Halo 2 beats box office records

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-11-13 12:19am

Oh, so now my opinion is LESS valid then his? I am pointing out that his personal ancentdotes are meaningless and I further pointed out his willingness to ignore the modability of a game ignores his replayability.

BTW, I have Halo on the PC and am currently working with someone on modding it. I just get tired of the Halo fanwhores who consider Halo the second comming and can't understand what Half-Life was and why Half-Life 2 is something special.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-11-13 01:05am

Alyeska wrote:I just get tired of the Halo fanwhores who consider Halo the second comming...

Particuarly when it's pretty much just the latest party game, in essence.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-11-13 02:11am

I think the PA comic that shed light on Halo's appeal to the bullies who used to beat the nerds up, as well as the nerds, goes a long way to describe why this cool yet wholly unremarkable game is considered to be something amazing, when HL2 will kick the fucking shit out of it, gameplay,graphics, and everything-else wise.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-13 02:19am

Yes, Alyeska because arguing about how your personal experinece is going to change either of your atitudes towards a game....yeesh.

This would be no fucking different if some meaningless dipshit keeps crapping on Star Trek at every point that someone says they like Trek. You don't care for that so stop everytime someone brings up Halo in anything of decent light, go "DIE HALO LOVER!!!"

It's literally a trend here.

Hell, Vympel's response is better then that debacle a few posts back.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2004-11-13 02:24am

Admiral Valdemar wrote: Does that negate the HL2 sales going just as high? No? Thank you.

Not to cover my ass or anything, especially busting into your rebuttal, however, I will say that I cannot honestly predict the sales of any of these games. Half-Life 2 could very well go on to be the world's biggest selling game of all time.

I don't care what Halo did (you'd have to be damn gullible to still pay full smack for ANY game a year or even two after the release and yes, I have seen how it was lapped up by Xbox fans given they had nothing else going at the time), I'm pretty sure HL2 will rival, if not, outsell it on the grand scale here.

First off, how is any owner 'damn gullible' to pay what's considered full price for a product several years after it's release? It's still new isn't it? Like myself, I had never played Halo until the end of this summer. I didn't think it was the greatest game off all time, but it was definitely an enjoyable game, and I would have paid full price for a copy if Halo 2 wasn't on it's way out. Though I will question, given my previous statement, your claims to how Half-Life 2 is going to outsell Halo 2.

We run into a problem with this comparison, and it's a very major factor. What it takes to play the respective games. For Halo 2 an individual needs an XBox system. For Half-Life 2 you need a computer. Herein starts the rift. It's pretty obvious that there are more computers in homes then there are XBox's. So there already is a larger general basis for a consumer base. It is not as cut and dry though. An individual still has to have a computer capable of running the game. That in itself narrows it down dramatically.

I would like to see the system requirements, but just to take a stab at this, I'm sure it's still going to be pretty damn taxing on a system even at it's standard level. Going on Doom 3 (while this might be a major leap, the footage of Half-Life 2 I've seen looks to be as massive) that game severly hurt my computer. I might not have poured as much money as some of the local denizens have, I felt fairly confident that I was going to run Doom 3 at a fairly decent level as to enjoy the game. What it ended up doing was being a waste of money, because I still had to take away many things that helped create a game that was expected. I probably put as much into my computer as an XBox would cost me. However, I can't play the latest greatest game at their fullest. Only half assed. Not to mention, I have to wonder if what I have is compatible, and if it will work correctly. With Halo 2 I pop it into my XBox and play away.

Halo may have staying power. But guess what? So does Half-Life.

That adds validity, how? It doesn't. It shows both titles have proven to display the ability to form a loyal fan base and garner attention long after it's release even when pitted against other titles.

EDIT: I almost forgot. I don't give a shit about units sold anyway. HL2 will still be the superior game and I'd put money on it trouncing Halo 2 at the awards much like the original did to, well, pretty much everything. It's not like a game or film sucks if it hasn't broken "box office" records.

Now the true colors of the debater have reared thier ugly head. Which is the gist I'm getting from BOTH sides of this crowd. It's basically down to fan whore wankery. This entire thread is about 'box office' records. Will Half-Life 2 be a superior game? Hell if I know. For a game that keeps getting pushed back like nerd in a school yard, it's hard to tell anything. Even Halo 2 got pushed back. Although it's pretty obvious how much pride Bungie takes in thier product, because they finally nailed a date down and said they would have the game wrapped up and out for it. In fact, outside of the Half-Life 'fanbase', how anticipated is this sequel? Not very. No one outside of computer geeks and HL fans even mention this game. I don't go to the video game store, the local Target, or the Wal-Mart and see Half Life 2 plastered everywhere. I don't go to work and hear my co workers talking about Gordon Freeman. Is there a midnight madness planned for HL 2? No. Halo 2 however, even though I wasn't a big fan on the original, I was in line with over two hundred people at my mall's EB to pick it up, just to make sure I got my copy. The other gaming store upstairs had about a hundred, the EB on the south end of town had a few hundred. This was all in a town that's ranked like the fifth biggest in Alabama. Not very impressive a town now is it? Yet it turned numbers like that for a game, that everyone here is claiming will be nothing when another title hits. While this is a point I argued for the better part of this year, I am now retracting my statment. I will now concede this point. Halo 2 is quite possible the MOST anticipated game of all time. Will Half-Life 2 be a superior game? Hell if I know. Even when they do finally release it, I still won't get it. At least not anytime soon if ever. Do I enjoy Halo 2? Hell yes. I see myself playing through that many times over. Not to mention multiplayer. That's a humongous draw in of itself.

From what I heard off mates that got Doom 3, it was a bit of a resource hog. HL2 will run on my PC despite it being over 3 years old, you just won't get it running as nice as on a top buck machine coming out now. Valve made it their mission to have HL2 be just as nice to the hardware as HL but still have that extra kick if you've got the power.

How will it be though? Are we talking a game with regular old puzzles on something that looks like a PSX launch title? Not to mention will that effect how many enemies you can have on screen, along with any other special effects? Just to be honest, like I said by seeing the E3 trailer alone, Half-Life 2 has some insane shit on it. Doom 3 is awesome if you can run it at close to it's potential, but once I have to make it turn a lot of shit off, and it still laggs, that's a problem. If Half-Life 2 has to lose a lot of touches that are added in, then it's not really the same game. Regardless, it's all speculation on Half-Life 2's part, so I know I can't, and it's probably safe to assume that there aren' many people that can make a hard deciding factor on this case.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2004-11-13 02:38am

Alyeska wrote:And yet all you need to play CS is Half-Life. Strange how that works...

Incorrect. I bought the retail version of Counter Strike. Don't own Half-Life as far as the PC goes. And unless they dumbed down the PS2 version for some reason, it never struck me as an amazing game. Just a barely inventive one.

BTW, Half-Life didn't age horribly. They even updated the game with the High-Definition pack in 2001 (which put its graphics back near the current standard) and Half-Life is getting ANOTHER boost with Source.

Yes, it did. It looks like shit. It's always looked like shit, even for it's time. An add on HD pack, and ANY boost isn't the original game. Halo is still the original game, and looks damn good even three years and lacking some of the graphic boosts that Gamecube titles have always enjoyed. Namely bump mapping, which makes Halo 2 look a hell of a lot different.

Its fully ported AND there are mod groups who are going to take advantage of the new engine and fully remake the original Half-Life in the totaly new engine using the graphics capabilities.

That doesn't mean it has staying power, nor does it mean the original is better on a whole. This goes to show it has a loyal fan base that feel that the game in it's original for is imperfect. Thousands of gamers enjoy Halo as it is.

And what can Halo do?

Here we go with the bells and whistles. A mod does not a game make.

Oh, they can add extra firepower, pop some enemies into the level, and send a Warthog into places it shouldn't be. Where is the map making, where are the REAL mods?

Actually there are mods. If you have a modded XBox you can download all types of new maps and game styles to play. Hell, I played one at a friends that was the 'guess' work of how Halo 2 would act. Changed the weapons and everything. If I'm not mistaken they use Studio Max and Photoshop. Before you go and try to one up me with the 'modded' XBox, let me remind you, Half-Life and it's mods still have to work on a computer, and any extra work needed for it (i.e. PATCHES!!!) would basically be the same thing. Hell, I got Blue Shift from Stravo this summer, and the damn thing never worked right. After several patches from Sierra's sight, and updating my graphics card, it still had some shitty graphic error, and lagged to no god damn end. Halo, goes into my cd tray, then the tray goes into my XBox, and a few minutes later I'm a happy little fragger. Killtacular.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2004-11-13 02:59am

Funny how the most recent add-on occured THREE years after Half-Life came out. Don't you think people were playing through Half-Life again because they got NEW graphics to play around with?

This just shows how full of shit you are. Half-Life is six years old and is still rated as one of the best games ever and also acknowledged for its contribution to the gaming world.

Alyeska wrote:Counter Strike does count as part of Half-Life because mods rely on the games they are a part of. Mods SELL games and ensure replayability. When you have the mod you are bound to play the original as well.

First off, by this statement that means games like Jedi Outcast are Quake III games. WTF! It's the engine used in Counter Strike. It's not a Half-Life based game. No where in Counter Strike is there Gordon Freeman and scientists trying to survive an alien attack with an opposing force and Barney's running all over. Same engine, totally different game.

Yet another advantage Half-Life has over Halo. Bungie never bothered to update the original.

That's a fucked up statment. In the time of three years, Bungie worked on getting Halo onto the PC, and was able to make Halo 2. Valve on the other hand keeps pushing thier shit back, while the 'mod' community, which was in full effect for Halo as well, made free products for them. Don't forget, the mod community made Counter Strike, and that still didn't sell the Half-Life product.

You don't look at a game bassed purely on its original aspect when its contantly updated. Shall we grade Starcraft right now bassed purely on the original, ignore Brood Wars and all the patches?

Then this off topic ranting that keeps going on is pointless and I accept your concession in full. The original topic was 'box office' sales. Will Half-Life 2 outsell and/or amass the total units sold and dollar amount that Halo 2 did. That is the topic. Others have brought up the validity of the games being superior over another, and now it's down to the originals going against each other. However, you single handedly have said now that you can't look at the original game. If the original is constantly updated, then it means the originally was flawed. I see your example in Starcraft, and yes, we should. Would not Brood Wars be an expansion, or a quasi sequal? Patches?!? You brought patches into this? Patches are the most glaring point that computer games are either flawed when released or that there's no way they can work as intended originally across all platforms like they try to advertise. Let me shift this over to the console side where I'm more comfortable and more knowledgable. I grade the Mario Bros. series as a series, but also as individual games. I feel Mario Bros. 3 is one of the best games of all time. Does that mean the original is suddenly elevated? Hell no. That's a horrid piece of shit when you go back and look at it. It's fun as hell to play, but it's definitely dated. Colony Wars originally was an incrediable game that people still play, I still own, and many love. The sequels were not as good as a follow up. The originals should not need to rely on what comes later. If they are not strong enough at the starting gate, then it's not really staying power now is it?

And nice red herrings. Paying to get Half-Life now is dirt cheap. Loosing CD Keys to others hardly ever occurs and its NEVER happened to me and I've played CS enough for it to be unhealthy.

A red herring yes, but it's an interesting point. I don't need shit to play Halo. Just an XBox. If anything goes wrong, I don't have the right patches, or my drivers don't agree with the game, I have a piss poor paper weight. Barring that my XBox melts, Halo runs just fine. Running Riot.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-11-13 03:05am

Dude, mellow out. You're getting pissed off at comments written quite some time ago.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-11-13 05:25am

For comparison of requirements:

According to Halflife2.net, HL2 will Require:

Minimum Requirements

* 1.2 GHz Processor
* 256MB RAM
* DirectX 7 level graphics card
* Windows 2000/XP/ME/98

Recommended System

* 2.4 GHz Processor
* 512MB RAM
* DirectX 9 level graphics card
* Windows 2000/XP

Compared to Doom 3 (from back of the box):

Windows 2000/XP
Pentium4 1.5gig or Athlon XP1500
DirectX 9 graphics card
384mb ram

So HL2 should run easier than D3

And as for Halo on PC (from Gamespy)

Minimum:
933 MHz processor,
128 MB RAM,
Windows 98/ME/2000/XP, DirectX 9.0,
32 MB DirectX-compatible video card,

So it looks like HL2 is going to be half way between Halo and D3 in terms of system requirements but miles ahead in terms of engine quality.

EDIT: link for Halo requirements from GS:
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/halo-combat-evolved/

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-11-13 07:38am

Incorrect. I bought the retail version of Counter Strike. Don't own Half-Life as far as the PC goes. And unless they dumbed down the PS2 version for some reason, it never struck me as an amazing game. Just a barely inventive one.

Minor note, the retail versions of Counter-Strike was just HL minus the singleplayer and with the ability to play any mod
Second, yes the Console port WAS dumbed down

*snip aurgments on both sides about graphic ability

May I point out the fact that HL remains a heavly modded Quake engine verses a brand new Engine with HALO?
Yes it did age baddley but then Quake 1 engine was released in June 1996
Considering I don't have to wince just looking at the graphics when I play it I call that pretty good graphic aging
Halo still has yet to truely age(Except in the terrian aspect which was already old when it was released)

That doesn't mean it has staying power, nor does it mean the original is better on a whole. This goes to show it has a loyal fan base that feel that the game in it's original for is imperfect. Thousands of gamers enjoy Halo as it is.

Thats semantic bullshit, how many folks will go back and play "Ol-school" Halo once Halo 2 has had a couple of months after the market(And gone through a Holiday season or two?)
Meanwhile how many folks keep going back to Half-Life and its numerous mods?
Right now there are over 35246 servers with over 74280 players playing Half Life... THIS INSTANT, Peak hours see numbers close to 200,000 which has peaked at half a million in the past

And what can Halo do?

Here we go with the bells and whistles. A mod does not a game make.

But a mod does make a game go on, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, The Specialists, And the ever amazing Natural Selection all from a little game releaed in November 1998 VS Halo in 2001 in the same month, sure its a fun game... But its the SAME Game

*snipe a fun story about Blue Shift Piracy and the fun fact that Halo has mods, only the ones you make for yourself

First off if Stravo ever used the Blue Shift CD-Key it won't work for you period... second if Halo had mods(Ones not created by you playable only by you on a special xbox) were then is the publicity for any of them? The news-talk about them? Has Bungie ever mentioned ONE of them(VS EA constantly hyping up every single Mod made for the Battle-Field Engie or Value acutaly hosting a MEETING for mod makers and giving them extra toys to play around with)

Oh and I think I toss in here real quick a mention of the They Hunger series released for Half Life back in the last half of 99 earily 2000 which had gameplay as long as Half Life but instead of head-crab zombies and marines you had acutal Zombies and other odditys in a nice pastoral setting

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-11-13 07:53am

Incorrect. I bought the retail version of Counter Strike. Don't own Half-Life as far as the PC goes. And unless they dumbed down the PS2 version for some reason, it never struck me as an amazing game. Just a barely inventive one.

Well, that was silly. Counter-Strike was available for download free long before, and after (is it still?) it was put out on retail.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-11-13 10:19am

thecreech wrote: So if you are talking about pure game play then Halo has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has more staying power (Halo is still in the top 20 games sales regularly and sometimes end up in the top ten) and it has done it without mods.

Maybe the fact that it's still the only decent FPS on a console and one of the best games on the Xbox, with almost 0 real competition has something to do with it selling so well. It's not the gameplay, it's the lack of competition, want proof? look at the quick and painful death it got when it was released on the PC with some real competition.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-13 10:25am

Shogoki wrote:
thecreech wrote: So if you are talking about pure game play then Halo has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has more staying power (Halo is still in the top 20 games sales regularly and sometimes end up in the top ten) and it has done it without mods.
Maybe the fact that it's still the only decent FPS on a console and one of the best games on the Xbox, with almost 0 real competition has something to do with it selling so well. It's not the gameplay, it's the lack of competition, want proof? look at the quick and painful death it got when it was released on the PC with some real competition.

I would venture more in less competition but the fact the PC version was a substandard product.

I don't believe that on the PC it would've garnered the accolades it did on the X-Box, but let's take in the full picture and really give it due.

It sucked hard balls on the PC given piss poor porting it had gotten.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-11-13 10:34am

Ghost Rider wrote:
Shogoki wrote:
thecreech wrote: So if you are talking about pure game play then Halo has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has more staying power (Halo is still in the top 20 games sales regularly and sometimes end up in the top ten) and it has done it without mods.
Maybe the fact that it's still the only decent FPS on a console and one of the best games on the Xbox, with almost 0 real competition has something to do with it selling so well. It's not the gameplay, it's the lack of competition, want proof? look at the quick and painful death it got when it was released on the PC with some real competition.
I would venture more in less competition but the fact the PC version was a substandard product.

I don't believe that on the PC it would've garnered the accolades it did on the X-Box, but let's take in the full picture and really give it due.

It sucked hard balls on the PC given piss poor porting it had gotten.

Did it occur to you that it may have been fiixed if it looked like it was going to help the sales? The release BF1942 was a god awful mess of bugs. Do you think EA would have spent several hundred thousand dollars for an entire maintenence team over several years to keep fixing it if it wasn't going to sell? If it wasnt for the patches it would have been dead a long time ago, no patch could have saved halo, i have a powerful enough PC to play it smoothly, and we even had a 20 men Halo LAN PT, we were playing CS and BF42 by the end of it.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-13 10:36am

Shogoki wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Shogoki wrote: Maybe the fact that it's still the only decent FPS on a console and one of the best games on the Xbox, with almost 0 real competition has something to do with it selling so well. It's not the gameplay, it's the lack of competition, want proof? look at the quick and painful death it got when it was released on the PC with some real competition.
I would venture more in less competition but the fact the PC version was a substandard product.

I don't believe that on the PC it would've garnered the accolades it did on the X-Box, but let's take in the full picture and really give it due.

It sucked hard balls on the PC given piss poor porting it had gotten.
Did it occur to you that it may have been fiixed if it looked like it was going to help the sales? The release BF1942 was a god awful mess of bugs. Do you think EA would have spent several hundred thousand dollars for an entire maintenence team over several years to keep fixing it if it wasn't going to sell?

Yes, and it still doesn't discount the fact it was a fucking mess of a PORT.

So stop trying to go "You think it would've sold as good?"

No, it wouldn't have. But add in that it was a shitty port DOES NOT HELP.

Because as I remember BF1942 wasn't a port that others could have already played...thus fixing it to make it up to standards of the original is not in question now was it?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-11-13 10:48am

Every Halo review I read pretty much ignored the bug issues all together. They mentioned it required a beefy system to run and because of that graphics that should have been available were more difficult. Barring that they compared Halo to the rest of the games and Halo was nothing spectacular. They pointed out Halo was funner on the PC because you can actually SNIPE now and react faster, but all in all Halo was just another shooter.

The Halo series is popular because its effectively the only decently done FPS on consoles today. A few others exist, but they aren’t quite the same and don’t get the multiplayer down right. Halo is to the X-Box right now as Half-Life was to the PC. Its forcing people to change direction on the X-Box. However, when you compare Halo to other FPS games it comes off as nothing more then average. Been there, done that. Its fun, but its not unique except maybe in story.

I would have to compare Halo to Elite Force 2. Fun to play, pretty graphics, but shallow and short.

Of course if the X-Box becomes more integrated with computers like Microsoft is thinking with X-Box 2, we might see some changes in the Halo series. Bungie isn’t stupid with the games they make. They know what they have on their hands and its their cash cow.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-13 11:02am

Cal Wright: Jesus Christ, we put forth our views on the matter and you go about making a doctoral thesis on our opinions!

I don't care if you think HL looked shit, as this simply exemplifies the fact that "flashy and shiny" wins over Halo fans more than other more important aspects.

But if you want to be deluded into thinking Halo is half of what Half-Life is, go ahead. I'm not to stop you. I just prefer my award winning games to be worthy of awards, not frat party fanwankery.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-11-13 11:22am

Hmm, following my previous "party game" comment in regards to Halo, I would honestly have to compare as the X Box's equivalent of GoldenEye for the Nintendo 64 or Super Smash Bros Melee for the Game Cube: an excellent, remarkable party game, but nothing else more.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-11-13 01:10pm

Here is something to consider. Half-Life 2 was created with modding in mind. The level and apparent ease in which you can mod Half-Life 2 is such that someone could completely remake Halo and Halo 2 in the Source engine.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-11-13 04:46pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Hmm, following my previous "party game" comment in regards to Halo, I would honestly have to compare as the X Box's equivalent of GoldenEye for the Nintendo 64 or Super Smash Bros Melee for the Game Cube: an excellent, remarkable party game, but nothing else more.

Hey, I had a great time playing the single-player modes in Goldeneye and SSMB.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-11-13 05:42pm

Yeah, but that doesn't really change that both are regarded as pretty much party games, like how Halo and Halo 2 are.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2004-11-14 02:03pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Dude, mellow out. You're getting pissed off at comments written quite some time ago.

Dude, shut the fuckup. Your the biggest pre fucking madonna on this board, and you stick your nose in every conversation with nothing constructive to say. Your also a fucking moron, those ocmments where not quite some time ago. They were the fucking day before. So shut the hell up and sit down, I'm tired of hearing your pussy foot retorts in every thread on this board.

2000AD wrote: Recommended System

* 2.4 GHz Processor
* 512MB RAM
* DirectX 9 level graphics card
* Windows 2000/XP

These are what I'll focus on. I blew Doom 3's minimum req. out of the water, but it looks like shit to get it to run smooth enough. That's part of the reason I was glad to hear the XBox was getting a version. Either way.

Mr.Bean wrote: Minor note, the retail versions of Counter-Strike was just HL minus the singleplayer and with the ability to play any mod
Second, yes the Console port WAS dumbed down

Then it's not Half-Life. If you can't play the game HALF-LIFE or any of the benefits of having the game, then it's not the game.

Thats semantic bullshit, how many folks will go back and play "Ol-school" Halo once Halo 2 has had a couple of months after the market(And gone through a Holiday season or two?)
Meanwhile how many folks keep going back to Half-Life and its numerous mods?
Right now there are over 35246 servers with over 74280 players playing Half Life... THIS INSTANT, Peak hours see numbers close to 200,000 which has peaked at half a million in the past

Works both ways man. Once Half-Life 2 comes out how many will go back? You yell semantics at me, then spew this shit? It's the same damn thing. In fact it's easier to go pop in the original Halo then it is to have to reinstall any of the old mods, and go through the bull shit of getting them going. I think something important a lot of people here are forgetting. Not everyone that has PC games or thier mods are computer experts. I'm pretty good with handling them, but when major problems come up I can get perplexed. I personally know a lot of people like that too. I don't re install my old Quakes or Counter Strike for a reason. I don't want to waste the time or go through the bull shit of getting them all back on, just to re live some nastalgia. Although, just for example, I have three versions of Mario 3. I can pop them in and play quite easily. It's not so much an argument of how good the game is. It's also going to come down to how easy it is to pick it up and play. Here a console wins hands down.

But a mod does make a game go on, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, The Specialists, And the ever amazing Natural Selection all from a little game releaed in November 1998 VS Halo in 2001 in the same month, sure its a fun game... But its the SAME Game

Counter-Strike didn't make Half-Life go on for me. I bought the retail version. The only reason I have a copy of Half-Life is because I found it in the bargain bin for the PS2. It was fun co-op for a while. Heh. I still have fun with the original Quake III. Perfect Dark is another example. Same game, still fun.

First off if Stravo ever used the Blue Shift CD-Key it won't work for you period...

Apparently I'm not the only on this board who's not a big computer expert. I don't feel so alone now.

It installed, it ran, just piss poorly. Kept having some damn graphic error. I even downloaded the 'patches' from the web site, and they still didn't work. I guess I'll go play Halo.

second if Halo had mods(Ones not created by you playable only by you on a special xbox) were then is the publicity for any of them?

Where's the publicity for the Half-Life mods? Word of mouth. On this board. Hell both get mentioned in the magazines. So your at a dead end now. Getting a specialized XBox is easier then making a regular PC work.

The news-talk about them? Has Bungie ever mentioned ONE of them(VS EA constantly hyping up every single Mod made for the Battle-Field Engie or Value acutaly hosting a MEETING for mod makers and giving them extra toys to play around with)

Considering EA is a ginormous company trying to get a good foot hold on the PC in a market that's saturated with not only FPS' but WWII sims to boot, it's no wonder it's shoved down our throats at every turn. Valve knows it needs that mod community for it's games to be worth a shit. Not only that, they've had longer to get thier collective ass together on it.

Bungie does however heavily support the makers of Red vs. Blue, encouraging the community to go out and be inventive.

Oh and I think I toss in here real quick a mention of the They Hunger series released for Half Life back in the last half of 99 earily 2000 which had gameplay as long as Half Life but instead of head-crab zombies and marines you had acutal Zombies and other odditys in a nice pastoral setting

They what? Never actually heard of that. Where's the News talk and press on that?

Well, that was silly. Counter-Strike was available for download free long before, and after (is it still?) it was put out on retail.

Hmm. I guess you missed the part where I said I didn't have Half-Life, which is needed to download Counter-Strike. I also didn't know you could download it. I had a friend who had told me about it. Not to mention, as many times as things fuck up, I would have had to download it a few times just to get it back, since the time frame when I was playing was before I had a CD burner, so I would have had no way of keeping a copy when the HD goes down.

Shogoki wrote:Maybe the fact that it's still the only decent FPS on a console and one of the best games on the Xbox, with almost 0 real competition has something to do with it selling so well. It's not the gameplay, it's the lack of competition, want proof? look at the quick and painful death it got when it was released on the PC with some real competition.

It's not the only FPS on a console. It may be one of few on the XBox, but it still has to compete against other games, not just the genre. It also got little to no marketing for the PC release. Hell, Half-Life got a shit load of publicity when it was released on PS2. They did a major over haul on the entire game and it still just went down the drain. Ouch.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cal Wright: Jesus Christ, we put forth our views on the matter and you go about making a doctoral thesis on our opinions!

I don't care if you think HL looked shit, as this simply exemplifies the fact that "flashy and shiny" wins over Halo fans more than other more important aspects.

But if you want to be deluded into thinking Halo is half of what Half-Life is, go ahead. I'm not to stop you. I just prefer my award winning games to be worthy of awards, not frat party fanwankery.

Your the ones acting as if your opinions are fact. Sorry, nothing to back it up with, so you got treated as a fact with no basis to back it up.

I gave my opinion and stated it as such. You however came forth and claimed what would be.

I've always though Half-Life looked like shit. It's physics were nothing impressive either. Quake is still fun in any incarnation. Now that is my opinion. Not to mention, I'm not a big Halo fan. I think the game is pretty damn fun, and I did pick up Halo 2 which I thoroughly enjoy, but I'm not addicted to it. If I was 'won over' with shiny shit, do you think I'd still play my NES? Why would I go hunt down a 32X add on for my Genesis, only a year ago? I'm saying it looks like shit because everyone on here is acting like it was a graphical marvel, which for it's time it wasn't. Not to mention the PS2 over haul it got still looked like shit.

I also like my games to be fun, and enjoyable. Not boring ass push crate here and crawl. I have also found I enjoy the party ruckus of everyone sitting together rather then cooped up in my room staring at a little box.

Alyeska wrote:Here is something to consider. Half-Life 2 was created with modding in mind. The level and apparent ease in which you can mod Half-Life 2 is such that someone could completely remake Halo and Halo 2 in the Source engine.

So basically they're not trying to make a decent award winning game. They're just out to make something so they can get other people to do it for them. That in itself is brilliant. However that doesn't make it a good game.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-14 02:30pm

No one here said HL was a graphical marvel, we did say that it wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. It was functional and was able to pull it off at the time. Of course it looks like shit today, but then name one game from '97-98 that even comes close to what we have today. I hope you see my point.

In another few years, Halo, Doom 3 and MGS3 will look passé. That doesn't in any way shape or form mean they were crap at the time or even some time after.

But again, I didn't care for the graphics. That wasn't what made HL the game it was. Anyone who says otherwise missed the bigger picture and is probably fascinated by shiny tinfoil.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-11-14 02:41pm

Cal Wright wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Here is something to consider. Half-Life 2 was created with modding in mind. The level and apparent ease in which you can mod Half-Life 2 is such that someone could completely remake Halo and Halo 2 in the Source engine.
So basically they're not trying to make a decent award winning game. They're just out to make something so they can get other people to do it for them. That in itself is brilliant. However that doesn't make it a good game.

I don't think it's physicially possible to twist that statement anymore, without it breaking. Jesus Fuck, Cal Wright.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-11-14 03:00pm

Cal, thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Yes, Valve was so lazy they spent 5 years doing nothing.

For fucks sake, their game is 20 hours long, and thats LONG for a FPS. However, they saw how important modding was and wanted to create something that people could use to do with as they please. I point out that modding is so much a part of HL2 that you can litteraly recreate other games with it and you try and insult them for that? Modding tools are often more difficult to make then a good game. Valve actualy bothers to create a game people will love AND to create something that can be modded and played for years to come.