Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Halo - A Hog' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Halo - A Hog
Authored by: werikblack on Jan 20, '04 09:05:48AM

This doesn't sound like a Microsoft/Apple debate from what I've seen above. Look at the facts, though. Halo is a poor console port. When most first-person shooter games are getting 100+ frames per second, the top-of-the-line graphics card in the PC world can't break 60 frames.

See Halo frame rates versus Unreal Tournament 2003 frame rates.

Sure, Halo's an all right game, but if I'm paying $50 for a game, I expect it to perform comparably to "last year's games" that sell for $30-40 now. And why should I have to buy a cutting-edge system to get the privilege of poor frame rates anyway? In my opinion, this definitely enters into the discussion. If the performance is poor, it detracts from the gameplay, and Halo doesn't differentiate itself enough from other games to warrant rave reviews on the PC/Mac platform. Frankly, there are so many failings (lack of performance, differentiation, and bot matches for LAN play), that it doesn't deserve 7 stars, let alone 9.

That said, I've had some fun playing it, but it's not on my LAN party group's list of games because of all the failings. Unreal Tournament 2003 has a much better engine, and that alone makes it more fun. Save $20 and buy UT2K3 if you haven't bought that one yet! :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Halo - A Hog
Authored by: saint.duo on Jan 20, '04 09:10:55AM

This has been gone over a billion times other places. Halo's graphics engine for PC and Mac is NOT last year's technology. This is just the beginning of a long line of games that is going to push hardware to the limits again. Doom III, Half Life 2, and more. This is also the first FPS that I know of that started on a console and migrated to computers, and not the other way around. Gearbox had to rewrite a lot of the rendering engine just to get it to run on the amount of hardware they did, and then Westlake had to change that code to run on Mac hardware.

---
--
duo



[ Reply to This | # ]
Halo - A Hog
Authored by: acalado on Jan 20, '04 10:35:30AM
"but if I'm paying $50 for a game, I expect it to perform comparably to "last year's games" that sell for $30-40 now"
Let me get this straight. You expect a new release to perform as well on the same hardware as games released a year ago? What are you smoking? Anyone knows that as time goes on and games programmers design more advanced games, more powerful hardware is required to keep up! If a game is a year newer, then you should expect to need a year newer computer to get the same performance, all other things being equal.

Andy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Halo - A Hog
Authored by: imageworx on Jan 20, '04 10:48:24AM

RANT Below:

He's got a point. The game really isn't that great. Its like the Quake'rs versus Halo'ns! each has its "frame rate" points and hardware needs games like these to excel (accell!). I've noticed slowdown's on the Xbox (if a port to the GC was done, I would expect near 200fps!) especially with the flood and explosions! On the PC (with a radeon 9000), it doesn't quite cut its teeth.
(far better than my TV, but still not jaw dropping speed and graphics)

However, I alway thought of Bungie as a let down. Oni is a perfect example. Here is a game, with a female lead character, that not only uses weapons, but advanced moves and blocking. The game was great. But the inability to include net-play was its downfall. If only Oni had multi-player, assault levels and custom mapping...its play would have exceeded Halo's playability (which by the way, I still love going back to "I could have been your daddy" level and kick elite butt with vehicles!).

Face it, unless some major studio sees the Mac as a better gaming platform, the money is in numbers. And the Mac, albeit better at many things, will always get short end of the (joy) stick.

---
To BeOS or Not to BeOS



[ Reply to This | # ]
Halo - A Hog
Authored by: Hes Nikke on Jan 21, '04 12:49:40PM
Oni is a perfect example. Here is a game, with a female lead character, that not only uses weapons, but advanced moves and blocking. The game was great. But the inability to include net-play was its downfall. If only Oni had multi-player, assault levels and custom mapping...its play would have exceeded Halo's playability

i can't agree with you more, i had the optertunity to play Oni multi player at macworld a couple of years before it was released. it was much funner than any FPS shooter that i've played multi player.

i was so disapointed by Oni's lack of MP when it shipped, i didn't bother to buy it.

---
vacuums do not suck. they merely provide an absence that allows other objects to take the place of what becomes absent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Halo - A Hog
Authored by: ChiperSoft on Jan 20, '04 01:08:51PM

> Sure, Halo's an all right game, but if I'm paying $50 for a game, I
> expect it to perform comparably to "last year's games" that sell
> for $30-40 now. And why should I have to buy a cutting-edge
> system to get the privilege of poor frame rates anyway?

This statement is so absurd it just blows me away. Every new game pushes the envelope. Apparently you don't remember how much fear there was regarding UT2k3's requirements. Hell, even the original UT only ran well on recent hardware.

Additionally, your claim is simply foolish. Turn down the graphics effects and the game runs fine on even 3 year old Macs. I've talked to plenty of people running it on GeForce2 cards who report great framerates. They don't have all the specular effects and pixel shaders turned on, but the game plays fine.

It should also be pointed out that MacSoft basically rewrote the entire graphics engine from Gearbox's code (Halo PC uses DirectX 9, Mac Halo uses OpenGL) and in many ways they made the engine run BETTER then it's PC counterpart. If you have the hardware to play it with all the coolness enabled, then it is a GORGEOUS game, simply stunning.

You know, it's people like you that make it so hard to bring games over to the mac. If your machine can't run the game, then you don't play the game. I didn't play WC3 until about two months ago when I got a new videocard that could handle it. There are plenty of PC users who are in that same boat, and you know what, they don't get to play new games until the inevitable day that they have to replace the machine. They don't *censored* about the steep requirements, they live with it and get new equipment.

Doom 3 will be coming out this year... It will be pushing the envelope. LOTS of people will not be able to play it because of it's graphics requirements. But do you think a single person will *censored* about the fact that the graphics engine is so demanding? Not likely, it's to be expected.



[ Reply to This | # ]