Xbox Half-Life 2 Late Summer Release

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox Half-Life 2 Late Summer Release

Posted by Zonk on Friday April 22, 2005 @12:26AM from the console-crabs dept.

GamesIndustry.biz is reporting that Valve plans to have Half-Life 2 available on the Xbox during late summer in the U.S., and early fall in Europe. From the article: "The content of the game for Xbox is now thought to be exactly the same as the PC outing, although some dilution of texture detail and auto-aiming are likely to grace the port." The article also mentioned that, at the moment, Aftermath is likely to be PC only.

43 of 51 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Graphics by kyle90 · 2005-04-22 00:56 · Score: 1

It's obvious that the X-box won't be able to handle the full graphical capacity of HL2. I mean, look at what it's built on - 733 Mhz processor, with a modified GeForce 3. My computer has something like four times the power of an X-box, and even it slows down on the highest resolution. Now, I bet the X-box 2 or X-box 360 or whatever it's called could do it quite nicely. Although, on the other hand, Halo PC just barely runs on my system at full resolution too...

--
Real_men_don't_need_spacebars.
1. Re:Graphics by Xarann · 2005-04-22 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  You cant really compare xbox straight to a pc of that strenght tho. By running only a sinle app at the time, havin a very stripped down os and not forgettin the fact its a single hardware, wich means games can be alot more optimized than on pc were they have to run on everyting.
2. Re:Graphics by DanthemaninVA1 · 2005-04-22 01:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  My computer is probably about the same as yours; many times more powerful than an XBox. And yet, when i tried the Prince of Persia: Warrior Within demo on my computer, and ran like complete shit. I got the game for XBox, and it would experience a tiny bit of slowdown on rare occasions. While the XBox may not be as powerful, a lot of bloat can be removed for the game by optimizing for a single hardware platform. No, the graphics won't be as super-good. Yes, it will still look great.
3. Re:Graphics by Grey+Ninja · 2005-04-22 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I honestly don't care about resolution. I run Half Life 2 at 800x600, or 1024x768, depending on my mood. I find that the game actually runs a slight bit faster on 1024x768 for some strange reason.
  
  But my computer was completely killed by the game a short while ago. (Athlon XP 1800+). After a CPU upgrade (Athlon 64 3500+), it purrs like a kitten. I think it's fairly irrelevant what video card you are running. It depends almost entirely on what CPU you have.
  
  And I hardly think that the Xbox's 733MHz Celeron is going to be up to the task.
4. Re:Graphics by nathanmace · 2005-04-22 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  You would be surprised to see what happens when developers don't have to write to high level API's. Look at Doom 3, Jade Empire, and the newest Unreal game on the Xbox. Those certainly don't look like they are running on a 733 MHz Celeron.
  
  --
  I'm very responsible, when ever something goes wrong they always say I'm responsible.
5. Re:Graphics by wallykeyster · 2005-04-22 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is meaningless to make a comparison considering only the CPU; you must look at more of the platform. Sure, those games do not look like they are running on a 733 Celeron and a bloated, general purpose, desktop OS. Being liberated from APIs is not the big difference. You can be sure that running on a small and specialized OS, not running other background applications (like antivirus or any of the MS Office, Adobe Reader, Quicktime, Quicken, or other mostly hidden helpers), and being able to develop for a known hardware/software configuration are much more important.
6. Re:Graphics by Grey+Ninja · 2005-04-22 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I realize this. Console games will run on a fraction of the power that a PC game will, because of the console specific programming, and the lack of any other overhead.
  
  However, I sincerely do believe that the Xbox is going to have some rather large problems with it. Two things that really stand out about Half Life 2 is the AI and the physics. Regardless of what else you are running on your CPU, it still comes down to the CPU having to process a great deal of physics and AI.
  
  But I'm sure that we'll see when the game comes out. This is just my nay saying for the time being based on pure speculation. But I am seriously anticipated a game that's completely raped of the charisma it has on the PC.
7. Re:Graphics by Ford+Prefect · 2005-04-22 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  However, I sincerely do believe that the Xbox is going to have some rather large problems with it. Two things that really stand out about Half Life 2 is the AI and the physics. Regardless of what else you are running on your CPU, it still comes down to the CPU having to process a great deal of physics and AI.
  
  Having originally played through the whole of HL2 on a 1.1GHz Athlon (albeit with a fairly decent graphics card), I can definitely say that a powerful CPU is necessary for the game. Most of it was fine on that computer, but certain areas (such as the friendly squads later in the game, anything with lots of physics and that final strider battle) would really kill the framerate, even if there wasn't actually much geometry on-screen at the time.
  
  Even turning the graphics down to an absolute minimum didn't help - I was still frequently getting below 10fps at certain points. I've no idea how this game will transfer to a 733MHz processor...
  
  As for the graphics making their journey to the Xbox, it's mostly done with high-resolution textures (and lots of them) and lots of geometry. While Xbox games like the original Halo had lots of graphical tricks layering lots of low-res textures into highly detailed composite versions, HL2's method is to have a high-res base texture with a high-res normal map and a high-res specular map (usually the alpha map of the base texture) - it's a bit memory-hungry to say the least!
  
  Turning on texture compression for everything (it's done on a case-by-case basis in HL2 and it's usually switched off for quality reasons), removing a lot of normal maps and reducing the resolution a bit might help, but there's still megabytes of stuff to be dealing with. And then there's the sound as well...
  
  The long load times on the PC are partly due to the silly amounts of data the game has to deal with. I'd 'love' to see it all crammed into 64MB total... ;-)
  
  --
  Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
8. Re:Graphics by LordNimon · 2005-04-22 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  The real reason why the game runs better on your Xbox than on your PC is because the developers intended it that way. The game hasn't really been optimized for teh Xbox, they just added a bunch of CPU-hogging crap to the PC version.
  It's not enough for a PC to be more powerful than an Xbox. It has to be MUCH more powerful than an Xbox. When developers create a game for the PC, they need to target people who just spent $4K on a new, top-of-the-line system. They need to make sure that every freaking electron is flying around your system like Buckaroo Bonzai's jet car.
  Try lowering the resolution on your PC to 640x480, because that's what the Xbox runs at.
  
  --
  And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
  To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
9. Re:Graphics by KirkH · 2005-04-22 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Doubters said the same exact thing about Doom 3 making it's way to the Xbox. Early screenshots were laughed at. People said it couldn't be done with any justice.
  
  Now that the game's out, it's a different story. Reviews have raved about the Xbox version. I've played Doom 3 on a dual 2.5GHz Xeon with a decent video card (Geforce 5900) and played the Xbox version, and there was very little difference. Yes, the PC version was running at a higher res, but I could tell little visual difference sitting a foot away from a 21" monitor on the PC and 15 feet from a 32" TV for the Xbox. I was amazed that the Xbox version looked and played as good as it did. Gameplay was practically identical once you got past the input differences.
  
  So feel free to continue with your nay-saying and speculation, but I don't think Value would be porting the game if it was going to look and play like shit. They would have just waited until the Xbox 2 came out.
10. Re:Graphics by Grey+Ninja · 2005-04-22 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I didn't nay say much about Doom 3. Reason being that the Xbox is quite similar to the target platform for the game. It's not really that hard to render a black screen. ;-)
  
  But in all seriousness, Doom 3 works with a whole lot of lighting, and is primarily GPU limited. The worlds and models are low poly, but lighting tricks are used to make it look good. Half-Life 2 is an entirely different beast, and is a whole lot more CPU limited. That WILL cause problems on an Xbox.
11. Re:Graphics by AlexMax2742 · 2005-04-22 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  They somehow got Half Life running on a Dreamcast. I don't think HL2 on a Xbox will be totally out of the question. They did have to cut corners with Doom 3, but considering how much mroe scalable Source seems to be, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up decent.
  
  Though I am worried about any extras. Half Life for PS2 only had single player, a short co-op campaign (Decay) and two player split screen deathmatch. I really hope they at least include Half Life 2 DM over Live.
  
  --
  I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
12. Re:Graphics by MBraynard · 2005-04-22 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'll tell you why I don't think what you are saying is valid - and I admit I could be wrong.
  Compare HAlo on PC to HAlo on Xbox, in terms of what you need to run it decently.
13. Re:Graphics by rhuntley12 · 2005-04-22 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Check out Oddworld Strangers Wrath in High Def. Best looking cutscenes I've seen in a game, and the game is gorgeous too, not to mention it's a great game to boot.
14. Re:Graphics by Ford+Prefect · 2005-04-23 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Compare HAlo on PC to HAlo on Xbox, in terms of what you need to run it decently.
  
  Okay - I played the PC version of Halo on the same 1.1GHz Athlon, and it worked very nicely. Highly GPU-intensive, yes (which is why it knackered all those early DX9.0 cards) but on reducing the resolution the framerate was more than acceptable.
  
  On that same PC, HL2 could manage single-figure framerates when looking at a blank wall in certain areas. CPU intensive, anyone? ;-)
  
  --
  Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
15. Re:Graphics by MBraynard · 2005-04-23 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Would you say that HL2 has substantially better physics than Halo2?
16. Re:Graphics by lion2 · 2005-04-23 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Im sure Half Like 2 on Xbox will look and play just fine.
  
  --
  #####Free and Open Source Game Directory#####
17. Re:Graphics by Ford+Prefect · 2005-04-23 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Would you say that HL2 has substantially better physics than Halo2?
  
  I haven't played Halo 2 (plus a PC port sounds ... unlikely), but its physics would have to be bloody good to compete with Half-Life 2's.
  
  Yes, I know it's a licensed Havok physics engine Valve used, but it's rather nicely integrated into Source. You can do ridiculous things with it in Garry's Mod for instance, like affixing a spinning wheel to each corner of a ragdoll mattress, strapping a rocket booster to it then tying it down to a broken car with rope to stop it flying off.
  
  Okay, HL2 itself doesn't have such ludicrously over-the-top physics simulation examples as the one I've just given, but the game definitely makes intensive use of the physics engine. Basically, if it moves and it's not an animation, it's the CPU-humping Havok at work... ;-)
  
  --
  Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
18. Re:Graphics by MBraynard · 2005-04-23 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'd have to say that the large scale battles I've seen in H2 approximate those I've seen in HL2 and that the physics are about the same.
  Even in the original game, I'm sure you've seen all the stuff done with warthogs.
  Also, contrary to what you are saying, I heard the original Halo ran horribly on PC.
Re:Awesome for Europe by Morgon · 2005-04-22 01:09 · Score: 1

Er.. From the first line of the blurb:

"GamesIndustry.biz is reporting that Valve plans to have Half-Life 2 available on the Xbox during late summer in the U.S."

I know that all memory and logical comprehension went out the window when you saw the word "Europe", but try to regain full facilities before you post. ;)

--
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Anoter FPS? by Albigg · 2005-04-22 01:16 · Score: 1

After getting burned by Doom 3 on PC, then playing Halo 2 (campaign and then multiplayer for quite a while), is there anything else that this generation of FPS (namely HL2) has to offer? I'm feeling a little burned out by FPS games right now.
1. Re:Anoter FPS? by wallykeyster · 2005-04-22 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  HL2 is a good game, but it is by no means great. The enemy AI is not outstanding, the graphics are not ground breaking, and the multiplayer is your standard "spawn, grab weapon, kill, die, repeat as fast as possible" bloodfest. I have beat the single player and put in many hours of HL2:DM because I do think it is better than Doom3, but I'm glad that I didn't pay for it (no piracy here - I bought a new ATI card and it included HL2 free).
2. Re:Anoter FPS? by Albigg · 2005-04-22 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that honesty. I was afriad that I would get the standard Slashdot worship for HL2.
3. Re:Anoter FPS? by rhuntley12 · 2005-04-22 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Try out Oddworld Strangers Wrath, it's FPS shooting and third otherwise. It's a different game, besides being gorgeous it's fun. After about the third city it starts getting repetative, but don't stop, it changes up. Two new games that are a must that just came out are Jade Empire made by Bioware. Sweet game all around even with my minor complaints. Psychonaughts, made by the guy who made many of the games I remember fondly.(Full Throttle, etc) Truely fun game.
Late summer in Europe as well by Jarlsberg · 2005-04-22 01:21 · Score: 3, Informative

The blurb is misleading, as the article specifically says that it won't be ready until late summer, both in Europe and the US.
Here's a quote:
Valve's Doug Lombardi added credence to the news this morning, but fell short of specifying a release date.
"We plan to finish development of Half-Life 2 Xbox in late summer and have it available everywhere very shortly thereafter," he told Eurogamer. "No specific date to share just yet." US reports are suggesting that the game is to be finished in August.
Re:Awesome for Europe by grub · 2005-04-22 01:27 · Score: 1

Reading the articles goes against the slashdot RFC.

--
Trolling is a art,
ANOTHER GREAT GAME this year?!!!! by lion2 · 2005-04-22 01:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Doom 3, Jade Empire, Unreal Championship 2, Forza Motorsport, Splinter Cell 3, Black Hawk Down(I'm excited about its 50 player online play) and now Half Life 2!!! I can't possibly afford to get all these games :(.

--
#####Free and Open Source Game Directory#####
1. Re:ANOTHER GREAT GAME this year?!!!! by Gulthek · 2005-04-22 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Psychonauts yo.
2. Re:ANOTHER GREAT GAME this year?!!!! by rhuntley12 · 2005-04-22 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  As another person replied Psychonaughts is a must. As is Jade Empire. And I see I'm not the only one that can't wait for 50 player online. Know how sweet it would be to have HL2 Xbox able to play with PC players, would be able to show them that controllers DO work on FPS.;)
Steam enabled? by slot32 · 2005-04-22 01:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well? Or will you require Live to play it?

--
Visit London Scalextric Club
1. Re:Steam enabled? by LordNimon · 2005-04-22 03:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I would be extremely surprised if an Xbox online game required anything but Xbox Live. Even the EA games, which run on EA's servers instead of Microsoft's, still require you to connect via Xbox Live first (the connection is then transferred automatically to EA), and there are no additional charges.
  
  --
  And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
  To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
2. Re:Steam enabled? by satoshi1 · 2005-04-22 04:30 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  No, the parent means that he hopes it doesn't require Xbox Live! for ALL facets of the game. Steam, on the PC version, requires you to be connected to the internet to play offline mode. The parent is hoping that you won't need to be connected to Xbox Live! to play offline as well.
3. Re:Steam enabled? by LordNimon · 2005-04-22 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, I would be extremely surprised if offline play requires Xbox Live, since no other Xbox game has that requirement.
  
  --
  And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
  To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
4. Re:Steam enabled? by satoshi1 · 2005-04-22 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, hopefully Half-Life 2 won't be the first to do so.
5. Re:Steam enabled? by 2bluemike · 2005-04-22 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised they didn't have Valve hold it off to produce more content and a port to Xbox 360. What is M$ going to launch that console with? Halo 2.1??
6. Re:Steam enabled? by nathanmace · 2005-04-22 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ever played Phansty Star Online? Xbox Live is required for the single player, and you have subscribe to a third party service(in addition to having Live!) to play online.
  
  --
  I'm very responsible, when ever something goes wrong they always say I'm responsible.
7. Re:Steam enabled? by LordNimon · 2005-04-22 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I keep forgetting about PSO, probably because everyone else has.
  
  --
  And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
  To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Auto-aim is the worst by Vr6dub · 2005-04-22 03:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they implement auto-aim I most definitely won't buy it. Hopefully they give you the ability to turn it off. Starwars: Battlefront was horrible multiplayer for this reason. While there were rooms that had it disabled, a majority of the servers had it enabled...GAY!!!!
Honestly, are people that poor at gaming that they have to include something like this? Might as well make it an RPG!! I understand the whole mouse vs. controller issue but man, give me a break, the controller is not THAT big of hinderance (sp?). K I'm done.
1. Re:Auto-aim is the worst by Fred+Or+Alive · 2005-04-22 04:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think it depends on how the auto-aim is implemented. Halo has quite a bit of assistance with aiming (I'm not sure if it counts fully as auto-aim), but you generally don't notice it unless you're messed around betraying people[1], as you don't get as much help to shoot your own teammates.
  
  On the other hand the auto-aim in Half-Life (1) for PC (and DC IIRC) seems terribly unsubtle, and I turned it off immediately, as it just seemed stupid. The crosshair moved massively every time you looked vaguely in the direction of an enemy...
  
  I've not played Star Wars: Battlefront, so I don't know what camp it's auto-aim comes under. if it was more like Half-Life's, I can see why you wouldn't want it...
  
  [1] I was betraying friends, and everyone had agreed to have a betray-a-thon in an unranked game before we started.
  
  --
  10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU "; 20 GOTO 10
2. Re:Auto-aim is the worst by screwballicus · 2005-04-25 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about you, but even being an utterly fanatical keyboard and mouse gamer (long arguing for the inherent superiority of ASDF over ESDF and ESDF over WASD in turn and refusing to play on any other keyboards than my '80s vintage buckling-spring Model M's), not having auto-aim on gamepad-based control I consider to be a downside.
  
  I don't like imprecise control, but if I'm stuck with all-too-imprecise gamepad control, a little bit of auto-aim making it feel more precise than it really is can only be a good thing. I'm willing to be tricked. At least it's more convincing than feeling like the total klutz a gamepad's pads turn a marksman into.
Re:Awesome for Europe by KDR_11k · 2005-04-22 04:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

but I refused to play it because of the whole Steam activation controversy

Be happy you have an option. My new home (a student home) has internet that requires a proxy. Try telling Steam that. Even if there is such an option somewhere I can't see it because Steam quits immediately when I start it.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:content... by boredman · 2005-04-22 09:28 · Score: 1

True, the xbox port probably won't be comparable to the PC version in terms of graphical quality. However, the gameplay should be nearly the same (controller issues aside) because I doubt Valve would settle for anything less.

That said, I'm really looking forward to HL2's xbox release. I've seen the PC version, and while it is impressive, I can't justify spending that kind of cash on a gaming rig when an xbox and game software can both be had for less than the price of a mid-range video card.
Re:DOOM by fwitness · 2005-04-22 15:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'll give them credit. They went from having no presence in the console world to being an almost solid #2 (Japan aside.) They launched a brilliant console and online service in a ridiculously short timetable.

That said, I bought a used Xbox and I've played like 6 games on it. It's currently unplugged since it's too bulky to fit in my entertainment center if I'm not going to use it. There's just too much better content on the other two consoles I own. So it's a 'meh' thing for me. Maybe once I feel like running an ethernet cable under a rug into the living room and hook up XBox live I'll be addicted, but I don't think it'll get that far.

--
-- I have fans? Wow.