Dawn of War 2 vs Halo Wars

Both exclusives, both RTS, both have massive fanbases. Which will come out on top in terms of gameplay, critical reception and consumer opinion?

Has anyone played both demo's/beta's? How do they stack up?

ill go with DOW2 being the better one.

although im gettin thehalo wars demo now and not the dow2 since my comp is terrible =[

you cant make this comparion, because you cant say how big the halo wars fanbase actually is. I have a lot of friends who love playing halo, but hate rts games. mtradr43

i didn't mean in sales. I meant in terms of quality/gameplay etc. Critical reception etc

[QUOTE="mtradr43"]you cant make this comparion, because you cant say how big the halo wars fanbase actually is. I have a lot of friends who love playing halo, but hate rts games. Frozzik

i didn't mean in sales. I meant in terms of quality/gameplay etc. Critical reception etc

Halo wars is awesome, I've no interest in dawn of war so it's an obvious choice. They shouldnt be compared anywho, RTS have yet to find their feet on consoles, for Halo wars to get AAA status will auto be a victory for consoles i think, I don' believe we've had an AAA RTS before on consoles.CreepyBacon

The game is made by an established RTS dev. Lems have being hyping this game (so have the devs and xbox media) as being the one of the best RTS games ever, on any system and THE best on console. DoW 2 has never made any of these claims. So, we are looking at a promising pc RTS vs a groundbreaking console RTS, i think its a fair fight. If i was comparing HW to say CoH, thats a david vs goliath.

Dawn of War 2, hands down. Dawn of War 1 was so incredible. Haven't done the beta yet but am currently DLing the Dawn of War 2 beta from GFWL. I loved the original Dawn of War. Halo Wars looks terrible IMO. I just don't see anything that looks to standout with the game.

For the record, Empire Total War is going to be better than both. :)

[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]Halo wars is awesome, I've no interest in dawn of war so it's an obvious choice. They shouldnt be compared anywho, RTS have yet to find their feet on consoles, for Halo wars to get AAA status will auto be a victory for consoles i think, I don' believe we've had an AAA RTS before on consoles.Frozzik

The game is made by an established RTS dev. Lems have being hyping this game (so have the devs and xbox media) as being the one of the best RTS games ever, on any system and THE best on console. DoW 2 has never made any of these claims. So, we are looking at a promising pc RTS vs a groundbreaking console RTS, i think its a fair fight. If i was comparing HW to say CoH, thats a david vs goliath.

Umm, you want to provide some links? I know that the dev's and the xbox media have been hyping the controls alot, but when have they ever said that it was going to be one of the best RTS's ever? And for the most part the hype from the gamespot community for this game has been A-AA. It doesn't seem like a bad game, but the best ever? I am highly doubtful of that.

Massive fanbases? Just because it's Halo doesn't mean it's going to sell millions. It's been advertised enough on XBL where people know it's a strategy game and most people on consoles hate RTS as it requires too much thinking for most of them.

Comparing console RTS to PC RTS? Yeah, nice.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]Halo wars is awesome, I've no interest in dawn of war so it's an obvious choice. They shouldnt be compared anywho, RTS have yet to find their feet on consoles, for Halo wars to get AAA status will auto be a victory for consoles i think, I don' believe we've had an AAA RTS before on consoles.bobderwood97_1

The game is made by an established RTS dev. Lems have being hyping this game (so have the devs and xbox media) as being the one of the best RTS games ever, on any system and THE best on console. DoW 2 has never made any of these claims. So, we are looking at a promising pc RTS vs a groundbreaking console RTS, i think its a fair fight. If i was comparing HW to say CoH, thats a david vs goliath.

Umm, you want to provide some links? I know that the dev's and the xbox media have been hyping the controls alot, but when have they ever said that it was going to be one of the best RTS's ever? And for the most part the hype from the gamespot community for this game has been A-AA. It doesn't seem like a bad game, but the best ever? I am highly doubtful of that.

i have seen many, many posts on multiple forums across the net made by 360 gamers making such claims. I'm not going to go through linking them for you. As for the media, they have indeed been hyping this game as the best console RTS ever, again, google halo wars and read some articles. I'm not saying it isn't the best RTS on console, i bet it will be. I was saying, in response to another post, i think DoW2 and Halo Wars is a good comparison. A great ( maybe even the best ever) console RTS vs a promising ( so far DoW has scored around 8.5 from 2 pc gamer mags) PC RTS.

Massive fanbases? Just because it's Halo doesn't mean it's going to sell millions. It's been advertised enough on XBL where people know it's a strategy game and most people on consoles hate RTS as it requires too much thinking for most of them.

Comparing console RTS to PC RTS? Yeah, nice.

Massive fanbases? Just because it's Halo doesn't mean it's going to sell millions. It's been advertised enough on XBL where people know it's a strategy game and most people on consoles hate RTS as it requires too much thinking for most of them.

Comparing console RTS to PC RTS? Yeah, nice.

RobNBankz

we compare console fps with PC fps dont we? personally i'd rather play RTS with a controler than FPS with one.

[QUOTE="RobNBankz"]

Massive fanbases? Just because it's Halo doesn't mean it's going to sell millions. It's been advertised enough on XBL where people know it's a strategy game and most people on consoles hate RTS as it requires too much thinking for most of them.

Comparing console RTS to PC RTS? Yeah, nice.

Frozzik

we compare console fps with PC fps dont we? personally i'd rather play RTS with a controler than FPS with one.

Console FPS has been established, Halo Combat Evolved showed it could be done. Hate Halo all you want but it brought console FPS almost to the level of PC FPS.

Care to name a game that established console RTS?

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="RobNBankz"]

Massive fanbases? Just because it's Halo doesn't mean it's going to sell millions. It's been advertised enough on XBL where people know it's a strategy game and most people on consoles hate RTS as it requires too much thinking for most of them.

Comparing console RTS to PC RTS? Yeah, nice.

RobNBankz

we compare console fps with PC fps dont we? personally i'd rather play RTS with a controler than FPS with one.

Console FPS has been established, Halo Combat Evolved showed it could be done. Hate Halo all you want but it brought console FPS almost to the level of PC FPS.

Care to name a game that established console RTS?

[QUOTE="RobNBankz"]

Massive fanbases? Just because it's Halo doesn't mean it's going to sell millions. It's been advertised enough on XBL where people know it's a strategy game and most people on consoles hate RTS as it requires too much thinking for most of them.

Comparing console RTS to PC RTS? Yeah, nice.

mtradr43

That's a trait relative to certain games on all platforms and is not specific to the PC. Not only that but it's irrelevant to a discussion about RTS's.

I've been hearing bad things about DoWII and good things about Halo Wars...Devour2Survive

Typical objective viewing. I've been hearing plenty of bad things about Halo Wars from RTS fans such as the complete lack of ANY depth in the gameplay.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="RobNBankz"]

Massive fanbases? Just because it's Halo doesn't mean it's going to sell millions. It's been advertised enough on XBL where people know it's a strategy game and most people on consoles hate RTS as it requires too much thinking for most of them.

Comparing console RTS to PC RTS? Yeah, nice.

RobNBankz

we compare console fps with PC fps dont we? personally i'd rather play RTS with a controler than FPS with one.

Console FPS has been established, Halo Combat Evolved showed it could be done. Hate Halo all you want but it brought console FPS almost to the level of PC FPS.

Care to name a game that established console RTS?

[QUOTE="Devour2Survive"]I've been hearing bad things about DoWII and good things about Halo Wars..._Pedro_

Typical objective viewing. I've been hearing plenty of bad things about Halo Wars from RTS fans such as the complete lack of ANY depth in the gameplay.

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"]

[QUOTE="Devour2Survive"]I've been hearing bad things about DoWII and good things about Halo Wars...Devour2Survive

Typical objective viewing. I've been hearing plenty of bad things about Halo Wars from RTS fans such as the complete lack of ANY depth in the gameplay.

well halo wars will probably sell more, since it is halo

but it's not like DoW2 will fail in sales, since a lot of stores have said that they filled out all pre-orders which is shaping up to be quite a lot.

In terms of gameplay? I go with dow2^^

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"]

[QUOTE="Devour2Survive"]I've been hearing bad things about DoWII and good things about Halo Wars...Devour2Survive

Typical objective viewing. I've been hearing plenty of bad things about Halo Wars from RTS fans such as the complete lack of ANY depth in the gameplay.

:lol:

Spoken like a true console fanboy. For the record, alot of console fans cannot stand the thought of playing an RTS on anything other than PC as well so, by your assessment, those people would be classified as "jealous PC fanboys".

I'm curious what there is to be "jealous" about to be honest. It's like a watered down RTS comparing it to games like Empire Total War, Starcraft, or even the old Total War titles.

it's called personal oppinion, some people like it some don't, especialy most hardcore DoW1 fans are hurt and whining since the game is almost nothing like DoW1.

some of the best CoH players on the other hand like it a lot.

sure the game need balancing and a map or 2 more, but other than that the MP aspect is great

I have been hearing bad things about DoWII by actual pc rts gamers who have actually played the beta. He just brought up bs that came straight out from his ass. How else do you want me to respond?Devour2Survive

lol I have also played the Beta and the game itself is solid. The problem is that it's completely different from your standard RTS which takes time getting used to and are we seriously going to ignore ALL the professional previews that have commented on Halo war's lack of depth?

Just because it's simplified for the controller means it is watered down? What exactly is watered down about it? Can you tell me? Obviously you haven't played it so what makes you so special that you can make such an assessment about the game? Does coming here even make sense anymore? All I get is a bunch of pc fanboys who love to exaggerate about their games...it's getting quite old.Devour2Survive

Going by previews(will comment again later after I play it, currently downloading Halo Wars).

Videos have shown me several things so far.

1. Very little micromanagment, and only limited macromanagement. This severely reduces the depth. They are turning it into rock-paper-scissors build an army and watch it fight, not a strategy game..... Will comment again later after I play it.

2. No resource management at all. 1 type of resource and you build it in your base.... No fighting over resources, no war of attrition, no taking risks to go grab this massive pool of resources.... Crap is what that is.... Takes all the strategy out of how to play a match. It literally just comes down to making armies and watching them fight... Woopty dooo! Just take a look at Dawn of War 2. That entire game is a battle over resources. You have to decide if you want to go attack one position to get requisition points or if you want to go hold some energy points or hold the victory point. Because chances are that you won't be able to do them all at once. It is picking and choosing, fighting a war of attrition with limited units and limited resources(at times). Tactics are everything, and the strategy is extremely deep there(but also very different which threw off a lot of people who were complaining at first). Starcraft 2 has the base expansions where you have to decide if you want to devote resources and time to build a new base that you will need to defend so that you can get a new income. Also, the addition of High Yield Crystals even expands that dynamic as it becomes more pressing to go grab those high value places.

Halo Wars has none of that. You build a thing in your base and it provides constant income. How many you build is an extremely shallow resource management mechanic.... and that is all Halo Wars has. Will comment on it again later.

3. Controls hinder the viability of multiple fronts. Having a 2-3 prong attack is almost impossible with the controls from what I have seen. There is no way you will be able to pull off maneuvers where you have one group come in from one way, as another is attacking from the primary front. That is unless you just stop managing one main group, letting it play itself. Hardly any strategy there.

All the really STRONG points about strategy games are stripped from the game. It may very well be fun(and almost certainly is), but calling it a good strategy game would be an ignorant comment from someone without any significant RTS experience.

Happy? I gave 3 very strong reasons why it is perfectly valid to call Halo Wars shallow. Doesn't make it a bad game, but it does make it a lesser RTS.

it's called personal oppinion, some people like it some don't, especialy most hardcore DoW1 fans are hurt and whining since the game is almost nothing like DoW1.

some of the best CoH players on the other hand like it a lot.

sure the game need balancing and a map or 2 more, but other than that the MP aspect is great

Enosh88

DoW2 has a great MP, but it is extremely different and takes a ton of getting used to. The learning curve for non-CoH players like myself is like 2 hours..... And even more if you play online where you will get slaughtered.

I've played Halo Wars Demo, and it's an extremely limited, simple RTS, I would even say Watered Down Console RTS experience.

The HALO Universe once again saves it from being a mediocre game. It is just a demo, so we will see how it finally turns out.

I don't get a kick out of any Halo Nostalgia, looking at it from just an analytical RTS view.

Halo Wars doesn't TOUCH any RTS, so DoW2 autowins.

[QUOTE="Devour2Survive"]Just because it's simplified for the controller means it is watered down? What exactly is watered down about it? Can you tell me? Obviously you haven't played it so what makes you so special that you can make such an assessment about the game? Does coming here even make sense anymore? All I get is a bunch of pc fanboys who love to exaggerate about their games...it's getting quite old.horrowhip

Going by previews(will comment again later after I play it, currently downloading Halo Wars).

Videos have shown me several things so far.

1. Very little micromanagment, and only limited macromanagement. This severely reduces the depth. They are turning it into rock-paper-scissors build an army and watch it fight, not a strategy game..... Will comment again later after I play it.

2. No resource management at all. 1 type of resource and you build it in your base.... No fighting over resources, no war of attrition, no taking risks to go grab this massive pool of resources.... Crap is what that is.... Takes all the strategy out of how to play a match. It literally just comes down to making armies and watching them fight... Woopty dooo! Just take a look at Dawn of War 2. That entire game is a battle over resources. You have to decide if you want to go attack one position to get requisition points or if you want to go hold some energy points or hold the victory point. Because chances are that you won't be able to do them all at once. It is picking and choosing, fighting a war of attrition with limited units and limited resources(at times). Tactics are everything, and the strategy is extremely deep there(but also very different which threw off a lot of people who were complaining at first). Starcraft 2 has the base expansions where you have to decide if you want to devote resources and time to build a new base that you will need to defend so that you can get a new income. Also, the addition of High Yield Crystals even expands that dynamic as it becomes more pressing to go grab those high value places.

Halo Wars has none of that. You build a thing in your base and it provides constant income. How many you build is an extremely shallow resource management mechanic.... and that is all Halo Wars has. Will comment on it again later.

3. Controls hinder the viability of multiple fronts. Having a 2-3 prong attack is almost impossible with the controls from what I have seen. There is no way you will be able to pull off maneuvers where you have one group come in from one way, as another is attacking from the primary front. That is unless you just stop managing one main group, letting it play itself. Hardly any strategy there.

All the really STRONG points about strategy games are stripped from the game. It may very well be fun(and almost certainly is), but calling it a good strategy game would be an ignorant comment from someone without any significant RTS experience.

Happy? I gave 3 very strong reasons why it is perfectly valid to call Halo Wars shallow. Doesn't make it a bad game, but it does make it a lesser RTS.

You didn't mention that the Covenant are in it, or that it's Friggin' HALO so it automatically makes it amazing.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="Devour2Survive"]Just because it's simplified for the controller means it is watered down? What exactly is watered down about it? Can you tell me? Obviously you haven't played it so what makes you so special that you can make such an assessment about the game? Does coming here even make sense anymore? All I get is a bunch of pc fanboys who love to exaggerate about their games...it's getting quite old.SolidTy

Going by previews(will comment again later after I play it, currently downloading Halo Wars).

Videos have shown me several things so far.

1. Very little micromanagment, and only limited macromanagement. This severely reduces the depth. They are turning it into rock-paper-scissors build an army and watch it fight, not a strategy game..... Will comment again later after I play it.

2. No resource management at all. 1 type of resource and you build it in your base.... No fighting over resources, no war of attrition, no taking risks to go grab this massive pool of resources.... Crap is what that is.... Takes all the strategy out of how to play a match. It literally just comes down to making armies and watching them fight... Woopty dooo! Just take a look at Dawn of War 2. That entire game is a battle over resources. You have to decide if you want to go attack one position to get requisition points or if you want to go hold some energy points or hold the victory point. Because chances are that you won't be able to do them all at once. It is picking and choosing, fighting a war of attrition with limited units and limited resources(at times). Tactics are everything, and the strategy is extremely deep there(but also very different which threw off a lot of people who were complaining at first). Starcraft 2 has the base expansions where you have to decide if you want to devote resources and time to build a new base that you will need to defend so that you can get a new income. Also, the addition of High Yield Crystals even expands that dynamic as it becomes more pressing to go grab those high value places.

Halo Wars has none of that. You build a thing in your base and it provides constant income. How many you build is an extremely shallow resource management mechanic.... and that is all Halo Wars has. Will comment on it again later.

3. Controls hinder the viability of multiple fronts. Having a 2-3 prong attack is almost impossible with the controls from what I have seen. There is no way you will be able to pull off maneuvers where you have one group come in from one way, as another is attacking from the primary front. That is unless you just stop managing one main group, letting it play itself. Hardly any strategy there.

All the really STRONG points about strategy games are stripped from the game. It may very well be fun(and almost certainly is), but calling it a good strategy game would be an ignorant comment from someone without any significant RTS experience.

Happy? I gave 3 very strong reasons why it is perfectly valid to call Halo Wars shallow. Doesn't make it a bad game, but it does make it a lesser RTS.

You didn't mention that the Covenant are in it, or that it's Friggin' HALO so it automatically makes it amazing.

Sarcasm?

I mean, Halo doesn't automatically make it a good RTS, and the Covenant aren't going to save it from the lack of depth in the core gameplay mechanics that I mentioned. May be a good game, but it won't necessarily be a top-tier RTS

[QUOTE="SolidTy"][QUOTE="horrowhip"]

1. Very little micromanagment, and only limited macromanagement. This severely reduces the depth. They are turning it into rock-paper-scissors build an army and watch it fight, not a strategy game..... Will comment again later after I play it.

2. No resource management at all. 1 type of resource and you build it in your base.... No fighting over resources, no war of attrition, no taking risks to go grab this massive pool of resources.... Crap is what that is.... Takes all the strategy out of how to play a match. It literally just comes down to making armies and watching them fight... Woopty dooo! Just take a look at Dawn of War 2. That entire game is a battle over resources. You have to decide if you want to go attack one position to get requisition points or if you want to go hold some energy points or hold the victory point. Because chances are that you won't be able to do them all at once. It is picking and choosing, fighting a war of attrition with limited units and limited resources(at times). Tactics are everything, and the strategy is extremely deep there(but also very different which threw off a lot of people who were complaining at first). Starcraft 2 has the base expansions where you have to decide if you want to devote resources and time to build a new base that you will need to defend so that you can get a new income. Also, the addition of High Yield Crystals even expands that dynamic as it becomes more pressing to go grab those high value places.

Halo Wars has none of that. You build a thing in your base and it provides constant income. How many you build is an extremely shallow resource management mechanic.... and that is all Halo Wars has. Will comment on it again later.

3. Controls hinder the viability of multiple fronts. Having a 2-3 prong attack is almost impossible with the controls from what I have seen. There is no way you will be able to pull off maneuvers where you have one group come in from one way, as another is attacking from the primary front. That is unless you just stop managing one main group, letting it play itself. Hardly any strategy there.

All the really STRONG points about strategy games are stripped from the game. It may very well be fun(and almost certainly is), but calling it a good strategy game would be an ignorant comment from someone without any significant RTS experience.

Happy? I gave 3 very strong reasons why it is perfectly valid to call Halo Wars shallow. Doesn't make it a bad game, but it does make it a lesser RTS.

horrowhip

You didn't mention that the Covenant are in it, or that it's Friggin' HALO so it automatically makes it amazing.

Sarcasm?

I mean, Halo doesn't automatically make it a good RTS, and the Covenant aren't going to save it from the lack of depth in the core gameplay mechanics that I mentioned. May be a good game, but it won't necessarily be a top-tier RTS

Yeah, I was giving a shout out to the Halo Peeps. It was sarcasm though, as my comment above mirrored your post, albeit less descriptively.

Just played a couple Skirmishes.

AI on Normal is absolutely freaking terrible.

Heroic provides a bit more of a challenge, but still isn't all that fantastic(specifically if you even understand the basics of the rock-paper-scissors

Economy has a bit more depth than I originally thought, but it is still very much a build an army and watch them fight type of game. No Micromanagement at all is even remotely plausible with the controls(which are OK, but clunky as hell IMO). Macro is moderately possible but only by brute force with you zooming all over the map. Economy has some decent facets but is more timing based than anything. Higher level units are a longer wait(but always the same wait), and lower level units can be pumped out on a constant basis. Energy represents different tech levels and provides good motivation for base expansions. Once you have two bases, economy becomes self-sufficient and you can constantly pump out high level units. 3 bases is game over because you have the resources to basically destroy everything.

Expanding to new bases early on is absolutely necessary when playing against Heroic AI.

The multiplayer will be moderately fun but I wouldn't call it "deep" in even the slightest manner.

Most of the appeal will be in the Campaign and storyline for most Halo fans.

1v1 Skirmish is mediocre at best IMO. Multiplayer may shine when you have bigger battles with 4-6 players, but then again it may completely fall apart with the frantic pace that it could cause at that level... Even 1v1, on Heroic you have to run at full pace. The match is won or lost in the first 5 minutes of play. With 6 people this may come down to a chaotic, nonsensical horde of enemies that is neither fun nor balanced.... Teamwork may or may not pay off, can't really tell from the demo.

I predict an 8.5 at best, probably 8.0 based on the demo(basing off of PC standards of RTS. May or may not get 9.0 on consoles, but I don't think it deserves AAA).

Just played a couple Skirmishes.

AI on Normal is absolutely freaking terrible.

Heroic provides a bit more of a challenge, but still isn't all that fantastic(specifically if you even understand the basics of the rock-paper-scissors

Economy has a bit more depth than I originally thought, but it is still very much a build an army and watch them fight type of game. No Micromanagement at all is even remotely plausible with the controls(which are OK, but clunky as hell IMO). Macro is moderately possible but only by brute force with you zooming all over the map. Economy has some decent facets but is more timing based than anything. Higher level units are a longer wait(but always the same wait), and lower level units can be pumped out on a constant basis. Energy represents different tech levels and provides good motivation for base expansions. Once you have two bases, economy becomes self-sufficient and you can constantly pump out high level units. 3 bases is game over because you have the resources to basically destroy everything.

Expanding to new bases early on is absolutely necessary when playing against Heroic AI.

The multiplayer will be moderately fun but I wouldn't call it "deep" in even the slightest manner.

Most of the appeal will be in the Campaign and storyline for most Halo fans.

1v1 Skirmish is mediocre at best IMO. Multiplayer may shine when you have bigger battles with 4-6 players, but then again it may completely fall apart with the frantic pace that it could cause at that level... Even 1v1, on Heroic you have to run at full pace. The match is won or lost in the first 5 minutes of play. With 6 people this may come down to a chaotic, nonsensical horde of enemies that is neither fun nor balanced.... Teamwork may or may not pay off, can't really tell from the demo.

I predict an 8.5 at best, probably 8.0 based on the demo(basing off of PC standards of RTS. May or may not get 9.0 on consoles, but I don't think it deserves AAA).

horrowhip

Just played a couple Skirmishes.

AI on Normal is absolutely freaking terrible.

Heroic provides a bit more of a challenge, but still isn't all that fantastic(specifically if you even understand the basics of the rock-paper-scissors

Economy has a bit more depth than I originally thought, but it is still very much a build an army and watch them fight type of game. No Micromanagement at all is even remotely plausible with the controls(which are OK, but clunky as hell IMO). Macro is moderately possible but only by brute force with you zooming all over the map. Economy has some decent facets but is more timing based than anything. Higher level units are a longer wait(but always the same wait), and lower level units can be pumped out on a constant basis. Energy represents different tech levels and provides good motivation for base expansions. Once you have two bases, economy becomes self-sufficient and you can constantly pump out high level units. 3 bases is game over because you have the resources to basically destroy everything.

Expanding to new bases early on is absolutely necessary when playing against Heroic AI.

The multiplayer will be moderately fun but I wouldn't call it "deep" in even the slightest manner.

Most of the appeal will be in the Campaign and storyline for most Halo fans.

1v1 Skirmish is mediocre at best IMO. Multiplayer may shine when you have bigger battles with 4-6 players, but then again it may completely fall apart with the frantic pace that it could cause at that level... Even 1v1, on Heroic you have to run at full pace. The match is won or lost in the first 5 minutes of play. With 6 people this may come down to a chaotic, nonsensical horde of enemies that is neither fun nor balanced.... Teamwork may or may not pay off, can't really tell from the demo.

I predict an 8.5 at best, probably 8.0 based on the demo(basing off of PC standards of RTS. May or may not get 9.0 on consoles, but I don't think it deserves AAA).

horrowhip

I think AI in a RTS is neglible considering not much RTS's ever had good AI and the genre is always best played with real people. That being said, I bet GS would still give it some kind of a high score despite the lack of depth, simply because no reviewers out there ever has the knowledge or patience to truly analyze an RTS game.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

Just played a couple Skirmishes.

AI on Normal is absolutely freaking terrible.

Heroic provides a bit more of a challenge, but still isn't all that fantastic(specifically if you even understand the basics of the rock-paper-scissors

Economy has a bit more depth than I originally thought, but it is still very much a build an army and watch them fight type of game. No Micromanagement at all is even remotely plausible with the controls(which are OK, but clunky as hell IMO). Macro is moderately possible but only by brute force with you zooming all over the map. Economy has some decent facets but is more timing based than anything. Higher level units are a longer wait(but always the same wait), and lower level units can be pumped out on a constant basis. Energy represents different tech levels and provides good motivation for base expansions. Once you have two bases, economy becomes self-sufficient and you can constantly pump out high level units. 3 bases is game over because you have the resources to basically destroy everything.

Expanding to new bases early on is absolutely necessary when playing against Heroic AI.

The multiplayer will be moderately fun but I wouldn't call it "deep" in even the slightest manner.

Most of the appeal will be in the Campaign and storyline for most Halo fans.

1v1 Skirmish is mediocre at best IMO. Multiplayer may shine when you have bigger battles with 4-6 players, but then again it may completely fall apart with the frantic pace that it could cause at that level... Even 1v1, on Heroic you have to run at full pace. The match is won or lost in the first 5 minutes of play. With 6 people this may come down to a chaotic, nonsensical horde of enemies that is neither fun nor balanced.... Teamwork may or may not pay off, can't really tell from the demo.

I predict an 8.5 at best, probably 8.0 based on the demo(basing off of PC standards of RTS. May or may not get 9.0 on consoles, but I don't think it deserves AAA).

Devour2Survive

I'd just like you to read my post above. Just to let you know in case you haven't played C&C3, that game was a mess at launch. I don't know how its like right now because I haven't played it in a long time and I don't think I ever will again, but back then there were huge balance issues and the units had no depth in them at all. The were all generic in design, and every multiplayer round plays the same way. No space for variations in play style or strategy choices. That was the result of having bad units in a game. C&C3 was all flash and no substance.

So claiming that halo wars is similar to that game isn't really a compliment.

I havnt played Halo Wars, but i doubt its gonna be as good as DoW2, i mean taking cover and all those diefferent abilitys to use and moving squads into different positions, imo

halo wars looks a little to select all your units and attack type of rts