Halo 2.5 for Xbox 2

High resolution? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 03:47 · Score: -1, Flamebait

You're joking.

Can you imagine Halo 2 running at 1280x720?!!!

The PC world has been playing games at 1024x768 and above, for a long, long time. Imagine 1600x1200. We've got it.

We also get to play it on .25 pitch monitors, not your blurred out Walmart TV.

Re:High resolution? by October · 2004-12-27 03:56 · Score: 0, Troll

This is just one of many reasons that I'm annoyed at the games industry for pushing consoles at the expense of PC gaming lately. There are numerous advantages to playing games on a PC, resolution being one of the big ones.

Sure, consoles have advantages too, but it seems to me that the industry is killing off the PC market, deliberately or otherwise, and then doing thing like this - wowing people with the fancy 1280x720 resolution that they can get just by buying a new console, a new game, and a new TV. And people complain about PC gaming requiring constant upgrading...
Re:High resolution? by zwaffle · 2004-12-27 04:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Console advantages:
- price ($100 to $300)
- comfy to play in couch. Great to play with friends. Perfect also for getting in a game quickly (no booting, etc).
- easy integration of gaming with home theater. Gamers who work usually already own a nice HDTV and Dolby surround system.
- XBox live ease of use
- no installation pain (hello Steam)
- huge size of existing game library, with a lot of quality titles.
- variety of genres: fighting, racing, rpgs, FPS, platform, action/adventure
- tends to be more originality on console (pikmin, steel battalion, viewtiful joe)
- since the platform is fixed, console titles tend to get better with time, making console a better investement (as a gamer you get a lot of satisfaction from seeing your 3/4 year old console playing GTA-SA, MGS3, Ninja Gaiden or Halo2). It's the opposite with a PC - the newer the games, the older the PC, the worst is the performance.
- not that far behind PC's bleeding edge anyway: Far Cry, DOOM3, HL2 all coming on current consoles.
- gamepad: nice vibration feedback, analog movements and buttons, ubiquity (can be used to fight, drive a car, fly a plane, or shoot).
Re:High resolution? by StocDred · 2004-12-27 04:20 · Score: 1

The PC gaming industry "killed" itself (your words, not mine) when games became a pain in the ass to play. Thanks to non-standard hardware, option menus you have to be hardcore to understand (remember having to edit your BIOS?), requiring patches and bugfixes on a regular basis, and throwing it all on a platform that is susceptible to total disarray due to viruses, spyware, and the overall crappiness of Windows. I remember the nightmare of getting Dungeon Keeper 2 multiplayer up, and thinking "There has got to be a better way." On consoles, even the lousy games tend to work correctly rather than not at all.
Re:High resolution? by October · 2004-12-27 04:57 · Score: 1

This is exactly what I was talking about. The PC gaming industry is destroying itself by over-complicating things and generally making it a pain in the ass to play a game. Over-zealous copy-protection that makes me uninstall other software, "hardcore" options menus that normal people don't have a hope of understanding, the fact that it's basically standard practice to release a game with a plethora of known bugs and patch it later, and on, and on...

Partly it's a bias on my part - I'm just used to playing games on my PC. Consoles make a more stable target for development, a closed system where the developer can hard-code those options that normal people won't understand. Many times, the "big name" games require a serious investment into new hardware to play on a PC. But that's not how it needs to be, or how it SHOULD be. Some games buck the trend - the one that comes to mind if Call of Duty: It does a great job of automatically figuring out what level of hardware the user has, and adjusting all the complicated options to fit the hardware. Half-life 2 scales down to run on 2-3 year old systems (not very well, on some, but it does an admirable job overall).

If the industry would focus a little more on simplifying the PC gaming experience through better-designed automatic configuration, easier and less intrusive copy protection, and scheduling more time for quality assurance testing to get the bugs worked out, the PC might become a competitive platform again.
Re:High resolution? by October · 2004-12-27 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

You make some good points, and as I said, consoles have their strong points, but I'd like to point out a few things...

- huge size of existing game library, with a lot of quality titles.
PCs don't have a huge library of exsisting titles?? I can go from playing Half-life 2 to DooM to Nethack and everything in between. Thanks partly to emulators, I can play a huge variety of games from the last 20 years or so. Try doing THAT on an XBox.

- variety of genres: fighting, racing, rpgs, FPS, platform, action/adventure
Again, PCs have just as much variety. Some types of game work better on a console (fighting games in particular) and some work far better on PC (western-style RPGs, RTS, FPS)

- tends to be more originality on console (pikmin, steel battalion, viewtiful joe)
PCs make an easy platform for indie coders to show off their talent and originality. For every Katamari Damacy, there's at least four original games on PC. Most of them don't have AAA budgets, but that doens't make them less fun. Liquid War, Orbital Eunuchs Sniper, Pontifex 2, etc.

- gamepad: nice vibration feedback, analog movements and buttons, ubiquity (can be used to fight, drive a car, fly a plane, or shoot).
Yes, gamepads have some pretty nice features. I wish there were better-quality gamepads for PCs. Analog buttons add a lot to the possibilities for control, and the vibration feature is nice for immersion (you can get the same vibration on force-feedback peripherials). But ubiquity of purpose? My keyboard and mouse have helped me fly space fighters (I prefer a joystick for this, but Freelancer got it right) cut through legions of orcs, sneak through the shadows and blackjack unwary guards, and command my battalions of tanks to overrun an enemy base, and when I was done gaming, they went on to help me write slahdot posts, plan out my next D20 Modern adventure, write code, and learn quite a lot about a whole lot of things thanks to Google.
Re:High resolution? by big+daddy+kane · 2004-12-27 05:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

in both half life 2 and doom 3, possibly the biggest pc games of 2004 video options were preconfigured to preform best on your system. if you didnt want to change them, you didnt, and the idea was that it would run at an acceptable speed. far cry too had this. I played them all, they all had incredible graphics for a video game, and were painless to setup.
Re:High resolution? by Momoru · 2004-12-27 05:52 · Score: 1

I prefer consoles mainly because I'm sick of upgrading my video card every 6 months. Even if the games for Xbox/Whatever don't look as good as most PC games, I'd rather know that i can buy the latest game instead of being disappointed by lacking the specs once again. I used to be a big pc gamer, now i use the PC for work and the console for play.
Re:High resolution? by dougmc · 2004-12-27 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thanks to non-standard hardware, option menus you have to be hardcore to understand (remember having to edit your BIOS?)
BIOS? Sure, I do that from time to time.
But seriously, you must be relatively new to PC games. Things got *way* better when Windows 95 came out and games started supporting it. Back before that, you needed a plethora of boot disks (or a cleverly constructed boot disk menu system) setting up various types of extended memory managers, TSRs, sound drivers, etc. If you wanted networked games, it got worse as you threw packet drivers into the fray.
You want to play Descent with somebody over the Internet? Can't do it, unless you payed for Kali, which routes IPX over TCP/IP. Doom was fun, but it originally did network calls via broadcast packets -- killing the entire network if more than a few people were playing.
Even after Windows 95, then 98, etc., things still got tricky. Do you have a 3dfx card? Then you want Glide -- OpenGL may not work properly. But what if your game doesn't have a Glide mode? Or what if you don't have a 3dfx card, but your game only has Glide support? (A pity -- I really liked playing Dethkarz with my friends, but it's 3D is Glide only. I could set up an older computer to play it again, but can't expect my friends to do so too ...)
Seriously, ignoring blips like requiring Steam (and an Internet connection) to play games like HL2, PC games are easier to get running right now than they have since they started requiring more than 640k of RAM and better than CGA graphics, and had to actually be *installed* on the hard drive. And as much as I enjoy bashing Microsoft, I also know that much of this `ease' is thanks to Microsoft and the semi-standardized APIs that Windows provides.
Re:High resolution? by October · 2004-12-27 09:16 · Score: 1

But seriously, you must be relatively new to PC games.
Fine, I'll bite. I've been playing games since my old TI-99, which was in some ways more like todays consoles than a PC.

I agree that games have gotten vastly easier to get working on a PC than they ever were before. Years ago, I spent most of a weekend tweaking a boot disk to play Master of Orion on my 486, trying to find the exact combination of drivers that would satisfy the game's requirements and not run out of memory. We're at a point where automatic configuration should be the default, and some games, as noted above, are utilizing it.

The other problems (painful copy protection, long wait for installation, succeptibility to viruses/spyware, etc.) facing PC gaming are the bigger issue. If the PC game market wants to continue to compete with consoles, they're going to need to make some changes and figure out ways around these problems. I should be able to take the game home, put it in my computer, and play (assuming I've got the hardware requirements - a solution to that is probably a long way off, though Half-Life 2 took a big step).
Re:High resolution? by StocDred · 2004-12-27 09:45 · Score: 1

If the industry would focus a little more on simplifying the PC gaming experience through better-designed automatic configuration, easier and less intrusive copy protection, and scheduling more time for quality assurance testing to get the bugs worked out, the PC might become a competitive platform again.
But they did... they all switched to consoles! If you recognize this as a major flaw in PC games, why are you holding out for them to fix it. Just for better graphics? It sounds like you're holding on to Windows for the sole reason being just to hold on to Windows. Let it go. They failed to make the PC easy to use in the face of the alternatives; you don't have to back them any longer!
Re:High resolution? by orbital3 · 2004-12-28 04:48 · Score: 1

Without going and getting out my copy of Dethkarz, I'd have to say I don't think it's Glide only. I know I was playing it last year on my GF4 Ti4200, and I didn't do anything special to get it working. I'd check it out, because like you, I think it's an awesome game and still love playing it. Good luck!
Re:High resolution? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-28 08:59 · Score: 0

Hey dumbass - 1280x720 isn't totally impressive (though it's not bad either), until you realize it's usually on a screen at least (minimum) twice as big as your puny monitor hooked up to a REAL sound system, not some dinky computer speaker set. And you play from your couch.
Re:High resolution? by dougmc · 2004-12-28 16:38 · Score: 1

I know I was playing it last year on my GF4 Ti4200
Really? I'll have to dig it up again! Thanks!
Re:High resolution? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-29 14:24 · Score: 0

Console advantages:
- price ($100 to $300) ...extra, over and above what you have paid for the multipurpose PC which also supports gaming. Could also be put towards a high-end graphics card, which will have a comparable lifespan to a console. (My Geforce 256 can play most modern games, especially at console-equivalent resolution settings)

- comfy to play in couch.

Alternatively, you could step out of the 20th century and use your PC as an entertainment hub. The couch is a relic of a previous age; it's growing obsolete; its function is redundant; you may as well tout the virtues of parlor sickbeds. Video capture cards are Great to play with friends.

PC games are wonderful to play with friends, and the added complexity and depth makes the experience that much more meaningful. I have fond memories of Call of Duty and Battlefield 1942 shootouts with friends at LAN parties and online.

I suppose if all of your friends are luddites, technophobes or just incompetent and unable and unwilling to learn new game mechanics, a console might be your second best choice. Your first choice is to acquire better quality friends.

Perfect also for getting in a game quickly (no booting, etc).

Uh, consoles boot too. You have to sit through, usually, multiple logos - one for the console manufacturer and several for the game - and then allow for time for the game itself, since it has to load from slooooooow optical media onto a small amount of memory.

Windows XP boots out of hibernation faster than a Playstation 2 boots to "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas"' title screen.

Additionally, since your PC can do many other things besides gaming, you also have the option of leaving it on continuously. This may not be the best solution for all people, but a lot of people do it.

- easy integration of gaming with home theater. Gamers who work usually already own a nice HDTV and Dolby surround system.

PC gamers usually own a nice high-end monitor and surround sound system.

- XBox live ease of use

Again, this is an appeal to stupidity. This seems to be your strongest point so far.

- no installation pain (hello Steam)

Hi, bandwagon-jumper. I've had no problems with Steam and find it a pleasure to use. Judging from the retention rates, most Steam users agree.

- huge size of existing game library, with a lot of quality titles.

Not comparable to the PC's existing game library, or even the Mac's. Backwards compatibility is worth a lot. I can use my original disks to play "Space Quest" on my current PC, without having to re-buy a "classic pack" or any other such BS.

As far as quality is concerned, PCs have by far the best online multiplayer games, the best RPGs, strategy games, puzzle games, FPS games and simulations. PCs also have a diverse array of emulators available.

- variety of genres: fighting, racing, rpgs, FPS, platform, action/adventure

That is not an advantage over PC games, which have those same genres (sans fighting, but only because that "genre" is defined by button-mashing and joystick thrashing) and more.

- tends to be more originality on console (pikmin, steel battalion, viewtiful joe)

You're delusional. PCs have the advantage of a huge 'homebrew' community which have produced such awesomely creative games like Nethack. PCs have a sizable community of Indie game developers. Then there's the mod community. Then there's the commercial developers.

When I see Nethack or The Incredible Machine-level creativity on a console then you'll be right.

- since the platform is fixed, console titles tend to get better with time, making console a better investement (as a gamer you get a lot of satisfaction from seeing your 3/4 year old console playing GTA-SA, MGS3, Ninja Gaiden or Halo2). It's the opposite with a PC - the newer the games, the older the PC, the worst is the performa

Launch title by StocDred · 2004-12-27 03:51 · Score: 3, Informative

This has got to be an Xbox2 launch title, which Microsoft knows is the only game they've got that stands a chance of selling system. Halo 3 must be taking too long, so a panicked Board has Bungie re-doing #2. I eagerly await Xboxers falling all over themselves to get this while simultaneously bashing Nintendo for the latest re-release of Super Mario Whatever. Irony.

Re:Launch title by JorDan+Clock · 2004-12-27 05:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not just a launch title, but a bundled title. According to OXM, if you buy the Xbox2 with the hard drive, you get Halo 2.5 for free.

And there is no panic over Halo 3. Bungie already said their next title will not be related to Halo at all. Halo 3 won't likely be in development until after the Xbox2 is released.
Re:Launch title by tarius8105 · 2004-12-27 05:24 · Score: 1, Troll

You are more than likely trolling, so I'll bite...

Halo 3 must be taking too long, so a panicked Board has Bungie re-doing #2

First off, Halo 2 just came out. Bungie was working Halo 2 probably a week or two before it went gold, implying that it was not finished. To some its not a complete game. So if anything, if they're doing it, Halo 3 just began in development.

I eagerly await Xboxers falling all over themselves to get this while simultaneously bashing Nintendo for the latest re-release of Super Mario Whatever. Irony.

Lets look at it this way...The Xbox, although a microsoft product, has changed console systems in that it was the first to have a hard drive (that I know of). Playstation, Gamecube, Dreamcast all didnt have a hard drive. It also has built in networking. The only thing that got me with playstation is each memory card costed 25 dollars for an 8 mb chip. Xbox came with a 50 gig hard drive with over 45000+ blocks for saving games. All other console systems are finally catching up to the Xbox in these aspects, but in their next generation.

This has got to be an Xbox2 launch title, which Microsoft knows is the only game they've got that stands a chance of selling system.

And yes they need a launch title because why would you buy a system if all the games you want to play are on one system. They have to hook you, thus a little thing we on earth call Marketing.
Re:Launch title by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 05:36 · Score: -1, Troll

the difference is mario sucks and halo is awesome.
Re:Launch title by Jayjr · 2004-12-27 06:12 · Score: 1

" Xbox came with a 50 gig hard drive with over 45000+ blocks for saving games." Try 8 Gig harddrive, it was origianally supposed to be 40 but we ended up with 8 they come with 10 or 8 gig variants but only 8 GB is useable
Re:Launch title by StocDred · 2004-12-27 09:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Xbox, although a microsoft product, has changed console systems in that it was the first to have a hard drive
Yeah, but what has it done for me lately? Not having to buy memory cards is great, but I know that if I'm going to a friend's house, I can bring along my mem card and play my personal GTA game using his PS2 and his copy of the game. Can you do that with a hard drive? Only if it's removable, I suppose.
I'm just not buying that the Xbox hard drive is revolutionizing gaming... and I don't think Microsoft is either, since they're toying with releasing an Xbox2 model that doesn't even have one. (Terrible idea, by the way. How are game developers supposed to make full-featured Xbox games when they can't even be assured which Xbox consumers will own?)
Others have pointed this out, but the problem with the Xbox is that Halo is it, more or less. Without Halo, Xbox would never have survived. So of course bundling a Halo 2.5 makes business sense, but doesn't it also seem a little bit sad? I mean, Halo is it, fin, nothing else. They don't even have Halo Tennis, Halo Kart, Halo Party, or any sub-franchises to pimp.
My bigger point was that Halo fans are going to gush over this, even though nearly everyone has spent the last three years ripping apart Nintendo for all those Super Mario Advance re-releases. (Especially SMB3 with eReader support, where the typical angry quote was "they're holding back content unless I buy an eReader to unlock it!") Well, now Halo is pulling a similar trick. Buy Halo 2 now, buy the slightly upgraded Halo 2 port later.
Re:Launch title by tarius8105 · 2004-12-27 13:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, but what has it done for me lately? Not having to buy memory cards is great, but I know that if I'm going to a friend's house, I can bring along my mem card and play my personal GTA game using his PS2 and his copy of the game. Can you do that with a hard drive? Only if it's removable, I suppose.

You can actually, you just need to buy a memory card to do so, however its not required to own the system.

I'm just not buying that the Xbox hard drive is revolutionizing gaming... and I don't think Microsoft is either, since they're toying with releasing an Xbox2 model that doesn't even have one. (Terrible idea, by the way. How are game developers supposed to make full-featured Xbox games when they can't even be assured which Xbox consumers will own?)

You're thinking its exactly like a computer, theres no difference between an Xbox 2 with or without a hard drive, its all APIs when it comes to saving games.

Others have pointed this out, but the problem with the Xbox is that Halo is it, more or less. Without Halo, Xbox would never have survived. So of course bundling a Halo 2.5 makes business sense, but doesn't it also seem a little bit sad? I mean, Halo is it, fin, nothing else. They don't even have Halo Tennis, Halo Kart, Halo Party, or any sub-franchises to pimp.

Yeah so? big deal, one game made the Xbox, no need to bash it. You're lucky they even made it this far because of the establishment of PS2 and Gamecube.

My bigger point was that Halo fans are going to gush over this, even though nearly everyone has spent the last three years ripping apart Nintendo for all those Super Mario Advance re-releases. (Especially SMB3 with eReader support, where the typical angry quote was "they're holding back content unless I buy an eReader to unlock it!") Well, now Halo is pulling a similar trick. Buy Halo 2 now, buy the slightly upgraded Halo 2 port later.

Wrong again buddy, there is always like 50 mario games for the nintendo platforms. They're redoing halo 2 because they were pressed for time and it didnt have all they wanted in it. Now that they have time, they're making a 2.5 release to add in the stuff missing. Not to mention Xbox couldnt handle Halo 2 correctly.
Re:Launch title by tarius8105 · 2004-12-27 13:21 · Score: 1

8 gig? better than 8 meg memory cards. I like playstation but it kills me to get a complete system costs me $225. Where as the Xbox was 200. And if I run out of space on a wimpy 8 meg card, I need to buy another one for 25 dollars...See my point?
Re:Launch title by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 18:23 · Score: 0

I eagerly await Xboxers falling all over themselves to get this while simultaneously bashing Nintendo for the latest re-release of Super Mario

The difference here is Nintendo is substituting those remakes for new games, while Bungie is making this along side Halo 3. As it stands, there has been no new "traditional" Mario game on the Game Boy Advance depsite being out for over 3 years now, but there has been a whole lot of remakes. If Mario 64 DS is any indication, then they have no plans to change this policy anytime soon.
Re:Launch title by unclethursday · 2004-12-27 21:32 · Score: 1

They're redoing halo 2 because they were pressed for time and it didnt have all they wanted in it. Now that they have time, they're making a 2.5 release to add in the stuff missing. Not to mention Xbox couldnt handle Halo 2 correctly.
Then the obvious solution would have been to simply give Halo 2 more time for development, and probably make it a Xenon launch title. We'll find out in May, but it seems ever more certain MS plans on launching the Xenon in late 2005.
What would another year have meant to people who wanted a full fledged sequel to Halo, and on a system that can do more than the Xbox? Maybe on the Xenon the in-game engine cinemas wouldn't have so much pop-in and textures would also not just pop into existance when you get close enough to them (or at least not as noticeably).
Of course, Microsoft just wanted another big game on the Xbox (the Xbox does have the least amount of million unit selling games, after all), and to get people on Xbox Live... and that year would have been time wasted for the ever important subscriptions to try and make some money off the Xbox.
I know I was disappointed in Halo 2, overall; especially when it became known that Bungie didn't even freaking check their geomotry in levels to make sure you couldn't reach through what should be solid objects and grab weapons and flags for multiplayer maps.
But, I doubt I'll be spending the extra money on a Xenon with the hard drive just to get something I already paid for this past November.
Re:Launch title by tarius8105 · 2004-12-28 01:24 · Score: 1

Then the obvious solution would have been to simply give Halo 2 more time for development, and probably make it a Xenon launch title. We'll find out in May, but it seems ever more certain MS plans on launching the Xenon in late 2005.

What would another year have meant to people who wanted a full fledged sequel to Halo, and on a system that can do more than the Xbox? Maybe on the Xenon the in-game engine cinemas wouldn't have so much pop-in and textures would also not just pop into existance when you get close enough to them (or at least not as noticeably).

Look at it this way, Bungie is a development group and Microsoft is the execs. Besides if they waited another year, Halo 2 would have been on par with Half Life 2 and Duke Nukem Forever. Dont get me wrong I didnt enjoy the cinemas with the clipping either.

I know I was disappointed in Halo 2, overall; especially when it became known that Bungie didn't even freaking check their geomotry in levels to make sure you couldn't reach through what should be solid objects and grab weapons and flags for multiplayer maps.I wouldnt say I was disappointed, the game took a "different" direction with the story then from what they had in the first game. I just wish they wouldnt have said they werent going to be making a Halo 3, but they give us a cliffhanger that is on par with a fantasy/scifi tv show. Another issue, these developers are rushing the games and that leads to the geomotry issues you are seeing.

It was explained by Safety+Cap · 2004-12-27 03:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

in the Halo "collector's edition." There were additional creatures, cutscenes (where they explain how the Covenant formed) and even an ATV that had to be cut due to wasted time from Deathmarch EA-type 'schedules'.

If only they'd hired a competent Project Manager that knew his/her stuff when it came to delivering software on time, under budget, and to spec, without continuous deathmarch sessions, then they never would need to come out with an "here's-all-the-stuff-we-wanted-to-put-in-but-coul dn't" version. Oh, and would have saved at least the industry-standard 10% of the cost on redos and wasted effort to boot. Guess it is easier to do it twice rather than do it right the first time.

--
Yeah, right.

Re:It was explained by Paradise+Pete · 2004-12-27 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

If only they'd hired a competent Project Manager that knew his/her stuff when it came to delivering software on time, under budget, and to spec
Yeah, they should have hired that guy! And maybe they could have gotten Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny thrown in on the deal..
Re:It was explained by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 08:04 · Score: 0

Guess it is easier to do it twice rather than do it right the first time. ...and more profitable to boot.
Re:It was explained by Jediman1138 · 2004-12-27 16:30 · Score: 1

If only they'd hired a competent Project Manager that knew his/her stuff when it came to delivering software on time, under budget, and to spec, without continuous deathmarch sessions, then they never would need to come out with an "here's-all-the-stuff-we-wanted-to-put-in-but-coul dn't" version.
Gabe Newell to the rescue!...Oh, wait..

--
nothing.can.stop.me.now
Re:It was explained by rpillala · 2004-12-28 02:32 · Score: 1

They may not be releasing a super gold bonus edition out of need. They may just want you to buy the same game again. It's working for Lucas.

--
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."

Not Matter How Much They Improve The Graphics... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 04:18 · Score: -1, Troll

the game still sucks.

Well for starters... by octover · 2004-12-27 04:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

'all the stuff people expected from Halo 2 but didn't make the cut.'

Like a real ending?

I'll admit I haven't played through all of the single player and don't know first hand, partly cause I would just rather play online multiplayer. However it seems like everyone agrees the ending is shite and I'm taking their word on it.

Even if they are saving for some sort of content download, what about the half of my friends that payed $50 for the game, who would have X Box live but they can't get broadband where they live?

I would also love to see improved networking code. Maybe I just don't know about the underlying infrastructure to appreciate why I get dropped so much, but I recall having better luck playing Quake 2 on my 33.6 modem then I have had with my cable connection that is more or less fairly solid.

Re:Well for starters... by Paradise+Pete · 2004-12-27 05:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

However it seems like everyone agrees the ending is shite and I'm taking their word on it.
It doesn't end. It just stops. When it faded out I was waiting for the next cut-scene. Then the credits started rolling. "That's it?" I say. "This is broken or something."
Re:Well for starters... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 05:42 · Score: 0

You getting dropped is YOUR problem NOT Halo 2.
Re:Well for starters... by Dios · 2004-12-27 06:49 · Score: 1

Agreed!!

Xbox live sucks. I'm always getting dropped... hop online and play Q3/whatever pc game things work fine. I don't get what the deal is with Xbox live, me, and my friends, seem to have the same problem, getting dropped frequently.

- Joshua
Re:Well for starters... by Alkaiser · 2004-12-27 07:14 · Score: 1

Halo 2 at 1024 x 768?!

How about just having the freaking game at the res it's al right now without that lame-ass texture redraw. Seriously, those are the worst cutscenes I've seen this generation. All of a sudden guns are getting drawn in on ships, key characters start dialogue without having a face on. Lame. Utter garbage.

Also wins the award for Worst Ending of the Millennium.

--
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Re:Well for starters... by AnyNoMouse · 2004-12-27 10:11 · Score: 1

You might try cleaning the lens on your X-Box with a DVD Lens cleaner.
I had this problem as well and noticed it happened in different spots. I ran the cleaner and most of the pop-in went away. Not all of it, but then I've got an old system I bought at launch.

--
-Redundancy Man strikes again!
Re:Well for starters... by Alkaiser · 2004-12-27 11:15 · Score: 1

Uh...interesting thought, but it's a BRAND NEW XBOX.

I got it in November the weekend before getting Halo 2.

--
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Re:Well for starters... by DeadScreenSky · 2004-12-27 14:11 · Score: 1

There actually is a pretty cool cutscene after the credits, FYI.

--
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Re:Well for starters... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 18:36 · Score: 0

So much for the idea that console games should "just work."

If it's true, it's a ploy... by unclethursday · 2004-12-27 04:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

A friend of mine works for a subsidiary of Activision... and no, I won't name him or which one because he told me a lot of stuff he shouldn't have due to NDAs-- and I'm not getting him or his company in trouble. But, the info that got leaked a few months back, about there possibly being 3 different Xbox2/Xenon/whatever you want to call it versions is true, according to what he has been told by Microsoft.

Of course, the hard drive version will cost more than the non-hard drive flash memory version... so if they really are putting a Halo 2.5 pre-loaded onto the hard drive for the Xenon, well, it's a ploy to get the more expensive version to sell. And it also shows Microsoft knows they need Halo to sell copnsoles, despite what many an Xbox fanboi has stated in the past.

However, MS knows that Bungie won't have Halo 3 ready for the Xenon launch, so if this rumor is true, they're trying to have some sort of Halo at launch. They know that Halo single handedly kept the Xbox alive until Xbox Live and some really good games started coming out a year after launch (and anyone who says the Xbox could have really been selling on the other games besides Halo released in the first year is deluding themselves), so they could be hoping to do the same with "Halo 2.5"; IE keep Xenon sales going until better games start coming out for the Xenon.

Re:If it's true, it's a ploy... by Khuffie · 2004-12-27 05:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

(and anyone who says the Xbox could have really been selling on the other games besides Halo released in the first year is deluding themselves), so they could be hoping to do the same with "Halo 2.5"; IE keep Xenon sales going until better games start coming out for the Xenon. Yes, Halo helped sell the Xbox. Why on earth does everyone complain like there's something wrong with having a good launch title? What did the PS2 have? Tekken? And the GameCube? Luigi's Mansion?
None of the other consoles had any decent games in their launch window: at least Xbox had a kickass good game. Why is there something wrong with this?
Re:If it's true, it's a ploy... by DrHogie · 2004-12-27 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a great launch title. There IS something wrong with having a single good launch title, and nothing else worth buying for a good year into your launch. Halo 1 looks to be a Blizzard-esque title (just bought it used at lunch today for my new XBox I got for Christmas) -- that is, nothing super WOW whiz bang new, but taking all previous ideas and polishing it to a lovely gleam.

As for no other consoles having a great launch title, what about Soul Caliber 1 for the Dreamcast?

--
--DrH, the Sandwich with the Ph.D.
Re:If it's true, it's a ploy... by unclethursday · 2004-12-27 06:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, Halo helped sell the Xbox. Why on earth does everyone complain like there's something wrong with having a good launch title? What did the PS2 have? Tekken? And the GameCube? Luigi's Mansion?
For the Madden fans, the PS2 had Madden at launch. The GameCube had Rogue Leader.
But, the point being that none of the other games for the Xbox's entire first year would have carried the Xbox or sold Xboxes. And, at the time, there was no promise of potentially really good games coming out, either. And without Halo to sell Xboxes, there wouldn't be the good games that are out for the Xbox now, because developers and publishers wouldn't have gone for it.
None of the other consoles had any decent games in their launch window
As I said, for the Madden fans there was Madden. but, for me, you are correct, there was no good launch games or games within the launch window for the PS2. Then there was the promise of MGS and FF and Gran Turismo to keep people interested.
For the GC there was Rogue Leader on launch day, and Super Smash Bros. Melee came out within a few weeks of launch, both of which sold well, and were more of a reason to have a GC at launch than Luigi's Mansion. And then the promise of a new Mario and Zelda and such would keep people interested in the GC.
But, for the whole first year, the Xbox had Halo, and not really much of anything else (except to me, with JSRF, but I'm a minority there). What was promised? Malice? A game that came out 2 years late and sucked anyway? Fable? A game that was not only in development forever and a day, but also sucked hardcore when it was finally released (again, I'm a minority here, but I hated Fable, and was glad it was over in less than 20 hours)?
There's nothing wrong with having a good launch title, but people really need to open their eyes and see that without Halo, the Xbox would not have the good games it does have now, nor would it be selling anywhere near the rate it does. And for one game to carry a console for a full year is not a good thing, really.
Re:If it's true, it's a ploy... by PedanticSpellingTrol · 2004-12-27 07:24 · Score: 1

Beautiful analysis you've done there, just to give you another datapoint, the in-store demo of Rogue Leader and pipe dreams of Perfect Dark 2 were all it took to have me sold on the gamecube. I picked up a copy of melee for my little brother almost as an afterthought. Boy did I have things backward, here it is 3 years later with Rogue Leader collecting dust on the shelf, Rare being a subsidiary of Microsoft, and weekly smash brothers tournaments with my friends. The game is immortal. It's going to go down with the likes of Tetris - Dr. Mario and Perfect Dark for replayable multiplayer spazzery.
Re:If it's true, it's a ploy... by AnyNoMouse · 2004-12-27 10:25 · Score: 1

Actually, for me it was Project Gotham Racing (having bought the Dreamcast for Soul Calibur, I had also been exposed to it's "prequel" Metropolitan Street Racer). I also Picked up DoA 3, of course. Interesting game, but certainly not a system seller. Since then, I've picked up plenty of good to great games on the system, but then I like racers :-) I didn't pick up the original Halo until something like 2 years later, btw, when it *finally* went on a 1-day Thanksgiving sale for $30.
As far as Rogue Leader goes, that was the reason I *didn't* buy a Game Cube. I thought it might have been interesting and the reviewers seemed to be raving about it, so I played it in a store. First, it really, really made me dislike the controller and second, I just didn't like the game.
On the PS2 side, I'm not a sports game fan and I dislike the FF series of games. A friend picked up the PS2 and got Ridge Racer, but seeing as I had beaten it over the weekend he had brought it over, there didn't seem to be much reason to buy it after that :-)

--
-Redundancy Man strikes again!

Slow down Tex by Dinny · 2004-12-27 04:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's a bit over the top. Pretty much all of the stuff in the collector's edition that they cut from the game was because they could get it to balance correctly.

They specifcally say that they didn't include the ATV because they couldn't figure out a reason to have it in the game either single or multiplayer.

All of the aliens that where left out where half finished ugly looking things.

In any creative enterprise, you consider things that you later deside are a bad idea.

Exactly. by roystgnr · 2004-12-27 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's easy to imagine Halo 2 at high resolution: you just have to imagine a world in which Microsoft didn't buy Bungie, and so the Halo games were published to sell games rather than to sell game consoles.

Re:Exactly. by Babbster · 2004-12-27 08:44 · Score: 1

Why do I bite on trolls? I must be really hungry.
Microsoft/Bungie sold 2.4 million copies (over $125 million gross) of Halo 2 on the first day. For perspective (from same article), GTA: San Andreas, sold around 2 million copies in October. Now, what PC game (apart from solitaire or other Windows-bundled games) has ever reached those kinds of numbers in a month, let alone a DAY?
I know it's really hard for some PC people to accept, but the bottom line is that console games sell more copies than PC games. Even "disappointments" like Fable outsell similar games on PCs and Macs.
Re:Exactly. by NanoGator · 2004-12-27 09:57 · Score: 1

"It's easy to imagine Halo 2 at high resolution: you just have to imagine a world in which Microsoft didn't buy Bungie, and so the Halo games were published to sell games rather than to sell game consoles."

It's easy to imagine that there never would have been a Halo 2 in that scenario because it wouldn't have been near as successful. Half a million copies of a PC game is hard enough to sell, but to match their success on the XBOX? No way.

Like it or not, Microsoft did YOU, a Halo fan, a huge favor by buying Bungie. Afterall, money is what keeps them developing.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Exactly. by DeadScreenSky · 2004-12-27 11:09 · Score: 1

If Microsoft didn't buy Bungie we never would have even got Halo 1. Bungie was broke.

--
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Re:Exactly. by DreadPiratePizz · 2004-12-27 13:58 · Score: 1

That is extremely unfair of you to say. I know for a fact Bungie strives to create the best games possible. Perhaps you didn't realize that halo for the Mac/PC just wasn't turning out to be fun, and bungie was frustrated. The purchase by microsoft offered them the opportunity to start again, and create a game that was FUN to play. I suggest watching "The Evolution of Halo" which was in a story here on slashdot a while back.

How about... by PhotoBoy · 2004-12-27 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

... finishing Halo 2 for Xbox 1 before making the gaming masses go out and buy a new console just to see the end of the game?

Re:How about... by sabNetwork · 2004-12-27 06:14 · Score: 1

Seriously.

I just paid $50 for Halo 2 and another $50 for an Xbox Live subscription. That's $100 for one game. Okay, whatever, fine.

Now they're telling me that the game is less than perfect and they want me to buy a new console and a new copy of the game. $200 for the console, $20 for a new headset adapter for the controller, and $50 for Halo 2.5.

Total cost: $370.

Is Halo 2 worth $370?
Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 09:29 · Score: 0

To some people, yes, it would be.

However, you have not paid $370. You paid $50 for it.

You paid another $50 to allow you to play it online (which is fantastic), and to play any other Live game online as well.

It didn't cost you $100 - you decided it was worth it to pay another $50 to get online play for all your Live-enabled XBox purchases.

If you don't want to buy XBox Next, that is a completely separate decision, entirely up to you. One hint: All the next-generation consoles will have more than one game available for them.
Re:How about... by iocat · 2004-12-27 18:24 · Score: 1

[mild spoiler in second paragraph below]
No, they're not, some internet rumor site is.
And, by the way, Halo 2 is fucking awesome, even with it's supposed problems. I prefer the pop-in on Halo 2 to the load pauses in HL2, personally. As for the ending, the single player game took me ~12.5 hours to beat. That's plenty for a single-player game. Yes, the ending left a lot of loose threads, but it didn't feel like the game just "stopped," any more than Empire Strikes Back just "stopped."
I think a lot of people were disappointed that the game didn't take place entirely on Earth, so you almost discount and forget about the Earth sections of the game, which are probably about 15 - 20% of the total play time, making the game feel a lot shorter than it actually is in terms of play time.

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

RUMOR by Have+Blue · 2004-12-27 05:05 · Score: 2, Informative

The article summary makes it sound like a fact, but this is in fact a RUMOR that was most likely made up by OXM. Microsoft/Bungie has never said anything like this.

TV? by Taulin · 2004-12-27 05:32 · Score: 1

Can my TV actually support that resolution?

Re:TV? by HunterWare · 2004-12-27 05:45 · Score: 1

HDTV 720p sure can....

1280x720, indeed by swotl · 2004-12-27 06:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What's with these Xbox lovers? I've ran all my PC games at 1600x1200 with anti-aliasing since april (2004) with high framerates (60+). Many other PC gamers do too. And the *next generation* of Xbox won't allow higher resolutions? Other than the low price, why to Xbox users bother with these ugly things which are always outdated the month after they're launched?

--
- sig sig sputnik

Re:1280x720, indeed by VividU · 2004-12-27 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

What's with these Xbox lovers? I've ran all my PC games at 1600x1200 with anti-aliasing since april (2004) with high framerates (60+).

What with all these people who can't tell the diff between a console and a PC?

Also, I note a pattern here. Want to bash the Xbox? Compare it to a high-end PC!

Here, I'll make it easy for you. Xbox == Console, PC == PC. Wasn't that easy!
Re:1280x720, indeed by bigman2003 · 2004-12-27 08:35 · Score: 1

Well, it wouldn't really matter if they did make some crazy resolutions, the most they need is 1,080 x 1,920 since that is 1080i.

--
No reason to lie.
Re:1280x720, indeed by thebra · 2004-12-27 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

PC steps to playing games:

1. Spend a few grand to get the latest pc hardware.
2. Spen money on an operating system.
3. Spend money on the game.
4. Install the game.
5. Update all your drivers because the game doesn't play.
6. Get frustrated because you have a virus.

Console steps to playing games:
1. Buy console for less than 300 dollars.
2. Buy game.
3. Play game.
Re:1280x720, indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-30 01:46 · Score: 0

Doesn't the PC go more like:

1. Spend a few grand to get the latest pc hardware
2. Overclock the hell out of the CPU.
3. Realize you need a bigger heatsink with a louder fan.
4. Download the operating system off a bittorrent
5. Spend hours getting it to post the fastest 3dMark score without freezing
6. Install the latest experimental bios and graphics drivers.
7. Download the game off a bittorrent
8. Spend hours getting the game to load correctly. Download patches and scour the web for other tweaks and updates.
9. Finally get to play the game and then realize a better video card has come out (with an even louder fan).
10. Bitch about the game on some random forum

irony by syrinx · 2004-12-27 06:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

And just yesterday there was the article about Bungie's Marathon being released 10 years ago. In 10 years, they've gone from releasing incredibly innovative games that remain classic for a decade, to rehashing a sequel to a second-rate game that is only appreciated by new 'gamers' who have never played anything else.

R.I.P. Bungie.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Re:irony by VividU · 2004-12-27 10:24 · Score: 1

God Alimight, you guys are a sorry lot. Still pining away for the Bungie of yore are ya?

You only wish you could play the likes of Halo or Halo2 on your Mac.
Re:irony by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 11:05 · Score: 0

Here's a irony for you: Halo2 - GameSpy Game of the Year.

Of course, the folks at GameSpy are only "new 'gamers' who have never played anything else" so what do they know?
Re:irony by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 13:03 · Score: 0

Hey stupid you CAN play Halo on the Macintosh. MacSoft's Halo Page

Don't click on that link though, it might shatter your sense of reality. Macs don't have any games, sure they don't.
Re:irony by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-29 13:53 · Score: 0

Uh, Marathon had 2 sequels. In fact, every successful Bungie game has had a sequel.

Damn Right by Mr.Dippy · 2004-12-27 06:25 · Score: 1

I remember when I got KOTOR for the PC and starting playing around with the sound settings in the game. At one point my game froze and my sound card stopped working for the entire computer. After about 20 minutes of tinkering around with it I finally had to do a Windows Backup Recovery to get back my sound card. When was the last time PS2, XBox, or GameCube did that to your Television? Hell, I bought a mid-top of the line computer last May and Doom 3 stil looked like crap on it. WTF? I don't know about the rest of you guys but PC games are pretty much dead to me.

--

-Dipster

"Can you imagine Halo 2 running at 1280x720?!!! by Datasage · 2004-12-27 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah its called a PC, now only if they would make a decent port. The Halo 1 port was pretty bad.

--
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.

You forgot about the bugs by MBraynard · 2004-12-27 07:33 · Score: 1

That's the worse problem with PC games - very very little quality control. It is assumed that new release games will have problems that will need to be patched. It's the nature of the beast, in part, because the PCs are presumed to be connected to the net and patching is easy ANd because of the wide variability in hardward/OSs that people will be trying to run the game on.

None of those exist with consoles and the games are nearly perfect.

Re:You forgot about the bugs by October · 2004-12-27 09:06 · Score: 1

I addressed this is my other reply, below. Yes, this is a major issue, and I think it's fairly inexcusable. It's one thing if its a hardware incompatibility issue, which are a lot less of a problem in recent years, but almost every PC game gets patched, and many of the patches are for critical, game-breaking bugs. As you said, console games generally don't have bugs of this magnitude, so why is it that PC games are so error-prone?

This is something that the PC games industry, as a whole, should be addressing. It's obviously possible to ship a game with the critical bugs fixed, but they rely on patches instead.

"I paid $2,000+ for my pc... by lupos · 2004-12-27 08:26 · Score: 1

and i dont know why anyone would be dumb enough to buy an xbox wich is sooo weak compared to a pc."

wow, and here i thought people on slashdot where usually smart. i realize most of you guys probably spend a small fortune on computer junk and alot of people on here may also make a good bit of money doing some computer related job, but the bulk fo this country does not have very much expendable income. I don't know why its so hard to imagine somone buying a $300 game sytem to hook up to there -$1000 hdtv they bought at walmart and there $200-300 suround sound/DVD player they also baught at walmart. why dont they just go pay $1000 for a cpu, $500 for a top of the line video card, and then a couple hundred for a decent sized monitor and another hundred for decent speakers and then that whole ram/hard drive/ mother board/case/ sound car(although most mobo's have decent built in sound now) thing.

so lets see for less than 2g's i can have a nice like 30-40" hdtv and a pretty nice game consle with a ton of games to choose from and decent surround sound... or for atleast 2 grand if not more i can play in even higher res on a 19inch monitor that takes up my whole damn desk and weighs more than german shepard (do we count flat panels? with their crappy refresh rates and/or humongus price tags?)... yeah you guys are right, people are stupid. Especially the lower class, *pfft* who needs em!

Besides when i have to buy a new 500 dollar video card again next year along with more ram, my pc will be soooooo much better than the xbox2 its not even funny.

way to see the big picture everybody.

--
Kerry Edwards in '05

Re:"I paid $2,000+ for my pc... by kLaNk · 2004-12-27 12:28 · Score: 1

You my friend are a rambling man. You don't really say much, but damn you like to ramble!

Also, there != their.
Re:"I paid $2,000+ for my pc... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 14:46 · Score: 0

IF you know anything about the PC market, you can buy a PC, specced at around $1000, that will allow you to A) Game B) Do everything else one can do with a computer. It will last you longer than your console, and it is upgradeable. 500 dollar video cards are a ripoff, get over it- and don't buy them.
I'd also like to point out that the game library for a PC is far larger than the equivalent console libraries, and the market will not disappear simply because your vendor gets out of the business (Dreamcast, anyone?).
The play experience may be simpler on a console, but if you are willing to invest some effort, a winblows PC is a better investment. And because you are a slashdotter, I assume you are willing to make that investment.
Re:"I paid $2,000+ for my pc... by lupos · 2004-12-28 00:45 · Score: 1

I am no stranger to PC gaming i just feel that a large part of why consoles do well is the economics of it more than the difficulty of set up. And while you can indeed buy a relatively worth while PC to play games on for around 1000 its not going to handle the 1600x1200 4xAA gaming that people where bragining about earlier on in the posts. Also that thousand dollar PC will not still run the best games in 4-6 years. Most likely it won't run the best games in 1-2 years. Think about what you could have bought for a grand in july of 2003 and then think about how well doom3 woudl have run on it. while doom does indeed scale incredibly well (as does half life) not all games are as well designed. In order to get the best out of a game and the rediculous resolutions people where claiming you would indeed have to spend upwards of two thousand dollars every 2-3 years to keep up. As aposed to the 300 dollar investment every 4-6 years to have a new console.

As far as games library the back catalog on pc games isnt really a fare comparison, just like i dont feel that PS2 shoudl be aloud to claim all the PS1 games as part of its cataloge. People are concerned with new games when they buy a new system. When it comes to new games the PC and xbox are about on par with new releases and the ps2 exceeds both of them.

My only point, and i realize my thoughts where a bit scattered, was that a lot of the people on here are sitting in this little tech bubble talking to other serious computer buffs about why anyone would bother with console gaming and no one seemed to even realize that a large part of why so many more people play console games rather than pc games is largely due to cost rather than quality of the tech or the difficulty in setting it up properly.

--
Kerry Edwards in '05
Re:"I paid $2,000+ for my pc... by lowe0 · 2005-01-02 13:00 · Score: 1

I think you're missing the point. Let me break it down for you:

I have a high-end PC and a decent-but-not-spectacular home theater. Both cost around $2000 in parts. When I come home from a long day, I can either sit at my desk and play games on a 17" LCD, or sit on my couch and play on a 47" HDTV with 5.1 surround sound. Which do you think I choose? I'll concede that some people simply can't find the games they want on consoles, but for me, gaming's just more fun on the couch, especially when my friends come over.

Halo sucks by bludstone · 2004-12-27 08:29 · Score: 1

Yeah I said it!

Plenty of people agree with me.

But this will still sell consoles.

Now mod me down fanbyos, mod me down.

--

no .sig

Re:Halo sucks by Crescens · 2004-12-27 15:46 · Score: 1

At least put the 2 in there and I'll agree with you. :P
Re:Halo sucks by TLSPRWR · 2004-12-27 18:18 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm a fanboy, and if I had modpoints I would have modded you down. Not because you're "Dissing the almighty Halo" or something like that, but because you're posting flamebait.
Plenty of people have and enjoy Halo 2. Bungie may have "sold out" to Microsoft, but I'm still going to enjoy their fantastic games they've made because of it. Hate me or even hate the games if you want, but I'll be over here playing some more Halo 2 on Xbox Live and having fun.
Re:Halo sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 18:47 · Score: 0

Thank you. A rational response. HALO and HALO 2 are highly imaginative and enjoyable gaming experiences. And I've played since the glory days of QUAKE and DOOM across all platforms. I have an iMAC in one room, a PC in another, an XBOX and PS2. They're just computers, guys. Jeezus, no need to get all tribal about it.
Re:Halo sucks by lordjabbo · 2004-12-28 04:33 · Score: 1

Eh, I played Halo through on co-op on legendary out of pure boredom, and I never liked it much. I don't see what's imaginitive about it, most of the levels looked the same (even the ones that aren't earlier levels with you running the other way), the enemies were honestly stupid, I don't know what the talk about AI is, and the game is plain boring. I played Halo 2 for about an hour, hoping for the hype machine to deliver. Unfortunately, it didn't, and I went back to playing Sid Meier's Pirates!, a better game in almost every way.

Go look at what was cutout again by MMaestro · 2004-12-27 09:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some of the stuff that was thankfully cut out and was pointed out in the collector's DVD were pretty damned stupid. Here are some not-so-brilliant ideas that were cut :

A seperate race just to use the covenant sniper rifle? Uh, no. Theres already 5 races (6 if you count the prophets) in Halo 2 and Jackals piss me off as it is with the sniper rifle.
A 1 man warthog vehicle? Pretty but the only reason why the Ghost gets away with being a solo vehicle is because it can strafe.
A flamethrower? Fun but how are you going to fit that in? Most maps in Halo PC don't even put in the flamethrower, let alone the players.

Halo 2 is a very tight knit, carefully designed game compared to most other FPSs on the market. Who the hell uses the pistol or machine gun in Doom 3 when you have the chaingun? Why use gravity gun when you have the rocket launcher or crossbow in Half-Life 2? Why use the knife when you can get the sniper rifle or the shotgun in Far Cry? In Halo 2 the pistol still has some use as a last resort weapon (a SMG + pistol is considered to be the best close range method of attack after the shotgun).

Pre-Halo and Post-Halo by MMaestro · 2004-12-27 10:25 · Score: 1

Pre-Halo :

99% of people : Bungie? Who the hell is that?
1% Bungie! Marathon!

Post-Halo :

99% of people : Bungie? Halo!
1% Bungie? Those sell-outs!

Halo is a PC game by roystgnr · 2004-12-27 11:57 · Score: 1

You call me a troll while simultaneously basing your whole post on a false dilemma?

As you may have noticed, the eventual release of Halo for the PC did not cause anyone's XBox to explode - the XBox copies of Halo kept working, just the same as ever. Making Halo a "PC game" didn't prevent it from being an "XBox game" as well - games are just software.

If such things as "XBox and PC games" are possible to write, then, one is left to wonder why making Halo (a game which was originally written to be cross platform and include PC support!) one of them took two years. It could be because of the vast architectural differences between the XBox and PC, of course, or it could be because of Microsoft's inexperience writing Windows programs - but I don't think I'm being a conspiracy nut by identifying one other contributing factor: each of those Halo-PC copies was just a $50 sale, whereas many of those Halo-XBox sales were $250 sales, to people who would have bought a PS2 (or for those "PC people", no game console at all) if they hadn't found their hardware choices restricted by software compatibility.

Re:Halo is a PC game by Babbster · 2004-12-27 12:51 · Score: 1

You insist on missing the point. You suggested in your post that the object of Halo/Halo 2 was not to sell games - they sold over 2 million in one day. That's selling games.
Further, if Bungie were NOT a part of Microsoft but knew that making Halo/Halo 2 first for the Xbox while delaying a PC/Mac release would give them million-plus first-day sales of their Xbox game they would do it EVERY DAMN TIME. If they wouldn't, then they deserve to go out of business.
As for being a "conspiracy nut," well, no. You're describing a BUSINESS DECISION. What the hell is wrong about a company releasing exclusive software for their game console? Sony does it all the time. For Nintendo, it's ALL they have to recommend their system. I suppose if playing Bungie games was something required, like air or water, I'd see a problem. Since, however, it's just a game, then Microsoft should do whatever they can to make that game as profitable on its own, and as beneficial to their console business overall, as they can.
Finally, I would note that if Microsoft had not come along and bought Bungie then Electronic Arts (or perhaps Vivendi at that time) almost surely would have. How would that situation be any better - well, apart from the fact that they would develop for PS2 first and send a LCD port to the Xbox, which might be your preference.

Nothing but a rumor by DreadPiratePizz · 2004-12-27 13:51 · Score: 1

This needs to be treated as a rumor and not fact. If it does not come from Bungie, then it's not official. They tend to be honest about what they are working on. I seriously doubt that this is fact at all, and am calling it bullshit.

Re: I'm the Jaded Gamer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 15:44 · Score: 0

If they think I'm going to pay another $400 so I can have "all the stuff people expected from Halo 2 but didn't make the cut",
then they're quite mistaken.

Bungie$oft can go to HE77.

I'm not missing the point by roystgnr · 2004-12-27 16:48 · Score: 1

In fact, the opposite seems to be occuring: after I pointed out that you were insisting on a false dichotomy, why are you continuing to repeat the same false dichotomy? Releasing Halo for the PC (or for the Mac, or the PS2, or whatever) does not imply not releasing Halo for the XBox. The decision here is not "selling Halo-XBox copies" vs. "selling fewer Halo-PC copies", it's "selling Halo-XBox copies" vs. "selling more Halo-XBox and Halo-PC copies".

I'm not suggesting that Halo shouldn't have been released for the XBox, as you appear to be assuming - I'm suggesting that any non-Microsoft company would have wanted to release Halo for the XBox (making millions of sales) as well as for the PC (making even more sales with very little additional work) and probably PS2, Mac, and Gamecube.

It's not very complicated: Being compatible with more game platforms makes your market larger, which means more people buy your game. Being compatible with fewer game platforms means fewer people buy your game, but the most diehard fans buy the whole platform as well. If you sell games but not game platforms, then unless a platform manufacturer is giving you kickbacks you want to make the former decision. If you sell game platforms, and in particular if you sell a game platform that's so new it's still being criticized for "not having enough good games", then you want to make the latter decision.

Re:I'm not missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 22:51 · Score: 0

The fact is the high end gamer rig market, while significant compared to other ventures like opening a coffee shop, or this year's greeting card program, is completely insignificant compared to the console market. Especially if you're trying to build a brand. One good, even undeserved, knock on the chin can put you out of business in the rarified air of PC gaming. Odds are, they would have been bought up, and destroyed, by another company that didn't know what they had. Look at the history, it's litered with the corspes of brilliant ideas. Bungie got very lucky. And by the sales figures the public seems to think they did too. It's just guys like you, on the wrong side of the network effect, that are unhappy at being left in the cold. Halo/Halo 2 have hit a major jackpot, their success is nothing short of spectacular in a place where it wasn't supposed to be possible squared.

Seriously, everyone was down on the idea of a FPS on a console until Halo showed people how to do it. And everyone was down on Microsoft as a player (consideration of their cash reserves excluded). And here it is, all the people who fancy themselves pundits proven completely wrong by a mountain of undenyable emperical evidence desperately continuing to cling to their delusions.

Oh, I don't own an xbox, or any of this generations of consols, I'm just not so wrapped up in my own mythology that I'm compelled to deny the world before me.

Without the xbox, the odds are pretty good Halo would have languished in sea of pretty good FPS. On the xbox, it was all alone in the console world, in a class by itself. Characterising the gamble as anything but a spectacular decision is just stupid.
Re:I'm not missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-28 17:49 · Score: 0

Sold!

Halo Haters by alienspanke · 2004-12-27 19:48 · Score: -1

All you PC gamers are just pissed because you cant play halo 2 on your $1500+ machine when i can play it on my xbox for a mere $250.

Name a better FPS on Xbox? or any console for that matter? Console wise, halo 1 and 2 stand out graphically and in terms of playability.

BTW, I play more games on my PC than i do my xbox. I appreciate the advantage of a keyboard and mouse, however, for those of us who like to play different styles of games, halo ranks high in the order.

I will buy the next gen xbox but halo 2.5 will not be a deciding factor.

Re:Halo Haters by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-28 20:38 · Score: 0

Name a better FPS on Xbox? or any console for that matter? Console wise, halo 1 and 2 stand out graphically and in terms of playability.

You're right, Halo 1 and 2 are indeed better than all the other shitty console FPS games. Congratulations, you've just proved that Halo is better than shit.
Re:Halo Haters by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-29 10:44 · Score: 0

Damn strait I'm right.

Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 22:24 · Score: 0

1) With a fighting or sports games, the portability of save games is something to consider. And you chose GTA as an example. From this I can accurately conclude you've got no friends let alone friends with a PS2, who've got so little going on they'd watch you play your game.

2) The xbox has got you covered anyway. Oh and making your own soundtracks to your games.

Hard drives for consoles own. They are the absolute shit. It is a huge advantage, you're inability to recognize a vastly superior way of doing things has two possible roots, self-delusion, or ignorance. And the mario party games are impossibly lame. It takes a long time to load a mini game which lasts seconds, involves no talent beyond being awake, and then ends stupidly. Great for taking care of small children in batches of four no doubt.

And Microsoft is smart. This time, they're making people pay extra for a HD. Why, because it's that good. And they can make money from consumers upgrading, a market they simply didn't envision originally.

Re:Ok.... by StocDred · 2004-12-28 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks for your thoughts, AC. As usual, you're a dick.
GTA San Andreas has 2P modes, so it is at the least viable for a couple players in that regard. Also, it's fun to play one guy's game, then switch over to your game to show off how they're different, what you've collected, whatever. Moreover, it can actually be fun to simply watch somebody else play a game. I chose GTA as the example over fighting or sports because I've actually done that, shithead.
What about KOTOR, which has save files that are too big to transfer to the memory card anyway. I don't know how many other games are affected like that (if any), but that's a pretty big example of somebody not paying attention.
How many games actually used the personal soundtrack feature? Not every damn one, I can tell you that. Cute feature in isolated instances, but hardly a dealmaker.
Downloading new content is cool, I'll say that. Saving without memory cards is nice, assuming you retain the option to carry your info around with you in some fashion (through online login in the future maybe?) Having your network settings inside the box instead of on some random PS2 card somewhere is great. Having data load from the drive faster than from the disc is great too. I just named more advantages than you could. I never said they were useless, just that they're not especially revolutionary and not a "huge advantage." Just a nice feature... it remains to be seen if every other company will jump on it.
But by all means, rag on Mario Party. How "Popular Opinion" of you. Fuckwad.
And Microsoft is smart. This time, they're making people pay extra for a HD. Why, because it's that good. And they can make money from consumers upgrading, a market they simply didn't envision originally.
That's genius. Nice to hear you're such a good little soldier with your finger on the pulse of Microsoft's marketing and business practices. Go shoot someone now while listening to your stolen Eminem collection. Get that wallet ready to buy your One Game again on your brand new dedicated Halo2.5/3 system. Asshat.
Re:Ok.... by tarius8105 · 2004-12-28 06:54 · Score: 1

I just named more advantages than you could. I never said they were useless, just that they're not especially revolutionary and not a "huge advantage." Just a nice feature... it remains to be seen if every other company will jump on it.

Oh really? Then why is the PS3 coming out with a hard drive, while also a PVR device? We look at revolutionary as in cutting edge technology, while what is revolutionary is the ideas that change how things are done. Every console up till the Xbox have all been the same, only extending the graphics of the games. While these "features" may not change the platform, it has changed future consoles in what they provide. As I stated before, Xbox maybe a microsoft product but they're changing the consoles.

As for the memory issue, you can buy a memory card for Xbox. The only reason I brought it up before was because to be able to play a playstation game and continue it later is to pay an extra 25 dollars for a memory card, which thus completes the system. Where as Xbox you buy it, you have a complete system.

That's genius. Nice to hear you're such a good little soldier with your finger on the pulse of Microsoft's marketing and business practices. Go shoot someone now while listening to your stolen Eminem collection. Get that wallet ready to buy your One Game again on your brand new dedicated Halo2.5/3 system. Asshat.

Microsoft actually has it right, because they see the short comings of nintendo and sony. While I bought an Xbox to play Halo, I have a couple other games...maybe not as many as I have of playstation though. I will buy an Xbox 2 to play Halo 2.5 or 3, cause I'm hoping to get an ending to that story.

Oh and about his "Popular Opinion" of Mario games. You really want to talk about trying to milk a cow, there are like 50 Mario games for all nintendo products, where as 2 Halo games on just one platform (3 if you count the PC version of Halo).
Re:Ok.... by StocDred · 2004-12-28 09:02 · Score: 1

First, thanks for keeping the discussion cool, unlike farthammer AC back there.
every console up till the Xbox have all been the same, only extending the graphics of the games.
That's not an accurate statement. Every generation has added new features to the ring, and just about every console has thrown in their own specialties that were later adopted by other companies. Analog sticks, shoulder buttons, wireless controllers, rumble feedback, memory cards, CD/DVD storage, voice input, camera input... all of these (and more) have popped up over the course of video game console development. To say that everything prior to Xbox has been the same (except for graphics) is nonsense and reeks of fanboyism.
Microsoft actually has it right, because they see the short comings of nintendo and sony.
How about increasing the caliber and size of the Xbox library? That's what they need to concentrate on... Halo and Xbox Live have totally supported them in this generation (and Live is primarily only a marketing bullet point, since most Xbox owners don't even use it.) How much longer? That's Microsoft's shortcoming, not Nintendo's or Sony's. Neither Nintendo nor Sony has to respond to that, in the way that Sony is responding to Microsoft by simply making an HD available and getting their games online. The Xbox has a handful of AAA titles amid overwhelming mediocrity. It's feast or famine, and mostly famine.
Oh and about his "Popular Opinion" of Mario games.
That was my initial point. Everybody (particularly the "mature" Xbox/PC crowd) goes to great lengths to slam Nintendo for all the Mario titles and all the re-released old Mario titles with minor enhancements. And now the Xbox's critical darling Halo is doing the same thing. Why? Because it will sell. Why does it sell? Because people want it. Why does Nintendo do the same thing - even while continually producing brand new titles and directions for the franchise - they do the same thing for the same reason. I realize that 50 is quite a bit more games than 2, but Nintendo has been around longer, and has 20 years of nostalgia to take advantage of. I was preparing to laugh outwardly at all the Xbox fans who are already drooling over Halo 2.5, yet scoffed at Mario Advance/SMB3, Mario Party X, etc.
Seriously though, the Mario Party series is damn good stuff.
Re:Ok.... by tarius8105 · 2004-12-29 15:10 · Score: 1

That's not an accurate statement. Every generation has added new features to the ring, and just about every console has thrown in their own specialties that were later adopted by other companies. Analog sticks, shoulder buttons, wireless controllers, rumble feedback, memory cards, CD/DVD storage, voice input, camera input... all of these (and more) have popped up over the course of video game console development. To say that everything prior to Xbox has been the same (except for graphics) is nonsense and reeks of fanboyism.

I dont count media as being innovative since it really didnt enhance the system, it was just a new storage system.

How about increasing the caliber and size of the Xbox library? That's what they need to concentrate on... Halo and Xbox Live have totally supported them in this generation (and Live is primarily only a marketing bullet point, since most Xbox owners don't even use it.) How much longer? That's Microsoft's shortcoming, not Nintendo's or Sony's. Neither Nintendo nor Sony has to respond to that, in the way that Sony is responding to Microsoft by simply making an HD available and getting their games online. The Xbox has a handful of AAA titles amid overwhelming mediocrity. It's feast or famine, and mostly famine.

Microsoft can not do it, developers have to want to develop for that system. Microsoft has been trying to get people to develop for the Xbox but if a company is paying a license to develop PS2 games, they're not really going to want to pay an additional license to make Xbox games.

That was my initial point. Everybody (particularly the "mature" Xbox/PC crowd) goes to great lengths to slam Nintendo for all the Mario titles and all the re-released old Mario titles with minor enhancements. And now the Xbox's critical darling Halo is doing the same thing. Why? Because it will sell. Why does it sell? Because people want it. Why does Nintendo do the same thing - even while continually producing brand new titles and directions for the franchise - they do the same thing for the same reason. I realize that 50 is quite a bit more games than 2, but Nintendo has been around longer, and has 20 years of nostalgia to take advantage of. I was preparing to laugh outwardly at all the Xbox fans who are already drooling over Halo 2.5, yet scoffed at Mario Advance/SMB3, Mario Party X, etc.

You're comparing all those Mario Kart games to Halo??? Come on, there is a big difference between halo 1 and halo 2, maybe not in the type of game, but story wise its much different with a whole different objective in the game. Halo 2.5 or 3 will be different in the sense that now that Bungie has the time they're putting in things that were cut from the game, kind of like a directors cut of a movie. The only thing you can really compare the mario kart games to is the Star Wars racer games which the newer one just had new graphics and new drivers, otherwise the same.

Seriously though, the Mario Party series is damn good stuff.

Yeah maybe but after a while it becomes redundant. As far as I'm concerned gamecube is like 60% mario games. Halo cant be compared to Mario because it hasnt reached 50 variants of the franchise. And till Halo franchise spawns a horrible movie, then you can say Halo is like Mario.

I liked the ending.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-27 22:32 · Score: 0

I think the "implication" works well story wise anyway you want to slice it as it is.

I think the idea of saving the second "over the top" ending after seeing what the market wants it to be, and then remolding it towards that is intriguing, and worth exploring commercially.

They can also, in addition to using the ending to drive xbox live!, and I would hope they would, add it as a free disc in prominant gaming magazines. Finally, they can use it to create a new Platinum edition, rental versions, and xbox bundle.

As long as they have solutions out for both the broadband people and those not on xbox live which doesn't amount to a Kill Bill double shot of Bitch, I think at the very least I should reserve judgement.

Console = toaster by Finkbug · 2004-12-28 00:39 · Score: 1

Let's not forget the $300 console can really rip through a spreadsheet.

Consoles are toasters. They make toast. If all you want is toast and the style of toast you crave is available for the toaster, buy the toaster. Otherwise, buy a computer.

--
Feeling so good natured I could drool

Re:Console = toaster by furball · 2004-12-28 08:39 · Score: 1

There are sufficient CPU power in the xbox to handle your average speadsheet needs. Do you remember how quickly a 486 ripped through spreadsheets?
Re:Console = toaster by Finkbug · 2004-12-29 06:43 · Score: 1

I do. Bent a few pins on my first sell-the-first-born-to-pay-for-it 486 50DX. I cried.

The XBOX has horsepower once modded to reveal its inner not-a-toaster. I admire the work of those converting their breadboxes to ovens or SETI receivers but doing it myself ain't high on the list.

--
Feeling so good natured I could drool

Wimpy Res by The+Islamic+Fundamen · 2004-12-28 08:09 · Score: -1

1280x720?! Yeah, Half Life 2 runs just fine at 1280x1024.

--
Call me and my voicemail! 914-713-6795. (wow, I have the balls to post my voip number on /.)

Sid Meier's Pirates!!!!!????? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-30 10:33 · Score: 0

Are you freaking kidding me? Well, there goes your credibility.

107 comments