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

Forums - Gaming - Halo Wars gets 6.5/10 from Gamespot!!

badgenome on 21 February 2009
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
average score is 83, which is still awful for a Halo game, if you think Halo 3 got 9.5 and above, it's like saying Halo Wars is as good as House of the Dead Overkill, where Halo Wars should be over 90 if you think of aaaall that hype and so on

also, Gamespot is considered as the most reliable gaming source

By whom? I'd say they haven't been considered all that credible for some time now, and certainly not the most reliable site.

 Also, comparing Halo Wars to Halo 3 is... wow. Nevermind House of the Dead.



Around the Network
blazinhead89 on 21 February 2009

Gamespot sucks, so unreliable, Still its one person's opinion, the average is 8+ , so its definitely good for a RTS



Barozi on 21 February 2009
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
average score is 83, which is still awful for a Halo game, if you think Halo 3 got 9.5 and above, it's like saying Halo Wars is as good as House of the Dead Overkill, where Halo Wars should be over 90 if you think of aaaall that hype and so on

also, Gamespot is considered as the most reliable gaming source

Hype does not equal to good scores.

Proof: Haze is not in the 90s.

 

And yeah like badgenome already said, comparing Halo Wars to Halo 3 is ridiculous. It's like comparing Super Mario Galaxy to Mario Super Sluggers.



CAL4M1TY on 21 February 2009

The average is around 80%, which is good.

I've never liked gamespot, I don't find their reviews enjoyable to read (it's like they talk down to their reader who's paying their salary) and after the controversy with that jeff guy, not to mention being bought out by cnet, they aren't credible to me.

Sure they might be to some people (read: PS3 fanboys), but I'm not one of them.

Also, I don't care about Halo Wars anyway (as a PS3 owner and RTS despiser, I even hate WC3 and Starcraft I)



Kantor on 21 February 2009
CAL4M1TY said:
The average is around 80%, which is good.

I've never liked gamespot, I don't find their reviews enjoyable to read (it's like they talk down to their reader who's paying their salary) and after the controversy with that jeff guy, not to mention being bought out by cnet, they aren't credible to me.

Sure they might be to some people (read: PS3 fanboys), but I'm not one of them.

Also, I don't care about Halo Wars anyway (as a PS3 owner and RTS despiser, I even hate WC3 and Starcraft I)

Lol.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/ratchetclank/index.html?tag=result;title;0

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/uncharteddrakesfortune/index.html?tag=result;title;0

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/wipeout/index.html?tag=result;title;0

Pretty much every PS3 fan(boy) on the planet despises GameSpot.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
NeoRatt on 21 February 2009

I tried out the demo and afterwards felt like this was way better then I thought it would be. It wasn't a traditional RTS, just different....

I think that it will appeal to people who are open minded about the design for an RTS. If you are looking for everything to be like Ages of Empires, then you are looking at the wrong game.

This review like all others is about opinion. Obviously the different gameplay didn't connect with the reviewer just like Killzone 2 didn't connect with Edge. Reviews seem to be better then for the other decent console RTS C&C.

So, between the demo and the reviews that makes this game worth the purchase. There are many good games on Metacritic that are in the same score territory or lower then Halo Wars is right now.... Devil May Cry 4, Call of Duty: World at War, Viva Pinata, DiRT, Crackdown, Battlefield: Bad Company, Rainbow Six Vegas, Castle Crashers, C&C, Saints Row 2, Prince of Persia, etc. Not bad company for a console RTS.



vlad321 on 21 February 2009

There's a difference between "Better than I thuoght it would be" and being "actually good and awesome." From the demo, this RTS is ridiculously simplistic when compared to other RTSes and that's a fact. I don't know about 6.5 but it did not deserve even an 8 imo.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Barozi on 21 February 2009
vlad321 said:
There's a difference between "Better than I thuoght it would be" and being "actually good and awesome." From the demo, this RTS is ridiculously simplistic when compared to other RTSes and that's a fact. I don't know about 6.5 but it did not deserve even an 8 imo.

Yeah because every game must be complex or else it's bad.....



vlad321 on 21 February 2009
Barozi said:
vlad321 said:
There's a difference between "Better than I thuoght it would be" and being "actually good and awesome." From the demo, this RTS is ridiculously simplistic when compared to other RTSes and that's a fact. I don't know about 6.5 but it did not deserve even an 8 imo.

Yeah because every game must be complex or else it's bad.....

 

Because it's too simple to be enjoyable. Too many intricacies missing, too little strategy. In fact I'm happy it's getting these scores, that way we won't see a flood of shitty RTS cames on consoles which people claim are god, the way we are seeing with FPSes.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

JaggedSac on 21 February 2009
vlad321 said:
Barozi said:
vlad321 said:
There's a difference between "Better than I thuoght it would be" and being "actually good and awesome." From the demo, this RTS is ridiculously simplistic when compared to other RTSes and that's a fact. I don't know about 6.5 but it did not deserve even an 8 imo.

Yeah because every game must be complex or else it's bad.....

 

Because it's too simple to be enjoyable. Too many intricacies missing, too little strategy. In fact I'm happy it's getting these scores, that way we won't see a flood of shitty RTS cames on consoles which people claim are god, the way we are seeing with FPSes.

 

Oh, you've played the final game?