Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Adam Ghiggino
07 Mar, 2009

Halo Wars Review

360 Review | War can be hell.
It's no doubt safe to say that Halo Wars has been awaited with much anticipation in the gaming community. Some have been awaiting it as the next instalment in the Halo universe, expanding upon the UNSC's war with the alien Covenant which preceded the Halo trilogy. Others have been expecting the first perhaps truly great console real-time-strategy game, a genre which has not had the greatest track record on anything other than PC. And then there are those who have been looking forward to Ensemble Studio's last hurrah, previously being responsible for the massively successful Age of Empires series. These expectations are obviously well founded. After all, take the developers of a great strategy series, add in the Halo mythology and make it enjoyable for even the casual player. What could go wrong?

The Halo Wars campaign puts you (we assume, since you take the role of an omnipresent force on the battlefield) in the shoes of USNC Captain James Cutter, commander of the Spirit of Fire. Under his command are Sergeant Forge and Prof. Ellen Anders, who discover an ancient Forerunner facility on Harvest, after re-taking it from the Covenant. This facility points the way to another, and from there, it's a familiar race against the enemy to find Forerunner technology, and it should be no surprise to anyone that the hive-minded Flood turn up once again too. In terms of Halo plotlines, it's by-the-numbers, although the cutscenes in which the plot is advanced are visually excellent. Unfortunately, it's a one-sided tale, as the Covenant aren't playable in the single player campaign, only in multiplayer. And the Flood? They aren't playable at all.

Now right about now the Duke boys are thinkin', when did they leave Earth and join the USNC?

Now right about now the Duke boys are thinkin', when did they leave Earth and join the USNC?
Close
So, slight disappointment about the playable factions aside, how does the game work? Rather simply, as it turns out. In the campaign mode you'll usually be presented with a small collection of units, who'll need to be directed to various points along the maps to fight with enemy forces, escort civilians or build bases. Along the way, you'll also have side objectives as in Halo 3, things like killing a certain number of Elites or Grunts, which are interesting diversions to try and achieve. Building bases is a simplified process - you start off with a base with a limited number of build spots around it. You can increase this number by upgrading your base, and there are only six kinds of buildings to choose from, which are essentially your bare basic strategy options. Namely, barracks, vehicle factory, research lab, etc. Instead of money or minerals, you'll be building your troops with 'supplies' which can be found in small piles around the maps or more efficiently constantly airlifted in via supply drop buildings in your base.

At first glance, this simplified structure actually works well with the simple control scheme on the Xbox 360. The A button selects single units, and with a tap of LB, you can select all of your units on the field. Hitting the right trigger will let you cycle through various unit types, and you can select groups of units by holding down the A button and passing a selection circle around the units you want. While all of these methods are certainly easy, they simply don't allow you to manage your troops efficiently. All too often, you'll simply direct all of your troops to a single spot, rather than customising your squads and sending them out to multiple locations. You can do it, although it's hardly user-friendly and when you're going back and forth between several teams, you have to reselect all the units in that squad using the hold-A-button method. Maybe this is a necessary concession due to the lack of a mouse and keyboard on the system, but it ends up feeling just a little too limiting.

"How did you catch the bandit in Burma?" "We burnt the forest down."

"How did you catch the bandit in Burma?" "We burnt the forest down."
Close
Unfortunately, there are other chinks in Halo Wars Spartan armor. For starters, the maps often seem entirely too small when compared to other games in the genre, and there isn't much variation in their size either. Again, this lends itself to making the game easier to pick up for newcomers, but also feels rather limiting, especially in the campaign. There are also other issues that you'll encounter along the way, such as the at-times surprisingly stupid unit AI and pathfinding. All too often, we'd station overpowered units around a key defence point and then turn our attention to our base, only to find upon returning that the defence point was a smouldering ruin and the stationed units hadn't so much as moved a muscle. Other times, you'll direct your most powerful airship to the enemy base, wait for a while and wonder why it hasn't shown up, then scour the map to find it stuck against a mountain or building, and unable to find its way around. It must also be said that in playing the campaign on the normal setting, the enemy AI wasn't exactly a nuclear scientist either, and the solo campaign experience is unfortunately far too short.

Of course, the game also offers other modes in addition to the campaign, with skirmishes and a mandatory multiplayer mode, which offers matches of up to six players or three teams against each other in 'standard' or 'death match' modes, the latter offering an accelerated rate of play. The big draw here is the ability to play as the Covenant, who in all honesty aren't very different from the USNC, aside from a larger occurance of the colour purple. The game would have benefited from a completely different race (like the Flood) to mix things up a little, but as they stand there are few differences between the sides, one being the different special abilities that each side's Leader units can activate. We found that in multiplayer, the game's reliance on the all-inclusive 'supplies' meant the difference between victory and defeat, as if you'd set up enough supply drop buildings and taken over enough bases (scattered throughout the maps for you to find and claim), you have a near infinite supply of resources with which to build a constant flow of attacking units. Interestingly, there's also an option to play the campaign co-operatively, allowing you to co-command for a single mission or the whole game.

Squint hard and memories of Army Men come flooding back.

Squint hard and memories of Army Men come flooding back.
Close
The graphics in Halo Wars occasionally dazzle, but never match the truly impressive cutscenes. There are a decent selection of iconic Halo units, from Spartans to Wraith tanks to Warthogs, and the units themselves look great. Also, the bases are all well-detailed having several intricate moving parts which hold up well once the camera's zoomed in. Unfortunately, the landscapes in comparison are fairly plain and dull, and the sometimes gaudy colour scheme (which is something of a Halo tradition, we must say) doesn't do the game many favours either. The sound design, on the other hand, is fantastic, with some great orchestral tones mixed with fan-servicing Grunt wails and sound effects.

There are some who say that there hasn't been a good real-time strategy game on a console yet. Unfortunately, Halo Wars does nothing to prove them wrong. While it definitely captures the look and feel of the Halo universe quite well, there are just far too many simplifications and limitations to make it more than just an average RTS. If you're new to the strategy genre, and have enjoyed the Halo series, it's conceivable that you might like parts of the game, despite the short single-player campaign and repetitive multiplayer. There are measures of clever thought that have gone into the game, and there are definitely some unlockable rewards to be found if you stick with it. It's just not a game that is deep enough, or just plain enjoyable enough for you to want to stick with it. It's sad, but Halo Wars is neither truly great nor truly terrible, instead settling for the mediocre middle, unfamiliar territory for both Ensemble and the Halo franchise.
The Score
Halo Wars is unfortunately too simple and limited to achieve the great heights that were expected of it.
Looking to buy this game right now? PALGN recommends www.Play-Asia.com.

Related Halo Wars Content

Historic Battle pack for Halo Wars
14 Jul, 2009 New multiplayer maps.
Halo Wars balancing patch on the way
13 Jul, 2009 It's all a balancing act.
New add-on pack for Halo Wars
22 Apr, 2009 Includes new game modes and achievements.
25 Comments
4 years ago
I think I'd give it an 8.2 I think. I agree its too simple, but its quick and fun for everyone...

you put a noob to RTS in front of a starcraft multiplayer map and they would FAIL.

but if you put them in front of these I reckon they would have a chance at winning, or least enjoying themselves.
4 years ago
PALGN wrote
Under his command are Sergeant Forbe
I think that is "Forge" unless the financial crisis is playing on Cutter's mind ....

Also, I think is it Sanders - not Anders ....

Shadow Wave wrote
I think I'd give it an 8.2 I think. I agree its too simple, but its quick and fun for everyone...
I agree - this game would get a 8 - 8.5 from me - it is fun, it is frenetic at times and it is HALO!!!
4 years ago
I wasnt expecting that score but it wont put me off picking this up. I have followed this game closely and cannot wait to play it. Would buy it today if my wallet wasnt sick icon_sad.gif
4 years ago
Surprising score, but having read it all I guess I agree. I had an eye on the game, but now I've been dissuaded from getting what seems like an attempt to cash in on the Halo name.
4 years ago
shiraj wrote
PALGN wrote
Under his command are Sergeant Forbe
I think that is "Forge" unless the financial crisis is playing on Cutter's mind ....

Also, I think is it Sanders - not Anders ....
Thanks Shiraj, I've fixed it. I had the economy on the brain. And according to the character cards with the Halo Wars LE, it is Anders.
4 years ago
It amazes me that the reviewers / PC gamers (Not all)that play the "2 Face" when it comes to RTS's on the consoles.

Hardcore RTS fans (PC users) automatically trashs any Console RTS game because having that "complete" experience from the PC does not work because of the lack of keyboard / mouse.

Halo Wars, a game that's built from the ground-up to work exclusively for the console (XB360), NO PC port. From the very beginning, the whole purpose of this game was: 1. It's towards to the Halo fans, 2. A more combat / action RTS, 3. Simplicity.

They still trash the game because to them it's nothing but a "watered-down" version of an RTS. This is the only way an RTS will successfully work on a console (Halo Wars proves it) so stop hoping for a keyboard / mouse support for the XB360. I think alot of PC gamers (Reviewers also) have been living under a rock all this time or thought they were getting the holly grail of RTS's LOL.

Never played an RTS before & I really enjoyed the demo. As a result, am going to purchase the full game. Yeah am a Halo fan, is there a law I broke that says I can't be one LOL.
4 years ago
The only RTS that I ever see working on a console is World in Conflict which isn't even a RTS. To me it came down to sending all troops forward which for a modern RTS is not enough. Looks good though
4 years ago
HaloGamer wrote
It amazes me that the reviewers / PC gamers (Not all)that play the "2 Face" when it comes to RTS's on the consoles.
There's nothing two-faced about calling an average game exactly that.
4 years ago
rufati wrote
HaloGamer wrote
It amazes me that the reviewers / PC gamers (Not all)that play the "2 Face" when it comes to RTS's on the consoles.
There's nothing two-faced about calling an average game exactly that.
You admitted to never playing the game and not planning to, so you calling it average is a bit pretentious. Please play it before categorising, thanks.
4 years ago
^ The statement still stands without having played it.

There is nothing two-faced about an average game being called average.

And having endured hours of Halo Wars' mediocrity, I believe you won't find anything pretentious in my assertion that it is in fact average.

In response to HaloGamer's remark:
I'm not a Halo fan (not a un-fan either though). So yes, I'm not the intended audience. But how much can we let a games 'intentions' guide our opinion of them? Halo Wars is for Halo fans? That is great. It is an RTS designed for a console? Super! But that doesn't change the fact that the game was really sodding limited. It got an average score because it is a pretty average game. Look at the horrific Imagine series. They are rubbish designed to woo little girls with cute baby things, fashion, giggles and what not. Should reviewers take this into account before telling gamers how putrid the latest dish is? I think not.

Okay, so I kind of got ranty there. But I know what I mean and that is all that matters.

EDIT:And Nik, that neg hurts me more than it hurts you. icon_eek.gif
4 years ago
Nietzsche wrote
The only RTS that I ever see working on a console is World in Conflict
Really? I thought Endwar did pretty well with voice control.
4 years ago
Charly wrote
^ The statement still stands without having played it.

There is nothing two-faced about an average game being called average.

And having endured hours of Halo Wars' mediocrity, I believe you won't find anything pretentious in my assertion that it is in fact average.

EDIT:And Nik, that neg hurts me more than it hurts you. icon_eek.gif
I wasn't saying it was two-faced. I just think it's pretentious to be anticipating a game then suddenly decided to not even bother playing it based on a review that didn't say there was anything specifically bad with it. Especially when there is a free demo available to actually give it a try first.

This may sound hypocritical coming from me but most of the games I write off are either of genres or subjects I dislike or require me to spend >$100 to discover whether or not I'd actually like it or not.
4 years ago
Sorry, but this game at least deserves a 7 and 7.6 max. Saying the game was too simple (yes its simple) but the is what it has to be to be a functional RTS to be played on a console with a controller, the small unit cap, the simple deathmatch multiplayer option. This game is good and needs to be cut some slack. if you need to understand why it is good, well go and play LOTR: BFME2, or the C&C games, or any other rts on a console for that matter, tell me after you've tried others, which one you like best aye?
4 years ago
nikack wrote
This may sound hypocritical coming from me but most of the games I write off are either of genres or subjects I dislike or require me to spend >$100 to discover whether or not I'd actually like it or not.
Your never required to spend more than $3 to $6, you can hire the game, or you can buy, play, return, under the EB or GAME 7 day return policy.

I did just that, and I ended up really enjoying it, especially co-op. And i am a big fan of LOTR:BFME2, all the C&C games except Red Alert 3, but all of these on PC only. i would rather burn the console ports. they stink.
4 years ago
nikack wrote
You admitted to never playing the game and not planning to, so you calling it average is a bit pretentious. Please play it before categorising, thanks.
Never played it, so you're right there. Can't say if I ever will or not, cause really, who knows what the future holds? I didn't categorise it though, PALGN did. I just disagreed with the point made by HaloGamer. So shoot me.

Do I really have to play it first before making my mind up about it? What about all the games that don't have demo versions available? Is it pretentious to decide whether or not I want to spend money on a game from the written account or description of someone who has played it?

I'm more of a RTS fan than a Halo fan, either way I was kind of interested in the game. Now I read that it's really more like RTS-lite. It's slower, only 2 factions, and small tech trees among other things. I let the facts help me decide whether I want to spend or not. I didn't say "wow, 6.5? No thanks."

nikack wrote
This may sound hypocritical coming from me but most of the games I write off are either of genres or subjects I dislike or require me to spend >$100 to discover whether or not I'd actually like it or not.
It does sound hypocritical, but that's probably because it is. Writing games off just because you don't like the genre? The subject? So you don't even consider the facts (or opinions) and you don't play them for yourself before shrugging them off, but you call me pretentious?

I'm all for discussion and disagreement because at least then there's the chance that I gain from it (especially when I'm wrong). I don't care much for personal attacks though.
4 years ago
Azza wrote
Nietzsche wrote
The only RTS that I ever see working on a console is World in Conflict
Really? I thought Endwar did pretty well with voice control.
Endwar was way over-simplified, rock-paper-sissor gameplay I was really disappointed with Endwar as I was so hyped for it. I loved the voice controls though the gameplay was basic.
4 years ago
So I've just complete the campaign on this and while it is pretty short I really liked it, as it had, what I found to be some interesting scenarios. Though a few longer more epic battles would have been good. I don't think I took more than 30 mins on any of the missions.

I think the reason I don't mind it's simplicity is that I haven't played an RTS for a few years, so I haven't got anything recent to judge it against and probably only needed something simple to keep me happy. If you're really into the genre you probably wouldn't enjoy it. I still think it was scored to low but see where the review is coming from.

I'd say probably a 7.5, because it is good and handles better (in my experience) than described in the review. The only short fall is the simplicity and only one sides campaign.
4 years ago
"Halo Wars should be cut some slack for being too simple, it's made for a differnt audience!"

"The made the new Prince of Persia for a differnt audience and made it too simple it sucks now"

Honestly I'm kinda shocked they didn't have two campaigns, from playing the demo I didn't even think about it I kinda just assumed there would be a covenent campaign. But yeah, demo didn't convince me. Although I did laugh at the fact you can issue orders to your warthogs to run over enemies.
4 years ago
Needs the ability to zoom in more.
4 years ago
Let me say, normally I hate RTS games. Mostly because I suck at them...... The amount of time I've been slaughtered in so many Starcraft LAN's it is just humiliating.
But as a halo fanatic, I love how accessible this game is. I bought it not for a 'definitive Console RTS' but for a solid enjoyable game to add to the halo universe.
I would say, 7 out of 10 is what I would have given it, Average but enjoyable
4 years ago
Yeah 6 1/2 score is pretty poor review.

I might have to hit Luke V for approving this review when he comes around next.
4 years ago
I'm an RTS addict. I played through all 3 campaigns in Supreme Commander recently which was awesome. While Halo Wars has nowhere near the depth of most RTS's its still lots of fun and its Halo!

I give it 8/10.
4 years ago
^But would you give Halo Wars that score if it WASN'T based off the Halo universe, and was a completely new IP?

This is what I question. Why does the name Halo justify reasons for a game being good? I've read many a time "Sure it's simple, but it's halo!". Just because Devil May Cry 2 had the franchise name, didn't stop it from being a terrible game, and this is coming from a DMC fanatic. Not to say Halo Wars IS a terrible game, I haven't played it so I can't give an opinion on it obviously. It's just comments like "it's simple, but it's halo!" really irk me.
4 years ago
When I read this article (Adam is my most favourite game reviewer, doesn't mean other PALGN reviewer is bad icon_biggrin.gif ), the game that came to my mind straight away was Star Wars - Galactic Battlegrounds which was basically just Age of Empires with Star Wars environment. A very average RTS just for fans.


Edit - added an extra word
Add Comment
Like this review?
Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/rK

N4G : News for Gamers         Twitter This!

Digg!     Stumble This!

| More
  Pre-order or buy:
    PALGN recommends: www.Play-Asia.com

Australian Release Date:
  26/02/2009 (Confirmed)
Standard Retail Price:
  $99.95 AU
Publisher:
  Microsoft
Genre:
  RTS
Year Made:
  2008

Read more...
Currently Popular on PALGN
Australian Gaming Bargains - 08/12/11
'Tis the season to be bargaining.
R18+ Legislation
R18+ Legislation
Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations Preview
Hands on time with the game. Chat time with the CEO of CyberConnect 2.
PALGN's Most Anticipated Games of 2007
24 titles to keep an eye on during 2007.
PALGN's Most Anticipated Games of 2008
And you thought 2007 was populated.