It sounds like you're protecting the game. (fanboy maybe?)
1. Ok, awesome, I'm glad you think that. It's what I was going for.
2. If I paid $230 for my LCD monitor a few years ago, why should I be forced to only use half of the pixels because the developers were lazy?
3. Honestly, Halo 2 on the xbox wasn't the best of games. The vechiles and weapons are incredibly un-balanced. It carries over to the PC version. There's much more bugs than just the quickmatch feature I listed.
4. The editing tool left out many of the shaders and examples that were in the tutorials.
5. You're right, Halo PC did have a lot of problems. But they really didn't need to have AF or AA because half of the video cards couldn't run it at a decent framerate until a year later. (Remember the 9700Pro was the most powerful at Halo's release). Ok, you
might be right about if you were comparing textures directly... but even then, they wouldn't look too much better. And if you can't see it in-game, it doesn't matter. Halo 2 Vista's netcode was an improved net code from the xbox version? Hm, maybe, maybe not, I'd like to see some proof. But I didn't mention it in the review, so I don't know what you're getting at. Gerabox made the netcode worse? How? They didn't have anything to start with.
6. I agree
The standards are different on the PC, and tossing in a 3 year old console port in 2007 to promote your new "Games for Windows- LIVE" isn't going to cut it.
Originally Posted by Flyboy
Bookmarks