Forums / Games / Halo Wars 2

Why aren't RTS games like Halo Wars more popular?

OP TheHinge

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
Dricas88 wrote:
Honestly, I feel like RTS games could become more popular for the console if they were made geared toward a simpler overall play style. I really have a hard time painting a picture of what I mean, but I think Halo Wars 1 was on the right track.

As far as Halo Wars 2 goes, I feel it is a much better RTS game as far as compared to the definition of RTS and to the more popular RTS games designed for the PC like Star Craft 2 when compared to Halo Wars 1. However, I feel like Halo wars 1 was much more successful as far as what an RTS for the console needed to be like. I feel like Halo Wars 1 combined RTS concepts to a MOBA style frame and I think for RTS games to succeed at becoming more popular/mainstream the more they need to take on that hybrid style. And I am not saying it has to be exactly a mix between a traditional PC RTS and a MOBA, but it does need to be different than the traditional mind set.

I had high hopes when I heard early on that Gear of War was going to be making a very basic strategy game that it was going to be one heading in that direction similar to HW1 until I found out it was going to be a turned based tactics style game. Anyway, again, I am not sure exactly what these games need to make them trend on the console, but I have high hopes that more creative genres/game types will be seen being developed in the near future as the newer consoles become more and more powerful.
I highly disagree on the point of how a RTS game should be for console. Besides having one of the best campaign for the halo series, HW2 had the balance that is required of any RTS. So no. Halo Wars 1 should never be used as a basis for console RTS. Besides balance, Halo Wars 2 is a very basic game but Halo Wars 1 was far too basic with units, even if they made the counter circle work, and the economy consisted of only supplies. 2 resources is pretty basic and you got games like Age of empires and Age of Mythology with gold, wood, food, and favor in that manner. I like what was done with Halo Wars 2 and I think console RTS should be based off Halo Wars 2. There are a few other games that were quite good that were on console as well, even better balance wise than Halo Wars, but the GUI just never picked up those early titles. There is balance issues being fixed with consistent updates but the does not function correctly with control groups and is a issues that should be fixed sometime soon, though doubtingly going to happen in any short time future.
I tend to agree with this. I think the reason we are all so hard on HW2 (matchmaking, maps, etc.) has a lot to do with the fact that it is our only RTS option out there.

This is what I don't understand. I agree with most of the arguments put forth as to why RTS games arn't as popular, but is it really in a smaller gaming companies best interest to try and make the 50th or so FPS game that comes out this year, and try to compete against the massive super heavy weights like Halo, BF, CoD, PUBG, etc? Or make what would be the 2nd XBOX One RTS game that exists?

The console RTS is really minor.
Wii's Tact of Magic,
Supreme Commander 2, Tom Clancy ENDWAR

I certainly think that HALOWARS 2 is the biggest work in the console.
tenchosan wrote:
The console RTS is really minor.
Wii's Tact of Magic,
Supreme Commander 2, Tom Clancy ENDWAR

I certainly think that HALOWARS 2 is the biggest work in the console.
Not any other console RTS ever got as much attention as HW2. We got to give it to 343 for their hard work in the series, even with their many failures that followed.
I found the community to be toxic. I was somewhere around a level 66, could hold my own against some. Frequently got rolled over by people with cheap rush moves or the boring waves after waves of the same unit. Then I found people talked a lot of stuff they’d never say in person to anyone. If you don’t want to play against someone and resign (surrender, admit the game is lost) you get “banned”. So I use Panzer Corps on my iPad to get strategy fixes, deleted Halo Wars 2 and since I had no reason to really do anything Xbox cancelled my gold membership play my PS4 pro. I stop by occasional to see if there’s any reason to check out Halo Wars 2 again and see posts talking about keeping people out of the game until level 40 and how you have to dedicate time and life to Halo Wars 2 and otherwise you shouldn’t be playing etc....check out Elder Scrolls and it’s not like this and Call of Duty doesn’t punish you for choosing to not play with someone. I’d love to be able to pay 1 vs 1 with someone who doesn’t live for Halo Wars 2 rankings but that’s not an option. It’s ranked or nothing for 1 vs 1 and the ranked community isn’t for me. I miss console RTS but Halo Wars 2 stopped being fun and it wasn’t the games fault
...I stop by occasional to see if there’s any reason to check out Halo Wars 2 again and see posts talking about keeping people out of the game until level 40 and how you have to dedicate time and life to Halo Wars 2 and otherwise you shouldn’t be playing etc....
I agree with you that 40 is too steep, and if something like this were to happen there would have to be a 1v1 un-ranked mode.

But I don't think the reason behind wanting people to stay out of rank is about preventing lesser skilled or committed players from playing the game, but more so acknowledging the steeper learning curve that comes with the RTS genre.

If you put me in any FPS after 1-2 hours I can at least compete with people who take the game seriously, this just isn't true with RTS games. You need to learn the units, the counters, the economy, the build orders, the maps, and in this one the leader powers, heros, etc. Nobody wants to keep them from playing, in fact the opposite, we want them in a less competitive "Team war" environment, where they will likely find the games to be more enjoyable as they get more experienced.

I think what everyone wants is to see more teammates and opponents at their level -- irregardless of ranked or non-ranked.
Zildjians wrote:
...I stop by occasional to see if there’s any reason to check out Halo Wars 2 again and see posts talking about keeping people out of the game until level 40 and how you have to dedicate time and life to Halo Wars 2 and otherwise you shouldn’t be playing etc....
I agree with you that 40 is too steep, and if something like this were to happen there would have to be a 1v1 un-ranked mode.

But I don't think the reason behind wanting people to stay out of rank is about preventing lesser skilled or committed players from playing the game, but more so acknowledging the steeper learning curve that comes with the RTS genre.

If you put me in any FPS after 1-2 hours I can at least compete with people who take the game seriously, this just isn't true with RTS games. You need to learn the units, the counters, the economy, the build orders, the maps, and in this one the leader powers, heros, etc. Nobody wants to keep them from playing, in fact the opposite, we want them in a less competitive "Team war" environment, where they will likely find the games to be more enjoyable as they get more experienced.

I think what everyone wants is to see more teammates and opponents at their level -- irregardless of ranked or non-ranked.
The game is by far the best RTS on a console. I’ve been playing strategy games since SSI games in the 1980’s. People will learn the game and tactics...and they will learn loopholes or imbalances like we all do. I don’t want to play team matches. I like 1 vs 1. I bought this game upon release and to be honest the first 9-12 months were fine and then the community became abusive and toxic. I initially blamed it on being free with subscription. I understand every player wants something different. There is no way forcing people to play with others who may be verbally abusive will ever increase a games popularity. I’m 43, I love HW2. I wouldn’t let my child play it knowing what I experienced online with this game. I served in the real Army (not COD) and worked in a Supermax prison. It’s not like I haven’t heard all of it before...I just am not going to choose to submerge myself in it for fun. It could be just a few players being trolls, maybe I’m the only one who got temporarily banned for choosing to not play with certain players, but I haven’t experienced it in any other game I have played on Xbox. So there’s a take on why this game should be the exciting beginning of a game genre we love....yet it’s not. If “hardcore” players prevent others from loving RTS games they help the genre become extinct.
RTS games on console are slow movers because I would say console players are more into fast pace FPS games.
RTS games use too much brain power for console standard. Even the serverly dumped down ones -- think tom clancy's endwar -- are still too much 'work' for your average joe console guy.
There was a craze of RTS games in the early 2000s that oversaturated the market, they were kind of lacking in novelty, then they kind of died down, in favor of shooters, RPGs and MOBAs. They are beginning to make a comeback now as we've seen many more quality RTS releases in the past 3 or so years than we did from 2008-2014. Another reason is that the ADHD fortnite dummies just can't handle taking time and patience to learn strategy and dependencies, which kind of makes me like them even more - even the noobs are inherently more competent than what you'll be dealing with in such a "lowest-common-denominator" environment like fortnite or Battlefront 2.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2