Review: Halo Wars 177
- Title: Halo Wars
- Developer: Ensemble Studios
- Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios
- System: Xbox 360
- Reviewer: Soulskill
- Score: 7/10
A solid camera system is the foundation of a good control scheme, and here Ensemble gets off to a running start. The left stick pans around the map at a variable speed determined by how far you push the stick. You can scroll slowly or quickly, and you can also change the maximum speed in the options menu. It's very responsive and easy to get from one place to another. You can hold the left trigger for even more speed, going all the way across the map in about a second. The right stick controls the zoom function, which is largely irrelevant — you'll probably want to keep it zoomed out as far as it will go most of the time — and pushing the stick to the sides rotates your view. You won't need to use this very often, but it's convenient and useful if you want to see things from a different angle.
The other way you can move around the map is with the directional pad. Hitting left will cycle through your base positions, and pressing down will cycle through your unit positions. Occasionally you'll get an alert — for example, a few of your units will be under attack somewhere on the map — and pressing right will take you immediately to the position of your latest alert. Getting around the map is definitely not a problem in this game. It's about as close as you can get to the ease of use that comes with a mouse and keyboard.
The next big hurdle was unit selection, and again, Ensemble did a fine job, giving you all the options and speed you're used to in these types of games. The A-Button selects units individually, but if you hold it down, you get a good-sized circular area which you can then sweep over multiple units to select them at the same time. This takes the place of the typical click-and-drag rectangles on the PC. It's slightly slower, but not by much, and you get the added benefit of being able to grab everyone in a circle around a unit you want to stay put. On top of that, double tapping the A-button on a unit will select all of that type of unit nearby. The right shoulder will select everything on screen, and the left shoulder will grab all units period. The only notable missing function is the inability to save certain groups and switch back to them, and even then, if your groups are spread out, it's not an issue.
If you have multiple unit types selected, the trigger buttons will cycle through the different types, making it very easy to send all your marines in one direction and all your vehicles in another. Once you've had a few missions to get used to the myriad selection options, you won't even need to actively think about what buttons to press. It's a good system because it doesn't get in the way of the actual gameplay. Finally, the means of controlling your units and buildings are simple and intuitive as well. The X-button is your standard "go here," "attack this," "grab this" button, and the Y-button activates any special attacks your selected units have. One nice feature is that you can hold down the X-button for a few seconds and a unit will finish walking to where they were already headed before they go to the new location. This lets you set up paths to take the long way around if the short way isn't safe. Buildings have a radial context menu through which you activate upgrades or pump out new units. You can queue up multiples at a time, and you can cancel an order before it finishes. Essentially, all is as it should be, and you're left to focus on what's important.
Halo Wars starts you off about 20 years before the events of the first Halo game. They send you to Harvest, the first planet to be taken by the Covenant, to establish peaceful and cooperative relations with their leaders and diplomats after five long years of combat. Just kidding — they want you to kill stuff. You get to see cinematics after every mission, which are largely responsible for driving the plot of the game. Visually, they're quite impressive, though the first few are a bit slow. As the game goes on, the cinematics become progressively cooler and more exciting. The writing and the dialogue is less than stellar, but it's serviceable, and it provides some good context to the Halo universe. There are also minor plot points shown during the mission, rendered by the game engine. Those are usually what determine your specific objectives.
There are not many missions in the campaign — just 15 — but they're very diverse. No two are alike, and Ensemble does a decent job of creating interesting objectives and differing levels of resistance. In one, you have to defend civilians as they head for their evacuation shuttles, and you need to take care of the shuttles themselves. The mission is timed, waiting on a countdown to launch. Another mission has you faced with a large energy shield that needs to be taken down. Certain positions on the map are good attack points for a type of long-range tank, so you have to take each position one at a time and hold them all long enough to knock down the barrier. Later you fight a Covenant super-weapon (a Scarab), dodging its main attack while taking out its power supply. And, of course, you get a mission to just build a massive army and annihilate everything else on the map.
They give you a good mixture of offense and defense, though in some cases the amount of resistance you're likely to encounter is unclear. Decisions made early in the game in terms of build order and unit production can effectively eliminate your chances of winning if you guess wrong. This is important because of the way Halo Wars deals with building bases. The bases themselves can only be placed in particular spots. Once a base is built, a number of empty construction bays spring up around it, and you're only allowed to build additional structures where there are construction bays. This means that you're only allowed a maximum of seven structures per base. On top of that, resources aren't something you go out and farm; you build supply pads, which slowly get deliveries from your ship in orbit. So, you're given a tough decision early on whether you want to develop your army or your economy. If you throw down five supply pads, you'll get resources like crazy, but you won't have enough space left to build all of the other things you need to win.
On the easier difficulty levels, this works out decently well; a ton of early resources means that you can pump out enough basic marines to handle most threats until you get fully established and perhaps take a second base. On the harder modes, you're attacked earlier and with stronger forces. Another decision they give you is what type of enemies you want to defend against. Several units are particularly strong against one type of enemy — infantry, vehicle, or aircraft — and not as useful against others. When in doubt, diversify, but if you're playing at an appropriate difficulty level, you can expect to fail a few because you just don't know what to prepare for. The timed missions, in particular, force you into early decisions that simply may not work. Since there's only the UNSC campaign, it's worth going through and doing the side missions, and also trying for some of the difficulty-related achievements.
The AI in Halo Wars is solid; pretty standard for this type of game. Your forces are reasonably smart about picking a target to focus, but not too smart; they won't switch off a full-health tank to drop one that's already almost dead. The pathing is pretty good; you won't have to spend much time micromanaging where you want them to go, but the option is there if you need it. One complaint is that when defending, your troops like to chase attackers too far, spreading out your forces and making it easy for a smart enemy to score some easy kills. There are four difficulty levels — easy, normal, heroic, and legendary. If you're just looking for a quick play-through of the game, go with normal. If you'd like to work for it, go with heroic. If you're pretty good at other real-time strategy games and/or enjoy being punched in the face, legendary will fit the bill.
The selection of units is interesting. You often get a leader and a group of three Spartan soldiers. In addition to being quite powerful, these units are essentially unkillable in the single-player campaign. When they take lethal damage, they drop to the ground and slowly regenerate health. Once they've healed enough, you can revive them by bringing another unit close by. It can lead to some surprising shifts in power. Most of the units are upgradeable to a high degree, becoming significantly more powerful late in the game. For example, the standard UNSC marines begin as a squad of four men with machine guns and grenades. Successive upgrades will: add one man, trade the grenades for long-range rocket launchers, add a medic that will heal the squad after a battle, and finally upgrade all of the marines to Shock Troopers. Each side even has "uber units;" Scarabs shoot giant lasers that fry UNSC forces in seconds, and Vultures are airborne behemoths that can eradicate Covenant buildings almost as quickly.
It would have been great to get a campaign of Covenant missions, but you can still use them in multiplayer. Their buildings are similar to the UNSC selection, but with minor variations. They get shield generators of questionable utility, and their infantry are the ones specialized to fight against particular units, rather than the vehicles. The two factions are similar enough that they'll be well balanced. You can play multiplayer maps against the AI or online with other humans, and you can also play cooperatively with your friends. You select the faction you want to play and then the leader you want, each of whom brings a different unit, ability, or potential upgrade to the table. You can expect to see players using strategies that work in other RTS games. Rushes work well, but they can be dealt with. Selecting your opening strategy tends to be more important than out-managing your opponent in battles. You don't have to have a ridiculous number of actions per minute to do well.
Ensemble succeeded quite well at establishing a control system that is powerful yet doesn't fight for intellectual real estate with the actual playing of the game. It's not a ground-breaking new entry into the real-time strategy genre, but, in a manner similar to the first Halo shooter, it demonstrates how well this genre can work on consoles. And it does well by the Halo franchise in the process. It's too bad Ensemble themselves got split up after completing this game — DLC involving some Covenant missions or making the Flood a third playable race would make this game even better. Fortunately, a team of Ensemble members now going by the name Robot Entertainment will be providing "support." If they're proactive about tuning and balancing the game, Halo Wars multiplayer could become quite popular indeed, in part because there isn't much competition. While it's not likely to be suitable for the hardcore, competitive RTS players, Halo Wars is definitely the fun and easy-to-operate console RTS many players have been waiting for.
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
...same exact formula as a million other RTS games, just branded with Halo; ergo, if you like Halo, this is probably an excellent game - otherwise it's like many others that came before it. If you've not played many RTS games, this one probably has polish, so pick it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm... how - what?
If you don't like cars or offroading and someone produced a perfect warthog replica, I would certainly think you wouldn't be interested.
Of course you won't like an RTS based on Halo if you don't like RTS games... I would think that this is so obvious that I didn't need to make mention of it.
The whole point of my post is that this RTS isn't doing anything new, it's simply rebranding the stardard RTS experience with 'Halo.'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just wish they would come out with some for the Wii; that console would be perfect for RTS games, but none have been made yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that the Wii would have a much better interface which could map quite easily to a mouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Or _any_ good game for Wii for that matter! The only ones i like are Rayman raving rabbits.
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"No way to control these games with a controller with the same precision and speed that a mouse would afford" ?
Sure there is!
Mouse and keyboard are horribly limiting interfaces for RTSs. All that stuff about dragging a selection rectangle, assigning keyboard shortcuts to groups, selecting units onscreen, ... It's a mess.
Imagine a voice-controller interfaces. "All tanks, attack target". "Grenadiers on screen, retreat." "Large factory, build tanks then missiles."
These games can make do with a tiny vocabulary
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Attack where? Go where, following which path? What if you want tanks on the left to perform a certain task and the ones on the right to run away? You really think you can say that out loud quicker than you can point and type a few keystrokes?
In fact your suggestion reminds me of some japanese live-action, where the good guys would cry out loud each and every action they were doing. The bad guys/monsters had to stay in the same place waiting for them to complete their speech. Ok, your idea is not completely wthout merit, but voice recognition is overrated. That's why it is not more widespread, since, as you noted it, we already have the tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Attack were? My command was "Attack my target", i.e. attack the thing under currently under the crosshairs. Abbreviate to just "Attack" since if you don't specify a target then it defaults to your crosshairs.
Go where? You'd could scroll your crosshairs to their destination and say "Go". Or say "Go south / north / to base / out of range"
Follow which path? -- that's something that mouse/keyboard isn't much fun at. The ctrl+clicking to spell out a path is tedious.
Distinguish between left/right? "Tanks on left,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of the voice control examples you provide can be done in a few keystrokes/clicks in most modern games, so I don't see how they're an improvement over the current system unless you start with an already crippled controller. Still, what you're describing is already implemented in Tom Clancy's Endwar. It works, but at best it provides no advantage over m/k whatsoever. I mean besides freeing up a hand to masturbate with, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a voice-controller interfaces. "All tanks, attack target". "Grenadiers on screen, retreat." "Large factory, build tanks then missiles."
I don't want to imagine stuff, I want to play the game. Do you have anything working to show?
At the same time, there is still stuff for which point & click is more convenient. For example, when you want your units to follow a specific path. And I bet that voice + mouse is still faster than voice + console controller.
Furthermore, while we're imagining - imagine an RTS where you have the ability to write command scripts in some Turing-complete language and bind them to arbitrary vi-style commands. This wo
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Clancy's EndWar does just that, and many reviewers say that while it's a very cool way to play an RTS, it is also infinitely slower compared to good ol' mouse 'n keyboard.
Besides, sooner or later you'll still end up assigning "hotkeys" (or codes or whatever) to groups of units, otherwise coordinating complex attacks would be hellish. You don't want to attack with *all* your units every time, y'know. And then there's coordinates, which are obviously much accurate and/or faster with a mouse than voice.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Informative)
Better auto-aim, slower game speeds, wider 'fudge-factors' etc. are pretty common when porting PC games to the Console - mainly to make it easier to play with a controller.
Re: (Score:2)
The only game I listed above that I know had additional auto-aim added to it on the console is unreal tournament. Even then, you have the option to turn it off. I am unable to find any information about auto-aim on the other four games.
But slower game speeds? Wider fudge factors? I'm fairly certain every level of the above five games was ported authentically from its PC counterpart. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. Hell, if you could point me to some evidence of these claim
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly different formula really, in that Halo Wars is actually playable on a console (a first for me).
That said it has some serious issues, no campaign mode for the covenant, no play at all for flood, multiplay costs extra, and the base building mechanism just isn't as fun as building a huge sprawling mess like a more traditional RTS. A couple missions have in game instructions that just don't make any sense as well, and you need to look online to figure out what it is you're supposed to accomplish.
All i
Re: (Score:2)
It has another advantage, it's on the 360- the 360 doesn't have a massive amount of RTS games. LotR, C&C3, Supreme Commander, RA3 and that's about it.
So whilst it's like every other RTS, it's also worth buying if you're just a generic RTS fan and a 360 player because there isn't an awful lot of other RTS games out there on the 360 to get your fill of RTS fun with.
I got it for that reason, I love RTS games, and I spend more time on my 360 now than other systems and have played through all the other so re
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
Halo Wars is to RTSes as Halo was to fpses. The comparison holds up remarkably well.
- Neither was the first attempt at doing the genre on a console. However, both were the first really ambitious efforts at implementing the genre on a console from the ground up, rather than just pinching PC mechanics wholesale (or indeed being a direct port of a PC game).
- Both games were reasonably pleasant to look at, though certainly nowhere near the cutting edge technically.
- Both games were the first examples of their genre to actually feel natural on a console controller.
- In terms of sophistication and variety, both games were years behind equivalent offerings on the PC.
- Both games had a storyline that thought it was far more interesting than it really was.
Now, the thing with Halo is that it really got the ball rolling for big budget fpses on consoles. It showed how, by careful attention to sensitivity on the controller, as well as a few key design decisions (such as not requiring constant 180 degree turns in the way that many PC fpses do), you could render the genre playable - and even enjoyable - on a console.
While Halo was in no way a great game considered on its own merits, it did sow the seeds that resulted in some of the modern console fpses that can give their PC competition a run for its money (such as Resistance: Fall of Man). It will be interesting to see if the same can now be done for the RTS, given that Halo Wars proves that a control system can be made to work.
A wonderful, original game (Score:4, Funny)
This game takes a new, totally novel, 'Humans', 'aliens with advanced tech' and 'aliens with organic tech' approach to sides that I totally have never seen before in any space-based rts. It's good to see microsoft finally coming out with concepts that aren't direct copies of anything else.
oh wait
console RTS (Score:3, Informative)
Redalert 3 was not a very enjoyable experience. And why should this one be any different?
I'll just wait for SC2.
How can you trust this article? (Score:3, Insightful)
It starts out with: "Bungie's trilogy of first-person shooters established a standard against which most similar games have been judged for the past eight years."
Uhm, no. Halo is a console game which was based on the rich and varied offerings from the PC world. To say that Halo is a standard really shows how little the reviewer knows about first pergames.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like it or not, Halo is the most popular FPS out there by numbers, despite being on a console, and as a result it is the most common standard people use to compare by.
Note that I can say this without making any type of a judgment on gaming on PCs or consoles.
Re:How can you trust this article? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not despite, it's because. The PC FPS market is widely fragmented across a wide number of games, and the console FPS market is...Halo.
It's easy to be the biggest fish if you're the only fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so you mean Bungie were some huge visionaries that realized there was this huge untapped market on the console that nobody had ever thought to attempt to grab onto before? Everyone before them was completely oblivious to the opportunity that existed?
No, the reason it is "despite" and not "because" is that implementing a FPS on a console control scheme is just outright difficult, and nobody had yet figured out the ideal way of handling it. Others had tried, but there were very few successes. Bungie stum
Re: (Score:2)
This might have been true when the first Halo came out. There certainly was no competition on the same level at that time, and the Console FPS market was mostly badly done ports of PC titles. The current console market, almost 8 years later, has plenty of competition.
Just to put out some recent examples, the newer Call of Duty games are popular cross platform shooters. They're available on PC, XBox, and PS3. They're popular on both consoles at least, I'm not sure about PCs. On the PS3, Resistance and Ki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Halo 1/2/3 didn't come with the consoles except in later special Halo edition variants as I recall. They know people will buy Halo, so they purposefully did not pack it in.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, he's right. It's a standard. The question is what kind.
If it's as good as Halo it's average. If it's better than Halo it's above average. If it's worse than Halo it's below average. See, that's a standard.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A standard does not have to be a high standard. Just a base for comparison.
Where's my music? (Score:4, Informative)
Where the hell is my kickass soundtrack going on in the background? The game is visually pleasing, I especially like watching the warthogs drive around. I feel like the music was ignored, but this is just my opinion. That was one of the draws for playing Halo for me, the music that would swell up and seemed to tie in with the situations very well. I just don't have that in Halo Wars. Maybe I am knit-picking. Did anyone else feel let down by the musical score or lack there of?
Ehh... (Score:1)
Halo Wars isn't a bad game... (Score:4, Insightful)
I want my RTS to be complex, and far more open with more micro-management, I havn't seen an RTS I've liked since Empire Earth 2, since then, everything has been dumbed down again and again.
I've got, played, and liked Halo Wars. I like the Halo franchise, it's got a good storyline, and the games have been well made. This, true to form, is not a bad game. It's just not revolutionary.
That said, I am tired of people slagging off Halo continuously. Sure, I prefer the Half-Life PC games to Halo, but the Halo games remain excellent - and the game type and map customisation have yet to be beaten for a simplicity vs power balence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want RTS to be less complex, with less micro-management, and more strategy. By less complex I mean, easy to learn hard to master. Trying too add depth by injecting complexity is a cop-out. However, I can't think of a single RTS that is simple with a great depth of strategy. Usually this description is given to the best turn-based games such as chess and arimaa. I would like to see this type of approach applied to RTSes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd recommend the Total War series which is "not very hard to learn, you gotta be Alexander The Great incarnate to master". On multiplayer and quick battles you get a specific budget to purchase your units with before battle, besides that there's zero base building or resource management. Yet, the battles themselves are the most realistic ones I've ever played on a RTS, and the only one where actual, real-life tactics work and are a necessity to winning.
Only problem with it is that the single player c
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with console RTS's is that they have to be dumbed down too much. Consoles just don't have the input devices necessary to accept the amount of input you need to properly play an RTS. In order for a console RTS to be any good it has to play itself so we get games like C&C3 which realistically only require two buttons for input, 1. build tank and 2. send tank at enemy. C&C3 was a purely tank rushing game, if you took the time to do anything else you'd b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You can't turn around blazing fast, but nobody on a console can.
I'm not saying.. I'm just saying..
http://www.ddrgame.com/xbox-360-accessory-keyboard-mouse-adapter.html [ddrgame.com]
Boxer doesn't care (Score:1, Insightful)
Tried the demo, felt like I had a frontal lobotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
From my experience, the game is like playing Starcraft, while drunk, with your toes, after a frontal lobotomy. The controls are dumbed down, as is the general gameplay overall. The "pretty graphics and sound" didn't really add that much compelling to the gameplay. Any Command and Conquer game, Warcraft 1-3 or Starcraft had much deeper gameplay. For the $60 you could spend on this game, you could probably find ALL of these other games in bargain bins, or on eBay.
I fail to see why in the world consoles have the inability to use keyboard and mouse at least as an option. The 360 has USB ports, the PS3 has Bluetooth and USB. Why can't I just take my keyboard and mouse combo and use it for these systems as an option?
Some people have given me the excuse that MSFT/Sony/Nintendo want 'consistent gameplay' with the controllers that people will already have. If that's the case though, why do we have things like weird huge joysticks for mech games (360), Rockband kits, the Wii-Fit board, or the Duck Hunt stype zapper for the Wii??? These aren't your standard controllers, but are more than fine. I'm guessing that 'most' households with a game system have a USB keyboard and mouse laying around somewhere.
For me, this would make the consoles perfectly equal gaming systems for me that I'd be totally happy with for RTS and FPS genres.
The reason why is (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see why in the world consoles have the inability to use keyboard and mouse at least as an option. The 360 has USB ports, the PS3 has Bluetooth and USB. Why can't I just take my keyboard and mouse combo and use it for these systems as an option?
Some people have given me the excuse that MSFT/Sony/Nintendo want 'consistent gameplay' with the controllers that people will already have. If that's the case though, why do we have things like weird huge joysticks for mech games (360), Rockband kits, the Wii-Fit board, or the Duck Hunt stype zapper for the Wii??? These aren't your standard controllers, but are more than fine. I'm guessing that 'most' households with a game system have a USB keyboard and mouse laying around somewhere.
It has nothing to do with limiting the number of controllers people have. I bet it's actually that most people don't want to have to play against people with an advantage over them. No one reasonable, generally including even die-hard console fans, disputes that the mouse and keyboard is more precise. A lot of people do dispute, however, whether it's more fun to have a mouse and keyboard on your couch in the living room.
I know that as a console game player, I just wouldn't play any game online where a sizable percentage of the population is using a mouse and keyboard. They have an advantage over me, as surely as baseball players that use steroids have advantages over their clean brethren, and I don't want to adopt their tactics simply to remain competitive. I just wouldn't play, and the number of players like me is a lot larger than the number of players who want to use the mouse and keyboard, so it doesn't make sense to include the option.
Furthermore, and I'm not sure how widely held this view is, but at least for FPS, I actually prefer the lower accuracy of the game controller. The mouse makes it too easy to be unrealistically good, bunny jumping down the hallway while sniping people in the head with a high calibre rifle in mid jump. The fact that it's harder to do that on a console is a good thing to me. There's a reason we don't train our soldiers to jump all around while trying to snipe in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Argh - where are mod points when you need them? Well said.
Re: (Score:1)
I understand and agree with your concerns but I put the responsibility on the game developer to take care of those issues that can make someone "unreasonably good". Greatly diminishing the accuracy of a player running or jumping is good place to start. The reason why I don't prefer the lower accuracy of a game controller is that it often gives an edge on spraying an area with bullets rather than aiming.
Clearly, it will vary by game. My game of choice has always been the Battlefield series and, in that serie
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The reason why I don't prefer the lower accuracy of a game controller is that it often gives an edge on spraying an area with bullets rather than aiming."
I vehemently disagree. And I think the error lies in the wording. On a console, it's not that all players will have low accuracy. It's that being accurate will be harder. Let's face it. Everyone's an expert at aiming on the PC. Headshots are easy. But on a console, the range of skill is even greater than it is on a PC. I've can show you clips of p
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The console manufacturers want to sell you high margin accessories.
Re: (Score:2)
The mouse makes it too easy to be unrealistically good, bunny jumping down the hallway while sniping people in the head with a high calibre rifle in mid jump.
Bunny-hopping hasn't been a viable tactic in any FPS I've played since Quake II against a reasonably experienced opponent. The reason being that it's much harder to change your trajectory once you're in a jump, so it's easy to predict it and do a well-aimed shot, compared to doing that against player who's circle-strafing instead; especially with projectile weapons, which are usually harder to aim, but more damaging. For games with rocket launcher, it's also extremely easy to shoot a rocket just under the f
Re: (Score:2)
This is a terrible analogy, its like saying that using a wooden bat should be illegal because it performs better then a concrete bat. It make no sense, the mouse and keyboard combination does not turn a bad player into a good player, we PC gamers have bad players as well. Yes we have a huge advantage over console pla
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason we don't train our soldiers to jump all around while trying to snipe in real life.
Probably the fact that most real-life encounters aren't in the 2-10m range, unlike videogames. I remember someone commenting a long time ago, that at the distances most people use sniper rifles on videogames, a regular soldier would use a normal rifle, and at the distances people use assault rifles online, a real soldier would use an SMG or a gun. That, and not mouse control, is likely what accounts for most of the difference in accuracy between computer games and real-life, along with lacking the fear of d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see why in the world consoles have the inability to use keyboard and mouse at least as an option. The 360 has USB ports, the PS3 has Bluetooth and USB. Why can't I just take my keyboard and mouse combo and use it for these systems as an option?
The PS3 has keyboard and mouse support out of the box. However, in order to use it in games the games have to be written to use them. A few games do this already - notably you can get Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3 with out of the box mouse and keyboar
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that 'most' households with a game system have a USB keyboard and mouse laying around somewhere.
But most don't have a table around that they can put those on to play comfortably. There is also the issue that implementing a mouse/keyboard interface costs time and money, since now you have two interfaces to worry about. In the end its however simply the issue of "because Microsoft said so", thats what you get with a closed game platform, what you gain in standardization and ease of use, you lose in flexibility. Sony on the PS3 allows keyboard and mouse, but still, very few games make use of it (Unreal3
Ripped from StarCraft (Score:1)
Looks exactly like Starcraft 2. I'm not supprised if it's the same engine that Microsoft somehow got their hands on.
Too obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: ..."It's about as close as you can get to the ease of use that comes with a mouse and keyboard."
So why not just use a mouse and keyboard? I notice that this game is for the XBox. Why not make a PC version? Doesn't Microsoft have some stake in PCs as well as XBoxes?
Red Alert 3 Control Scheme is faster (Score:2)
I was looking forward to playing Halo Wars, especially since I started playing Red Alert 3 at Xmas. The game is fun to play and the control scheme in some ways is better than RA3 but in others its worse. The best part about RA3 is that you have access to everything from anywhere on the map. With HW you have to go back to your base, which is easy to do with the dial pad but then you lose your place.
I'm sure there are little tricks that could make the game move faster but thats just my personal experienc
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd have to lose 30 IQ points before I'd try an RTS on a console. The only people I know who think HALO is a good game are the ones that have never played Half-Life. Do yourself a favor; buy a PC, and try a real RTS.
*sniff sniff*
Do I smell an opposing fanboi?!
Re: (Score:2)
Yahtzee: "Back when Wolfenstein could still call itself '3D' with a straight face!"
Re: (Score:1)
and before even Quake was DOOM.
Re:HAHAHA yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
and before even Quake was DOOM.
And before DOOM was the hunting sequence in Oregon Trail.
Re:HAHAHA yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
He is only half right. Halo is actually quite good and I only really played PC FPS before I started playing it.
I have only played the third one and it is easily one of the most polished games I have ever played. The mouse is a better controller for FPS, but the Halo is a lot slower than say quake so it doesn't make as much difference (I played Quake III one day after playing halo and it was like flying, the speed didn't feel as right as halo does).
It is one of the few games of this type I have played where strangers actually communicated and planned properly in team based multiplayer. People actually talked!
Also the theater mode was fantastic. It was very interesting to play through a flag capture from numerous angles (I once replayed one where I thought I had done all the work, where in the replay it showed a sniper and others keeping people of my back).
So I would consider getting this if only for the polish, Halo doesn't break any new ground but from what I have seen what it does, it does well.
Re:HAHAHA yeah right (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been playing computer based FPS since Doom II. I didn't play a console based FPS until SOCOM 2 (or was it 3?) and then Halo 3.
The campaign of Halo 3 was good enough to captivate me through completion, but the campaign for HL2 was better; however...
Halo shines with respect to multiplayer. Not because of its controls. Not because of the multitude of 12 year old mic hogs. But because of its matchmaking.
I tried playing Team Fortress II, but felt like an idiot screwing over my teammates because I had no clue what I was doing. I tried playing L4D, but only rarely got a good evenly matched team together. The ranking system in Halo matchmaking, which is loosely based upon chess ranking system (IIRC), works fairly well. Pretty much every game I play in is competitive.
That's what keeps it interesting for me. No particular match is too easy and only the occasional match is completely overwhelming. And then there's grifball...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not to say that matchmaking doesn't have its pros, but I want to play a quick big team battle game on a specific map with a specific setting or goto a custom setup quickly, but not necessarily need to have any pals on XBL. One plus, though, is that if I climbed the ladder u
Re: (Score:2)
I tried playing Team Fortress II, but felt like an idiot screwing over my teammates because I had no clue what I was doing.
You don't need to know what you're doing to have fun. I've lost repeatedly on certain TF2 servers and still enjoyed myself. It's all about what your mindset is coming into the game.
Find things to do on the map that make you happy. My personal favorites:
Re: (Score:2)
.
Of course you'd feel that way, it is their third try. I hope after the first two they would have gotten better.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a slow game doesn't mean that a mouse isn't needed. Even a slow game like Counter Strike requires a mouse for one to be competative. The reason halo works with a controller is because the enemies aren't nearly as skillful as they would need to be to make an equivalent mouse controlled game similarly challenging.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree here, Halo is a good FPS, not really up to the HL level of game play (graphics not withstanding, HL 1997, Halo 2001). Halo had very simplified gameplay (console I know) but thats not inherently a bad thing, but Halo was really at Doom/Quake level of game play sophistication with 2000 era graphics. That being said halo was a good game, it didn't have a particually good story (see System Sh
Re: (Score:2)
Maaaaaaaan. I *really* wish that Sierra/Vivendi would have released one last rev of T2 that didn't attempt to contact the update servers upon startup.
*doesn't wanna be bound to LAN matches for the rest of his life*
Re: (Score:2)
All three are 'real' RTS's. Just different types.
Re:HAHAHA yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)
Having played both... Halo is the superior game. Yes, blasphemy, I know, but really, is there a story to Half-Life? No. I was amazed when playing HL2 that people make it out to be such a big deal. Most of it was listen to a couple minutes of conversation that suggests that there may be a story somewhere, OMG, something happened, you're separated from Alyx, now go through 2 hours of story-less FPS gaming to meet her somewhere else. Then it happens again. Oh, and occasionally there are massively long and boring vehicle sections.
About 25% of HL2 was actually interesting and fun.
Halo, on the other hand, has solid story throughout. Sure, there's nothing as cool as the gravity gun in the play, but the tank-driving sections are far more fun than anything in HL2.
In fact, the section of Halo 3 where you destroy the scarab with the tank was more fun than the entirety of HL2.
Re:HAHAHA yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Having played both, you are a fanboy. Fun != Story. I had a heck of a time figuring out what the heck was going on in Halo. Halo 2 was even worse. The only thing i figured out was everyone was a wuss but Master Chief, and he had to backtrack so many times I almost fell asleep. My challenge to any halo player is to explain the flood, halo, and all that religious gibberish to anyone that's never played and ask them if it makes sense afterwards.
HL2 story wasn't the best either, definitely overrated, but at least I could kinda understand what was going on.
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't understand the story in Halo? Seriously?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a fan of Halo... I HATED that whole Flood part, it's one of my most hated game scenarios. You go from fighting one kind of enemy, which look alright, to a grotesque ogranic thing with either worse AI.
All-in-all, it is over-hyped.
That being said, the storyline isn't that much gibberish.
- Aliens are attacking Earth's colonies, fortunately they don't know the location of Earth.
- Aliens are VERY religious, to the point of being zealous. They believe in ancient gods that left on a great journey, that t
Re:HAHAHA yeah right (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, I can't believe someone found the Halo story hard to follow. I haven't played the original Halo in almost 3 years, but I'll give your challenge a shot from memory:
1) Humans are at war with covenant (bad guys)
2) Story starts with Pillar of Autumn (a big colony ship) being pursued by covenant. The ship comes out of hyperspace in an unknown location, and covenant are still in pursuit. There is a large ring shaped artificial planet nearby.
3) Covenant manage to board the ship, and you (Master Chief) are asked to take Cortana (the ship's AI) to protect it from capture. You are to flee from to ring planet.
4) Once on the planet, you regroup with everyone else that escaped.
5) You learn your captain was captured by the covanant, so you rescue him and several other shipmates.
6) While captive, the captain learned that the covenant believe Halo is not just a planet, but a super weapon. He also learned the covenant are attempting to gain control of Halo so they can use it.
7) You try to find out where the control room is
8) You head for the control room so that YOU can get control of the weapon first.
9) On the way there, you run into the flood, which is a sort of parasitic creatures race. They were apparently in containment on Halo and accidentally released by the covenant in their attempt to get control of Halo.
10) You run into Guilty Spark, who is a service bot responsible for caring for the installation (ie: Halo). When he learns you are there to activate Halo, and he wants to help you because he needs to stop the flood, and activating Halo will do that (he can't activate it on his own because of security protocol).
11) He leads you to recover the activation index...the key you will need to activate Halo.
12) You then proceed to the control room to activate it. However, as you activate it, Cortana discovers that Halo is not a weapon, but a device to purge the galaxy (or maybe just some large portion of it) of life.
13) You try to abort, but Guilty Spark tries to stop you by sending Halos defensive system against you. You succeed anyway.
14) You now decide that leaving the Halo intact is too dangerous (in case someone else activates it) so you are going to destroy it. You head back to the crashed Pillar of Autumn to have it self destruct (taking Halo with it).
15) You then escape in a small ship before Halo explodes.
That's just from memory. Might have missed a few points, but that covers the basics. Nothing very complex or confusing there. If you want to argue that the story is lame or otherwise not compelling, that's fine (your choice). But to say it's difficult to figure out what's going on....well, if that's the case, I suggest "Hello Kitty Island Adventure" is probably a better match for your intellect.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately large chunks of the story are only explained if you read the books for it. If you read the book "Contact Harvest" for example, you learn that the aliens are annihilating humanity because their leaders find out that humans ARE the "gods" of their religion. And finding out that your so called gods didn't actually ascend to another plane of existence sort of ruins a good religion don't you think?
To answer one of your other points... accident? Coming out beside the ring was intentional (the AI
Re: (Score:2)
1) My memory of Halo 2 is much fuzzier than my memory of Halo 1, but I thought the Halo 2 story line touched on that somewhat, about why the covenant brought the battle to earth. Maybe not.
2) I thought the covenant did believe it was a weapon. I thought it was in Halo 2, with the prophets being the one leading the covenant to believe they are embarking on a journey. But again, my memory is fuzzy on that. It's been about 3 years since I played Halo 1, and even longer since Halo 2.
3) Actually, I believe you d
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you speak truth on the third one there - my memory is also a bit fuzzy on the details of Halo 1 / Book 2.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the storyline is they give you a tiny piece of something that seems much larger and fails to elaborate on anything.
A lot of good science fiction does this. Authors are entitled to expect the reader (or player) to do some imaginative legwork.
In fact, I think one of the cardinal sins these days in entertainment (all media) is OVERTELLING the story. Given the choice, I prefer developers err on the side of not spoon-feeding absolutely everything to the consumer.
Disclaimer: I've never played the original Halo. Trying to grade it on plot may well be ridiculous, but complaining that a story is a discrete part of a large
Re:HAHAHA yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of good science fiction does this. Authors are entitled to expect the reader (or player) to do some imaginative legwork.
The problem I had with Halo is that I could never shake the feeling that there was much more interesting stuff going on somewhere else then the stuff I was forced to play. The story around Master Chief did never really do anything that was very interesting and the whole flood thing was just annoying and out of place, I guess thats what you get when you player as the indestructible hero instead of a human being. Now at least with Halo you later got comics and books and stuff, so there actually is more going on, to bad that none of that ever made it into the games.
Half Life on the other side has the G-Men, which sadly just feels like a walking deus ex machina with legs. You never get a satisfying conclusion or backstory or anything. You play a clueless character who saves the earth by accident and nothing ever feels like an accomplishment, because you just stumble around in the world shooting dudes. Half the story of Half Life 2 is just transporter malfunction and then having to manually walk the way by foot, not exactly great storytelling.
That said, when it comes to video games I don't think overtelling a story is a problem, I think quite the opposite is true, most games these days try to avoid explain anything. Thanks to the first person view you are quite often limited to exactly that which you see through the main characters eyes, which sadly just isn't much. So instead of story, you simply get a few sad piece and pretty graphics thrown at you, maybe with a little dialog thrown in to connect things. Its kind of ridiculous when one looks back, the first 10 minutes of story and dialog in Monkey Island have more variety and interesting stuff going on then most todays games manage to cram into 10 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The gravitas of the Halo story (and music!) really put it a cut above.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Totally agreed on this comment.
It may be because I didn't play Halo 1 (though I didn't play HL1 before HL2 either), but when I went through Halo 2 I didn't think the story was that good. IMO, HL2's story is way better.
HAHAHA Halo had a good story - yeah right (Score:3, Interesting)
Halo/Halo 2 had some of the DUMBEST, most boring, and most repetitive cutscenes in any game I've ever played. I can't even begin to describe how simplistic and boring the story in these games was. Actually, I never really figured out too much of what was going on aside from various retarded looking aliens hissing at each other and posturing to show off how tough they are.
Halo/Halo 2 are some of the most overrated games ever in my opinion. They have fun moments but are so ridiculously repetitive. In each
Re: (Score:2)
I paid attention for most of Halo's cutscene story build-up, and I did understand it, although I've forgotten it completely because it was so forgettable.
When I played Halo 2, I paid attention a little bit, but when I realized that it was the same garbage as in Halo, I stopped paying attention. After that, whenever I did bother to watch, I didn't figure too much more out about what was happening, and I didn't really care either. Cutscenes became bathroom breaks.
Actually.. (Score:1)
Throwing a guy off of a balcony with the gravity gun is more fun than the entirety of single player HALO 1-3.
The only draw for HALO is the multiplayer with friends in the same room and that it's an FPS that sort of works for a console. CS and TF2 are and always will be infinitely greater multiplayer FPS games than any flavor of HALO.
Being able to shoot people accurately and not feeling like I'm playing the game while stuck in a pool of mud makes the HL series infinitely better than HALO.
I didn't state "IMH
Re: (Score:1)
HL2 Highlights:
Halo Highlights (from 1 and 2, unfortunately don't have a 360):
Re: (Score:1)
Both the Halo series and the HL series have their merits, but it's hard to compare them, imo.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the brilliant thing about HL's story, it isn't spoon-fed to you, you have to look at the environment to see it, stand around and listen to scientists talk, remember what is said and put the clues together? HL1 had a good story, It took me 3 replays before I got the whole thing (14 at the time, cmon) HL2 was even better, half the story was spoon-fed to you but the amount of back story that could be found in Vance's or Kliner's labs was astounding (didn't ge
Re: (Score:2)
Having played both, Halo is superior to HL1 but inferior to HL2. Is there a story to Half-Life? of course there is, it's just easy to miss it because it's told much more 'realistically' than in other games where the entire world revolves around your character, such as Halo or HL2. The problem was that half the puzzles were too simplistic and the jumping sections made me wish for bloody murder upon Valve developers.
Halo, however, is inferior to HL2 simply because it has no atmosphere at all. It feels like a
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly natural to want a story to be there. Why are books the sacred realm of stories? What is so special about a book that they should have a story, but not a video game? Some people don't enjoy reading (I generally don't), so we'd like to experience stories differently (interactively). It's not a necessity for every game, but it helps.
PS. I'm not the person you replied to but: I didn't like HL much but I loved Portal.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, Portal was absolutely incredible. One of the best games I've played in a long time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's comments like this that prove how PC gaming is on a decline. Otherwise, it's proponents wouldn't be so sensitive and bitchy about anything that threatens the PCs homogeny over certain genres. These sorts of comments are like what we saw written about the original Halo. I'm sure the whining of 'you cant play fps/rts without a keyboard and mouse wtfbbq' are generally drowned out by the ringing of millions of tills.
Btw the parent comment is a lot funnier when you read it in a comic book guy voice.
Re: (Score:2)
Btw the parent comment is a lot funnier when you read it in a comic book guy voice.
In fairness, that goes for pretty much everything. Every post here, Lincoln's second inagural adress, love letters you wrote back in high school...
I'm sure the whining of 'you cant play fps/rts without a keyboard and mouse wtfbbq' are generally drowned out by the ringing of millions of tills.
I've wondered this too before. People who crow about the mouse and keyboard being far superior often seem to hate console gamers, even if we are playing it with an inferior control scheme, why do they care so much that we get the best? I don't come into their houses and yell at them for eating cheetos and taco bell rather than steak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, one person's ramblings means that PC gaming is on the decline? I think all it proves is that you are one of those weird people who have a bias against PC gaming.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Halo was a competent series, but Half-Life was revolutionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I don't care for FPSs in general, and absolutely hate FPSs on consoles. If you're going to play FPSs, keyboard + mouse is the proper control scheme. Period. But with that said, the original HALO was leaps and bounds ahead of any other FPS available for consoles at the time. That was what created the HALO fanboy club. /Didn't really care for HALO, played only because a friend was such a damn fanboy I had to see if it was really all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips //Didn't care enough to give -2 or -
Re: (Score:2)
That's like winning the award for effort, rather then for achievement