Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Jansar · Dec 15, 2001, 06:39 PM

Is Halo ever coming to the Macintosh? Some say its not, and others say it is.

I have a friend that bought the Xbox simply because Halo came out for it. Is he crazy, or is Halo really going to be made for that damned console, nothing else?

Maneki Neko · Dec 15, 2001, 08:45 PM

Bungie claims that it will eventually be out for PC & Mac as well.

Personally, I'll believe it when I see it.

Archangel · Dec 15, 2001, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Jansar:
Is Halo ever coming to the Macintosh? Some say its not, and others say it is.

I have a friend that bought the Xbox simply because Halo came out for it. Is he crazy, or is Halo really going to be made for that damned console, nothing else?

Search these forums for an answer to this question. If you want a less detailed answer: yes.

Next topic, please.

Jansar · Dec 16, 2001, 09:45 PM

Sweet.

seanyepez · Dec 17, 2001, 01:25 AM

It will eventually come out.

rampant · Dec 17, 2001, 11:48 AM

I'm pretty disapointed with it. Bungie's been making bad games ever since the take over. Oni and Halo were nothing what they were supposed to be. "Combat evolved" where's the goddamn storyline. They phucked up.

blizzard · Dec 17, 2001, 11:27 PM

That would make you probably the only person on the face of the planet who DOESN'T like Halo

. It's certainly cleaning up everywhere else!

juanvaldes · Dec 18, 2001, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by blizzard:
That would make you probably the only person on the face of the planet who DOESN'T like Halo

. It's certainly cleaning up everywhere else!

I got to play it for about five seconds at Funcoland, too bad the controls sucked so bad, and none of the buttons would open the damn door!

That and the Xbox controller just sucks so badly.

But will still get it for the Mac when it is released.

Kbee · Dec 18, 2001, 01:59 AM

It's far far far to repetitve. And to me, I think the coolest aspect to Halo was going to be it fairly sizable multiplayer capabilities which are no existent on XBox. It's a good game, that should have been a great game. Bungie announced it far to early, and then after they were bought by MS, they were forced to change it's original mission perse and rush it out the door. It feels rushed.

Archangel · Dec 18, 2001, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by rampant:
They phucked up.

Were you trying to play off the old phor-ing of words? i.e. phorte, diamonds are phorever, unphorgiven, etc. Either way, I laughed.

Too "add" to the discussion. I'm sure there will be a strong mp aspect to the game when it's released for PC/Mac.

Consoles just suck too much for serious games. This was confirmed for me by my friend's recent purchase of PS2. What a waste of money. . .

juanvaldes · Dec 18, 2001, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Archangel:

Were you trying to play off the old phor-ing of words? i.e. phorte, diamonds are phorever, unphorgiven, etc. Either way, I laughed.

Too "add" to the discussion. I'm sure there will be a strong mp aspect to the game when it's released for PC/Mac.

Consoles just suck too much for serious games. This was confirmed for me by my friend's recent purchase of PS2. What a waste of money. . .

Yeah, Xbox users will probably still buy it for their computer just for the MP.

Did you ever play Grand theft Auto? Great game, just mindless fun. GTA3 is out for the PS2 only and that is almost enough of a reason to buy one

Arty50 · Dec 19, 2001, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Archangel:

Consoles just suck too much for serious games. This was confirmed for me by my friend's recent purchase of PS2. What a waste of money. . .

[oozing sarcasm]Oh yeah, Metal Gear Solid and MGS2 really sucked. A huge waste of money.[/oozing sarcasm]

To this day, the only games that compare to MGS are the games in the Marathon Saga. Both series have incredible storylines, gameplay, and graphics for their time.

Jansar · Dec 19, 2001, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:

GTA3 is out for the PS2 only and that is almost enough of a reason to buy one.

Well, that's what companies to do people when they want them to buy their consoles. My reason for starting this topic was because I was afraid Microsoft was going to do the same thing, as in making it only for their console. But, I'm glad you guys proved otherwise. I'd much prefer games for the computer anyway.

Dec 20, 2001, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:


Yeah, Xbox users will probably still buy it for their computer just for the MP.

Did you ever play Grand theft Auto? Great game, just mindless fun. GTA3 is out for the PS2 only and that is almost enough of a reason to buy one

Umm

... the X-box version of Halo has tons of MP modes built in including co-op. Not only can it be played 4 player split screen but if you plug it into an Ethernet LAN up to 16 players can duke it out. This in of itself makes the XBox the ultimate college console since you just plug it into the Ethernet jack in your dormroom and Halo lists all the other people in your dorm hooked in and ready to go. Then there's the XBox routing software currently available free for both windows and linux that routes XBox traffic over the internet allowing you to play Halo (and other MP XBox games) worldwide� the only other console currently out that even comes close to the Xbox for networked multiplay is the dreamcast.

JFischel · Dec 20, 2001, 11:06 AM

Add to that the XBox network will be going online in the early Spring where by you can play online as well without using the 3rd party extensions...

~jaf~

seanyepez · Dec 27, 2001, 02:35 AM

The manual associated with Halo (I have an Xbox with Halo) has "Only on Xbox" written on it.

I was pretty sure it was going to be out for the PC and Mac until this morning. Now, I don't know what to think.

rampant · Dec 27, 2001, 02:57 AM

the general consensus is that it meant only for that console, not others. They can get around this by naming it something like "Halo: Gold Edition" or something. Of course, if it isn't for PC, then bungie can suck me sideways and I'll never trust them or buy any of their products again.

CharlesS · Dec 27, 2001, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by rampant:
the general consensus is that it meant only for that console, not others. They can get around this by naming it something like "Halo: Gold Edition" or something. Of course, if it isn't for PC, then bungie can suck me sideways and I'll never trust them or buy any of their products again.

Which you won't be able to do anyway if you don't own an XBox.

rampant · Dec 27, 2001, 01:56 PM

pardon?

Dec 29, 2001, 10:08 PM

Sigh.......Bungie has explained this to many times. "Only for XBOX" mean that it is the only CONSOLE to have Halo. It does not mean it wont be out for the Mac/PC.

Strider

BigMark · Dec 30, 2001, 05:12 PM

S-H-A-L-L W-E P-L-A-Y A G-A-M-E ?

juanvaldes · Dec 31, 2001, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by <here_fishy>:


Umm

... the X-box version of Halo has tons of MP modes built in including co-op. Not only can it be played 4 player split screen but if you plug it into an Ethernet LAN up to 16 players can duke it out. This in of itself makes the XBox the ultimate college console since you just plug it into the Ethernet jack in your dormroom and Halo lists all the other people in your dorm hooked in and ready to go. Then there's the XBox routing software currently available free for both windows and linux that routes XBox traffic over the internet allowing you to play Halo (and other MP XBox games) worldwide� the only other console currently out that even comes close to the Xbox for networked multiplay is the dreamcast.

I did not know that, was told that the only diff between Xbox vs Mac/PeeCee was that Xbox only had split screen not netplay.

seanyepez · Dec 31, 2001, 05:17 PM

We all know how many games are being written for Dreamcast now.

Those "Flood" are too freaky for me. My nerves are shot. I was playing it downstairs on our 64-inch Phillips HDTV with Dolby Digital surround sound. I think I'm going to have nightmares.

Even if Bungie did announce it for the Mac, you'd need at least a Power Mac G4 with a GeForce3 to get fluidic motion. With anything less, expect a framerate of close to five.

It is truly the most advanced console shooter to date. Even the Xbox, packing an NV25 (nVIDIA's latest graphics chip, even more advanced than the GeForce3), gets choppy at times. Sometimes, it will slow down to an unbearable three or four frames per second.

I can't imagine how poorly it would run on a variant of an ATi Rage 128.

Dec 31, 2001, 08:50 PM

Yeah, those "Floods" are freaky. I thought that once they come into the picture, it becomes more like Aliens and Terminator combined. The game just became worse from that point. But, Halo will eventually come to the mac. (Just stop playing once you get to the Floods, or suffer the nightmares to follow...)

11011001 · Jan 1, 2002, 04:06 AM

But my friends, are we not forgetting that the g4 at 867 MHz squashes even a 1.5 Ghz p4?

I don't know enough about the game engine, to know how heavily it depends on the graphics card... but I think that it may still rely somewhat on the main processor for some of the graphics.

another thing alot of macs have way more ram than an xbox... which has 32? 64?

They would have had to do a lot of tricks, specifically ones requiring processor time, to compensate for the RAM issue... which on a mac with more ram, would free up more of the processor for graphics...

I know that the XBox is specifically designed for gaming, which makes it more powerful for that kind of stuff... but I think a g4 would compensate for this...

Akkk, by the time this game gets out on pc, and by the time they port it to the mac, we will all have g5's anyways!!!

So the frame rates on a mac have 2 things going for it:
1. The power of the g3/g4 vs the loathesome p3's/p4's
2. Much more ram... I have 640!! and I know alot of people have an average of 256...

But I agree, a very powerful graphics card would be needed... RagePro 128 probably would not cut it. I think the gerforce 2 could though...

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: 11011001 ]

Jan 1, 2002, 07:13 PM

Lets all shuttup and get back to Unreal Tournament while we're waiting.

Now where did i put my MP5 (TO weapons rock, shame about the scenarios)

jwblase · Jan 1, 2002, 08:44 PM

No matter how good Halo is/isn't, no game is worth playing without my trusty TOZT-7 backpack napalm unit.

JB

rampant · Jan 1, 2002, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by 11011001:
But my friends, are we not forgetting that the g4 at 867 MHz squashes even a 1.5 Ghz p4?

I don't know enough about the game engine, to know how heavily it depends on the graphics card... but I think that it may still rely somewhat on the main processor for some of the graphics.

another thing alot of macs have way more ram than an xbox... which has 32? 64?

They would have had to do a lot of tricks, specifically ones requiring processor time, to compensate for the RAM issue... which on a mac with more ram, would free up more of the processor for graphics...

I know that the XBox is specifically designed for gaming, which makes it more powerful for that kind of stuff... but I think a g4 would compensate for this...

Akkk, by the time this game gets out on pc, and by the time they port it to the mac, we will all have g5's anyways!!!

So the frame rates on a mac have 2 things going for it:
1. The power of the g3/g4 vs the loathesome p3's/p4's
2. Much more ram... I have 640!! and I know alot of people have an average of 256...

But I agree, a very powerful graphics card would be needed... RagePro 128 probably would not cut it. I think the gerforce 2 could though...

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: 11011001 ]

The 867 G4 would most certinly not beat a P4 1.5 ghz in any test, except in the biased alti-vec enabled benchmarks. The P4 has frequency and bus speed far superiour to the G4. Also don't forget that the G4 isn't actually a RISC chip, but a CRISC chip, just like the P4 which is a combination of the 2 types of instruction sets, which negates the so called "RISC gain".

MacGorilla · Jan 1, 2002, 09:04 PM

What..I've never heard of CRISC? Got some reliable documentation on this???

iJed · Jan 1, 2002, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
What..I've never heard of CRISC? Got some reliable documentation on this???

I have heard of this too (in my comp sci course). During the late 80s to early 90s it was considered that using simpler single length instructions in a CPU was better (faster) than lots of complex instructions of different lengths that did more complex things. However, it turns out that a combination of RISC and CISC works better than using one or the other. Supposedly the terms RISC and CISC are largely obsolete nowadays.

11011001 · Jan 2, 2002, 02:41 AM

I don't know about that. I know very well, as any sane person knows who has read apples propaganda for the g4 that the benchmark tests are certainly biased, and I know that not many programs are altivec enhanced. But regardless, in raw computing power, as needed in programs like SETI or the RC5 project, the g4 tends to be at the top of most of the lists. (Granted for RC5 this is due to a processor instruction that powerpc processors and intel processors have that other processors do not. But even against intel the g4 wins alot)

And don't get caught up on megahertz. We all know that a 1.4 Ghz celeron is nothing compared to a 1.4 Ghz p4. Well, the g4 with a max of 867 Mhz right now, cannot be compared to a 867 P3, we need something more like a 1.5-1.8 Ghz p4. That is without altivec...

And what is this thing with altivec? Altivec is part of the processor, and why do people keep trying to compare the chip without out it. It is one of the revolutionary things about the chip for christos's sake.

Also the g4 is better at somet things than the p4, and the opposite is true.

But one thing is certain, the processor in the XBox is nothing compared to the 867 g4. Even comparing Mhz which is not at all accurate for determining processor speed, the 867 g4 wins, by something like 100 Mhz. (XBox has a 700 something chip right?)

I wish motorola would hurry up and break the Ghz barrier so people would stop wining about the g4 not even being in the Ghz range, when all that matters is gigaflops!!

Besides, more and more apps are using altivec. I click the little option for altivec in alot of the programs that I compile, and I hope that more developers do this as well.

But of course the actual framerate on the mac could be really crappy, after being ported from a product originally designed for pc like hardware. Lets hope that if they port it, they do a really good job!!

I expect to see better speeds on pc hardware, cus the hardware is more similar to the original XBox, which means that the little optimizations made in the engine for that kind of hardware will be carried over into pc port. Doing the mac port means that they are going to run into instances where getting the same thing to happen on the mac is going to require more code.

The exact same thing would be true, if the thing were made for the MacBox, and ported to the mac, then to the pc...

Akk, why can't pc users and mac users just get along? I know I am part of the problem but I try to keep an open mind. Problem is that I have just come to love macs to much, and who can blame me. By the way I used to be a die hard pc fan, slandering macs left right and center, until some kind soul showed me the path I was to follow.

seanyepez · Jan 2, 2002, 04:08 AM

I don't know why we can't get along.

As a Mac user, I have to admit that PC drivers for nVIDIA boards are leaps and bounds ahead of Mac drivers.

I've never seen a G4 get 600 frames per second at Quake. While nobody really needs to have anything above 100 frames per second to effectively play a game, it is just a testament to how much better PC desktops are for gaming.

Using the same configuration file, a G4 (under OS 9 or X) gets around 200 frames per second. I'm using the same configuration www.barefeats.com used in their testing on my SDR Athlon equipped with a GeForce3 (non-Ti).

The G4 PowerBook, on the other hand, is a testament to how well Mac laptops compare against their PC cousins. (They obviously are distant cousins.

)

Fine. The Dell Inspiron might be better for gaming, but it was designed to be a desktop replacement. The TiBook, on the other hand, is about half as heavy, and it still can play Quake very well. Obviously, neither notebook can compete against any CRT-toting desktop because of LCD lag. 120 frames per second on a notebook looks just like 40 frames per second on the same notebook; with 40 to 50 milliseconds to wait for a frame to draw, there's no use in getting more than 30 frames per second for fluidic motion. The iBook is definitely the best you'll get for gaming at its low price of $899 (500-megahertz iBook with CD-ROM drive).

vasu · Jan 2, 2002, 05:45 AM

I'm 99.9% sure that the XBox has an Intel 733Mhz Celeron Processor

seanyepez · Jan 2, 2002, 05:59 AM

It has a variant of the Pentium III processor.

Even so, it's equipped with one of the best GPU's on the market and kick-ass, optimized drivers to boot.

MacGorilla · Jan 2, 2002, 10:56 AM

Well, Games like Halo, Quake 3 and Unreal are not the end of all of games. May people (like me) enjoy Civillization-like games or arcade games that don't require world altering graphic cards.

seanyepez · Jan 2, 2002, 09:54 PM

Yes, but this topic is centered on Halo. Talk about Halo.

Civilization is a very good game. It's just not what were're talking about.

rampant · Jan 2, 2002, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by seanyepez:
I don't know why we can't get along.

As a Mac user, I have to admit that PC drivers for nVIDIA boards are leaps and bounds ahead of Mac drivers.

I've never seen a G4 get 600 frames per second at Quake. While nobody really needs to have anything above 100 frames per second to effectively play a game, it is just a testament to how much better PC desktops are for gaming.

Using the same configuration file, a G4 (under OS 9 or X) gets around 200 frames per second. I'm using the same configuration www.barefeats.com used in their testing on my SDR Athlon equipped with a GeForce3 (non-Ti).

The G4 PowerBook, on the other hand, is a testament to how well Mac laptops compare against their PC cousins. (They obviously are distant cousins.

)

Fine. The Dell Inspiron might be better for gaming, but it was designed to be a desktop replacement. The TiBook, on the other hand, is about half as heavy, and it still can play Quake very well. Obviously, neither notebook can compete against any CRT-toting desktop because of LCD lag. 120 frames per second on a notebook looks just like 40 frames per second on the same notebook; with 40 to 50 milliseconds to wait for a frame to draw, there's no use in getting more than 30 frames per second for fluidic motion. The iBook is definitely the best you'll get for gaming at its low price of $899 (500-megahertz iBook with CD-ROM drive).

My compaq laptop refreshes at 60hz (it's listed in the sysem info), and I get 108 fps in the Q3 timedemo. When playing, I can tell if the framerate ever goes below 60. Same with Half-Life and UT. I remember something about compaq having good LCD screens, that could be it.

mike one · Jan 3, 2002, 08:19 AM

i played a demo of oni at macworld NY 1999 i think?
and it was MULTIPLAYER ONLY!!!
then bungie canned multiplayer on that game, leaving us with a watered down excuse of a game. no game in that genre is worth a damn unless you can play multiplayer.
UT and Q3 being the prime examples, with Myth2 and blizzard type games also being good examples.

halo will come to mac. maybe with no MP support.

another thing, consoles are designed to play games and play games only, so they do it well, very well. the chip in the xbox is a ~700MHz celeron. and most likely any version of halo that comes out for pc/mac will get its arse kicked by the xbox, because the game is written for the xbox, written to take advantage of its unique architecture. the mac and pc versions will essentially be ports of the xbox version, hence not as good, not as fast etc.. also the fact that pcs and now macs are a hodge podge of many possible configureations limits the coding of the game. it has to work on many systems, and hence is optimized for none of them.

chip speed doesn't mean jack. effective coding is far more important.
and overall architecture is also very important, with the gfx card being quite possibly at the top of importance. ram doesn't really mean that much for most games. anything above 256 is pretty muched wasted, at least for os9.

if bungie can put together a well coded version of halo then that'll be great. but like others i'll wait to see it. so far what i've heard about halo on xbox hasn't been all that impressive.

seanyepez · Jan 3, 2002, 04:47 PM

Are you so sure?

Our iMacs and PowerBooks (even those with the RADEON Mobility) will not run Halo at an acceptable framerate. Even a G4 with a GeForce3 will be hard-pressed to render some of the visuals and special effects for that game.

Other than graphics, I don't know how they are going to allow Mac and PC users to play against console users. Even if they did, console players would be clearly owned every time. The controller cannot compete with the classic keyboard and mouse setup on computers, especially if the computer has a decent gaming mouse pad (fUnc sUrface 1030, Everglide, Ratpad, 3M) and a third-generation optical mouse. The console version aims for you, actually; sometimes, you'll be tracking an enemy and the console will kick in, tracking it for you for a few seconds. I think they realize the console is at a strict disadvantage, and they are trying to even out the game accordingly.

Jansar · Jan 4, 2002, 08:59 AM

I have a 500 MhZ Cube with a Radeon and I'm sure that Halo will run well on it. Everyone's so damn worried about speed and benchmarks and other useless crap. A game producer will not produce a game that very few people will buy because their computers cannot be optimized for it.

Jan 4, 2002, 11:53 AM

That's what they said about Unreal when it was released too

mike one · Jan 4, 2002, 11:54 AM

i have an ibook 600

640x480X16bit will be unplayable for this game on an ibook, me thinks.

also the radeon in the PB is a stripped down version of the real portable version, a full 100MHz slower!
had the radeon been the real deal then the powerbooks would be the bomb for gaming.

Arty50 · Jan 8, 2002, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by mike one:

another thing, consoles are designed to play games and play games only, so they do it well, very well. the chip in the xbox is a ~700MHz celeron. and most likely any version of halo that comes out for pc/mac will get its arse kicked by the xbox, because the game is written for the xbox, written to take advantage of its unique architecture. the mac and pc versions will essentially be ports of the xbox version, hence not as good, not as fast etc.. also the fact that pcs and now macs are a hodge podge of many possible configureations limits the coding of the game. it has to work on many systems, and hence is optimized for none of them.

Uh, no. By this reasoning Red Faction should run better on the PS2 than it does on a Mac or PC. It doesn't. Modern PCs are far faster than their console bretheren, and thus can run games far faster and at higher resolutions than consoles can. It's just a fact of life. Red Faction on the PC looks better and plays faster. Just like Quake 3, UT, and Half-life. The same will go for Halo. We'll get hi-rez and killer framerates. Consoles are way behind PCs. If MS could sell a 2 Ghz PIV enabled XBox for $300, they would. But right now that set-up is around $2K. Also, why bother when 99.9% of all TVs out there only put out 480 (or something pathetic like that).

seanyepez · Jan 8, 2002, 06:25 PM

You're very uninformed. I won't back up my statement because I don't have to.

We will get terrible framerates on anything below a GeForce3 for Halo. The RADEON in the Cube will probably croak.

Jeff W. · Jan 9, 2002, 01:22 AM

just buy an xbox.. they rock!

I love my mac's but halo belongs on the xbox..

Jeff

seanyepez · Jan 9, 2002, 02:46 AM

I have an Xbox. Sometimes, Halo will drop down to three or four frames per second. If this happens on an Xbox, I think we'd see some pretty choppy graphics on anything but the highest-end PC or Mac.

--Helen-- · Jan 9, 2002, 03:27 PM

When is it going to get to the mac? March?

Leonard · Jan 9, 2002, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by --Helen--:
When is it going to get to the mac? March?

Inside Mac Games just posted a MWSF update on HALO in which they say

"As for Halo, Tamte confirmed what Microsoft has been saying: Halo will come to the Mac. Other than that, no details were forthcoming—including whether Bold will publish it.

Tamte did say, however, to expect new announcements in the coming weeks. Keep your fingers crossed, because more Destineer games could be coming to a Macintosh near you."

Other than that, I haven't seen a date. My guess would be at least not until February - Microsoft wants to sell Xboxes using the HALO game title.

Jansar · Jan 10, 2002, 09:40 AM

Stupid Microsoft...

Those bastards.

Arty50 · Jan 10, 2002, 12:17 PM

Actually I don't think we'll see Halo until at least summer. Matt Soell's last comment was pretty cryptic. It basically said Halo was coming to the PC/Mac, but they didn't know how or when.

They still have to add net play to the game, and it's been theorized that we might get some extra levels/content.