Looking for 2 base unevolved hilds. Due to their low price there isn't much room for negotiating, but please support or trade me in-game.

Offering payment in hp. IGN - ndf9876

[QUOTE="ndf98765"]

[QUOTE="Dea7htrap-101"]Halo Wars recieved this review based on the RTS formula. The game is claimed to be an RTS. So they reviewed it as an RTS game. Its like trying to review a fighter-genre game thinking it is an RPG, they both have completely different elements, each unique to their own respective genres. Gamespot UK reviewed this game as an RTS, and therefore compared it to other great RTS's. It is lacking some serious depth from the RTS category. Only being able to build bases in select locations, and only being able to build a handful of buildings per base is definitely lacking depth. The game is also very shallow when it comes to units. Almost every unit on each side has the same, almost identical unit on the other side. (for example: spartans and honor gaurds, scorpion tanks and wraiths, vultures and scarabs, ect.) The game does not have unit stats, unit stances, waypoints, heck it barely even has resorces. For Ensemble studios to to make the claim that this is an RTS for the Xbox is a pretty bold one, with it lacking so much content. Its almost like they tried to merge two completely different games into one. They wanted the base and resorces aspect of so many games we know (starcraft, CaC, SupCom) but wanted the game focused more on units like WiC, although on both fronts it failed to a degree. Halo Wars is not a bad game, just could have been much better, thus the "disapointing" demerit it got. Hope this helps. method115

That's all fine and well mate, but look at the PC review for Warhammer Dawn of War II - that scored 8.5 - sorry, but I don't see any consistency in the review policy. A game scores highly and by the review's admission isn't really what you might call a traditional RTS. Had that game also received a lower score, I might have agreed with you!

Well then maybe the dawn of war 2 review is the review we should be complaing about. Cause from what the guy wrote that you quoted this is what I would call a horrible RTS. The fact ath I can only play as one faction in story mode.

Looks like you can only play one faction in the campaign in both games. Maybe you're right in what you say!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about a low score for Halo Wars so much as I think the consistency in review scoring is a bit skewed. Oh well - I'll still be trying Halo Wars come what may, I'm just a bit surprised at the review score.

Halo Wars recieved this review based on the RTS formula. The game is claimed to be an RTS. So they reviewed it as an RTS game. Its like trying to review a fighter-genre game thinking it is an RPG, they both have completely different elements, each unique to their own respective genres. Gamespot UK reviewed this game as an RTS, and therefore compared it to other great RTS's. It is lacking some serious depth from the RTS category. Only being able to build bases in select locations, and only being able to build a handful of buildings per base is definitely lacking depth. The game is also very shallow when it comes to units. Almost every unit on each side has the same, almost identical unit on the other side. (for example: spartans and honor gaurds, scorpion tanks and wraiths, vultures and scarabs, ect.) The game does not have unit stats, unit stances, waypoints, heck it barely even has resorces. For Ensemble studios to to make the claim that this is an RTS for the Xbox is a pretty bold one, with it lacking so much content. Its almost like they tried to merge two completely different games into one. They wanted the base and resorces aspect of so many games we know (starcraft, CaC, SupCom) but wanted the game focused more on units like WiC, although on both fronts it failed to a degree. Halo Wars is not a bad game, just could have been much better, thus the "disapointing" demerit it got. Hope this helps. Dea7htrap-101

That's all fine and well mate, but look at the PC review for Warhammer Dawn of War II - that scored 8.5 - sorry, but I don't see any consistency in the review policy. A game scores highly and by the review's admission isn't really what you might call a traditional RTS. Had that game also received a lower score, I might have agreed with you!

Generally, I set quite a lot of store by Gamespot reviews, and to their credit, I've agreed with their scores in the main on most games I've bought.

I was really surprised to see such a low score for this game; past previews have implied that its simplicity is one of its strengths (in terms of control setup and playability on a console) and yet it seems to have been penalised for this now. I think the comments about a short campaign are well made and if that is indeed true, I won't be best pleased about shelling out for a short single-player experience and a weak multiplayer experience. I guess CoD4 with its equally short single-player experience scored points for having a much stronger multiplayer behind it....

I think marking the game down for being aimed at more casual RTS players is almost missing the point a little. Perhaps it was intended to be a little more accessible to HALO fans as FPS players, rather than HALO fans as hardcore RTS addicts. I've seen a few games try and be all things to all people, and fall flat, and I did suspect that Halo Wars would never be a 'hardcore RTS' experience. I just don't really personally agree with giving the game such a harsh demerit for being pitched at a more varied audience, than perhaps your 'Civillisation' or 'Command & Conquer' might be.

As for me, well, I'm not a massive RTS fan, largely due to the fact that I never seem to be very good at them, but for me, the fact that it's more simple than a traditional RTS, and geared towards a more casual experience, makes me want to play it even more, because that's part of the appeal. Like I said, for those reasons, I personally don't agree with the review score (although I can understand it, Ijust don't agree with it) but that said, I'm still going to pick this up.

For it not to take place in WW2.MrArmageddon8

Agreed - part of the appeal for me of CoD4 was its setting, and I also hope the developers set the next installment in more modern times.