halo what the?

[warelf]

ok im no fool but didn't halo run on the xbox which is a 733mhz with a modified geforce 3 gpu well i have a amd athlon xp 1800+@2000+ and ive over clocked my 5200 and halo hardly runs on it obviously they added new things to the game if they didn't its a crappy conversion whats your take on this :group: :thumbs do

[The__tweaker]

I'm sorry but FX5200 oc or not is a very weak card to use for a game like Halo, for any modern game really.. :(

[zeradul]

Computer games have always been eons ahead of simple console games. Consoles only display to TV's which are 280 X 320, and to look good on a computer you are probably running Halo @ 1024 X 768... and that is roughly 9 TIMES more clear of an image, which means you need nine times the processor+video power.

And a 5200 is a very weak card, and that is why it only cost $65.

[PersianImmortal]

Originally Posted by warelf

ok im no fool but didn't halo run on the xbox which is a 733mhz with a modified geforce 3 gpu

Yes and it also ran at 640x480 at around 30fps, with software that was written specifically to take advantage of every ounce of the X-Box's specifications.

[b]

well i have a amd athlon xp 1800+@2000+ and ive over clocked my 5200 and halo hardly runs on it obviously they added new things to the game if they didn't its a crappy conversion whats your take on this :group: :thumbs do

Read my Halo Tweak Guide for various options to improve performance, but virtually any game will run like crap on an FX5200. Halo in particular uses a lot of advanced DX9 functionality and effects which the XBox Halo never had, as well as having to deal with a huge variety of hardware combinations.

Basically if you write any software for a very specific setup (e.g a console) you can get much better performance than when having to accommodate a vast variety of possible hardware combinations.

That's the other thing about Halo on PC vs console. They updated the PC version to look a little better.. although I'm still not sure how well it worked.

[WiKed]

Originally Posted by Beefy

That's the other thing about Halo on PC vs console. They updated the PC version to look a little better.. although I'm still not sure how well it worked.

lol beefy, i was very dissapointed with halo on the PC........... i dont know y but it reminded me of doom 2 days

[SearanoX]

All's been said on answering the question, so I'll just respond to that "Quake 2" comment.

You think that Halo doesn't look better than Quake 2? Go ahead and download the shareware version, or go and play the full version if you have it. Now, is it just me, or does Halo look a lot better? Mind you, it could be my eyes, so let's do a slight comparison here...

*apologises to the 56Kers*


Quake 2...

http://www.quake.cz/_qcznews/img/quake2.jpg



And now, Halo PC.

http://home.comcast.net/~2070wired/C...oPC_battle.jpg


The thing is, you can't compare Halo PC to Quake 2. Halo features tons of DX9 effects that have only just started being used (and was the first available that demonstrated such effects), including specularity, bump-mapping, massive use of pixel shaders, etc.. As for comparing Halo PC and Quake 2
with each other, well, they don't compare. Halo features the aforementioned effects, as well as "imitation" ragdolls, detail textures, higher resolution textures, far higher polygon counts, better lighting effects (some of the best I've seen in a game, in fact), excellent particle effects, much better animation, and a variety of other things. It also came out two years ago originally and is a port of a console game. I think that it looks great for what it is.

Now, if you're complaining about framerates, that's understandable, because the game was not coded exceptionally well. However, the next major update is to feature a 30-50% increase in performance due to the shader code being nearly compeltely re-written. It's still definetly playable for me, though, and it rarely drops below 40 fps for me. Due to the animation which has been made for a 30 fps environment, the game tends to look relatively the same once you get past 30 fps, so it's not a huge issue anyway. Granted, I do have a high-end computer (compared to your average user), but it was playable even on my old Pentium III 1.0 GHz, 256 MB RAM, and Radeon 8500 Pro.

[minibubba]

SearanoX, maybe it's just me, but i think he was just being sarcastic :rolleyes:
He's not the only one that was disappointed in Halo's graphics.
(he also said Doom 2, not Quake 2 ;) )

: peace2:

*even with the screenshot you posted, Halo for PC just looks pitiful for a modern FPS

EDIT: please reduce those images, a combined total of 435 KB is far too much.

Searanox, you really gotta learn how to do a decent comparison.

"Look! Here's a wall in Q2, vs an open landscape in Halo!"

That and the fact that Q2 actually looks smoother, without the aliasing effect you've got happening in the Halo screeny, I'm more impressed with Q2 at this point. :)

And, as mini said, Wiked mentioned Doom 2, not Quake 2. Which kind of suggests he's being the sarcastic ******* he usually is. :D

Halo being playable on a P3 1Ghz with a 8500? I dare ya to take a screeny of that for comparison...

[The__tweaker]

Halo does have crappy graphics. :thumbs do