• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Halo Comment

U

us3rnotfound

Diamond Member
I just wanted to say that if the way Halo is running on my GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is any indication at all of how Half-Life 2 will perform, then I think I will save my $ and buy a new ATI card.🙂
 
Originally posted by: shminu
I just wanted to say that if the way Halo is running on my GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is any indication at all of how Half-Life 2 will perform, then I think I will save my $ and buy a new ATI card.🙂
Click to expand...

I think Halo runs poorly on all hardware, at least in parts.
 
Hmm... I've been playing it for a few days now, and Halo is very playable on my Ti4200 (275/540). I get limited slow downs, only during the most intense battles do I get any slow downs but other then that it plays great. 🙂
 
Halo runs slow on my computer, piss poor performance

3.4 ghz Pentium 4 (2.8 overclocked)
1024 mb 474 mhz Dual Channel DDR Corsair
Radeon 9800 Pro 128 mb
 
what is slow ?

Less then 100 FPS ? THIS ISN'T QUAKE 3 anymore

If the game is smooth at 30-60 FPS... then that should be fine
 
Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
what is slow ?

Less then 100 FPS ? THIS ISN'T QUAKE 3 anymore

If the game is smooth at 30-60 FPS... then that should be fine
Click to expand...

slow is 20 FPS, when I move my mouse it doesn't flow smoothly and I can't aim correctly.

Why should I settle for that when UT2003 with 10X better graphics runs 60+ FPS with max settings.
 
Originally posted by: fyleow
Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
what is slow ?

Less then 100 FPS ? THIS ISN'T QUAKE 3 anymore

If the game is smooth at 30-60 FPS... then that should be fine
Click to expand...

slow is 20 FPS, when I move my mouse it doesn't flow smoothly and I can't aim correctly.

Why should I settle for that when UT2003 with 10X better graphics runs 60+ FPS with max settings.
Click to expand...
Even if UT2k3 had "10x better graphics" (which it doesn't), doesn't make it a better game... There's more to gameplay than graphics.

Halo rocks. It's not a coincidence that UT2k4 borrows a lot from Halo.

 
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Even if UT2k3 had "10x better graphics" (which it doesn't), doesn't make it a better game... There's more to gameplay than graphics.

Halo rocks. It's not a coincidence that UT2k4 borrows a lot from Halo.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, when the graphics are such that they bring things to a crawl so that a person can't aim properly, gameply takes a nosedive. A game could be the greatest 3D shooter in the world, but if it tries to push graphics that it just can't handle and turns into a slideshow, it's going to frustrate the user and it's no longer fun.

I'd have loved to try Halo, I've never played it before. But I think I'm going to pass after hearing about the poor performance. I don't need 300fps, but dipping into the teens is unacceptable.
 
Been playing Halo for a few days now.

Performance is absolutely dismal, I just can't fathom what the **** they did to this engine?
Wingz, I agree, GFX sure doesn't make a game, I spend lots of time playing NES/SEGA games, and Im in the process of buying a "new" Amiga 1200.

However, Halos performance is just utterly unacceptable, I have an AXP@2 GHz, and a Radeon 9800NP, and the game runs like $hit, whenever there are like 3-4 or more enemies on screen, we're talking slideshow.
Halo is one game I won't be buying, only cause of the lackluster performance, I don't understand how this passed QA.
 
"Even if UT2k3 had "10x better graphics" (which it doesn't), doesn't make it a better game... There's more to gameplay than graphics.

Halo rocks. It's not a coincidence that UT2k4 borrows a lot from Halo.
"


Wing, your missing the point. Fact is that UT2K3 does have better graphics. Of course not 10X better, but it is significantly better. Lets just pretend both have the same level of detail. That still is rediculous that Halo is 4X slower framerates than UT2K3.

Were not even talking gameplay we are talking performance so do not change the subject. Fact is that the UT2K3 engine is far superior to the Halo "*PORT* version on the PC.


I ran Halo last night at 640X480 on my XP 2800 with 9500 Pro and Shadows were disabled. There was one part where I entered a room and it became a slide show!!! Just plain wrong.


Halo blows for performance, still a mildly fun game if you do not mind slide shows every so often.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus
ok this is like the 15th thread on this, so im going be very blunt.

reduce your graphics settings. retards.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have to. The game ran fine with a ~g3 and 733 p3

But being retarted doesn't have anything to do with what graphics settings you pick.

 
Originally posted by: Dug
Originally posted by: Acanthus
ok this is like the 15th thread on this, so im going be very blunt.

reduce your graphics settings. retards.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have to. The game ran fine with a ~g3 and 733 p3

But being retarted doesn't have anything to do with what graphics settings you pick.
Click to expand...

it does when people in here, who know what to do, run at max settings and cry about performance. I cant wait for the 600 HL2 threads saying OMG OMG OMG ITS SO SLOW MY R9700 CANT EVEN RUN 12X AA.

Edit: and if you are referring to the xbox specs, run the game at 640x480 with no AA or AF, with DX8 shaders. Youll get very similar performance.
 
That's the point which you do not get.
You run the game with 3x the hardware, you should easily be able to increase the visual quality.
There is nothing special about Halo graphics. Why can others equal or exceed Halo graphics with higher frame rates? For instance HL2.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top