Sulphur on 14/10/2008 at 14:52
AFAIK, Halo PC was one of the first DirectX 9.0 games out with shader model 2.0 support, and was pretty heavy on GPUs at the time because of this. It did look a fair bit sharper than the Xbox version, though, because of the increased resolution.
You could force the game to use lower shader models with the -use11 or -use14 switches for shader model 1.1 or 1.4 respectively, which got you more performance because it defaulted to a DirectX 8 codepath, but in exchange for graphics quality (shader model 1.1 notably dropped effects like specular, animated lightmaps, etc.)
Fragony on 14/10/2008 at 15:35
Quote Posted by Dario
I simply don't understand people who say the Xbox version is better.
Just feels better, always felt like having to slowly 'push' the crosshair into place in the pc version just doesn't feel very direct, bit like the not quite that is working with the trackpad on the laptop, perfectly possible but far from comfortable.
Trance on 14/10/2008 at 15:47
The PC version doesn't have the reticle magnetism that the Xbox version had (and if it did it would get irritating in a real hurry). Halo actually has quite a bit of aim assist put into it, because each weapon is tagged with an "autoaim" value that alters the firing angle slightly depending on how close a target is to the center of the reticle. It even factors in lead distance; you can actually visibly see it happen if you use the plasma pistol.
Dario on 15/10/2008 at 00:35
Quote Posted by Fragony
Just feels better, always felt like having to slowly 'push' the crosshair into place in the pc version just doesn't feel very direct, bit like the not quite that is working with the trackpad on the laptop, perfectly possible but far from comfortable.
Halo PC felt like any other FPS to me. There was no mouse-lag or anything, of any kind.
pdenton on 18/10/2008 at 03:58
Halo is great for the first few levels are so, but I can't stress how much of a let down the last half is. If it's cheap, definitely try it.
If you're looking for a simple shooter, I'd recommend Painkiller instead honestly.
EvaUnit02 on 18/10/2008 at 04:05
Quote Posted by pdenton
If you're looking for a simple shooter, I'd recommend Painkiller instead honestly.
Halo is definitely not a simple shooter, it's far more sophisticated than your old school throwback Doom-like games.
pdenton on 18/10/2008 at 04:08
Eh, I think it's a wolf in sheep's clothing....the inclusion of vehicles and "tactics" (which, maybe I missed something, pretty much is you taking cover waiting for your shields to recharge). You run places and shoot things. It's not in a castle or a dungeon, sure, but a wide open environment can be just a linear as any other shooter, and that's why I dub it simple. Shoot, run, cut scene, run.
june gloom on 18/10/2008 at 04:42
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Halo is definitely not a simple shooter, it's far more sophisticated than your old school throwback Doom-like games.
You're not allowed to talk anymore.
Aja on 18/10/2008 at 07:26
He's right though, and personal grudges against the game don't change that. Painkiller and Halo are entirely different. Painkiller and Doom, on the other hand...
Trance on 18/10/2008 at 13:11
Eva is right. Halo is streamlined, sure, but that doesn't make the gameplay simplistic like Doom's. However it also doesn't mean the gameplay isn't repetitive towards the end of the campaign. So if you beat it on Legendary there's not much left for replay value aside from multiplayer.
