Halo 3 - ODST (Formerly known as Recon)

[Beanovsky Durst]

The campaign is around 7 hours long (normal mode) and it extends up to more areas (several place open up; doors unlock) on game+, so if you're playing it on a higher difficulty then you should expect it to be more longer. Note that Halo 3's campaign could be done in 5 hours alone on normal quickly. Fire fight is 10 (both day/night cycle optional) levels for you and three other friends to fight countless waves of the covenant (sharing 7 lives starting) and have to work together. This has much more depth with the skulls to torture you, not forgetting the bonus rounds. You have your typical Halo 3 features; save films, photos, skulls, meta-game, and then you have the second disk having all Halo 3 (and the final 3 maps from Bungie) multiplayer, with 20 dollars worth on DLC alone, it should justify the 60 dollars in America, where other countries seem to have it slightly cheaper (30-35 pounds here in the uk).

I thought it was a shorter campaign. We get horrid games with that pricetag; knowing all the features definetly changes the way I see it. Other thing that I haven't noticed is that the price is almost the same (850 MXN = 63 USD) on the standard edition, which is a little less than a standard new title (RE5 was 75 USD standard edition, and 120 USD special edition).
So I might get this, but not on launch, as I really can't afford it right now, and I'll wait for Left 4 Dead 2 and Darkside Chronicles (which will burn in my wallet )

[Carnivol]

Halo Wars is really the most "point-and-click´y" RTS Ive seen in a very long time and even the latest C&C games cant surpass its "generic"-ness.

Although it's true that some stuff were cut short (base building limited to "sites" with "grids/slots") and squads limited heavily in size (as if that's a bad thing, Dawn of War II with its tiny squads says hi)

Last time I played C&C3, RA3 and Endwar, neither of those 3 showed me proper terrain interaction (beyond introduction of very basic line of fire features), levels with objectives and events more fleshed out than "Protect ___ for ## minutes", "Destroy all enemies" or "Escort ___ to ___" on perfectly generic maps with no attempts at doing something different or trying to elaborate on why not doing ___ in ## = fail

In general, the only shit Halo Wars should get is from the PC==SUPERIOR crowd. 'cause, as with FPS, and various other genres that falls into the category of "BETTER ON PC! MOUSE AND KEYBOARD! M&KB! PORN!"

[Alexia_Ashford]

Although it's true that some stuff were cut short (base building limited to "sites" with "grids/slots") and squads limited heavily in size (as if that's a bad thing, Dawn of War II with its tiny squads says hi)

Last time I played C&C3, RA3 and Endwar, neither of those 3 showed me proper terrain interaction (beyond introduction of very basic line of fire features), levels with objectives and events more fleshed out than "Protect ___ for ## minutes", "Destroy all enemies" or "Escort ___ to ___" on perfectly generic maps with no attempts at doing something different or trying to elaborate on why not doing ___ in ## = fail

In general, the only shit Halo Wars should get is from the PC==SUPERIOR crowd. 'cause, as with FPS, and various other genres that falls into the category of "BETTER ON PC! MOUSE AND KEYBOARD! M&KB! PORN!"

I'm a console gamer through and through, but although I enjoyed Halo Wars and thought it worked well on the 360, it felt very bland to me and it got boring very fast. After playing Starcraft, it shows me just how bland it was really. It falls into my category of "alright".

[Stu]

So how many people here are up for a Halo: ODST session upon launch? Seems to be a good number of us?

[Member_of_STARS]

Although it's true that some stuff were cut short (base building limited to "sites" with "grids/slots") and squads limited heavily in size (as if that's a bad thing, Dawn of War II with its tiny squads says hi)

No. *Most* of the stuff was cut short. Micromanagement is on the level of CnC games post RA2, which frankly, is a joke. Its all about pointing and clicking on a target, without really outworking an enemy with your APM and tactical skills. I dont have a problem with squads. You must have misread me. I think in RTT type of games, squads are the only way to go as shown in World in Conflict, which despite (Single player wise) its low requirement for APM (actions per minute) still required at least some tactical skill and unit placement to not to get screwed. HW missions, for the most part, even the "escort your first batch of troops to point A and engage the enemy" types, require nothing as such, because you usually got a substantial ammount of reinforcements on the way to the objective.

You havent played many RTS games, or at least dont really know what a good title requires from a player, and its alright, but giving games credit they do not really deserve, thats not good.

Last time I played C&C3, RA3 and Endwar, neither of those 3 showed me proper terrain interaction (beyond introduction of very basic line of fire features), levels with objectives and events more fleshed out than "Protect ___ for ## minutes", "Destroy all enemies" or "Escort ___ to ___" on perfectly generic maps with no attempts at doing something different or trying to elaborate on why not doing ___ in ## = fail

Please reread my post again. And when it comes to Endwar, at least that game (despite its horribly bugged state, compliments from UBI) actually went ahead and did something different, which you credit HW for doing. HW didnt do anything "differently", it just washed RTS down to a console-playable level, and everyone who has no idea what a great RTS title requires, is going nuts over it. Well, I apologize, people are actually giving EndWar more credit than HW, so maybe people arent as ignorant these days.

In general, the only shit Halo Wars should get is from the PC==SUPERIOR crowd. 'cause, as with FPS, and various other genres that falls into the category of "BETTER ON PC! MOUSE AND KEYBOARD! M&KB! PORN!"

Except that were talking about simple facts here. PC is more suited for RTS games, theres no elitism hiding behind this statement. Were talking about APM required for micromanagemnt and view manipulation for proper macromanagement, which console controls just are not able to match. I like how youre shrugging a solid fact off by claiming its pure elitism though.

A regular Starcraft player, playing M+KB, is doing about ~30 keypresses a minute. You should measure yours next time youre playing HW. Im doing about 60 to a high peak of 120. Professionals average 300. Take a look at the following video. Ignore the somewhat childlish talk, the guy is actually pretty fun to watch and listen. Notice how much hes working his mouse and keyboard. Now tell me, can you do this kind of macro- and micromanagement on a console RTS? Its just how this works. Same with FPS games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkGvk-ZEW6A&feature=related

Even with Red Alert 2, theres a whole ton of work you need to do, even though C&C games are bland in RTS standards, as they are meant for the masses. Youre required to build an army and specials and then just waste them. Then theres a game, solely focused on macromanagement, Supreme Commander, and even there, youre still outworking Halo Wars.

Starcraft is the ultimate RTS though, and is way above pretty much anything on the market, but it serves as a good measurement stick. To master that game, you would have to dedicate a portion of your life on it, and people would still fail to reach the whole depth of it.

[Zombie Fred]

So how many people here are up for a Halo: ODST session upon launch? Seems to be a good number of us?

Me and Emma will be doing the campaign together so getting another two players would be great, and for some fire fight action

[Stu]

Well i'm definitely down for that!

Have mentioned to Emma getting some sort of league together, Biohaze v THIA to start off with and then pick up a few other websites along the way. Just to add a little edge to the games!

[Alexia_Ashford]

Well i'm definitely down for that!

Have mentioned to Emma getting some sort of league together, Biohaze v THIA to start off with and then pick up a few other websites along the way. Just to add a little edge to the games!

Which side would you be on?

[Stu]

Probably Biohaze...i think i was there first so it makes sense.

[Zombie Fred]

Also something for the guys who are interested on wanting to know a further depth on Halo 3:ODST, the pax panel they have done is now uploaded onto youtube (courtesy to Bungie) in sweet quality for you guys to watch

Keep it clean ;)

Which side would you be on? :p

MY SIDE!!!

[Alexia_Ashford]

Probably Biohaze...i think i was there first so it makes sense.

I was on Biohaze first too, August 07 But THIA all the way!

[Carnivol]

**Wall of text**

So many words, and yet you completely missed the entire point I was trying to get through, so let's try this again;


Okay, StarCraft, it has a pretty decently made script system (as far as mission creation goes). Pretty good unit balance. Solid Multiplayer component. Etc...

But here's what StarCraft does not have;

-Terrain/Obstacles that actually affects anything else but movement (which in StarCraft is limited to "Can/Cannot pass")
-Campaign Missions that utilizes gameplay elements that goes beyond that of those that're still pretty much the same basic RTS mission goals. Last time RTS games tried something new as far as conditional victories goes was back when Dune 2 - Building of a Dynasty came out. (Yeah. RTS games fails at trying new things. I can't think of a single one that has done most of the stuff that Halo Wars did. The scarab search light/laser thing? The battle ontop of your baseship? The "puzzle" at the end?)
-Same team co-op. (Sure, some RTS games have enabled two fractions to form an alliance, in versus multiplayer only. Few, if any, have let two people control the very same fraction... in a story mode/campaign)
-Scoring system + Difficulty System + Skulls (okay, the effect of the skulls may be treated like typical customization, but like FPS games that doesn't start with Perfect or Time, and end with Dark or Splitters; end user customization is a dying breed. Mod support is not what I'm talking about here now. I'm talking about out of the box options to enable/disable features, beyond just a tiny handful of game modes + a campaign)
-A fully functional pre-designed controller interface feat. hotkeys and group shortcuts... which is not a keyboard/mouse combo.


Anyway; this has nothing to do with any amount of mouse clicks pr. hour, or how many thousands of units or absurd amounts of micromanagement you can do. Those things are like saying the only good shoot 'em up is one that fills the screen with purple bullets at all times with $600 in change + pixel perfection being the only path to victory. A lot of stuff can be handled from the controller perfectly fine. And if you can't, then it's not always only 'cause the controller suck, but in fact the person holding it. Keep in mind that you've been using a KB/M for a specific type of game design, day in and day out, for countless years. Of course you're not gonna be a master when the rules suddenly change. It's like... *bad comparison, but should do* going from a bicycle to a car.

Anyway, as for the limited units; it's partly done 'cause of hardware reasons (since things look nice, we'd rather not clunk it up with heavy performance issues) and it's partly because of gameplay design (gameplay design which isn't entirely bottlenecked around a "rock/scissor/paper vs horde" logic, which is something RTS games usually do.) as by using a limited units (both in terms of attack force and base building), alt. mobile solutions, rally points and the option to "hold" units, makes every unit count much more. Especially the option to lock down your base is a filthy one.

Also, not every RTS should have to depend on a multiplayer component in order to be enjoyable. Gasp! Some people want to play an RTS that isn't entirely depending on "at least" another player? ('cause skirmish against the computer is often not that much fun) There are things, game design wise, that only really works under certain conditions. Often, a lot of those things don't float, at all, in a player vs player environment.

Anyway, at the end of the day; It's about making an RTS that is "not trying to be Starcraft". That's the problem with the whole thing where people go on about "Game X is the ultimate _____ game!" It's that kind of thinking that holds back and limits further development and experimentation with various genres. Ensemble (of Age of Empires fame) did a fine job with Halo Wars. The were making a game that was almost an entirely different approach to what the source material was. Saying it's not a good game that's getting mostly just undeserved credit is being narrow minded and a snob who's behind the times and afraid of something that's different.


Just quoting this, 'cause I think it's a keeper

You havent played many RTS games, or at least dont really know what a good title requires from a player, and its alright, but giving games credit they do not really deserve, thats not good.

[Member_of_STARS]

So many words, and yet you completely missed the entire point I was trying to get through, so let's try this again;

Could you do it in one sentence next time, because you accuse me of "walling you in" ( ), without a point, while youre doing the exact same thing.

Okay, StarCraft, it has a pretty decently made script system (as far as mission creation goes). Pretty good unit balance. Solid Multiplayer component. Etc...

"decent, pretty good, solid"

Starcraft, at this current moment, is the most demanding RTS game, with the best unit balance, huge depth and its level editor and script system is unrivaled (more on this later). Not a fanboy dribble, but if you actually played it for a bit more than the original segments single player campaign back in 1998, then perhaps you would have known the topic a bit better.

But here's what StarCraft does not have;

-Terrain/Obstacles that actually affects anything else but movement (which in StarCraft is limited to "Can/Cannot pass")

Wrong. The difference in terrain level actually give units some major advantages/disadvantages. For example, a unit on lowground will inflict only 50% damage to a unit on the highground, levels are built to capitalize from this, which is why you see a whole boatload of different tactics. Then theres the obvious vision obstruction depending on where you are and the units on the highground will always get the first shot off, which is why you have to keep your detection and aerial units at hand.

-Campaign Missions that utilizes gameplay elements that goes beyond that of those that're still pretty much the same basic RTS mission goals. Last time RTS games tried something new as far as conditional victories goes was back when Dune 2 - Building of a Dynasty came out. (Yeah. RTS games fails at trying new things. I can't think of a single one that has done most of the stuff that Halo Wars did. The scarab search light/laser thing? The battle ontop of your baseship? The "puzzle" at the end?)

Wrong. There are a large number of missions which do not require you to build a base and destroy the enemy in conventional ways. The missions range from standard "escort the hero" to defense with a timer to room clearings with a handful of marines. And there are more, capturing enemy battlecruisers, and then theres a whole level dedicated to destroying enemy defenses in a puzzle-like order and maze just to get from point A to point B. There is a vast variety of such things and the missions actually require you to micromanage, against an enemy AI. In SC, once your hero falls, he doesnt get back up.

-Same team co-op. (Sure, some RTS games have enabled two fractions to form an alliance, in versus multiplayer only. Few, if any, have let two people control the very same fraction... in a story mode/campaign)

While not in storymode, this is vastly superior in every aspect in multiplayer mode. Theres even such a mode, where one player is building the base and creating units and another player is micromanaging the units. (few, if any...). And the thing that tops pretty much every RTS right now, are the scripted cooperative maps which you can play online or on LAN. Many of them are like RPGs, tower defense type games are immensely popular aswell. Every new scripted map can be a whole new game. Mostly COOP.

-Scoring system + Difficulty System + Skulls (okay, the effect of the skulls may be treated like typical customization, but like FPS games that doesn't start with Perfect or Time, and end with Dark or Splitters; end user customization is a dying breed. Mod support is not what I'm talking about here now. I'm talking about out of the box options to enable/disable features, beyond just a tiny handful of game modes + a campaign)

Thats the only valid one so far. I do agree, Im all in for complete customization, provided that there are enough changes to validate the positive attention.

-A fully functional pre-designed controller interface feat. hotkeys and group shortcuts... which is not a keyboard/mouse combo.

60-70% of Starcraft APM comes from keyboard hotkeys, both from the default ones, aswell as those 14 or 15 keys you can set up for certain map locations and units/unit groups. But I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that SC is inferior to Halo Wars because its being played on M+KB?

Your hate for M+KB is irrational and while Im constantly worried that I may come off as a fanboy, its perhaps not me who has this problem.

Anyway; this has nothing to do with any amount of mouse clicks pr. hour, or how many thousands of units or absurd amounts of micromanagement you can do.

This has everything to do with the ammount of (efficient) actions youre required to perform every timeframe. This is one of RTS games resources. In SC, theres minerals, gas and APM. Theres a reason why Starcraft to date is the best RTS game, most played RTS game both competitively and casually. Theres a reason why theres a biblical ammount of knowledge about the game. Why there are entire national channels in S-Korea focused on Starcraft alone. Its just that deep. Taste in games becomes irrelevant. Were measuring facts here. Mouseclicks and the number of units you have to move around directly makes up the skill required to play the game efficiently (and not just send units to their death C&C style).

Those things are like saying the only good shoot 'em up is one that fills the screen with purple bullets at all times with $600 in change + pixel perfection being the only path to victory.

No its not. Thats a flawed comparison. Youre comparing purely graphical elements that have no effect on gameplay, against gameplay elements that make up a game.

A lot of stuff can be handled from the controller perfectly fine. And if you can't, then it's not always only 'cause the controller suck, but in fact the person holding it.

Of course you can. You can select "all units" or "local units" with your pad and send them all to a location. Theres so much depth here, that its staggering. I mean, I must have a problem with it just because Im setting up a comparison with games which do a whole lot more in any given timeframe.

Like I said. If there was a contest where your effective APM was measured, the games limited and washed out nature would be revealed in simple stats and numbers. Im amused that youre trying to make HW seem anything but that. Not a bad game if youre limited to a console and want to try out the RTS genre, but not a "true" RTS game by any means.

Keep in mind that you've been using a KB/M for a specific type of game design, day in and day out, for countless years. Of course you're not gonna be a master when the rules suddenly change. It's like... *bad comparison, but should do* going from a bicycle to a car.

Ive been using a controller on RTS games before. Before HW, I played Red Alert and a number of Tycoon games on PSX. I can appreciate the fact that its going to be completely different. You cant appreciate the fact that some control methods, for some tasks, are superior/inferior and youre trying to credit any such comparisons to "fanboyism".

and it's partly because of gameplay design (gameplay design which isn't entirely bottlenecked around a "rock/scissor/paper vs horde" logic, which is something RTS games usually do.)

I always take gameplay over graphics, so the limited ammount of units has never been a concern for me personally. You can correct me, but i never blamed HW in having "less than X ammount of units in game". However, your eboth wrong on these accounts.

1. HW actually does use RPS type of balance system. Starcraft uses what I call "unmirrored RPS balance" which is where a combination of units, or unit numbers are what mirrors a certain unit or tactic.

2. HW also uses the "horde" mentality, as youre not micromanaging units individually, but sending them into action directly, pretty much how new players do it in CnC.

as by using a limited units (both in terms of attack force and base building), alt. mobile solutions, rally points and the option to "hold" units, makes every unit count much more. Especially the option to lock down your base is a filthy one.

Most of these options are available in most RTS games, and all, apart from the lockdown. Which, in a manner of speaking, is available to one unit in SC (the Siege Tank).

Also, not every RTS should have to depend on a multiplayer component in order to be enjoyable. Gasp!

SC single player component has immense replay value, in a wide variety of configurations. Youre not going to be able to change any options or settings that would lead to alternate gameplay in campaign mode, though, but for someone praising COOP, youre coming off a little contradicting. Most popular RTS games on the market are enjoyable in SP. But if you think SC-s only strenght lies in MP, then youre mistaken.

Some people want to play an RTS that isn't entirely depending on "at least" another player? ('cause skirmish against the computer is often not that much fun) There are things, game design wise, that only really works under certain conditions. Often, a lot of those things don't float, at all, in a player vs player environment.

What do you mean exactly? (Just pitching in the idea of scripted maps for unlimited replayability)

Anyway, at the end of the day; It's about making an RTS that is "not trying to be Starcraft". That's the problem with the whole thing where people go on about "Game X is the ultimate _____ game!" It's that kind of thinking that holds back and limits further development and experimentation with various genres.

Your problem is this- HALO Wars *is* basically a watered down Starcraft/CnC/AoE, pretty much every popular RTS game out there. Nothing is holding anything back. Its just a simple matter of fact. It has to be watered down in order to be playable on a console, yes, but Im saying that people are giving that game more credit than it deserves, and you, in this thread, seem to like to prove it. If slowing down the pace, limiting control and functionality is your idea of "experimentation", sure. Yeah, fact is- a game needs to be simplified in order to be a traditional RTS on a console. You can either accept that, or just accept the fact that HW failed to "revolutionize" a genre on a console, like HALO did. You cant get them all.

Ensemble (of Age of Empires fame) did a fine job with Halo Wars. The were making a game that was almost an entirely different approach to what the source material was.

HALO was originally meant to be an RTS game. There might have been some progress, which could have been handed to Ensemble at some point. I do think that Bungie had a lot of conceptual work already done.

Saying it's not a good game that's getting mostly just undeserved credit is being narrow minded and a snob who's behind the times and afraid of something that's different.

Well, at least Im basing my opinion on comparisons you can measure factually, instead of trying to come up with a number of arguments pulled out of thin air.

Just quoting this, 'cause I think it's a keeper

For someone who just listed a number of features that Starcraft supposedly didnt have, you do come off as an expert in the genre. So yeah, you can keep it.

[Carnivol]

Are you saying that SC is inferior to Halo Wars because its being played on M+KB?

Your hate for M+KB is irrational

Totally. Not a day goes by without me wishing for a console port of Microsoft Office.

Starcraft, at this current moment, is the most demanding RTS game

That's always what I look for in a game. 'cause physically demanding is the only thing I look for when I look at an RTS. I wanna see how many carbs I can burn with those fingers of mine and that mouse arm.

You might want to give motion controls a shot. Should be right up your alley.


Aaand, 'cause quoting all would be stupid (not that it matters anyway);

Wrong.

-Height penalty is a given. Now, how about some of those obstacles?
-Most of the alt. missions in Starcraft have nothing special going for them. Mostly limited by its primitive and limited engine and mostly just the same stuff that has already been done before and after. You'll probably see more of what was done in Halo Wars in upcoming RTS, incl. Starcraft 2. Maybe you'll know what I'm talking about then.
-Reg. co-op; People setting their own rules in Team Melee? (Random note; Starcraft 64 had campaign co-op)

Youre not going to be able to change any options or settings

HALO Wars *is* basically a watered down Starcraft

Watered down with features and functionality Starcraft doesn't have.
A gardening job well done.

You can select "all units" or "local units" with your pad and send them all to a location.

And create groups... filter units... save camera positions... and... who am I kidding, you don't care either way.

Well, at least Im basing my opinion on comparisons you can measure factually, instead of trying to come up with a number of arguments pulled out of thin air.

Yes, pulling arguments out of thin air is my favorite thing.

It has to be watered down in order to be playable on a console

Well, there's your problem! Good luck figuring it out what I'm talking about.


[edit]And a couple just for the scrap books

I may come off as a fanboy

its level editor and script system is unrivaled

Nothing is holding anything back. Its just a simple matter of fact. It has to be watered down

[Member_of_STARS]

Totally. Not a day goes by without me wishing for a console port of Microsoft Office.

Im sorry, but thats precisely the way you worded yourself. Youre saying that Starcraft lacks a dedicated "controller" with already predefined keys and which happens to be not a keyboard. Comes off a little akin to this: "Halo wars sucks because it doesnt have an imaginable, not yet in production, fictional controller yet, that allows me to sit on my couch and do nothing".

*shurgs*

Correct me if Im wrong, but try to do it without cutting my posts mid-sentence to change the idea Im trying to put forth.

That's always what I look for in a game. 'cause physically demanding is the only thing I look for when I look at an RTS. I wanna see how many carbs I can burn with those fingers of mine and that mouse arm.

Because spoonfeeding is awesome.

I didnt say "physically demanding". Its not just your physical actions where SC takes its toll. Its tactics, strategy, reaction. In a regular round, one is expected to do dozens of things in a very small timeframe. You need to have a clear goal, an efficient build order, constantly working on your resources, build order for the first 5-7 minutes of the game, early scouting, harassment, reaction to enemy scouts, walling, blocking scouts, constantly working on your resources and *then* work on micromanaging that scout you sent out so it wouldnt get slaughtered, and thats all in the first 3-5 minutes of the game. You dont have to perform 300 actions a minute to do this. But you will have to be mentally calculating and concentrating.

Because, quite honestly, if all you can do is point and click, perhaps WoW is "up your alley"?

-Height penalty is a given. Now, how about some of those obstacles?

Oh, well. Now its "a given", because we cant really admit our first argument really didnt work out for us.
If you look at many Starcraft maps made post 2004 or so, youll see that they have been utilizing obstacles to change the games dynamics. Scouting, early attacks and flanking routes have all been changed through and through and this has in turn created some pretty cool tactics, like using probes to mine yourself through a mineral patch, or use a probe to glitch a vehicle through an obstacle.

Speaking of silimarities, you should know that the very first mission in HW is almost identical to SCBW first mission.

-Most of the alt. missions in Starcraft have nothing special going for them. Mostly limited by its primitive and limited engine and mostly just the same stuff that has already been done before and after. You'll probably see more of what was done in Halo Wars in upcoming RTS, incl. Starcraft 2. Maybe you'll know what I'm talking about then.

Id like some examples to that. Seems rather vague as a response and looks like you havent really played the campaign through in the last 8 or 9 years, because you would remember all the trigger-heavy levels which had nothing to do with standard RTS missions youll encounter in most RTS games. While SC-s engine is old, its in no way "primitive" or "limited", unless youre talking about its looks (which wouldnt surprise me, frankly). You should play around with its level editor, youll find it to be mindbogglingly multifunctional. The cooperational triggered custom maps in tower defense type show exactly just how "limited" the whole game is.

-Reg. co-op; People setting their own rules in Team Melee? (Random note; Starcraft 64 had campaign co-op)

You dont need Team Melee for your own rules, as it really only changes the teams and the general position of teams in relation to each other. If you go to level editor and tinker with it, throw in a number of specific doodads or triggers which activate an event when something gets done, you can play that map in "Use Map Settings". For example, youre playing 1 vs 1 against some guy, you take out his main base and the game spawns a nuke on your main base. Doable, just requires some knowledge and skill. But you can turn every player vs player game into something completely different. I wont compare this to the functionality of HW, because thats not the point, even though youre insisting on trying to prove that HW somehow is a much deeper RTS than all PC RTS games combined, which are old, simple and lack in functions.

Watered down with features and functionality Starcraft doesn't have.
A gardening job well done.

Like what functions are we talking about here? Perhaps the list you gave me in your first post, which was incorrect and wrong? Even the Scarab mission in HW has conceptually been done before. "Attack X nodes to be able to attack main objective".

But I guess its new if you started your RTS experience in 2009... Welcome aboard, hf gl!

And create groups... filter units... save camera positions... and... who am I kidding, you don't care either way.

I do and I know all about it. Its only that youre better off creating groups by using the "local units" function and even then you can do rough groups. Creating precision strikegroups on the fly, even while being technically available in the game, is almost impossible. Im not even going to mention the superhuman abilities you need to possess to be able to micromanage and replenish those strikegroups in coordination... Everywhere you look, people would agree that the game is a watered down PC RTS game. Not because people are cheap, but because thats the only way you can deliver a proper RTS experience to a console, and even then, HW doesnt have half the important features which makes up a strategy game. I havent said the game sucks, Im just saying that its getting more praise than its worth. Perhaps you see it as a similar revolution Halo: CE was. I dont. I can measure my opinion. You cant.

Yes, pulling arguments out of thin air is my favorite thing.

#1 Starcrafts terrain is only limited to passable and unpassable areas
#2 Starcrafts campaign missions utilize the same concepts all other RTS games do, at which point you bring up the Scarab mission example, where its basically tried and done "destroy X nodes to be able to destroy main objective" type mission. But I guess we call a "slight twist" a "major revolution" these days
#3 Same faction COOP lacking in SC. While not in campaign, theres such a thing available in multiplayer mode. And there are actually a number of games that allow for this. Amusingly, one of them is AoE2.
#4 That RTS games have nothing to do with the ammount of tasks you perform (an obvious sign of being oblivious to the genre). If HW was a turn based strategy game, I would have agreed, and you could have thrown in a whole truckload of gameplay elements, though.
#5 Comparing flashy graphics to elements that are fundamental to gameplay, saying both are equally wrong.
#6 Claiming that HW doesnt have RPS and/or/vs horde type of balance

There are probably some more, I just found the most pressing ones. So, youre saying youve been playing RTS games a lot? Mhh-mh...

Well, there's your problem! Good luck figuring it out what I'm talking about.

Im sorry if it touches your ego, but seems to me the whole internet disagrees with you, so do I still have to find out "what youre talking about" (even though I asked politely for you to give me a quick version on your hidden message)

[edit]And a couple just for the scrap books

I like the last one, well cut off midsentence.

I might even like this game!

-A fully functional pre-designed controller interface feat. hotkeys and group shortcuts...