ready for halo?

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 1ManArmY
Where did you pick up the retail version at?

*cough* Usenet *cough*

And please, before anyone puts a black patch over my eye I am going to get the game when it's officially released (tomorrow?). I want to be able to play multiplayer online with my buds.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca
Why would I be 'anticipating' a game that has worse graphics than the year-old UT2K3, runs incredibly slower than it should, and offers no gameplay that you couldn't find in any modern FPS?

Have you seen Halo in action on a high end PC? What current FPS is all around as good or better than Halo? Yeah it's 2 years old but the graphics and sounds are excellent even by todays standards and the outdoor maps are simply amazing. Plus it has a great single player experience with some of the best AI in any FPS period.

IMO, to compare Halo and UT2K3 is like comparing apples and oranges. UT is totally geared toward online multiplayer where Halo is geared to excel at both. I haven't tried the Halo multiplayer yet so I can't speak for that aspect but from early reviews it's a blast. I guess we'll all know a lot more soon...

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: sandorski
Is there a hardware configuration that can run Halo decently?

runs like crap during battles for me. 1280*768, 4x AA 8X FSAA, rig in sig

maybe cuz your settings was a bit high?

those are the settings i use for all my games but 1280*1024 instead of 1280*768 😉

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

ok so the 4x AA and 8x FSAA is high, but i can't get this game to look nice at all.

i'm running it at 800x600 (! so low) all details, etc maxed.
it looks worse than any game that's come out in a long time. i know something must be wrong.

my computer specs:
p4 2.4c 800MHz FSB
MSI gf4 Ti4200 64MB OC'd to 300/600
1024MB Corsair DDR - dual channel

i know my system isn't the top of the line, but it's well above average i think. the video card is clearly the bottleneck as of now.
but seriously, it shouldn't look like crap.
i'm gonna try taking the clock back to normal and pissing with the settings, but it's still dumb.

i can't get it to look as nice as the screenshots posted on the website, regardless of framerate.
i've tried 1600x1200 max details, etc. of course the framerate is slow on my machine, but it should still look good.

i know the game's not out yet, but i couldn't resist trying it out first. there's no way i'd buy it knowing how it runs on my machine.
i'm not gonna buy it until i hear about some fixes or some ideas about how to make it better

You're not serious are you? You're running a brand new game on a Ti4200 64 MB card with AA and AF and you can't understand why it doesn't look good? Hello McFly!?!?

Halo is a Directx 9 game. You are running a DX 9 game on a Ti4200. Even the 5900ultra FX doesnt run Directx 9 games well.

It's your video card that is the problem, its time to upgrade dude.

Its not Halo's fault that you have an old video card.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Robor
Have you seen Halo in action on a high end PC?

Yes.

What current FPS is all around as good or better than Halo?

By current I assume you mean stretching back two years. BattleField 1942, UT2K3, PlanetSide are the three that leap to mind of games I play and/or have played.

Yeah it's 2 years old but the graphics and sounds are excellent even by todays standards and the outdoor maps are simply amazing.

The graphics are not excellent by today's standards. If you look at today's standards (HL2 and Doom3) -- or even yesterday's standards (UT2K3/JKII), Halo falls a bit short IMO. Sound is sound -- the capabilities have been about the same since Quake. If you want ultra-realistic sounds try out something like Ghost Recon.

Plus it has a great single player experience with some of the best AI in any FPS period.

I don't buy an FPS for a long single player game, that's not the point of them. THE best single player in an FPS I've ever played was in Star Trek: Voyager: Elite Force. Halo's AI is the same as most others, it is good to a point, but increasing difficulty basically only makes the bots more accurate.

IMO, to compare Halo and UT2K3 is like comparing apples and oranges. UT is totally geared toward online multiplayer where Halo is geared to excel at both. I haven't tried the Halo multiplayer yet so I can't speak for that aspect but from early reviews it's a blast. I guess we'll all know a lot more soon...

The problem with that is most gamers will have played Halo on the XBox, so they can get hyped about it on the PC. Hardly anyone is going to be taking a cold never-seen-it approach to the release of the PC version of the game. Halo's success on the PC will have little to do with its merits as a game, unfortunately.

The question of which is geared more towards multiplayer is irrelevant. If halo is going to have to do well multiplayer-wise. I can't recall an FPS recently that wasn't geared towards online play, come to think of it.

 

[Jeff7181]

I can't recall an FPS recently that wasn't geared towards online play, come to think of it.

Unreal 2: The Awakening

Although I'm beta testing the Expanded Multiplayer Edition right now =)

 

[1ManArmY]

you need to set your rasterizer_fps to true and then your FPS will increase to the level of your refresh rate so make sure you set those to.

 

[sep]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: 1ManArmY
Where did you pick up the retail version at?

*cough* Usenet *cough*

And please, before anyone puts a black patch over my eye I am going to get the game when it's officially released (tomorrow?). I want to be able to play multiplayer online with my buds.

Eye, eye, captain.

 

[Robor]

RE: Originally posted by: chsh1ca

I'm too lazy to quote and requote so I'll just summarize...

I've played BF1942 and IMO it does not have better graphics than Halo. It's cool for team based play but IMO Tribes is still king of that arena. UT2K3 is online only or bot play tourney (meh) and although it is pretty I don't get into that style of gameplay. From what I saw on my friends PC (GF4-4200) Planetside has worse graphics than Halo and on top of that is pay for play which I refuse to even consider. As far as HL2 and Doom3, I said "today's standards" - not *maybe* 2-3 months for HL2 or who knows when for D3. Ghost Recon? I've got it with both add-ons and it's okay but it's got so many faults I'm not going to bother going into them. To me the best thing about Ghost Recon is the coop multiplayer feature (which so many current FPS leave out now 🙁 ).

Halo looks and sounds excellent, has a great story, and is much better than the current crop of FPS's in regard to AI (and it's more than better aiming bots). Like I said, I can't speak for the multiplayer yet but reviews are good so far.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I can't recall an FPS recently that wasn't geared towards online play, come to think of it.

Unreal 2: The Awakening

Although I'm beta testing the Expanded Multiplayer Edition right now =)

I'm *REALLY* looking forward to this. Any idea on how far off the multiplayer patch is?

 

[Maskirovka]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

ok so the 4x AA and 8x FSAA is high, but i can't get this game to look nice at all.

i'm running it at 800x600 (! so low) all details, etc maxed.
it looks worse than any game that's come out in a long time. i know something must be wrong.

my computer specs:
p4 2.4c 800MHz FSB
MSI gf4 Ti4200 64MB OC'd to 300/600
1024MB Corsair DDR - dual channel

i know my system isn't the top of the line, but it's well above average i think. the video card is clearly the bottleneck as of now.
but seriously, it shouldn't look like crap.
i'm gonna try taking the clock back to normal and pissing with the settings, but it's still dumb.

i can't get it to look as nice as the screenshots posted on the website, regardless of framerate.
i've tried 1600x1200 max details, etc. of course the framerate is slow on my machine, but it should still look good.

i know the game's not out yet, but i couldn't resist trying it out first. there's no way i'd buy it knowing how it runs on my machine.
i'm not gonna buy it until i hear about some fixes or some ideas about how to make it better

You're not serious are you? You're running a brand new game on a Ti4200 64 MB card with AA and AF and you can't understand why it doesn't look good? Hello McFly!?!?

Halo is a Directx 9 game. You are running a DX 9 game on a Ti4200. Even the 5900ultra FX doesnt run Directx 9 games well.

It's your video card that is the problem, its time to upgrade dude.

Its not Halo's fault that you have an old video card.

wow people really don't read others' posts do they?
i'm aware that my video card is old, but like i said a billion times, i can't get this game to look good with any settings...regardless of framerate.

and on the halflife2 benchmark article on this website, the ti4600 outpreforms the 5900 ultra in certain instances...and my 4200 is overclocked.
benchmark page here
i know there's a difference between the pre-hl2-release benchmark and halo, but c'mon...don't tell me my card is old and worthless...it should run hl2 at a good framerate (dx 8) so why can't it run halo similarly? even though halo is a dx9 game, it has to have compatibility with dx8 cards.

i plan to upgrade my vid card as soon as hl2 goes gold...but my video card isn't the issue.

other than having a dx9 compatible video card, there's nothing i could do to make my image quality higher that i can think of.
and that's really the point. regardless of the settings i've tried, this game looks like crap on my computer. highest settings, highest resolution, full AA and AF. i get about 10fps but the textures look worthless.

the point is, something's wrong...it shouldn't look this bad.

i get high fps in 1024x768 and 800x600, all settings in halo maxed. the point is, the game looks nothing like the screenshots on my computer.

again. for emphasis: i am not talking about fps or performance, only image quality