The upcoming Halo game has brought up a lot of commotion. Since the Halo series is already over, they decided to add another chapter in the story. This time they take you back 20 years before Halo 1's story took place. Once again your up against the Covenant fighting over the planet Arcadia where they're starting a slaughter fest and invasion of the land. The UNSC is there to take it back.
Unlike the Halo series, this one isn't a fps (first person shooter). Instead its a strategy game, where your in command, expanding territory, raising an army, and commanding them where to go and fight.
Even though they changed the rating from "M"(Mature) to "T"(Teen), I doubt that it'll be a success like the last three. Here are the reasons why:
- They should never have changed the style of the game, since the game takes back 20 years ago, they should have a fps character, like Master Chief, to control in the game.
- Strategy gaming is going to bore people a lot. I mean if you ask me, I'd rather fight 1000 Covenant troops with only my handgun and grenades. Or use the "hammer of dawn" against 100 berserkers in "Gears of War". I mean there's no action, no fun in strategy games, all you do is just command people where to go and who to attack and stuff, no one wants to do that.
- I would just keep the "status quo" of games. If one game is adventure, let it be adventure, or a fps, keep it the same way. Unless you want to change it (like as if your dying to change it), at least try to make it better from the previous games, otherwise, your just wasting your time, money, and energy creating it.
If you want further information about the upcoming Halo game, there's sites below that will take you there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_Wars
http://www.halowars.com/
true, but like after you beat it a hundred times, then it'll get boring, cuz you already know what your opponent's moves will make
ReplyDelete