Strategy Game of the Year Nomination

For those who are interested:

> We’re excited that #HaloWars2 has been nominated for Strategy Game of the Year by @thegameawards! Cast your vote and tune in on Dec 7. http://thegameawards.com/awards/#best-strategy-game … @Halo

Edit:

Direct link - Best Strategy Game

It’s tight for me, I love HW2 and Total War: Warhammer, but I cast my ballot for HW2. Hope we get the win

It’s pretty awesome that Creative Assembly has two games nominated.

Can’t say I’ve played any other strategy games this year, so I’m pretty biased for Halo. Looks like HW2 is the underdog, being a console designed and windows exclusive game.

I thought halo wars was the only strategy game.

> 2533274855353246;5:
> I thought halo wars was the only strategy game.

for console, it is the only FPS Xbox has i’m aware of.

I can only vote for xb1 rts games so only choice is HW2. If command and conquer was a choice that would be my vote. I hope one day halo wars takes the some sort of format from C&C where micromanagement means something, economic harassment pays off , a triangle that works and having to expand was very important. It just felt more in depth its not perfect but it worked.

Put my vote in for Halo Wars 2 earlier today. Gratz to 343 and the teams at Creative Assembly and Blur for the nomination :slight_smile:

HW2 all the way up. Competition is tough tou

Halo wars as game of the year is a joke. It shouldnt even be nominated to be honest. I had a lot of fun with this game but…

The game is clearly pay to win. With all the crap EA is getting, 343 and CA are getting off easy.

There is absolutely no balance, never has been. Broken DLC leaders, lost (unplayable) seasons due to broken mechanics and slowest developers response time ever.

Strategy game of the year? Dont think so.

I don’t think it’s pay to win, the base game leaders had a lot of OP moments too. The balance hasn’t been great though and I think a lot of CA’s attention was elsewhere.

New RTS games are a rare find these days unfortunately.

> 2533274826526791;10:
> Halo wars as game of the year is a joke. It shouldnt even be nominated to be honest. I had a lot of fun with this game but…
>
> The game is clearly pay to win. With all the crap EA is getting, 343 and CA are getting off easy.
>
> There is absolutely no balance, never has been. Broken DLC leaders, lost (unplayable) seasons due to broken mechanics and slowest developers response time ever.
>
> Strategy game of the year? Dont think so.

Comparing EA and the flak they are getting to Wars’ DLC model is so far of a stretch i don’t even know where to begin.

Pay to win? I know the definition of that has been morbidly butchered by gamers. An example of p2w in Wars 2 - vanilla Blitz. That was a prime example of putting money into the game and in return getting stronger units.

New leaders were never an example of p2w. Whatever the meta happens to be at a given point in time will determine who plays what. Next season Forge will probably be off the charts good, and he was free for everyone. Does that mean the p2w elements appear and disappear according to the meta? Sounds subjective to me.

Battlefront literally had cards that would increase your aim assist. Friend, that is paying money for what used to be used in mods. Even blitz received the “Open” playlists which are actually enjoyable and place everyone on an equal playing field regardless of how many packs the user has opened.

The other issues… The technical ones, I will agree with. Disconnects and slow-to-update issues hold the game back from it’s potential. Updates are more than likely ties to Microsoft and Xbox, which is a shame. It means that we have to deal with whatever issue comes up for long periods of time before the game gets fixed.

So overall I disagree with your sentiment that it shouldn’t have been nominated. It’s a solid game, one deserving of the hype it has. You are absolutely correct about the technical issues being legitimate marks against it, but comparing the new leaders we got to EA? That’s pretty damn dramatic. I’ve followed the situation with BF 2 closely and the situations aren’t even remotely comparable.

HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! Good joke ! Halo Wars 2 Strategy game of the year pfff BWHAHAHAHA !!!

Guys ! Let’s be real for one minute. We know this nomination is just there for variety. Not because it’s good. As a RTS Halo Wars 2 can’t even compare to the most hated game of the year Dawn of War 3… And even as a console RTS, the small indy game Tooth and Tail is a better game than HW2 !!! Come just let’s be real here.
And I’m just considering the core gameplay concepts and mechanics, not the technical, DLC and microtransactions issues.

> 2535447478285779;13:
> HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! Good joke ! Halo Wars 2 Strategy game of the year pfff BWHAHAHAHA !!!
>
> Guys ! Let’s be real for one minute. We know this nomination is just there for variety. Not because it’s good. As a RTS Halo Wars 2 can’t even compare to the most hated game of the year Dawn of War 3… And even as a console RTS, the small indy game Tooth and Tail is a better game than HW2 !!! Come just let’s be real here.
> And I’m just considering the core gameplay concepts and mechanics, not the technical, DLC and microtransactions issues.

Disagree, HW2 is much better than D3, that was just a mess lol

> 2533274812650916;12:
> > 2533274826526791;10:
> > Halo wars as game of the year is a joke. It shouldnt even be nominated to be honest. I had a lot of fun with this game but…
> >
> > The game is clearly pay to win. With all the crap EA is getting, 343 and CA are getting off easy.
> >
> > There is absolutely no balance, never has been. Broken DLC leaders, lost (unplayable) seasons due to broken mechanics and slowest developers response time ever.
> >
> > Strategy game of the year? Dont think so.
>
> Comparing EA and the flak they are getting to Wars’ DLC model is so far of a stretch i don’t even know where to begin.
>
> Pay to win? I know the definition of that has been morbidly butchered by gamers. An example of p2w in Wars 2 - vanilla Blitz. That was a prime example of putting money into the game and in return getting stronger units.
>
> New leaders were never an example of p2w. Whatever the meta happens to be at a given point in time will determine who plays what. Next season Forge will probably be off the charts good, and he was free for everyone. Does that mean the p2w elements appear and disappear according to the meta? Sounds subjective to me.
>
> Battlefront literally had cards that would increase your aim assist. Friend, that is paying money for what used to be used in mods. Even blitz received the “Open” playlists which are actually enjoyable and place everyone on an equal playing field regardless of how many packs the user has opened.
>
> The other issues… The technical ones, I will agree with. Disconnects and slow-to-update issues hold the game back from it’s potential. Updates are more than likely ties to Microsoft and Xbox, which is a shame. It means that we have to deal with whatever issue comes up for long periods of time before the game gets fixed.
>
> So overall I disagree with your sentiment that it shouldn’t have been nominated. It’s a solid game, one deserving of the hype it has. You are absolutely correct about the technical issues being legitimate marks against it, but comparing the new leaders we got to EA? That’s pretty damn dramatic. I’ve followed the situation with BF 2 closely and the situations aren’t even remotely comparable.

Fine. Maybe i was a little bit overexaggerating too make a point.
Still… I stand by the Pay to win element.

Is it nowadays not easier to get wins with the ATN leaders?
Was it not easier to get wins with Serena when she launched?
Was it not easier to get wins when Jerome launched… Same for Kinsano and Yap Yap.
For me there is a clear pattern here and I’m calling shenanigans.
These leaders were nerfed, but it always took awhile you know? Just long enough for some lingerings players too buy them I feel.

The fact that some ‘older’ leaders (like Forge) aren’t completely useless. Or for example that Johnson wasn’t OP at launch, doesn’t break down my argument I feel.

Now I get that balance in a strategy game is very difficult to achieve but… maybe the DLC leaders were made a lil bit too strong to get more sales maybe?

The only way to vote is to login through FB?

> 2533274796391115;16:
> The only way to vote is to login through FB?

Taking a quick look:

> You can help select the winners by voting below, or vote direct on Google Search. Just type in “the game awards vote” in the Google search bar. Fans can also vote for select categories via Twitter DM and Facebook Messenger by following The Game Awards accounts.

> 2533274826526791;15:
> > 2533274812650916;12:
> > > 2533274826526791;10:
> > > Halo wars as game of the year is a joke. It shouldnt even be nominated to be honest. I had a lot of fun with this game but…
> > >
> > > The game is clearly pay to win. With all the crap EA is getting, 343 and CA are getting off easy.
> > >
> > > There is absolutely no balance, never has been. Broken DLC leaders, lost (unplayable) seasons due to broken mechanics and slowest developers response time ever.
> > >
> > > Strategy game of the year? Dont think so.
> >
> > Comparing EA and the flak they are getting to Wars’ DLC model is so far of a stretch i don’t even know where to begin.
> >
> > Pay to win? I know the definition of that has been morbidly butchered by gamers. An example of p2w in Wars 2 - vanilla Blitz. That was a prime example of putting money into the game and in return getting stronger units.
> >
> > New leaders were never an example of p2w. Whatever the meta happens to be at a given point in time will determine who plays what. Next season Forge will probably be off the charts good, and he was free for everyone. Does that mean the p2w elements appear and disappear according to the meta? Sounds subjective to me.
> >
> > Battlefront literally had cards that would increase your aim assist. Friend, that is paying money for what used to be used in mods. Even blitz received the “Open” playlists which are actually enjoyable and place everyone on an equal playing field regardless of how many packs the user has opened.
> >
> > The other issues… The technical ones, I will agree with. Disconnects and slow-to-update issues hold the game back from it’s potential. Updates are more than likely ties to Microsoft and Xbox, which is a shame. It means that we have to deal with whatever issue comes up for long periods of time before the game gets fixed.
> >
> > So overall I disagree with your sentiment that it shouldn’t have been nominated. It’s a solid game, one deserving of the hype it has. You are absolutely correct about the technical issues being legitimate marks against it, but comparing the new leaders we got to EA? That’s pretty damn dramatic. I’ve followed the situation with BF 2 closely and the situations aren’t even remotely comparable.
>
> Fine. Maybe i was a little bit overexaggerating too make a point.
> Still… I stand by the Pay to win element.
>
> Is it nowadays not easier to get wins with the ATN leaders?
> Was it not easier to get wins with Serena when she launched?
> Was it not easier to get wins when Jerome launched… Same for Kinsano and Yap Yap.
> For me there is a clear pattern here and I’m calling shenanigans.
> These leaders were nerfed, but it always took awhile you know? Just long enough for some lingerings players too buy them I feel.
>
> The fact that some ‘older’ leaders (like Forge) aren’t completely useless. Or for example that Johnson wasn’t OP at launch, doesn’t break down my argument I feel.
>
> Now I get that balance in a strategy game is very difficult to achieve but… maybe the DLC leaders were made a lil bit too strong to get more sales maybe?

The most consistent leader from season to season has always been Cutter.

The new leaders definitely had their issues on launch and if it was intentioal yeah definitely a shady business practice. But going over the DLC:

Kinsano: strongest leader on her launch for a month or so.
Colony: middle of the road. Average if not below average.
Johnson: below average
Jerome: broken for a day. Not sure if I’m going to really count that.
Arbiter: another middle of the road fella, if not below average.
Serina: had an exploit but otherwise average until the recent flamer buff
Voridus: I’ll give this one to you
Pavium: I’m more on the fence on this one but I’ll give it to you.

Aside from unintentional exploits, there have been 3 blatantly overpowered DLC leaders out of 8. I’m not counting Jerome being busted for a single day I don’t think that’s remotely fair. But even if I did that’s half of the DLC leaders.

I’m not saying the rest are useless before anyone jumps at me saying that i think every other leader is bad.

The most consistent leader from season to season, without a doubt, has always been cutter.

Next season i anticipate a variety of forge, decimus, Pavium, cutter, and anders. Only one of those was paid DLC.

EDIT:

I forgot Yap! So being generous, 5/8 DLC leaders were overpowered on launch, but only half if you don’t count Jerome (I don’t). If it’s by design (which is what you are claiming) then they did a pretty poor job.

> 2533274862181038;17:
> > 2533274796391115;16:
> > The only way to vote is to login through FB?
>
> Taking a quick look:
>
>
> > You can help select the winners by voting below, or vote direct on Google Search. Just type in “the game awards vote” in the Google search bar. Fans can also vote for select categories via Twitter DM and Facebook Messenger by following The Game Awards accounts.

Grazie!

> 2533274826526791;15:
> > 2533274812650916;12:
> > > 2533274826526791;10:
> > >
>
> Fine. Maybe i was a little bit overexaggerating too make a point.
> Still… I stand by the Pay to win element.
>
> Is it nowadays not easier to get wins with the ATN leaders?
> Was it not easier to get wins with Serena when she launched?
> Was it not easier to get wins when Jerome launched… Same for Kinsano and Yap Yap.
> For me there is a clear pattern here and I’m calling shenanigans.
> These leaders were nerfed, but it always took awhile you know? Just long enough for some lingerings players too buy them I feel.
>
> The fact that some ‘older’ leaders (like Forge) aren’t completely useless. Or for example that Johnson wasn’t OP at launch, doesn’t break down my argument I feel.
>
> Now I get that balance in a strategy game is very difficult to achieve but… maybe the DLC leaders were made a lil bit too strong to get more sales maybe?

Forge was dominating for a full month and I think (maybe I’m wrong) the patch that gave the 300% buff for his Warthog was with Serina’s release. I’m not saying it’s impossible that they made DLC leaders OP on purpose, but we’ve seen the base game leaders be quite strong too.

I think they’re just not great at balancing, have tight deadlines and the 1 balance update a month has been one of the biggest problems the game has had. I think Jerome was the exception when he got nerfed.