oh yeah!
i forgot to check xboxhyde...
i feel kind of a doofus now hehe
Halo Wars trailer (Halo RTS)
- Thread starter nintenho
- Start date
oh yeah!
i forgot to check xboxhyde...
i feel kind of a doofus now hehe
Increased detail will almost always demand increased realism, the only other option is to go towards stylized looks. Square for example walks a very fine line with their FF art, whit realistic shading and lighting and enviroments, but stylized, idealized characters.
Now I'm sure most of us would rather not see toon shaded Covenant troops...but I'm still curious about the art direction of Halo 3. What we've seen from Master Chief so far was not exactly to my liking...
Hopefully Ensemble got some of the art direction from Bungie. I liked the darker, moodier style.
I really like the art direction in this trailer, very gritty with the colour filter there. It might just be a result of being a pre-rendered CG production, but I just prefer the overall look to this. It's like the graphical successor to the original Halo 2 announcement trailer.
Then again, Halo 3 is still a ways away...
OR! ......*cough* halowars.com
Then again, Halo 3 is still a ways away...
OR! ......*cough* halowars.com
I think this game idea sucks. This is clearly MS wanting to wring every possible dollar and cent out of a game IP which they never created in the first place. The idea that little planet earth could withstand an invasion by what is essentially a multi-national force of space aliens is as rediculous as the rebel alliance would win over the empire in similar ground battles - which is why I never liked any of the star wars RTSes either.
The basic premise has to make sense! And this one simply put doesn't.
The basic premise has to make sense! And this one simply put doesn't.
You know so little of the story, so why don't you reserve strong judgment until after finding out? It might even be a good story (perish the thought).
crystalcube
Newcomer
How is it different from any other game developer or publisher trying to get most out of their IP.
Whats important is that the game is being designed specifically for Xbox360 so will it have a good control scheme for a RTS game when it is released. If the game mechanics work for RTS on console it will be great even if story makes no sense.
This is NOT different then any other publisher. This isn't any different then sony. How about some Jak Racing?
There's nothing wrong with extending IP to something that makes sense. Halo is about a war, so an RTS makes perfect sense. Also this is the last game from bungie regarding halo so I'm sure they want to make sure the Ip doesn't sit there gathering dust after H3 and after the movie comes out.
You have no idea what the story is about so bitching about this is a waste of your breath.
I don't see how the basic premise doesn't make sense. Does a premise in a video game even need to make sense? It's basic science fiction dude. As usual you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.
Who said they were "forced"? What if they were the ones that suggested it? A negative assumption like that doesn't have anything to back it up.
Yeah, the RTS legacy has given Halo plenty of stuff to exploit in a strategy game. It already has two quite different sides with gound, air and infantry forces, and a lot of nice tactical ideas like using a Spartan crew to make more out of a simple Warthog, or picking out Elites to scare off Grunt groups, or using personal shields, cloaks... And I'd also expect the game to have more complex battle dynamics then two groups of units standing in front of each other and exchanging shots - Warthogs could circle enemies, Hunters could use rush attacks to crush marines, etc. etc.
Basicaly, if they could take the existing Halo stuff, automate the micro stuff and add a layer of macro management on top of it, then they'd already have a fun game.
Basicaly, if they could take the existing Halo stuff, automate the micro stuff and add a layer of macro management on top of it, then they'd already have a fun game.
Last edited by a moderator:
inefficient
Veteran
To me, this little gem of a PR quote from the FAQ hints a bit of some twisting of arms going on:
Q: Other RTS games that have transitioned to console have had issues with controls, how will Halo Wars improve on the formula?
A: Halo Wars was created for the Xbox 360 from the ground up, which meant we didn't have to make compromises or shoe-horn in artifacts from a Windows PC game. We were able to take all the best aspects of RTS games, make them work perfectly on the Xbox 360, and exclude the rest.
I think if Ensemble really had their own choice of platform for this game it would definitely be PC. There is no argument with this is there? I mean, I don't think anyone could successfully argue that a console is a superior platform for an RTS game.
But of course Halo is MS's biggest gun in this console war. And it seems they don't feel a really good RTS on the PC will help the Halo franchise as much as a pseudo-RTS game exclusive to the xbox360 platform.
Q: Other RTS games that have transitioned to console have had issues with controls, how will Halo Wars improve on the formula?
A: Halo Wars was created for the Xbox 360 from the ground up, which meant we didn't have to make compromises or shoe-horn in artifacts from a Windows PC game. We were able to take all the best aspects of RTS games, make them work perfectly on the Xbox 360, and exclude the rest.
I think if Ensemble really had their own choice of platform for this game it would definitely be PC. There is no argument with this is there? I mean, I don't think anyone could successfully argue that a console is a superior platform for an RTS game.
But of course Halo is MS's biggest gun in this console war. And it seems they don't feel a really good RTS on the PC will help the Halo franchise as much as a pseudo-RTS game exclusive to the xbox360 platform.
Again where are people getting this? there isn't even a hint of "arm twisting" in that FAQ quote. seriously, if there was I'd completly admit it, but there isn't any in there. Just because they are making a strategy game for a console doesn't mean they had thier arms twisted.
This isn't an issue of which platform is better for RTS games, it's always been an issue of RTS games not being designed for console to begin with. The few times an RTS game was designed for console, it worked pretty well (i.e Pikmin).
Again, your another person that is making negative assumptions based on nothing more than opinion. The questions is, what is your opinion based on? You need to stop jumping to conclusions. Did they ever say they wouldn't release it on PC at some point?
Last edited by a moderator:
inefficient
Veteran
There is this quote from Rich Wickham that says it is not comming to the PC.
"[Halo Wars] is 360 only. It's an exciting development and a differentiator vs. our console competition. I don't think Windows gamers are left out. We're broadening the market and giving gamers great choices on 360 and Windows. That's cool, and only we can deliver on that.....We announced more love for Windows (Bioshock, Clancy, Crossfire, etc.) tonight than ever. Peter [Moore] and I are committed to doing the right thing here, and I think that came through tonight better than ever."
Uh huh, just like the previous previous halo games before they arrived two and a half years later. Anyway what difference does it make if it's 360 only? They stated it's designed for console and thats all that matters.
So the assumptions of:
1. ensambled being forced (arm twisted) to make a Halo game
2. Being forced to make a 360 game
3. would prefer to be on the PC
...are nothing more then pure conjecture.
Last edited by a moderator:
inefficient
Veteran
I don't see the harm in a little conjecture.
And I wasn't infering that they wre "forced to make a Halo game", just implying that they were forced to put it on the 360.
Historicaly, console RTS games are poor/clumsy imitations of their PC counterparts. That combined with Ensemble's track record, it all seems very odd that Emsemble would choose 360 over the PC given an actual choice. That is all I am saying.
Again, it's conjecture. I'm not trying to prove this is what actually went down.
And I wasn't infering that they wre "forced to make a Halo game", just implying that they were forced to put it on the 360.
Historicaly, console RTS games are poor/clumsy imitations of their PC counterparts. That combined with Ensemble's track record, it all seems very odd that Emsemble would choose 360 over the PC given an actual choice. That is all I am saying.
Again, it's conjecture. I'm not trying to prove this is what actually went down.
The only RTSs IMO that have worked on a console are the Kingdom Under Fire games on the Xbox. It wasn't the classic resource gathering/construction, but you did manage your troops and leaders in an RPG manner. It's once you got onto the battlefield where you had to manage various groups and troop types where the "RTS" factor comes in. You've got the basic soldier, heavy soldier, knights, paladins, archers, mortor, sappers, fire sappers, spearmen, catapults, wyverns, blimps etc..., pretty much the techtree of Warcraft II). Battles are won/lost based on what troops you have, but a big factor is telling which group to go where on the field and also the timing.
What really worked was that you were always focused on one group at a particular time. This is a critical difference for RTS games because you're not allowed to scroll about the map and have this dynamic view of the world; you're limited exactly to what your troops can see. Instead, there is an overall map of the level that you can bring up, which is the main way of shuffling troops around.
The key here is really that you're not using a selection box and managing troops that way. You're cycling through the groups that you have and moving them via a map. Things get hard when you want to send special troops around while hitting other enemy groups; in that sense I find that it's about as difficult as managing production and attacking in PC RTS (divided attention).
The first attempt at a next gen RTS (LotR:BMEII) really sucked IMO. I saw the video of one of the devs demonstrating how to attack someone, and it took bloody hell forever - it's the mindset that a selection box is somehow a requirement.
I guess it also depends on how you want the player to play the game. KUF was very intimate and to a degree, cinematic, with the battle camera versus the rather omnipotent views of conventional RTS games. There is also the production of units - are soldiers churned out in squads or individually? Are there more than 5 groups that need attention while managing construction? I suppose we'll find out as time goes...
What really worked was that you were always focused on one group at a particular time. This is a critical difference for RTS games because you're not allowed to scroll about the map and have this dynamic view of the world; you're limited exactly to what your troops can see. Instead, there is an overall map of the level that you can bring up, which is the main way of shuffling troops around.
The key here is really that you're not using a selection box and managing troops that way. You're cycling through the groups that you have and moving them via a map. Things get hard when you want to send special troops around while hitting other enemy groups; in that sense I find that it's about as difficult as managing production and attacking in PC RTS (divided attention).
The first attempt at a next gen RTS (LotR:BMEII) really sucked IMO. I saw the video of one of the devs demonstrating how to attack someone, and it took bloody hell forever - it's the mindset that a selection box is somehow a requirement.
I guess it also depends on how you want the player to play the game. KUF was very intimate and to a degree, cinematic, with the battle camera versus the rather omnipotent views of conventional RTS games. There is also the production of units - are soldiers churned out in squads or individually? Are there more than 5 groups that need attention while managing construction? I suppose we'll find out as time goes...
Last edited by a moderator:
Linky?
Thanks!
