What was the problem? I found it fine.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Halo: The Master Chief Collection Is Coming to the PC
- Thread starter cageymaru
- Start date
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Terrible matchmaking, and terrible performance in Halo 2 at-launch, and issues saving your offline games reliably.
I'm not buying a multiplayer-focused FPS like Halo if I can't play online.
Honestly it didn't seem worse than the other ones, but that would kill it for me too. What game had the best matchmaking?
All of them. The playlists were broken. There were even issues early on with playing co-op.
Honestly that was a long time ago I barely remember the details. Maybe the pcgamer was the hype MS bought the studio and the thing that stuck with me to this day when I see halo stuff is the exclusive annoncment and no pc port. I was young angry and it triggers me know that I’m old and angry..lol...
Don’t get me wrong I’m not shitting on this franchise, I mean it gave us red vs blue fore master chiefs sake, that’s a fing national treasure!
I think I even bought vista for the GD DX upgrade for 2 I think when they released it for pc years ago.
Im a fan I just can’t I forget that tramdic incedent. Sharing helps though
focbde
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 545
I seem to recall also that it was just not... nice... to control. Somehow, the move from console to KBM controls wasn't done very well? Long time ago though. I remember I didn't finish it... partly due possibly to the fact I did finish it on XBox.
Are you talking about PC or xbox halo 2?
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,003
The MCC specifically, not the individual games, had horrific, reputation-destroying bugs at launch. Endless multiplayer wait lists, constant disconnects, lag spikes, teleporting players, etc. It was virtually unplayable in multiplayer (including co-op) at launch.
However from what I understand, 343 took it in the face, and kept going on it and has patched up the game pretty substantially to the point where it's actually quite good now... at least on console. Lets hope those changes translate to PC.
I'm almost sure the console version will have eaten the growing pains... I hope so its their first PC port isn't it?
Yeah, though they're not doing all of it internally. Most of 343 is working on Halo Infinite so they're having Ruffian and Splash Damage assist on the PC ports.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,003
This is the first PC port for 3 of the 5 games on the list. Halo 1 had a fully moddable windows release and Halo 2 had an odd Vista-only release. every other version has been locked out of PC.
Did you play the unofficial "Halo 3"? That one is already modded heavily and quite fun.
Was it moddable or just modded? I still play Halo CE, I never found out if it was official or not. I meant 343, not Bungie
If Halo on PC was modded, than that means it's modable.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,003
Halo on PC had a Microsoft released "Custom Edition" which not only supported mods, but ENCOURAGED them.
https://www.halopedia.org/Halo_Custom_Edition
https://www.halopedia.org/Halo_Custom_Edition
FF7 is heavily modded but it doesn't mean its moddable. http://forums.qhimm.com/index.php
If FF7 isn't moddable then how were people able to mod it?
They figured it out. Why do you think we have emulators?
I forgot about this and how they gave away the best multiplayer map (blood gulch). Still one of the best maps ever.
I think you are very confused. A game that has mods is moddable. Developer support is not required.
Then everything is moddable?
Yes people figured out how to mod FF7 PC therefore it's moddable. If it's been modded before then obviously it can be modded again.
I think of it like by design. Many things are made moddable by design like rPi and some aren't like consoles, but they are modded all the same.
Right. But that's like saying that you can't pirate PC games because by their design they have copy protection to keep you from doing it. It's just patently not true.
I guess, I bought a PSP slim on launch because of that. It had a lot of support, still the best for emulation.
The PSP isn't the best for emulation because the PS-Vita can run all the same emulators the PSP can plus more plus it has superior screen and superior battery life.
Superior battery life? I disagree, it can't do more than the PSP, and most of the emulation is a PSP emulator running more emulators PSP devs made. It doesn't beat it for battery life, weight, or price (unless you see them go for $30-$50 regularly). At least they have microSD now so maybe I am wrong, still didn't see a reason to buy one.
purple_monster
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2018
- Messages
- 691
i dont mean to be rude, but are you stupid? halo came out in 2001, bf1942 in 2002. and ut2k3 in... 2003. im really baffled at this reddit-tier whine for a source on something so painfully obvious as the passage of time.
D
Deleted member 88227
Guest
No I am not. Yes, BF1942 came out well before UT2k3, but it was a dominate MP game of the time. Just read articles when UT2k3 was released.
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/unreal-tournament-2004/499120p1.html
You'll see. UT2k3 was competing with BF1942, Tribes and other games.
Also, Mr. Time Cop, Halo was an Xbox exclusive game until around 2003. It was not a competition for UT being on a console. Sure it was released in 2003 right around the same time UT2k3 was launched, but it didn't have anywhere near the player count as BF1942 and other PC games during that time.
Either way, I read a few other articles on UT2k4 and some of them do mention Halo being an influence on Epic's decision to go with vehicles in the game. Though, it seems the vehicles themselves are influenced on Halo's vehicles and not really adding vehicles to the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong again. The Vita can run all the emulators made for PSP in addition to it's own specifically made emulators that take advantage of it's superior specs. The battery life for emulation is better than PSP because it only uses one cpu core for it's emulators. It only stresses roughly 25% of the Vita's cpu for stuff like N64 emulation, as opposed to the PSP which would peg the CPU at 100% usage. Not to mention that it's CPU was more power efficient in the first place.
How much battery life are you getting? I still have the stock 1200mah battery and its at 9hr still after all these years. Its better because its battery life is better, doesn't matter if its 1/100th as efficient. I had a 3DS that I was getting low battery life on too, its the most important in a handheld for me. I put it down fast.
Wrong. Just because it's battery life is better does not solely make it a better system for emulation as you claim. There is more than one attribute to compare for the title of "best at emulation". And I only get about 2 hours of battery life emulating N64 games on my PSP.
To me it does. Do you like it compared to the PSP? How much did you buy it for? I also think the stuff I did on the PSP I can with my phone most of the time so I don't care for portables as much. I also have 11+ batteries on my laptop for mobility, just what I prefer.
Well in that case you should have said that better battery life at emulation makes the PSP a better system for you, instead of saying that battery life makes the system better at emulation period. Did you realize that the Vita can be underclocked to 16MHZ? If you'd like to put some money down and both make youtube videos proving it, I'd bet you $50 that I can get my Vita to have better battery life than your PSP at emulation. What do you think?
To answer you question, yes. I absolutely love my Vita. It's my primary gaming device and am proud to be fortunate enough to have been able to collect over 210 physical games for it that I like. Used to have even more than that but I sold the ones I didn't care for.
I paid $404 dollars for my Vita.
I bet it won't! I doubt it, I can clock down to that level too (think it's 64/11 or some clock) but it's not like it's useful at that point except to read ebooks. 2hr of battery life for a handheld is really low, same reason the DS was so much more playable too. If I put the same mAh battery in mine I bet I'd win
So first you say battery life is the determining factor for what's best for game emulation, but now your pulling out a usability metric too? That contradicts your prior claim that "It's better because it's battery life is better. It's the most important in a handheld for me" (your exact words).
Also an ebook is not emulating games. That's not what we were talking about at all and it sounds like you've already begun to back track. We were talking about which is better for game emulation, re-read our posts please as a refresher on what we are discussing. I don't read books. E, paperback or otherwise and don't care to discuss them unless they are specifically about The Halo Master Cheif collection or the Vita.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,003
For christ sake guys can you not argue over the relative retro game emulation values PS Vita and Nintendo DS in a thread about Halo coming to the PC!?
Argument is over and I apologise. I just don't like seeing people spread blatant misinformation on the [H]ard. This should be a forum with accurate information. It's what makes this place different.
For those of you who have tried all of the Halo games in this collection, which one do you like the best and why?
LOL, Genmay worthy.
Best is hard, they are each a little different:
Halo was great because of what it started, it also has (imho) the best story of the three main Halo's. There are also some fun glitches and easter eggs in this one.
Halo 2 probably had the best (hardest) AI, it really felt like you had to outsmart them on Legendary. If you fracture their leadership though, the grunts panic and do all sorts of amusing things. This one had the worst plot because they made you switch between the Chief and some generic Elite, and ends on a stupid cliff hanger. The true beginning of Halo multiplayer on a broader scale.
Halo 3 was the best looking, wraps up the main plot, had good AI but didn't feel the same as 2 on that front. You could also play 4-player co-op through the story, which was a blast but also made even the hardest difficulty a cake walk.
* Edit : I want to put in here, the AI doesn't feel the same because the game changes at the end of 2. Bungie really put a lot of work into the universe, the covenant (bad guys) where a military hierarchic, where the Elite's organized and lead their military forces. The grunts where their front line cannon fodder, led by Elites of varying skill and rank, and supported by Jackals (skirmisher and sniper units), Hunters (heavy support) and brutes (heavy assault). At the end of two the convent fractures and turns on the Elites, replacing them with the Brutes as their military leadership. The Elites take the Hunters with them and join the humans for 3. So the enemy in Halo 3 is a lot less organized than the enemy in Halo 2, under the brutes leadership they tend to assault more, rather than flank. Honestly its impressive the amount of thought that went into Bungie's haloverse.
ODST was the worst received but I think alot of its hate isn't deserved. You don't play the Chief, instead your a elite human soldier dropped in during the Covenant invasion of Earth. No shield, health packs rather than regen, good weapons, overall a fun side game.
Reach was Bungie's swan song to Halo, it was a prequel that took place before Halo, and ends right as Halo pick up. it has the best Multiplayer. The story is strong, but it suffers from a bit of that continuity error you get when doing a prequel. For example all the suits have abilities that don't exist in 1-3, yet somehow takes place before 1. Other than that, it has all the bells and whistles of the prior 3 games and ODST, it is pretty much the pinnacle of Halo gameplay.
Halo 4 was done by 343 and it is quite obvious. Not that it is a bad game, it just isn't Bungie. It is also the weakest of the 343 Halo games, clearly they stumble on trying to pick up the plot after the end of 3.
Halo 5 corrects much of what was wrong with 4, but imho they still haven't hit the right tone and content to truly capture what it means to be a Halo game. They also stupidly do the Halo 2 thing of swapping between two main characters. I think they felt threatened by the talking characters of Gears of War and wanted to introduce a hero they could have talk and be animated (as in make hand jesters and move around alot) during cut scenes.
Last edited: