This must be what it felt like the day after the Omaha Beach invasion. Yesterday the Halo Wars review embargoes lifted and everyone and their Master Chief action figure reviewed Ensemble Studios latest RTS. Some of the review were glowing...some of them were scandalous. It's no secret that Mutiplayerreport.com gave HW one of it's highest scores (9.5) and while some would argue that I overscored it (I'll explain myself, don't worry), it's nothing compared to some of the underscoring it received.
Did Bungie actually hate Halo Wars? Why wasn't Master Chief in the game? Lead designer Dave Pottinger reveals all.
Halo Wars is still widely considered one of the best and most accessible RTS games around, and that formula could work with other Microsoft IPs.
I think Crackdown would fit in a more turn-based tactics system via Xcom then a RTS type game play. Being able to customize multiple agents, deploying that group in an crime infested urban zone, going against other super powered enemy and fodder type thugs. The potential for that is huge if they won't do another successful, ground breaking, GOTY open world outing like Crackdown 3....
NoobFeed Editor Joshua Burt writes - There are many games in the famous Halo Franchise that are stellar titles and need to be revered. And some that do not. These games stand out from the crowd and deluge of colossal Halo titles. Games that made Halo great. We do need to iron out what qualifies the game for this list. They have to be in the Halo franchise… Obviously.
Replies(2)
Halo 3 at the top is correct the only thing id change is swap infinite and halo ce around.
Halo 4 has the hottest Cortana too which explains why the MC is the hardest in that campaign and why H4's multiplayer is the illest. Chief ain't afraid to take on teleporting enemies that can one hit melee kill.
" So imagine my shock when I found out that brave Luke Anderson had the balls to score Halo Wars a 6.5."
So what? Should everyone obey to Haruhi and put a 9.5 / 10 even if they did not enjoy Halo Wars? And how about people that give a 10 / 10 because other broken games had 10 / 10?
There are two kind of reviewers: those that review according to technical criteria and those that review according to the fun they had. The problem of the first is that they seem to be insensible to artistic features and review low, the problem of the second is that they over-evaluate games and minimize game weaknesses.
I had fun with War Of The Monsters, a PS2 game that allow you to play giant monsters in cities, but i was aware of its technical weaknesses, and for nothing i would spit on someone that rank that game fairly according to those weaknesses. But people giving 9 / 10 on WotM because it's fun are just dumbasses that kill the industry overhyping games.
Plus people don't have to justify their review, since every justification of the score should be in the review, unless you are from Edge. And if you don't explain why you scored a game in your review, then the review is pointless.
The media are biased against the 360. Sony paid the magazines off to give Halo Wars average scores. See what I did there?
I like the Multiplayer Report, this critique on reviews had some good points.
OFP sucked on graphics but the gameplay was fun as hell!!! i would kill people and lay down next to their bodies. it was very hard to spot people when they lay down on the ground... people would run right pass you as i snipe them in the head from behind. the game was a 4 out of 10. the fun factor made it a 7 out of 10. i am not buying halo wars but i will be renting it. i just hope my third replacement 360 gets back in time....
Gamespot after the Kane and Lynch incident... nobody trusts them anymore. Must be months i have not visited the gamespot site.