Why is Halo for the PC so greedy??

[Pedro Lambrini]

I have just bought Halo for my PC, something I rarely buy games for! I mainly got it out of curiousity since everybody STILL keeps on raving about it!! However it seems to be the greediest game I have ever bought Being Microsoft sanctioned I kinda figured it would be (call me cynical!) but wow!

The min specs are:

733 Mhz cpu - I have an Athlon 3200+ (2.2Ghz)
32 MB H/W T&L Video card - I have a Radeon 9600pro (128MB!)
and 128 MB RAM - I have 512 MB DDR400

Yet it's still incredibly jerky at 640 by 480 and everything set to medium detail!! And, yes I updated my video drivers last night!! When I compare this to RTCW which runs like a dream and looks gorgeous, even on my old MX440 video card and 1700+ cpu it just really pisses me off!

What sort of specs do you need to run this feckin' game at a smooth frame rate!?!!

[icbrkr]

On my Mac, it's fairly playable - dual 1Ghz, Radeon 8500, 768M of RAM. But it does seem to ask for more than I can give it I drop some frames in the middle of major action, but it doesn't do too bad. This seems a bit odd since it plays great on an Xbox which is a 733Mhz P3 type CPU (of course, running at a lower resolution).

[Pedro Lambrini]

Yeah, it seems to me to be a bit odd too when you compare the Xbox specs to my PC or your Mac...to be honest I have had a quick blast on the Xbox and it didn't seem too graphically inferior! I'd've been quite happy with a direct port that ran at full frame rate than a bloated disappointment with overly optomistic minimum specs!! No wonder I don't buy many games for PC - it's just such a lottery!

[thegreatescape]

Why would you want to play halo when theres games like RTCW: ET

Anyway, i think the problem for you is your video card (9600) has pixel shader 2.0 and vertex shader 2.0 functions, so Halo runs in those modes by default because you have it. Runs smoothly (ugly though) on my mx440 because the mx440 is has no pixel shaders.

You have to run the game with something like -use11 at the end of the command line- e.g "halo.exe -use11" That will force it to use pixel shader 1.1 instead of 2.0 which should take a load off the vid card (and is why it runs ok on icbrkr's 8500).

I think that should help. Incidently- the x-box version (i.e the one that plays oin the x-box) runs in 1.1 mode, but the developers added 2.0 for the PC because it was available. All 2.0 does is make some textures a little more shiny than with 1.1 (i think ice and the armour in particular).

[jonjandran]

The Xbox has dedicated hardware (cpu and graphics chips) and no stupid Windows Operating System to slow it down. That's why it's so much faster.

Plus they have to try and make computer games compatiable with the myriads of different hardware configurations out there.

But after knowing that , it still sucks. In the 2 years they had to port this over they could have optimized it better.

[suppafly]

THe problem with HALO on PC is that the lazy programmers didnt take enough time to optimize the game for PC hardware. The game really slows down because of the DX9.0 effects, but there are other better looking DX9 games on pc that run faster, like Far Cry.

I`d recommend playing the game with pixel shaders 1.1 (theres a command line for that). The game doesnt look as beautiful, but its considerably faster.

Try Far Cry too!

[Pedro Lambrini]

Try Far Cry too!

I've heard a lot of things about Far Cry, I think I'm going to try that too! BTW I set the shader to 1.1 and it does make quite a difference, cheers folks!

Also, I've heard mixed things about Breed, have any of you played it yet? What do you think of it??

[suppafly]

Breed is a mediocre game..i had high hopes for it...but its just an average game.

MAKE SURE YOU GET FAR CRY RIGHT NOW.. Its got the best graphics i`ve ever seen on any computer game OR console....try it!

[jonjandran]

You have to run the game with something like -use11 at the end of the command line- e.g "halo.exe -use11" That will force it to use pixel shader 1.1 instead of 2.0 which should take a load off the vid card

Hey thanks !!!!

That does help a lot .

[SoulBlazer]

Funny, it runs fine on my system -- and looks even better then on the XBox.

But then again, I do have a uber game system. A GeForce 3 TI 200 is the lowest part of it.

[Richter]

wow, people still play Enemy Territory? When i started it back up a few months back most of the servers were either dead or removed

[Kamino]

this is exactly why i shun pc gaming.
Consoles forever!

[zektor]

Bah, this has got to be one of the worst PC ports I have ever seen. On my P4 3.0Ghz, 1GB of ram, and 256mb Geforce 5900FX you STILL get jerky gameplay when maxing out all of the special effects and resolution. There is just no excuse for that!

[Ed Oscuro]

But then again, I do have a uber game system. :D A GeForce 3 TI 200 is the lowest part of it.

Pedro's card is much newer than that - and so is mine. I've got a GF4 TI 4400 and even that is starting to become a low-range card these days.

I've read of folks with GeForce FX 5600 boards having trouble.

There appears to be two kinds - graphics trouble (turn off AA and go to pixel shaders 1.1 I guess?) and mouse slowness.

The game's said to still be console-optimized, meaning any old CS junkie should breeze through this one without any trouble. The details HAVE been increased significantly over the console release and there are two new weapons for multiplayer - a flamethrower and a rail gun that takes up half your screen. If one doesn't own the XBox version or really, really liked the console title, this is probably worth picking up, but for the rest of us...well, aside from the fact you won't be able to play it like it was meant to be for another couple years...not a lot of interest here :P

[goatdan]

I don't know if this is accurate or not...

But didn't Coleco make their non-Colecovision games look and run crappier than thier CV ones so that the CV would look much more powerful?

I can TOTALLY see Microsoft using the same techniques to better the position of the XBox. I'm sorry, but my GeForce 4 Ti 4200 could display better graphics than my XBox can for certain games and a GeForce FX 5700+ card should have NO difficulty doing the same.

[Pedro Lambrini]

I don't know if this is accurate or not...

But didn't Coleco make their non-Colecovision games look and run crappier than thier CV ones so that the CV would look much more powerful?

I can TOTALLY see Microsoft using the same techniques to better the position of the XBox. I'm sorry, but my GeForce 4 Ti 4200 could display better graphics than my XBox can for certain games and a GeForce FX 5700+ card should have NO difficulty doing the same.

I wouldn't put it past them either - they are the root of all computer evil Call it coincidence or persecution but haven't they been to court way more times than any other S/W company!?!? As said, evil (bwah, ha, ha, haaaa!!!!)

[Daniel Thomas]

Halo for the PC was just a sloppy, lazy port. I paid $30 for it last week and was sorry I ever wasted the money on it. I turned off almost all the effects, even running in the lowest resolution, and the game was still choppy half the time, especially during online deathmatches.

Of course, Halo was fun for many people on the XBox, and the vehicles were a great innovation. But the game, overall, is a bit overrated. Those levels don't play well for multiplayer games; certianly never on the level of Quake and UT. And there are hardly any levels to play at all.

I took Halo back and grabbed UT 2004, which I really wanted anyway. Far better game; over 100 multiplayer levels right out of the box, and loads of new boards always popping up. Get the DVD version, which comes packed with a tutorial for the map editor program. And you get vehicles to play with, too.

[Jasoco]

this is exactly why i shun pc gaming.
Consoles forever!

Call me Krazy, but I agree with Kamino. There's something satisfying about putting a disc in my Xbox or Cube and having it boot right up. Can't say the same about a PC or even a Mac.

[SoulBlazer]

On the other hand, the PC version of KOTOR was even BETTER then what originaly came out on the XBox. It really depends on the game and who is porting it over. Some ports are bad, some not.

And there's too many games I love that are too niche to ever come out on consoles -- Europa Univeralis 2, anyone?

[zektor]

this is exactly why i shun pc gaming.
Consoles forever!

Call me Krazy, but I agree with Kamino. There's something satisfying about putting a disc in my Xbox or Cube and having it boot right up. Can't say the same about a PC or even a Mac.

It's not only that. It's the fact that I do not have to install anything to get to the gaming. With a console you just pop it in and go. With a PC game you have to install it and waste 2+ GB of hard disk space in many cases. Then after all that you STILL have to pop in the disk so the software knows you are using a "legit" copy. One must wonder WHY they cannot simply make it so that you just pop in a DVD-Rom PC game and go...like the consoles. Now that would be nice. But as it stands now, the only way I will buy and play a PC based game is if the game is A: That good, and B: Not on any other console.