StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I saw a username on this board that is very, very, uncommon, and it motivated me to ask... does anyone on this board play Halo PC, and if so, is anyone in the remaining active league?

Which username, exactly?

Bean wrote:I saw a username on this board that is very, very, uncommon, and it motivated me to ask... does anyone on this board play Halo PC, and if so, is anyone in the remaining active league?

The most expedient way to find out would have been to PM the user in question.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:

Bean wrote:I saw a username on this board that is very, very, uncommon, and it motivated me to ask... does anyone on this board play Halo PC, and if so, is anyone in the remaining active league?

The most expedient way to find out would have been to PM the user in question.

Yes, but as I wrote in the first post, "does anyone..." is not directed toward Eulogy in particular. I know you are used to dealing with intrusive, pretentious, ignorant liars on these forums, but the thought of PMing the user did, in fact, enter my consciousness. Seeing the username only sparked the idea that perhaps more of the 4000+ registered users on SD.net are involved in the HPC community.

Yes, but over a thousand of the users never do anything, and even more don't post more than several times.

Regarding the OP: Umm, I still do. Occasionally. But I'm not part of any league or clan or whatever.

ED: My player name is Elaro.

...People actually still play the PC port of Halo?!

Yes, they do, and I think KB/M opens up a lot more of the game's potential, as do the standard 5v5 Capture the Flag / Assault types used in competition.

Change your name. You're too close to Mr. Bean

Uraniun235 wrote:...People actually still play the PC port of Halo?!

Given that not everyone OWNS an X-Box, and Halo is still almost as fun to play as Goldeneye...yes.

Molyneux wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:...People actually still play the PC port of Halo?!

Given that not everyone OWNS an X-Box, and Halo is still almost as fun to play as Goldeneye...yes.

I don't own an X-Box either, but I distinctly remember Halo on PC being utterly lame (as well as being a retardedly clunky port).

Uraniun235 wrote:

Molyneux wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:...People actually still play the PC port of Halo?!

Given that not everyone OWNS an X-Box, and Halo is still almost as fun to play as Goldeneye...yes.

I don't own an X-Box either, but I distinctly remember Halo on PC being utterly lame (as well as being a retardedly clunky port).

Clunky, yes...but I quite enjoyed playing it. I haven't reinstalled it since the HD on my laptop had to be replaced, but I probably will eventually, unless I get an XBox 360 in the meantime.

MKSheppard wrote:Change your name. You're too close to Mr. Bean

Damn right he is

He looks as sane as me, if you ask me

Uraniun235 wrote:

Given that not everyone OWNS an X-Box, and Halo is still almost as fun to play as Goldeneye...yes.

I don't own an X-Box either, but I distinctly remember Halo on PC being utterly lame (as well as being a retardedly clunky port).

It's awful, yes. But some people are Halo fanboys and honestly think it has good flow to it and isn't just sold on the back of MC mania. Strange but true.

I couldn't play the PC version for more than an hour. It runs like shit, looks like shit, and mouselook just shows how hopelessly obvious the conefire is. I hear if you make a PC/console shooter, you can just slap more conefire on the PC version and it'll all be sweet as?

EDIT - fixed, sorry U235.

I was amazed at the poor quality of the Halo PC port. I remember comparing its graphics to other contemporary games on contemporary hardware and being stunned at how horrible the Halo graphics looked, and how much slower they ran when compared to (for example) UT2003.

Darth Wong wrote:I was amazed at the poor quality of the Halo PC port. I remember comparing its graphics to other contemporary games on contemporary hardware and being stunned at how horrible the Halo graphics looked, and how much slower they ran when compared to (for example) UT2003.

That's because Halo was supposed to have been on the PC long before it ever made it to the XBox. MS purchased Bungie and then demanded that Halo be the flagship title for the XBox. It only came out on the PC 18 months after its XBox release. And even when originally released on the console it wasn't all that impressive compared to the latest PC shooters, IIRC.

That's why I swore then never to buy any Halo product. The shit they pulled which required you to buy Vista to play Halo 2 on PC, again released over 18 months after it's Xbox debut, just reinforced that.

Flagg wrote:That's why I swore then never to buy any Halo product. The shit they pulled which required you to buy Vista to play Halo 2 on PC, again released over 18 months after it's Xbox debut, just reinforced that.

It's not as if you're missing out on much to begin with.

Amusingly the more rabid a Halo fan, the less they like Halo2 - in my experience.

The only real advantage I can see is coop-netplay... something Halo3 will have anyway. And since Halo3 looks basically exactly the same gameplay-wise, problem solved. By the time it comes out on PC we'll all be playing Stalker 2 and Duke Nukem Forever 2 and Bioshock: the Rand Files, of course.

PS I guess 360 DOES make you pay for the netplay, so the PC version still has this advantage.

Flagg wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I was amazed at the poor quality of the Halo PC port. I remember comparing its graphics to other contemporary games on contemporary hardware and being stunned at how horrible the Halo graphics looked, and how much slower they ran when compared to (for example) UT2003.

That's because Halo was supposed to have been on the PC long before it ever made it to the XBox. MS purchased Bungie and then demanded that Halo be the flagship title for the XBox. It only came out on the PC 18 months after its XBox release. And even when originally released on the console it wasn't all that impressive compared to the latest PC shooters, IIRC.

If it was just dated graphics, I wouldn't have been so pissed off. But despite the dated graphics, it still required state of the art hardware (at the time) in order to run smoothly! This despite looking like ass compared to UT2003, which actually had lower hardware requirements.

Mentally substituting Xbox-equivalent hardware just makes it worse. The port was so bad (clearly rushed, even though it was 18 months later and Xbox hardware is apparently PC-like) that you needed far more grunt to run it at Xbox levels, yet it still looked like an 18 month old console game. You'd think someone would have noticed that textures designed for a low-res television might look a bit shit on a PC...

Stark wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:

Given that not everyone OWNS an X-Box, and Halo is still almost as fun to play as Goldeneye...yes.

I don't own an X-Box either, but I distinctly remember Halo on PC being utterly lame (as well as being a retardedly clunky port).

It's awful, yes. But some people are Halo fanboys and honestly think it has good flow to it and isn't just sold on the back of MC mania. Strange but true.

I couldn't play the PC version for more than an hour. It runs like shit, looks like shit, and mouselook just shows how hopelessly obvious the conefire is. I hear if you make a PC/console shooter, you can just slap more conefire on the PC version and it'll all be sweet as?

EDIT - fixed, sorry U235.

What the hell is conefire?

Darth Wong wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I was amazed at the poor quality of the Halo PC port. I remember comparing its graphics to other contemporary games on contemporary hardware and being stunned at how horrible the Halo graphics looked, and how much slower they ran when compared to (for example) UT2003.

That's because Halo was supposed to have been on the PC long before it ever made it to the XBox. MS purchased Bungie and then demanded that Halo be the flagship title for the XBox. It only came out on the PC 18 months after its XBox release. And even when originally released on the console it wasn't all that impressive compared to the latest PC shooters, IIRC.

If it was just dated graphics, I wouldn't have been so pissed off. But despite the dated graphics, it still required state of the art hardware (at the time) in order to run smoothly! This despite looking like ass compared to UT2003, which actually had lower hardware requirements.

I think I vaguely recall people bitching about how it required alot of power to run. I find that amusing as hell considering how the XBox is essentially a bunch of old hardware in a spiffy looking case with a dumbed down OS.

Molyneux wrote: What the hell is conefire?

Are you serious? It's the FPS-standard weapons-balancing system whereby shots are given a random divergence from the aimpoint when fired, thus producing a 'cone' of 'fire' from the muzzle to targets. Games like Halo PC are worse, as when you fire guns you can see the projectiles appearing away from the crosshair and not even starting at the aimpoint and diverging.

It's the reason the Halo AR is laughable. At 10m the cone of fire is several meters wide, which isn't even geometrically possible. Game balance ftw?

Stark wrote:

Molyneux wrote: What the hell is conefire?

Are you serious? It's the FPS-standard weapons-balancing system whereby shots are given a random divergence from the aimpoint when fired, thus producing a 'cone' of 'fire' from the muzzle to targets. Games like Halo PC are worse, as when you fire guns you can see the projectiles appearing away from the crosshair and not even starting at the aimpoint and diverging.

It's the reason the Halo AR is laughable. At 10m the cone of fire is several meters wide, which isn't even geometrically possible. Game balance ftw?

Ugh...so that's why it was never worth a damn. At least the sniper pistol was fun.