eliasg said: is it true that it has better graphics from HALO3??? |
I don't really think so - it's not a "graphic powerhouse" type game - you're seeing a lot of things on screen at once so obviously the polygon counts for individual units and such are nothing like an FPS - but the graphics are really nice - nothing earthshattering graphically, but nice.
The controls are solid. I'm not gonna say they did any special thing that "made it just work" on a console - more like they've continued to improve upon what we've seen console RTS's try in terms of controls - and more importantly they have changed the way things behave so you don't need to do as much nit-picking and selecting (stuff that's easy with a mouse and hard with a controller) - which makes sense both because it needs to be usable with a controller and because console gamers are generally looking for something a little faster paced.
It's still a way slower pace than an FPS of course, and this will still put off some FPS gamers, but I think the appeal is a bit broader in terms of gameplay than other RTS games have been - combined with the Halo name, the solid execution, interesting story (so far, there's not a lot in the demo) - I think it will do quite well.
No way this sells as well as Halo 3 of course, but it should easily outsell every console RTS before it in short order.
I kind of feel bad for EndWar - EndWar was far more innovative in terms of how to do an RTS on a console. Now EndWar has it's problems, and it's so different that it may not interest the normal RTS crowd or the general action game crowd - but it's really quite unique - and anyone who hasn't tried the EndWar demo should at least check it out - just to see some ideas that are definitely going to show up in more games in the future (starting with the impressive execution on voice control).