Ok, so I've been a playstation guy since well, ps1. I really enjoyed the multiplayer in the pc version of halo 1 way back on the pc but havent played halo since. I recent discovered how much fun fps can be on a console(dare i say I actually prefer it to K&M(except for hardcore sims like arma 3). Anyway, I have alot of catching up to do, basically need to play Halo MCC, Titanfall, BF4, and maybe COD AW(though may skip this for BO3 which looks pretty darn good).

Anyway, my question for this board is since I just bought a XB1 to go along with my PS4, which Halo should I start with. I will NOT play thru all of the campaign/multiplayer for 2,3, and 4 on MCC so so I've narrowed it down to 2 and 4. With H5 coming out in 2 months, I thought 4 would be the logical choice and just watch a vid online to catch me up to the story but I've been hearing alot of praise over the re-work of Halo 2 for MCC. You're help is appreciated.

BTW, I played Destiny and while the moment to moment gameplay was excellent, the weapons were lackluster and it was getting repetitive. They built this giant, awesome open area and there are never alot of people in them. Seems kind of a waste. Anyway, D2 shoudl be good. Not sure why I went on a Destiny rant. Maybe to give some context to my Q.

Good points. My inital thought were more of a co-op type thing. Like "O my goodness, without these 3 other people I don't think I could have made it out of that castle" type thing. Although the Souls series definitely had PVP that wouldn't really stop your progress but slow it. Really, it was the seamless nature of the multiplayer of the Souls games that makes it so awesome. It doesn't really break immersion.

It would be tricky tho to make all of the player game worlds be persistant(IOW all reflect the individual changes for the particular player while still interacting with others in their version of the game world) in a single player setting. Maybe, when you gather a "party", that portion of the game world transforms into a uniform game world "section" for all party players, and then when they leave, the changes made stay that way for them in their world and yours. This allows for consequences.

OK, so this is kind of a brainstorm I got while watching some upcoming MMO gameplay footage. I'm sure most of us have played Dark Souls/Demon's Souls. I think we can also agree that it game some of the best combat in an RPG ever. It also has a really revolutionary multiplayer system where other people kind of waft in and out of your game world, giving it a connectedness missing in single player RPGs. So, what's my point?

Make more games that do that. I know it sounds simple. And you may be saying "But there are already Online RPGs and Single Player RPGs with a multiplayer mode". But what I am talking about is a single player game, with all the awesome combat it allows with a nice sprinkling of multi-player but still being your own world.

One of the things holding back MMO combat right now is the fact that all of your actions have to be fed to a server(think in terms of MB/KB per second). If you have 200 people all on the same server, all sending complex combat data(not to mention physics) you can see how that multiplies exponentially.So they have to dial it back to not lag.

The Souls series solved this issues by allowing another player(or 2) to connect with your game world. The limited people means less data. The game play is still awesome but now you are connected, but it's still your world. It's not some zone where your actions mean nothing once you leave. It's your world. So, in the future this could definitely be expanded upon. Instead of just 1 or 2 people. How about 5 or 6...all gathering at an entrance to a particularly nasty cave housing a dragon boss. You could have a friends list and invite specific people(something missing in the Souls series) to your gameworld. It would be limited, but think of co-op game sessions, where(as long as you have the same objective in all of the player gameworlds), you all beat a really tough boss together and it "counts" in all game worlds. IOW in your game, you really killed the boss, not just the boss in your friend's game.

Yes Diablo did this but that was the old top down style. Dark Souls is the only one I can think of that had top notch combat with what I like to call a "single player-world-multiplayer connectivity"(the name needs work lol). Only now are (non FPS) action games incorporating multiplayer in larger frequency,but it's still usually in a dedicated multiplayer environment. That world goes away. It only exists in the multiplayer world and there is typically no story or anything.

Again this is more of a brainstorming session and not a complaining or anything like that. Alot of companies want to add as many people per server just for that epic feeling, and while that will be great in 10 years when people have 500mb/sec connections, right now, I like the idea of an small, closely nit of travelers all trying to make it thru a scary game-world together. Dark Souls has already laid the foundation, now its up to you, the game devs to do it. To see a good implementation of this concept, check out Star Citizen. It's not MMO, not Single player, not Multiplayer...it's all three. If I've missed any recent games that do this small scale non dedicated multiplayer, please forgive correct me. Otherwise....Your thoughts?

Good answers. BTW I AM a PC gamer, to the person who poasted that. This wasn't a "I want an upgradable console" but a "how could you design one effectively". I tend to agree that as consoles do more thing than just game, they will become more complex, to the point where current PC stalwarts like simulations(flight combat etc) and RTS start moving that way if you can get a KB&M setup.

The one thing PC has always had over consoles is mod ability, but with the increased console complexity of the future, that monopoly may be a thing of the past. JUst a topic that popped in my head today.

Quick thought: could consoles ever be designed to be upgradable? By that I mean like PCs, where you upgrade their hardware to play games faster. And if so, how would you solve the problem of people who chose not to upgrade being able to play the same games at an acceptable framerate.

See it all depends on your standards, I have a pretty high tolerance of framerates compared to some other people who MUST get 40+ FPS constantly.

I played metro 2033 in medium which is the first game in years that I had to play in medium. Due to financial limitations I couldnt upgrade my card so I lowered my standards and decided to play the game in medium.

Guess what? I found out the game looks better in medium than most games maxed out. And the fact that I was playing in medium didnt stop me from enjoying the excellent gameplay of the game.

And well we can game on a TV with PC's as well. If somebody REALLY wants to extend the life of a gaming PC as much as possible then they can buy a 720p TV.

Gambler_3

The problem with 12x10 is not the no. of pixels but the aspect ratio of 5:4 which is the least popular of all and frankly not very good.

But I simply posted the benchmark to show the performance which applies to 14x9 as well. 14x9 is a very popular resolution with budget minded PC gamers.

Nobody said that you dont have to regularly upgrade to max out games in high resolution but your OP makes it seem like you NEED to upgrade to enjoy games which you absolutely dont.

And you ask how to lengthen life of PC hardware? Game on a display with a moderate native resolution or get used to scaling like the console gamers do, it's as simple as that.

I had a CRT montor for as long as I could so that I could lengthen the life of my graphics card and now I have a LCD with 1680x1050 resolution which is still quite moderate and last my hardware longer.

Gambler_3

Even though you plan to upgrade, do not buy a pre built computer. The ones that are affordable use cheap parts and the ones that actually game well are overpriced.

Building a computer is actually quite easy. Takes about 1.5-2 hours the first time, not including installing software.

Yes, you can buy one of those, but the components are simply not meant to game seriously. The i3 is not a gaming cpu(maybe technically it is, but not really). And anything with the word 'integrated' is not meant for serious gaming.

You can build a much better AMD system for about the same price(assuming you already have a case and PSU). And I5 system can be built for $550-$700, depending on mobo and vid card(with the previous assumption).

If you lived near me, I could do it free, as I actually enjoy building them. It's relaxing. I hope I don't sound like a snob, but pre built (mainstream)computers are generally not meant for gaming. They are meant to be 'open the box and go' computers.

1280 x 1024 = 1310720

1440 x 900 = 1296000

lol just how clueless can you get?

8800 ultra is equalent to a GTS 250 and I havent yet encountered a game which doesnt run well in medium settings. F1 2010 gives a little trouble but very much playable.

Gambler_3

Unless someone wants to get back on topic, I think this thread is dead. I do admit I was mistaken. I thought my 19" montor was 1400 x 1000. Obviously I was wrong.

[QUOTE="Giantsfan22"]You can build a killer i5 2500k(get the k....trust me...you can overclock to i7 levels and games don't use hyperthreading much) rig for around $5-600C_Rule

I think you can :), if you know where to shop. I just did it 2 months ago.

I5- 180 at microcenter

560ti - as low as $220 with rebate, maybe lower if you shop well

mobo- 120

8 gb ram-80(less if you get rebate)

$600...infact, microcenter had a cpu/mobo combo that was even lower.

My build assumes you already have a case and good power supply. I did not need to upgrade mine. If you need a psu, that would add about $50-80 Case...decent(read barebones acceptable quality) case is only $20-30, more if you want better quality.