Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Wars 2 Discussion

Recommended Posts

Why do you sound so worried? Jesus. You're acting like Halo Wars doesn't have a great foundation to build upon.

 

The same reason I was worried when Ensemble was making it and it 100% came true. (Talking about gameplay, not story) They made an RTS with absolutely no depth in strategy in a strategy game. Ensemble's reason for this was because it's on consoles and not many console players play RTS games. This logic implied that PC gamers and console gamers are two mutually exclusive things. Because of this thinking, they made an RTS that was dead weeks after. The multiplayer had no focus in development since the balance was god awful. It's like they just threw everything from campaign into the multiplayer hoping it would work. The replayability of the campaign was near 0 since it was a linear RTS game with pre-set base locations and having only one way to complete your objective. If you played the Halo Wars campaign once, you've played it in every way possible. I made another post earlier in this thread with even more details of what Ensemble did wrong in terms of gameplay and units/powers.

 

Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-Earth II is still the best RTS game that has touched consoles. The barrier in between RTS and consoles is not gameplay, it's controls. A great in-depth RTS on consoles is possible if the developer puts the time and effort to make the controls work. I just don't hope CA isn't uninformed of the quickly dead Halo Wars multiplayer and takes the proper steps to make Halo Wars a proper PvP RTS experience like it should be. Halo Wars can be so much bigger than what Ensemble did with it and I hated seeing it being irrelevant in the RTS communities weeks after launch. Halo Wars was great for Halo fans, but not RTS ones. I want both, and just because the series has a great foundation to build upon, doesn't mean in any way that CA will not make the same mistakes Ensemble did with the console community.

Share this post


Link to post

Because of this thinking, they made an RTS that was dead weeks after.

Whut?

 

Wars had a very good online population. Even now, ~6 years later, it's had about 11 thousand people play the game in the last 24 hours. For a console RTS that's amazing.

Share this post


Link to post

The same reason I was worried when Ensemble was making it and it 100% came true. (Talking about gameplay, not story) They made an RTS with absolutely no depth in strategy in a strategy game. Ensemble's reason for this was because it's on consoles and not many console players play RTS games. This logic implied that PC gamers and console gamers are two mutually exclusive things. Because of this thinking, they made an RTS that was dead weeks after. The multiplayer had no focus in development since the balance was god awful. It's like they just threw everything from campaign into the multiplayer hoping it would work. The replayability of the campaign was near 0 since it was a linear RTS game with pre-set base locations and having only one way to complete your objective. If you played the Halo Wars campaign once, you've played it in every way possible. I made another post earlier in this thread with even more details of what Ensemble did wrong in terms of gameplay and units/powers.

 

Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-Earth II is still the best RTS game that has touched consoles. The barrier in between RTS and consoles is not gameplay, it's controls. A great in-depth RTS on consoles is possible if the developer puts the time and effort to make the controls work. I just don't hope CA isn't uninformed of the quickly dead Halo Wars multiplayer and takes the proper steps to make Halo Wars a proper PvP RTS experience like it should be. Halo Wars can be so much bigger than what Ensemble did with it and I hated seeing it being irrelevant in the RTS communities weeks after launch. Halo Wars was great for Halo fans, but not RTS ones. I want both, and just because the series has a great foundation to build upon, doesn't mean in any way that CA will not make the same mistakes Ensemble did with the console community.

You were worried about gameplay from Ensemble? They were one of the best RTS devs. They were the ones behind Age of Empires. Or do you mean that they had no console experience, and that worried you?

 

Granted, the worries turned out to be sound, However, when I heard Ensemble was making the game I was hyped. What were the reasons behind your misgivings?

Share this post


Link to post

You were worried about gameplay from Ensemble? They were one of the best RTS devs. They were the ones behind Age of Empires. Or do you mean that they had no console experience, and that worried you?

 

Granted, the worries turned out to be sound, However, when I heard Ensemble was making the game I was hyped. What were the reasons behind your misgivings?

 

I wasn't worried until around a year before launch when they were saying comments like "We want everyone to be good in our RTS! Everyone will have fun!" and crap like that. Before that, I was mega hyped. If CA would saying anything like "We will put a lot of focus on the PvP experience and longevity of the game", my hype for this game will be uncontrollable.

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn't worried until around a year before launch when they were saying comments like "We want everyone to be good in our RTS! Everyone will have fun!" and crap like that. Before that, I was mega hyped. If CA would saying anything like "We will put a lot of focus on the PvP experience and longevity of the game", my hype for this game will be uncontrollable.

I missed those comments, then. We're talking about the same Ensemble, right? That doesn't seem like them. AoE was always relatively difficult. Seems out of character, I'm surprised.

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, Halo Wars gameplay got pretty deep despite its basic controls and mechanics. The high level Halo Wars community consisted of what, maybe 80 total players at any given era of its lifespan? Like 98% of the population couldn't fend off a simple early rush. It sucks that the majority of people bought the game simply because it had "Halo" in the title, and were put off because it wasn't like the main titles. It deserves more appreciation.

Share this post


Link to post

Regardless of Ensembles history, when they made Wars they really simplified the game on the premise that Console players wouldn't be able to hanpdle a deep RTS. Eagleburn is just saying that he hopes CA can get past that thinking and deliver a deep experience.

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, Halo Wars gameplay got pretty deep despite its basic controls and mechanics. The high level Halo Wars community consisted of what, maybe 80 total players at any given era of its lifespan? Like 98% of the population couldn't fend off a simple early rush. It sucks that the majority of people bought the game simply because it had "Halo" in the title, and were put off because it wasn't like the main titles. It deserves more appreciation.

I bought it to get the Mythic II map pack early.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

The same reason I was worried when Ensemble was making it and it 100% came true. (Talking about gameplay, not story) They made an RTS with absolutely no depth in strategy in a strategy game. Ensemble's reason for this was because it's on consoles and not many console players play RTS games. This logic implied that PC gamers and console gamers are two mutually exclusive things. Because of this thinking, they made an RTS that was dead weeks after. The multiplayer had no focus in development since the balance was god awful. It's like they just threw everything from campaign into the multiplayer hoping it would work. The replayability of the campaign was near 0 since it was a linear RTS game with pre-set base locations and having only one way to complete your objective. If you played the Halo Wars campaign once, you've played it in every way possible. I made another post earlier in this thread with even more details of what Ensemble did wrong in terms of gameplay and units/powers.

 

So basically, because the first game had no depth, you're worried the second game won't have any depth despite it being made by a different studio who just pointed out they're going to improve upon what Ensemble did?

 

Okay.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So basically, because the first game had no depth, you're worried the second game won't have any depth despite it being made by a different studio who just pointed out they're going to improve upon what Ensemble did?

 

Okay.

Deja vu. You remind me of the people during the pre-Halo 4 days that didn't like it when anyone showed concern for 343's new game. When we knew little to nothing about Halo 4, what was the best resource to go by? The previous iteration (Reach), so a lot of people were showing concern of Sprint and all that jazz being in Halo 4. Was that a bad thing? No, because it's a discussion forum and they're discussing based on all the info they have, which at the time, was mainly Reach. Did 343 say "It will be the best Halo ever!" like every developer does? Yeah. Did it mean anything? No.

 

Until we get real info, showing concern based off the previous iteration of Halo Wars is valid.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, Halo Wars gameplay got pretty deep despite its basic controls and mechanics. The high level Halo Wars community consisted of what, maybe 80 total players at any given era of its lifespan? Like 98% of the population couldn't fend off a simple early rush. It sucks that the majority of people bought the game simply because it had "Halo" in the title, and were put off because it wasn't like the main titles. It deserves more appreciation.

 

Yes, it could get "deep", but it was severely limited in terms of strategy. Once you got past "can't deal with rushing" skill levels, the game's actual number of viable units and strategies drops severely, especially in 1v1's or in the general early game. Any gamemode outside of default is extremely noncompetitive, Inter-faction battles are often simple wars of attrition and dull micro-resource management. The game could have used a lot of work.

 

Deja vu. You remind me of the people during the pre-Halo 4 days that didn't like it when anyone showed concern for 343's new game. When we knew little to nothing about Halo 4, what was the best resource to go by? The previous iteration (Reach), so a lot of people were showing concern of Sprint and all that jazz being in Halo 4. Was that a bad thing? No, because it's a discussion forum and they're discussing based on all the info they have, which at the time, was mainly Reach. Did 343 say "It will be the best Halo ever!" like every developer does? Yeah. Did it mean anything? No.

 

Until we get real info, showing concern based off the previous iteration of Halo Wars is valid.

 

I agree with what you're saying, but I feel like that's a shaky comparison. If we were really judging 343i based on what they did in Reach, all they really did was fix bloom and pushed out CEA. We really had nothing to base their design philosophy on except their few positive additions and fixes they made to the franchise, all while adjusting the shit mechanics Bungie left behind for them. Nothing Bungie or 343i did beforehand would even begin to indicate how nightmarish Halo 4's launch would be: personal ordance, random ordnance, asinine power weapons, ridiculous BTB asset apportionments, broken custom settings, innate sprint, Promethean Vision, the boltshot, instant respawn, loadouts, extremely fast weapon despawns, the Flagnum, MaddenBall, 4 versions of the same utility weapon, the restricted Flood mode, a broken fileshare, ect ect ect...Even with Reach flirting with Call of Duty modern FPS mechanics, Halo 4 was far worse than even the most cynical of us could have imagined.

 

While its totally fair to compare and discuss the faults of the first Halo Wars, and how it will affect the sequel, your comparison actually goes against your concern a little bit; 343i's ludicrous design of Halo 4 sort of shows that a new developer "basing" their game off of another could result in something radically different. 

Share this post


Link to post

If anybody wants to play some Halo Wars let me know. We can super turtle or something. :-)

Share this post


Link to post

What do you mean by depth??. The only major problem of HW were the hard counters, and low population cap. Do you think you could make a Starcraft game be played with a controller??, Half of the SC difficulty comes with mechanics and less of strategies .

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for posting this, I'm an idiot and didn't see there was a HW2 thread so I posted it in the H5 one  :mj:

 

Also, on the Ark confirmed?!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.