- Back to Soren Johnson's 'Designer Notes' blog, then, where he's been analyzing Ensemble's 'Halo Wars' trailer and commenting, in some detail, on how the real-time strategy game genre should be adapting to the console format.

Johnson notes of the trailer: "At the very end of the video, however, there is a tiny suggestion of just how fun an RTS could be on a console. The human side has some sort of orbiting uber-weapon they can use to wreck massive destruction on a specific target. The console interface for this system is a snap - it's simply a huge reticule. Just aim and shoot."

He continues: "Personally, I was hoping that Halo Wars would focus more on these types of interactions - ones where the player is taking advantage of the joystick interface instead of fighting it. RTS's truly need to be built from the ground up for consoles, without the expectation of controlling multiple groups of soldiers." Johnson then references Moonbase Commander, Rampart, Defense Of The Ancients and M.U.L.E. as meaningful touchpoints for those considering a console RTS.

Also useful? Jason 'loonyboi' Bergman's comment on the post, which wraps up a couple of loose ends from the existing high-profile console RTSes: "I'm deeply biased of course, but I fall into the category of people that RTSes will never, ever, ever work as well as turn-based on a console. It's not that they can't be done well...I think EA did a great job with Battle For Middle-Earth 2 (I haven't tried Command & Conquer 3 yet, but I gather it's more of the same). But in that game it felt like the only reason you couldn't pause the game and give orders is because EA made some high-level mandate that you couldn't. The game would have played better if you could."