that game great was the incredible balance between the 3 races. However that being said, ranked games were incredibly strategic, knowing where to place your base, the incredible balance between gathering resources and building the correct defenses/offense/upgrades were extremely important. On the flip side, the non-ranked stuff I actually enjoyed more. In an effort to minimize the resource management, bases were already equiped with the 'supercrystals' that had infinte resources at one spot, so all you drones went to the same place, and the gas was also plentyful. Thus the bulk of the game was geared towards building the army, along with defenses. The great fun was then co-ordinated attack against each other, and then rebuilding the army as quickly as possible/rebuilding defenses, etc. Everyone would be fully upgraded anyways, thus knowing which units worked better against other units was more important. The problem was still, the person who could click faster would build up faster and after 10-15 minutes have a significant advantage. Thus the strategy part usually got thrown out. The strategy part plays a role when people have equal bases and equal resources and can nuild equially fast. Thus Halo Wars may actually have an advantage here if base building is easy. Hardcore RTS fans will likely have an issue with Halo Wars, but I think the mainstream fans will enjoy it more as it will be more balanced.

Sweet! Perhaps this is worth owning after all! It'll be the first console RTS since Shadow of the Horned Rat for me.

I enjoyed the demo. Graphics are solid but it's more 25fps than 30. It's definately designed for console play as it's pretty quick to get everything up and running. My only concern is that it might lack depth compared to PC designed RTS but hey I only played the demo. I'm definately buying it. I like tech trees and I like Halo games

@xero

Of course reaction time (whoever can click faster) comes into play.  That comes into play in every single competitive game genre out there except maybe turn based games that give you plenty of time to plan your moves.  90% of video gaming is one persons reaction times against anothers.

Mummelmann said: Sweet! Perhaps this is worth owning after all! It'll be the first console RTS since Shadow of the Horned Rat for me.

I think once you buy the real game and get a match of 3v3 online (pop cap doesn't change with the amount of player, so it still remains the same as a 1v1) this game will be epic. You'll have huge army wars going on, with your different leaders who offer different powers. Once you play the full game, the lack of depth should go away. It's just the demo doesn't let you do a lot, especially on a small map like chasms.