That's only Halo 2 b/c it's running duel engines simultaneously so you can switch back & forth on the fly from original Xbox version to this new remade HD version plus there's some destructible environments now that can be used to damage the enemies. The new Halo 2 is what I'm looking forward to the most in MCC... .. by far.
yea thats what i heard....i think wasdie didnt mention this in particular since all of the other games run 1080p 60 fps
Halo2 is lower res? How does that make sense if the sequels are 1080p
because it is running two engines at once, you can switch back and forth between the new and the classic graphics with a single button press on the fly (like you could on Halo CE on the 360)
You can only do that on part 1 and 2 in this collection I'm assuming?
Halo2 is lower res? How does that make sense if the sequels are 1080p
because it is running two engines at once, you can switch back and forth between the new and the classic graphics with a single button press on the fly (like you could on Halo CE on the 360)
You can only do that on part 1 and 2 in this collection I'm assuming?
Yeah Halo 1 and 2 are the only games remade. (1 was remade for 360, 2 remade for Xbox One).
3 and 4 are just remastered, so higher resolution and framerate.
Halo was and is nothing more than a mediocre bro shooter.
As opposed to sophisticated, aficionado videogames.
Halo 2 is one of the best competitive FPS games in history, other than Quake and CS.
If your sense of self-worth is derived from the perceived "complexity and nuance" of videogames...you've got bigger issues.
He's right though. Halo 2 isn't the most hardcore FPS out there (although the button combo glitches unintentionally make it hardcore) but it has everything that you need for a great competitive shooter. Weapon pickups, great maps/gametypes and as good of a ranking system that you are really gonna get in an FPS are obviously a must and Halo 2 has all that.
Halo was and is nothing more than a mediocre bro shooter.
As opposed to sophisticated, aficionado videogames.
Halo 2 is one of the best competitive FPS games in history, other than Quake and CS.
If your sense of self-worth is derived from the perceived "complexity and nuance" of videogames...you've got bigger issues.
He is actually right.
You probably believe that you can only be competitive with a mouse and keyboard, which is incorrect. Using a controller is a different skill set, but it still takes a long time to master properly.
Any competitive FPS gamer from the 90s or early 2000s will tell you the same thing.
Competitive gameplay is at its best when the primary deciding factor on who wins an engagement is player skill (positioning, map knowledge, weapon control, and technical skill, ie aiming and character movement)
Sprint makes it a very viable option for a player who is losing an engagement to simply run away, hide, wait for his recharging health (another bad addition), and then come back to try to win the next engagement. Bad. You want the best option to be for the player to try to actually win the firefight with superior aiming, movement, etc.
Perks frankly shouldn't need explanation. If I die because I got shot by a bloody AC-130 gunship which I have almost 0 chance of harming or fighting back against...that simply destroys competitive gaming. Every kill should be because I was "out skilled" by the other player. Not because some other player got lucky with a few consecutive kills and then is rewarded with an automatic "I win" unlock for the next 15 seconds.
Load-outs differentiate players base abilities. Bad. It works fairly well in large, strategic games like Battlefield, but these aren't skill based arena shooters. A fundamental pillar of competitive FPSs is that every player is exactly the same at spawn. The only difference between players is skill. Part of this skill is knowledge of the map and where strategic areas/power weapons spawn. I should die because the other player fought that last engagement better than I did. Not because he spawned with a weapon that is far more effective at the range we happened to first engage in a firefight at (I spawned with a sub-machine gun and he spawned with a scoped assault rifle).
This attempt to reduce the skill cap has been prevalent across all genres of games, especially large budget titles, for the past decade. Developers want their titles to be "accessible", meaning they don't intimidate any potential buyers in hopes of increasing sales. The FPS genre is just one in which this shift has been exceedingly obvious. Unreal Tournament 2004 to UT III is one egregious example.
Both players can sprint though. You're speaking as if only the losing player has sprinting ability.
AC 130 is a killstreak, not a perk and players don't just randomly get access to it. You need to play very well to get it, I think it's either 9 or 11 kills without dying to get it. It's a power up that's not all that different from quad damage in Quake.
Load outs are the one thing that is noob friendly but I wouldn't use your scenario. What if in Quake I spawn near the shotgun, enemy spawns near the railgun and we spot each other from afar? Not much different from your loadouts are bad scenario. Load outs make a game easier because it allows the player to spawn with their fav weapon and they don't have to learn how to use any other weapon to do well. Map knowledge is still very important even in games with loadouts though.
Now that Quake Live has loadouts you never have to bother with those weapons you had the most trouble with, although in ffa I still see the same players winning just like they used to.
UT 3 was an attempt to get back to UT's roots. There was a huge outcry when UT2k3 came out with it's jump dodging, wall running and focus on hitscan.
Yes, and in medium to long range engagements, by the time the attacker has managed to sprint behind the cover that the fleeing person hid behind, his/her health and managed to regenerate half-way (or completely), thus negating the advantage initially given to the attacker for getting "the jump" on the other player and winning the initial engagement.
I guess killstreaks would be a better term, my apologies. I just checked out some of these killstreaks for the newest "hot" fps Call of Duty: Ghosts. At 5 kills, you get a guard dog that automatically attacks people for you. At 7 kills, you get a "Trinity Rocket" missile I win button. At 9 kills, you get a bloody Hind helicopter that automatically attacks all enemies.
NONE of these help to create a game conducive to skill based, competitive FPS games. In Halo 2, the "killstreak" you got for killing 10 enemies in a row was...the ability to position yourself in a strategically advantageous location and the ability to set up control, with your teammates, of areas in which power weapons spawn.
Developers has systematically made games with lower skill caps in order to appeal to larger audiences. Since development costs have skyrocketed, this is a logical step for them. Hell, even Gamespot, hardly a "hardcore" gaming forum, has been complaining about this for years. The FPS genre is just one of the most noticeable.
Being able to navigate through the map well enough to flee an attacker could be seen as skill. Most games with regen health require very little damage to get a kill so if this so called superior gamer couldn't land 2-3 bullets on any part of the opponents body before the opponent could flee...
You do realize the average k/d ratio in CoD is like 0.9 right? This means that the average gamer will rarely get more than a 3 point killstreak. Only the top players can routinely get 5+ kills a match to get the good rewards.
Speaking of Halo 2, doesn't that game have a decent spawn loadout? An assault rifle with a couple grenades.
Halo 2 is barely more hardcore than CoD. In Quake 3 or UT you spawn with totally gimped weapons that do very little damage and both games have advanced movement systems while Halo has slow movement and no moves. Dropshotting in CoD is a skill.
A game like CoD is designed to appeal to all levels of play. Low damage reqs for kills allows casuals to get easy "saw you first" kills and then the killstreaks appeal to the skilled gamers. What do you think would happen if a pro CS player played CoD? He will headshot the opponents before they have a chance to respond and easily get killstreaks on almost every spawn.
There's a reason why it's hard for me to stomach the words "competitive gaming" when it comes to the FPS games on consoles today. Halo is about the last hope for such a thing, but even that began going downhill with Reach, and jumped into a pit of sewage with Halo 4.
But the good news is that 343i seems entirely aware of the problems they created with Halo 4, and I think the huge emphasis they are putting on this Halo MCC collection with Halo 2 as the showcase title is proof of that. I just hope Halo 5 goes back to the old style.
As opposed to sophisticated, aficionado videogames.
Halo 2 is one of the best competitive FPS games in history, other than Quake and CS.
If your sense of self-worth is derived from the perceived "complexity and nuance" of videogames...you've got bigger issues.
He is actually right.
You probably believe that you can only be competitive with a mouse and keyboard, which is incorrect. Using a controller is a different skill set, but it still takes a long time to master properly.
Both take a long time to master but of course the best m/kb users will beat the best controller users.
As opposed to sophisticated, aficionado videogames.
Halo 2 is one of the best competitive FPS games in history, other than Quake and CS.
If your sense of self-worth is derived from the perceived "complexity and nuance" of videogames...you've got bigger issues.
He is actually right.
You probably believe that you can only be competitive with a mouse and keyboard, which is incorrect. Using a controller is a different skill set, but it still takes a long time to master properly.
Both take a long time to master but of course the best m/kb users will beat the best controller users.
Well of course...but that's because m/kb are objectively superior controls for fast, accurate aiming in comparison with console controllers.
Which ironically makes the gaming abilities of some of the incredible Halo players, namely Ogre 2, all the more impressive considering they have to use an inherently slower, less accurate input device.
Halo was and is nothing more than a mediocre bro shooter.
As opposed to sophisticated, aficionado videogames.
Halo 2 is one of the best competitive FPS games in history, other than Quake and CS.
If your sense of self-worth is derived from the perceived "complexity and nuance" of videogames...you've got bigger issues.
He is actually right.
You probably believe that you can only be competitive with a mouse and keyboard, which is incorrect. Using a controller is a different skill set, but it still takes a long time to master properly.
Correct, using a controller is unquestionably more difficult in a FPS game, which is why console FPS games tend to have slower movement speed. Trying to play old school Quake on a controller would be damn near impossible.
But Halo 2 had all of the requirements for a great competitive shooter: great map design, weapon control/placement, equal starts, lack of "no skill required I-win-mechanics", etc.
Yes, the speed of play is slower than Quake, but that's a necessity if you are going to use a controller. Quake really values individual twitch skill, but I'd argue the necessary teamwork in pro-level 4v4 matches was as high in Halo 2 as any shooter I've ever played.
Correct, using a controller is unquestionably more difficult in a FPS game, which is why console FPS games tend to have slower movement speed. Trying to play old school Quake on a controller would be damn near impossible.
But Halo 2 had all of the requirements for a great competitive shooter: great map design, weapon control/placement, equal starts, lack of "no skill required I-win-mechanics", etc.
Yes, the speed of play is slower than Quake, but that's a necessity if you are going to use a controller. Quake really values individual twitch skill, but I'd argue the necessary teamwork in pro-level 4v4 matches was as high in Halo 2 as any shooter I've ever played.
It doesn't matter. Competitive FPSs on the consoles are played with controllers, not mouse and keyboard. It's irrelevant what PC gamers do when we're talking about a consoles and it's irrelevant how the consoles players play when talking about the PC.
You aren't at a disadvantage when playing a console shooter with a controller as it was built around the controller. You'll never play against somebody using a mouse and keyboard (at least in controlled competitive play).
The best PC FPS players around aren't simply going to waltz into the console competitive scene and dominate because they are used to playing with a different control scheme on a different platform. So really it's all irrelevant.
This whole controller vs. mouse and keyboard debate is utterly pointless. You'll play the game with whatever control scheme is the standard on the platform and never the two shall meet.
It looks great, almost makes me want to by an xbone. Are all the games in the Master Chief collection 1080p 60 fps? I think I've read somewhere that Halo 2 was 900p while all the other games run at 1080p which doesn't make any sense.
There are people who play CoD and BF on pc with controllers. There are people who play Halo, CoD and BF on consoles with m/kb.
That doesn't change anything.
Competitive play on the consoles is done with a controller and on the PC it's done with a mouse and keyboard. The two don't mix.
Simply playing online against others is competitive play. Such a minute fraction of gamers actually compete in gaming events I don't see how that even entered into the discussion.
M/kb is getting more and more popular on console. MS and Sony probably don't mind since they hope it will win over the pc crowd.
There are people who play CoD and BF on pc with controllers. There are people who play Halo, CoD and BF on consoles with m/kb.
That doesn't change anything.
Competitive play on the consoles is done with a controller and on the PC it's done with a mouse and keyboard. The two don't mix.
Simply playing online against others is competitive play. Such a minute fraction of gamers actually compete in gaming events I don't see how that even entered into the discussion.
M/kb is getting more and more popular on console. MS and Sony probably don't mind since they hope it will win over the pc crowd.
Competitive play on the consoles is done with a controller and on the PC it's done with a mouse and keyboard. The two don't mix.
Simply playing online against others is competitive play. Such a minute fraction of gamers actually compete in gaming events I don't see how that even entered into the discussion.
M/kb is getting more and more popular on console. MS and Sony probably don't mind since they hope it will win over the pc crowd.
source?
Console gaming with a mouse and keyboard was almost unheard of 10 years ago and now theres all these adaptors popping up. Xim for instance feels almost as good as pc m/kb.
So you're saying that it's possible that there were as many m/kb gamers on PS 2 10 years ago as there are PS 4 m/kb users now?
xim 4 preorders were 10x over what they expected.
Source?
Numbers?
@lostrib said:
@timster20: I'm saying you haven't provided any evidence that it is getting more and more popular
Don't need any. All those new adaptors are proof enough.
What new adopters? where is the evidence of the number of users of xim products or their sales or how many people have adopted it for what you deem competitive gameplay?
I'd be curious to see sales. I can't imagine it being too hot. What needs to happen to bring mskb to consoles is a port of Starcraft or a 60 dollar minecraft.
Even still it is common sense if the poster is claiming that the popularity is growing as the market hardly existed in the past.
IGN just posted a first look at Halo Combat Anniversary in the Halo Master Chief collection on the Xbox One at 1080p60. As a fan of Halo who has probably played the game over 20 times through, this footage makes me extremely excited.
This is what Halo CE looks like with the Combat Anniversary HD graphics upgrade and at 1080p60.
Those who have played Halo for years can instantly see how much more fluid the combat is and how much better the game looks to play overall. It makes such a difference in the feel of a game. Action feels quicker, aiming is easier and more precise, and the whole game feels even more polished than ever.
The jump to 1080p60 for the Halo series is huge and extremely appreciated. Too bad they couldn't get Halo 2 Combat Anniversary at 1080p60 and had to settle for sub 1080 to keep that 60fps. Oh well, Halo 1, 3, and 4 are all 1080p60.
heard it wasn't full HD or something? They had to fiddle with the horizontal resolution because they are doing that thing where you can switch between the original graphics and the updated ones on the fly. Personally I would rather not have black bars on the sides of my screen but that's just me. The multi is still full screen at 60 fps tho.
IGN just posted a first look at Halo Combat Anniversary in the Halo Master Chief collection on the Xbox One at 1080p60. As a fan of Halo who has probably played the game over 20 times through, this footage makes me extremely excited.
This is what Halo CE looks like with the Combat Anniversary HD graphics upgrade and at 1080p60.
Those who have played Halo for years can instantly see how much more fluid the combat is and how much better the game looks to play overall. It makes such a difference in the feel of a game. Action feels quicker, aiming is easier and more precise, and the whole game feels even more polished than ever.
The jump to 1080p60 for the Halo series is huge and extremely appreciated. Too bad they couldn't get Halo 2 Combat Anniversary at 1080p60 and had to settle for sub 1080 to keep that 60fps. Oh well, Halo 1, 3, and 4 are all 1080p60.
heard it wasn't full HD or something? They had to fiddle with the horizontal resolution because they are doing that thing where you can switch between the original graphics and the updated ones on the fly. Personally I would rather not have black bars on the sides of my screen but that's just me. The multi is still full screen at 60 fps tho.
IGN just posted a first look at Halo Combat Anniversary in the Halo Master Chief collection on the Xbox One at 1080p60. As a fan of Halo who has probably played the game over 20 times through, this footage makes me extremely excited.
This is what Halo CE looks like with the Combat Anniversary HD graphics upgrade and at 1080p60.
Those who have played Halo for years can instantly see how much more fluid the combat is and how much better the game looks to play overall. It makes such a difference in the feel of a game. Action feels quicker, aiming is easier and more precise, and the whole game feels even more polished than ever.
The jump to 1080p60 for the Halo series is huge and extremely appreciated. Too bad they couldn't get Halo 2 Combat Anniversary at 1080p60 and had to settle for sub 1080 to keep that 60fps. Oh well, Halo 1, 3, and 4 are all 1080p60.
heard it wasn't full HD or something? They had to fiddle with the horizontal resolution because they are doing that thing where you can switch between the original graphics and the updated ones on the fly. Personally I would rather not have black bars on the sides of my screen but that's just me. The multi is still full screen at 60 fps tho.
I'd be curious to see sales. I can't imagine it being too hot. What needs to happen to bring mskb to consoles is a port of Starcraft or a 60 dollar minecraft.
Even still it is common sense if the poster is claiming that the popularity is growing as the market hardly existed in the past.
starcraft 2 would never fit with the console community. Oh sure they can try porting the game,but the demand for an RTS on the consoles just isn't there
I'd be curious to see sales. I can't imagine it being too hot. What needs to happen to bring mskb to consoles is a port of Starcraft or a 60 dollar minecraft.
Even still it is common sense if the poster is claiming that the popularity is growing as the market hardly existed in the past.
starcraft 2 would never fit with the console community. Oh sure they can try porting the game,but the demand for an RTS on the consoles just isn't there
I'm not so sure. A genre is a genre and rts is a genre consoles do not cover. If Starcraft 2 released on consoles it would likely be an easy port with most of the money going to marketing--and they'd be marketing a game with no competition. If they were to grab just a niche console crowd theyd still be bringing in money. Now, if the genre took off theyd become the defacto rts for consoles.
I know Halo Wars stunk and occasionally an rts like game arrives, but a good game is a good game and people recognize this. Just look at a lot of sales--people are actually dumb enough to buy into hype a lot of the times. The games market is more akin to the cinema market, today.
Log in to comment