Halo PC multiplayer dead?

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-03-12 10:56am

So i just decided i give Halo a second spin, see if they've fixed the awfully laggy multiplayer, and checked The All Seeing Eye for servers, here comes the surprise: There's only 135 servers, just about 230 people playing, and of course 1/3 of those servers don’t even have playable pings...

I don't think I’ve ever seen such a big name game with such a high multiplayer emphasis die out so quickly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-12 12:44pm

Maybe because the coding is shit, and you need a fucking P4-3200 with a Radeon 9600 to get decent performance out of it?

Laird · Post by **Laird** » 2004-03-12 02:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:Maybe because the coding is shit, and you need a fucking P4-3200 with a Radeon 9600 to get decent performance out of it?

Thats funny...my dell inspiron notebook with it's 2.2ghz celeron and 64mb Mobile radeon play it just fine.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-03-12 03:01pm

The lowest specs it says can work, lets you play it online, even if it doesn't look all that great. It still works.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2004-03-12 03:14pm

Hopefully the release of the Halo Editing Kit will give the HPC community a shot in the arm-check the forums at halomods.com, for example, and you'll see there's no shortage of people willing to mod for the game.

Of course, the longer the HEK takes to be released, the more disinterest will grow, so i'm hoping we'll see some developements soon.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-12 03:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:Maybe because the coding is shit, and you need a fucking P4-3200 with a Radeon 9600 to get decent performance out of it?

Considering that the original Xbox code worked just fine on what is essentially a PIII 733Mhz with a pumped up GeForce 3, I blame the DirectX 9 graphical effects that Gearbox added (which do almost nothing to enhance the game at that). Considering the length of time Gearbox had to work on the port, it is totally inexcusable that they released it in such poor condition.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-03-12 05:35pm

The Kernel wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Maybe because the coding is shit, and you need a fucking P4-3200 with a Radeon 9600 to get decent performance out of it?
Considering that the original Xbox code worked just fine on what is essentially a PIII 733Mhz with a pumped up GeForce 3, I blame the DirectX 9 graphical effects that Gearbox added (which do almost nothing to enhance the game at that). Considering the length of time Gearbox had to work on the port, it is totally inexcusable that they released it in such poor condition.

Actualy most of the fault lies on Bungie. Before Microsoft scooped up the company the game was completely designed for the PC. Then Bungie gets bought. They burn the PC code and piss on the ashes forcing Gearbox to make a direct port rather then build on the original PC code for optimization and proper network play (Coop anyone?).

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-03-12 06:08pm

3rd Impact wrote:Hopefully the release of the Halo Editing Kit will give the HPC community a shot in the arm-check the forums at halomods.com, for example, and you'll see there's no shortage of people willing to mod for the game.

Of course, the longer the HEK takes to be released, the more disinterest will grow, so i'm hoping we'll see some developements soon.

Once a game goes so low I don’t see it coming back, and Halo’s popularity has dropped hard (CoD, for example, is only averagely popular, and it has +2500 servers, +11000 players), there are people willing to do mods for pretty much every game available, but if there’s no one there to play it, they lose interest.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-12 08:01pm

Alyeska wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Maybe because the coding is shit, and you need a fucking P4-3200 with a Radeon 9600 to get decent performance out of it?
Considering that the original Xbox code worked just fine on what is essentially a PIII 733Mhz with a pumped up GeForce 3, I blame the DirectX 9 graphical effects that Gearbox added (which do almost nothing to enhance the game at that). Considering the length of time Gearbox had to work on the port, it is totally inexcusable that they released it in such poor condition.
Actualy most of the fault lies on Bungie. Before Microsoft scooped up the company the game was completely designed for the PC. Then Bungie gets bought. They burn the PC code and piss on the ashes forcing Gearbox to make a direct port rather then build on the original PC code for optimization and proper network play (Coop anyone?).

The game wasn't nearly finished by the time they switched platforms to the Xbox. Besides, you are talking about a system that runs the NT Kernel and uses the DirectX API; hardly a detriment to porting to the PC. Other companies have been able to do Xbox->PC ports (or vice-versa) in very little time and made them perfectly playable (without all the usual port issues). I don't see why you think Bungie is to blame for switching platforms more than a year before the release date, especially since we're talking about HARDWARE issues, not gameplay idiosyncracies.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-03-12 08:12pm

Also add in the fact that, in comparison to the multitude of PC FPSs, Halo is actually kind of bad. Really, it doesn't compare with some of the stuff out there. It was only so big on XBox because there was no other competition.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-03-12 08:32pm

The Kernel wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
The Kernel wrote: Considering that the original Xbox code worked just fine on what is essentially a PIII 733Mhz with a pumped up GeForce 3, I blame the DirectX 9 graphical effects that Gearbox added (which do almost nothing to enhance the game at that). Considering the length of time Gearbox had to work on the port, it is totally inexcusable that they released it in such poor condition.
Actualy most of the fault lies on Bungie. Before Microsoft scooped up the company the game was completely designed for the PC. Then Bungie gets bought. They burn the PC code and piss on the ashes forcing Gearbox to make a direct port rather then build on the original PC code for optimization and proper network play (Coop anyone?).
The game wasn't nearly finished by the time they switched platforms to the Xbox. Besides, you are talking about a system that runs the NT Kernel and uses the DirectX API; hardly a detriment to porting to the PC. Other companies have been able to do Xbox->PC ports (or vice-versa) in very little time and made them perfectly playable (without all the usual port issues). I don't see why you think Bungie is to blame for switching platforms more than a year before the release date, especially since we're talking about HARDWARE issues, not gameplay idiosyncracies.

Actually Halo was very near completion before it was ported to X-Box. It was considered by many media outlets less then three months from release. So Bungie had an essientialy complete PC code before Microsoft bought them out. Why didn't Gearbox use that to optimize the graphics and put in coop? Coop is something Bungie is known for, they sure as hell had it in their PC version. Yet they gave none of this to Gearbox, they forced them to port the game.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-03-12 08:34pm

Super-Gagme wrote:Also add in the fact that, in comparison to the multitude of PC FPSs, Halo is actually kind of bad. Really, it doesn't compare with some of the stuff out there. It was only so big on XBox because there was no other competition.

Your comparing it to the wrong titles. Go back two years ago and compare it to the current titles. Just a little better then you currently rate it.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-03-12 10:06pm

Alyeska wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:Also add in the fact that, in comparison to the multitude of PC FPSs, Halo is actually kind of bad. Really, it doesn't compare with some of the stuff out there. It was only so big on XBox because there was no other competition.
Your comparing it to the wrong titles. Go back two years ago and compare it to the current titles. Just a little better then you currently rate it.

Just to name one, there was Giants: Citizen Kabuto, which i believe beats Halo in all accounts, including SP experience.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-13 12:25am

I'm very happy that I'll be living in an apartment next year with two Xboxes when Halo 2 comes out.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-13 01:18am

Laird wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Maybe because the coding is shit, and you need a fucking P4-3200 with a Radeon 9600 to get decent performance out of it?
Thats funny...my dell inspiron notebook with it's 2.2ghz celeron and 64mb Mobile radeon play it just fine.

Maybe your definition of "just fine" is different from mine. I don't see why I should have to turn off numerous graphic features just to get an FPS game with middling graphics to run acceptably on a Celeron-2.4GHz machine with an FX5600 graphics card, which is more firepower than your notebook has.

On the exact same hardware, UT2003 blows it away for performance and graphics. And you can only use the "it's two years old" excuse for so long before it wears thin. A two year old game should normally run very well on reasonably current hardware, albeit without the latest features.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-03-13 01:50pm

Darth Wong wrote:And you can only use the "it's two years old" excuse for so long before it wears thin. A two year old game should normally run very well on reasonably current hardware, albeit without the latest features.

Agreed. Thats the only real mistake Gearbox made. While they improved the graphics they didn't optimize them very well. Only a handful of machines can run full graphics options without slowdown.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-03-13 01:51pm

...Because anyone who loves HALO multiplayer owns an X-Box, and has LAN parties with friends.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-03-13 01:54pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:...Because anyone who loves HALO multiplayer owns an X-Box, and has LAN parties with friends.

Blow me. I wouldn't be caught dead using a piece of shit controller for a FPS.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-03-13 02:05pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:...Because anyone who loves HALO multiplayer owns an X-Box, and has LAN parties with friends.

Obviosly is the only LAN parties in which it gets played.

Laird · Post by **Laird** » 2004-03-13 02:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Laird wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Maybe because the coding is shit, and you need a fucking P4-3200 with a Radeon 9600 to get decent performance out of it?
Thats funny...my dell inspiron notebook with it's 2.2ghz celeron and 64mb Mobile radeon play it just fine.
Maybe your definition of "just fine" is different from mine. I don't see why I should have to turn off numerous graphic features just to get an FPS game with middling graphics to run acceptably on a Celeron-2.4GHz machine with an FX5600 graphics card, which is more firepower than your notebook has.

On the exact same hardware, UT2003 blows it away for performance and graphics. And you can only use the "it's two years old" excuse for so long before it wears thin. A two year old game should normally run very well on reasonably current hardware, albeit without the latest features.

Turn off the graphics? I'm running with best graphics on and at 1024x720 rez, I have heard stories about Halo not liking certian video cards.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-03-13 04:44pm

Shogoki wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:...Because anyone who loves HALO multiplayer owns an X-Box, and has LAN parties with friends.
Obviosly is the only LAN parties in which it gets played.

Well, you can also hook it up to your computer, and use any number of programs to play X-Box HALO via the Internet.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2004-03-13 04:58pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote: Well, you can also hook it up to your computer, and use any number of programs to play X-Box HALO via the Internet.

Bah, I prefer Halo:PC MP, even if it is often laggy. It's worth it, IMO, for the new vehicles, even though the Rocket Warthog's a POS in terms of appearance.

(Then again, not having regular access to an X-BOX would probably influence my opinion somewhat...

)

Laird · Post by **Laird** » 2004-03-13 06:44pm

3rd Impact wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote: Well, you can also hook it up to your computer, and use any number of programs to play X-Box HALO via the Internet.
Bah, I prefer Halo:PC MP, even if it is often laggy. It's worth it, IMO, for the new vehicles, even though the Rocket Warthog's a POS in terms of appearance.

(Then again, not having regular access to an X-BOX would probably influence my opinion somewhat... )

What pisses me off about the rocket warthog is the you have to compensate for the target.

If you aim dead center the missile will be off by about 2ft high so you have to aim lower.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-03-13 10:23pm

Blow me. I wouldn't be caught dead using a piece of shit controller for a FPS.

Such Fundamentalism in his attitude, eh?

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2004-03-14 03:34am

Laird wrote:
What pisses me off about the rocket warthog is the you have to compensate for the target.

If you aim dead center the missile will be off by about 2ft high so you have to aim lower.

Yep. Of course, the fact that I often go off on my own and use it as a battering ram means that a lot of people never have to deal with that problem.