no buy. why doesn't fkking microsoft release for their windows 8 instead of restricting it to fagbox?

Cuz they so dang stupid and ignorant.

how about because there's more people who would buy it on the two hundred dollar xbox than thousand dollar computers that would barely be able to handle a port?

you seem to not understand that they are a business trying to make as much money as possible. time and resources spent porting a piece of software to another, less popular platform would likely not be of any benefit. not to mention there would be a bigger community on the xbox if it were xbox exclusive, meaning xbox would be the most financially beneficial.

You guys need to chill.

>reache's mp was gimmicky

okay well let's reflect on halo 3

land mines were gimmicks that nobody ever used. as were radar jammers. and flares. and spike and flame grenades. and the flamethrower. and that monstrosity that was the elephant.

reach was never that bad

Don't get your hopes up.

COUGH halo 2 vista COUGH
it sucked, but it showed they listened...at least a little bit

You guys know this won't be sold as a full-price retail game, right? Frank O'Connor had an interview on yesterday sometime after that and he said it wouldn't be full price because in reality, you have already paid for the game.

Ignore my idiotic post XD
Edited by d4rfnader on Jun 7, 2011 at 06:12 PM

I think he was referring to how one of the developers present their favoritism as an argument in this case is a bit outlandish. Not that it matters, but I understand your comparison.

For me, Reach has a few memorable encounters; the part of ONI where you're at the anti-air turrets trying to turn it online, the whole level of Exodus, and the entire level of Long Night of Solace. I personally don't think Reach has a lot of memorable single encounters, but rather has memorable levels.

Two words.

Bad. Ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epKqy6CDUME&feature=feedu
to clear up some things

$39.99
Edited by MatthewDratt on Jun 7, 2011 at 07:44 PM

I'm trying to update the Main post with some new information, but my computer picks the strangest times to have meltdowns. Actually, I normally start having computer problems every time every time something big happens in the Halo Universe.

Anyway, I'm glad to see people are starting to come to their senses a bit more with judging the game too soon. I've been watching some of the links people have been posting, and it seems like the single player has so much potential. The multiplayer, of course, is another story running on the reach engine. To me, Reach had the most generic and bland engine in any Halo game I have ever seen. Same goes for the multiplayer experience. I'd much rather see Halo CE's multiplayer either recoded, or at the very least, emulated to near perfection on the reach engine. I mean, come on. It's a remake, you shouldn't be taking half of the experience and replacing it with a new game. There really is no point in that.

Anyone notice how there was a mongoose in the trailer? :S

As if you'd have a choice

e: butthole phonepad
Edited by HaloIsAHorribleGane on Jun 7, 2011 at 08:21 PM

Oh god what? Where?

I want to know where they mentioned what engine they're using?

And what do you care what engine they're using anyway do you all even know what game engine tech even does? You assume the engine is horrible because you didn't like the games built with them... pretty oblivious reason to call an engine horrible

Shame you all don't know anything about the engineering aspect of gane developement.. all you know are the static tools you use that are never in flux.

Who says some of us don't know anything about game development? As for basing judgement of the engine on the games that are created with it, what other ways are there for the average consumer to base their opinions? Aside from that, The Reach engine was created with one thing in mind. Reach. If it was designed for Reach, and you don't like reach, you've got a pretty decent basis for an opinion.

Edited by DieHard Bob on Jun 7, 2011 at 08:36 PM

you realize that they never rebuild engines from scratch right? I certainly hope you do. they make changes to what they've already got to fit their goals for the next game. technically speaking, reach is the same engine as combat evolved.

every game company does this.

why the hell would a game company invest resources into building an entirely new engine from scratch when they've got the engine from their previous product at their disposal? perhaps you don't understand this concept as the source code for the blam engine isn't lain out in front of you for you to make changes to as you please. if it were, the engineering aspect would be much more obvious.

if you're going to judge an engine, the gameplay and the "fun" is the last thing you're going to want to look at. the engine consists of all the back end systems, including lighting, graphics, physics, particles, and all sorts of little things you'd never even notice were there.

you can't say CE's engine is better than reach's because "the gameplay was better," because that would be a complete fallacy. they could notch up all of the weapon damages by changing a few values and potentially make the game more fun and addictive, but that doesn't change the engine itself in the slightest.

"Never" is a strong term. I've seen it done before.

And of course they take bits and pieces of the old engine. It's the same for Operating Systems and just about every other piece of software as well. But as much as they might use aspects from older engines, I am one hundred percent sure that no game engine is just the previous with added features. For one, that would not even work, as the core of the engine, the original version, would age and eventually die. An engine can contain chunks of it's predecessor, sure, but no company is gonig to spend hard earned cash to add features to aging tech, and then try to sell it.

Look at Valve, for example. Their original engine was goldsource, which ran Half Life. Goldsource contained 0 physics, which is at the core of the Source engine. There is no way they somehow rigged physics onto an engine which was 7 years old, and made it work for 7 additional years. Source was rebuilt, features being brought over from gold.

In conclusion, no. Reach is not the same engine as The CE engine. That's like me making a sandwhich, throwing on a slice of ham, and saying it's essentially a pig.




An engine can only be as good as it's greatest game. There is no denying that. If everyone fails to create a great game on a specific engine, than the engine itself is obviously at fault. Sure, the thing could be capable of the greatest explosions, the most realistic enemies, ect. But if nobody can utilize that properly, than the engine has failed.



Did I ever once state that the engine of CE was more technically capable than Reach? No. I do, however, believe that (and thus far are backed by the fact that) more sucessful content has been created on the CE engine than the Reach engine. Sometimes a car isn't about how fast it will go. It's about how easy it is to keep on the road.



They did this in the new Playlists on Live. I've done this with powerups in custom games. It's not the same. Whole game, to me, just feels like it was built wrong from the ground up. And I'm not sayin that from a storyline point of view. I'm saying it from the core experience point of view. You don't go making a big budget game that's only going to show off a small percentage of an engine you put years of work into. I've seen a lot of what the engine can do, and I don't like it. End of story.
Edited by DieHard Bob on Jun 7, 2011 at 09:50 PM
Edited by DieHard Bob on Jun 7, 2011 at 09:52 PM

Nope. :P
The wait has been killing me for the past two years.

reach engine is to combat evolved engine as unreal engine 3 is to unreal engine one or id tech 6 is to id tech 1. they are not the same, but at the same time, they are.

you get body work and an engine swap on a car, it's technically the same car. bits and pieces have been ripped out and replaced, but the car will have the same license plate.



I want to smack you for making such a ridiculous statement. any engine, if used correctly, can be used to create amazing things.



that doesn't make any sense in the context of what you were talking about. are you saying the reach engine is unstable? I guess that's why the game crashes so much, huh? oh wait it doesn't. the game runs at a smooth 30 fps with very little slowdown and has not once crashed on me.



perhaps I chose a bad example. let me put it another way.

if the designers decided the weapons should have completely different functionality via the bullet spread and balance, if the artists had made different artistic decisions, that's not engine and code side. that's asset side. assets and gameplay have nothing to do with the engine. they could have made a call of duty clone with this engine had they wanted, but guess what they made? a halo game.

do you think the engine has anything to do with the decisions the gameplay designers and artists made? some of the designer's requests may have been integrated into the code to fit what they wanted, but as far as weapon balance and models and animations and general feel of the gameplay go, that's got nothing to do with the engine itself.

stubbz the zombie (a horrible game) was made on the halo engine. call of duty was made on a modified quake engine. countless games were made on the unreal engine.

I cannot stress this enough. the engine and engineers are not to blame for an unenjoyable game experience. the designers and artists and producers are to blame for that.



no but it's heavily implied by many members that since reach is less fun than halo, the engine is somehow worse. and you are agreeing that ce was greater than reach, so put two and two together.

I also love how I never said "technically capable." I said "better."

to me it sounds like you're trying to validate the fact that the engine and it's capabilities somehow ties in to the gameplay experience, when anybody with decent coding skill could mimmick the same style of gameplay with any available engine out there. anybody can take the unreal engine and make a cod clone. anybody can take unity and make an RPG. anybody can take source and make a halo game.

tl;dr, you want to blame someone for screwing up the game, blame the designers and producers for making bad decisions. not the engine and engineers.

saying anniversary edition will be worse because of the engine it's running on is an absolutely laughable statement to make.

Thing I want to and dont want on the remake.
-no emping (lol) vehicles.
-bloodgulch
-driving while holding the flag
-no dieing when going into water
-boost
-new easter eggs and keeping the old ones in.
-no homing rockets
-the hd version of the old rocket hog
-over powered pistol
-better shaders :D

Multiplayer wont be on the same engine as campaign, Multiplayer is going to be 7 maps for halo reach multiplayer.

citation required

:(

oh wait yeah the guys have dmrs on their back

welp. so much for my interest, unless they bring in new weapons and gameplay for the halo 1 maps.

First off, I'd like to compliment you on pushing off half of my argument with blah blah blah and substituting your own. Great job there.

I was saying that the engines can have their similarities, design principles, ect. But you do NOT have the same code, when it comes down to it. Proof of this? one of the reasons 343 didn't want to use Halo CE's multiplayer for this remake is because of immense coding differences.
So you're basically saying if I took an engine out of a Porsche 911 replaced it with a different engine, and screwed with it's areodynamics, I'd have same car? I don't think so.

Oh, and I could take the licenceplate off of that car and stick it on a honda.



Calm down there, man. The only truth that statement has is if the team using it has enough time to actually invest on taming an engine which is insanely hard to utilize correctly.



You've got very little insite past technical aspects, don't you? What I'm saying is that if you can't use what your given properly, you'd be better off using something more restricted and simple that you could. It makes perfect sense if you'd stop being so dense.



I respond much in the same way to this as I did to the above comment. The engine was designed for Halo Reach, with all of it's artistic and gameplay mechanics in mind. You need to keep in mind that there is a team of people working on a game, all at the same time. The engine designers don't just throw something together, give it to the rest of the team and say good luck. They work together.



Yes, I Know the engine has something to do with designers and artists. They're the ones who will be using it, so it's their job to say "We need more room to work with physics in this game. Code something into the engine to allow this, please."






Well maybe the members have a point? I don't meant to hop on the band wagon, but more features doesn't always mean better product. The Reach engine has not yet given me a reason to appreciate it, so why should I, even though it's possible for it to do better on paper?



Why do we need new engines at all if this is true?




I blame the whole team because on a team, you don't push the blame on one group. They worked together on this, they "fialed" together.

The anniversary edition runs on the CE engine for single player. Stay in formed.


I eagerly await your responce.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQTGjZ2SEtw&feature=feedu Around 0:46 I believe is when Frank O'connor states that multiplayer will be on reach engine.



Also. Vidoc 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVXGPNZQpw&feature=related
Edited by bigfoot343 on Jun 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM
Edited by bigfoot343 on Jun 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

I may buy this on 360 when it comes out like later on

But if it does come for PC, I'd buy it sooner.

But still not liking it that we could've done this a long time ago if we had that dang Code!

I thought I had links to this on the front page, but I guess they died. I'll use yours.

Also, you know you linked to the same thing twice, right?

lol whoops Fixed the link.
Edited by bigfoot343 on Jun 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

People who legitimately bought Halo 1 (PC/XBOX) should get a ten dollar discount.

It's gonna be 39.99

This. We could use our CD keys as proof or something. :V

I pretty much have mine memorized after 7 years of owning the game.
Edited by DieHard Bob on Jun 8, 2011 at 01:17 AM