Halo, Goodbye

Let me get this out of the way first: last week, I received a review copy of Halo Wars from my editor. I believe OMGWTFBBQ is the only way to accurately describe how that felt.

Now, I’ve played it for about a week. And once again, I’ve got conflicted feelings. One the one hand, it’s good (look for my review in the 2/23 issue of The Eagle to find out why). On the other hand…

The original Halo added a layer of strategy to the FPS genre with shields, melee, grenades, the two-weapon limit and the like, but it was still relatively accessible (meaning it wasn’t Rainbow Six). By contrast, Halo Wars is pretty much a (slightly) stripped down RTS, simplified for the sake of fitting on a console. Now, I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing. It doesn’t change the fact that the game is fun, especially as an introduction for the (I suspect many) people who think the idea of commanding armies is cool, but are intimidated by the complexity and intense strategy of modern RTS’s.

But let me add some context. Both factions in Halo Wars have roughly ten or so unique units (give or take units unique to each commander) and eight buildings. By the standards of even some of the earliest RTS’s, that’s a bit light. And there’s a generally a limit of 30 units (while it’s more variable in multiplayer, it generally doesn’t get too much higher). That sort of kills the feeling that you’re controlling armies, or even one large army. And though many units have special attacks, there’s nothing like a cloak ability or anything that might allow for a notably different strategy. Lastly, units can only move; there are no stance options.

If that looks like being nitpicky, that’s because it is. Despite it’s lack of features, Halo Wars does require tactics and strategy. Though genre veterans might need to bump up the difficulty for the campaign (I could pretty much steamroll tanks through every mission with ease on Normal), skirmishes require more thoughtful resource management and quick thinking.

But if those criticisms are exactly what would make you not want to play an RTS, that’s unfortunately true too. The developers cut enough corners in different places to make Halo Wars feel watered down. Again, that doesn’t mean it’s not fun for the rest of us.

But I’ve played Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars on both PC and 360, and while the PC version obviously controls easier, the console controls are so refined that once you get used to them, controlling the game feels relatively natural and easy. And EA didn’t need to water down the game to achieve that. They did it before C&C 3 with Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth 2 and after with Red Alert 3.

Does that mean the standards for the console RTS are now the same as the PC RTS? I would say yes. Does that make Halo Wars bad? I would say no. But is it inferior to its PC-centric counterparts? Not necessarily… it’s just different.

I definitely think that while Halo Wars lacks some strategic depth, it makes up for it because its streamlined controls allow for a tighter experience overall. On the PC, the game might be really flawed, as you can easily achieve the same fast pace with more complex games thanks to the keyboard and mouse. But it’s a console exclusive, and cannot be evaluated against some hypothetical other.

It’s a different kind of RTS, but it’s definitely still an RTS with a measure depth and complexity. It sacrifices some of that for the sake of a more accessible, immediately exciting experience. It works as a subgenre, just like turn-based and real-time strategy games, or tactical FPS’s like Rainbow Six and arcade-like shooters like Halo.

What I’m trying to get at with this schizophrenic post is that genre is only one paradigm one can use when looking at a game, and it’s not even totally solid ground. It’s the duty of a reviewer to say whether or not a game that brands itself as one thing lives up to that expectation, as well to judge a game on its own merits a priori. Sometimes it’s not that easy to do both.