I’m just wondering why 343i would want to focus on a game that could only hold like less than 10k players a day. Like, ~5k? I got Halo Wars, I enjoyed it somewhat but not a lot. The Matchmaking was nothing but pure rushing 2 minutes in. It made for very short and extremely boring games.
Shouldn’t 343i be focusing all their attention on Halo 5 and 6? The future of the Xbox and Microsoft is sorta depending on it after what Halo 4 turned out to be.
> I’m just wondering why 343i would want to focus on a game that could only hold like less than 10k players a day.
Because the size of an online population is by NO means everything. Just look at Portal 2. Are you seriously going to judge that game’s worth on the number of people in co-op? No because it has other strengths, qualities, and uses that more than justify buying it.
Much the same can be said for Halo Wars. I loved it, I’ll buy the sequel if 343 ever puts it out there, but I only entered matchmaking twice on the original. So what?
I’d love a Halo Wars sequel, so long as they fixed a lot of things.
For one, it’s strategy was very shallow–there was really only one way to play, and if you didn’t use it you automatically lost.
Furthermore, the Rock-Paper-Scissors (Vehicles over Infantry over Air over Vehicles) just doesn’t make sense (I don’t see how a grunt is more equipped than a Scorpion to take out a Hornet) and was limiting. It seems to me that in a RTS, certain units should have strengths and weaknesses, not certain TYPES of units.
Just an example, Battle for Middle Earth: horsemen are freaking awesome, unless the enemy has pike-men. Pike-men are freaking useless unless the enemy has knights. It creates a great strategy system–do you expend the units to counter the enemy’s, or instead focus on you own offensive strengths?
Also, Halo War’s population limit seemed ridiculously low (to me anyway). But then again, I never quite got over the fact that a group of grunts were basically more powerful than a Wraith. Again, it just didn’t make sense.
Because it would be a smart move for 343i to ignore a game a significant portion of the community wanted.
I don’t know what 343’s game plan is; nobody does. The prospect of a Halo Wars 2, however unlikely it may seem, would be awesome on a next-gen system. It’d be really cool to see that processing power of Xbox One come into play.
Both I and my opponents rush in every game we play. I have games last 10-20 minutes on average, which is twice the amount of time it takes for an average Halo FPS match to take. Since they were trying to appeal to Halo fans with the game there’s no problem. Stop complaining about rushing, just because you can’t handle it.
Th population’s at ~5k now, which is similar to Halo 3’s population, even after they made the game free. I know loads of people who loved Halo Wars, but simply got bored of it because it’s a small game, one way to play game.
A re-balanced, larger game, which Xbone could facilitate, would be perfect.
Xbone doesn’t rely on Halo 5 or…Please stop, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
Halo wars is no one way to play game, I have played it for years and enjoy the different things people do. Also on halowars.com you can see the total amount of unique players is the last 24 hours which is about 47k.
Because they want to expand the Halo universe.
But if they were to release a Halo Wars two they would need to consider these points >
The population count was too limited, needs to be raised.
Build the engine and game architecture in regards to the Xbox One only, no 360 version for it will limit the base game in regards to scale of battles, pop count, objects on screen at once and map size.
Add a ‘Command and Conquer: Generals’ base building aspect.
More variety of units and more numerous upgrades.
Less restriction on the limit of defensive structures. Make the game accessible for turtlers too. For Halo Wars was just a rush fest with some to no defensive capabilities.
> But then again, I never quite got over the fact that a group of grunts were basically more powerful than a Wraith. Again, it just didn’t make sense.
They weren’t you clearly misunderstand the rock-paper-scissors concept. A comparatively expensive generic group of infantry performs better than a comparatively expensive group of generic land vehicles vs aircraft. One wraith is much better than one grunt at taking down aircraft but a wraith costs the same amount of population as three grunts and the same resources as 3.5 so 3.5 grunts is a better way of fighting aircraft than buying one wraith. Not to mention when I say grunts I mean grunt squads, not individual grunts.
That said this would of course only be a soft counter as hard counters always existed, the main problem though with infantry in the entire game was that they were too slow compared to vehicles but especially compared to banshees. Banshees can boost across the map in a moment and infantry really can’t - even pelicaning them takes forever, a damn lot of micro and tonnes of resources. IMO infantry should have been cheaper so they could cover more ground and the pop should have been expanded to allow more infantry to be deployed (obviously keeping the pop costs of vehicles/aircraft the same by doubling them)so they could cover more ground and be more useful and in turn for this cheapness their grenades/RPGs would do less building damage so as to ensure they aren’t OP in rushes.