Yeah, they confirmed on their podcast that it's just not going to happen. Building the network model "from scratch" was too big of an endeavor and they also said they would have had to change some of the gameplay (pistol), which would defeat the purpose.Originally Posted by p0lar_bear
It's funny how the Halo PC netcode kept a lot of shenanigans in check by being so out-of-sync with the action.
Last edited by ejburke; June 11th, 2011 at 11:01 AM.
The PC netcode would correct clients who weren't too far behind in terms of networking updates, so it wasn't so much a big deal for Halo1, especially so since there isn't much that is gameplay affecting and also networked to begin with. Unlike later Halo games, which have more object types, diverse physics, scripting, etc which is factored into networked games.
Every couple of days I pop into this thread and look at the latest post. Is this E3 thread going to stay Halo? Because we have a lot of other threads regarding the new halo games and they all discuss some of the same things at some point in time. It gets really tiring to read.
What they fail to realise is that even with the pistol, the first game still has the best multiplayer experience. I don't know why they can't understand that.
You think personally it is the best multiplayer experience. But what's selling copies? Halo 1 PC/Halo 1 or Halo Reach/Halo 3? I guarantee you once the kids who played Halo Reach growing up play Halo 7 or whatever, they'll say Halo Reach had the best multiplayer of all time.
But I do rage the least when I play Halo 1 PC. I think it's the fact that no one cares whether you're good or bad at it. It also has a lot of the funny things Halo is known for, like sliding Hogs at 5MPH killing a fully armored cyborg. That always makes me laugh.
Sales a good game does not make. The populace are idiots.
Seeing as how this thread was created first, discussions were seeded here before the others. Unless a mod actually moves the posts (which could disrupt the post flow), I doubt people will stop. Also, if people aren't actively discussing the other junk, chances are that's how they see it...as other junk.
Also, the pistol is lame, hth
I don't personally know anybody who plays Reach. And no, it is not because all of my friends have similar interests. The only people still playing Reach online are the try-hards that abuse the mechanics to win. I never had to abuse the first game's mechanics to win.
I don't think that because it's the first game, it's the best. Wing Commander Prophecy was far superior to Wing Commander I in every way. ArmA 2 is much better than ArmA I. Battlefield 2 is better than Battlefield 1942, and Battlefield 3 looks to be better still. So it's not likely that people who grew up with Reach will say it was the best just because it is the one they grew up with.
I still play reach. Does that mean I'm abusing mechanics to win?
The Halo game which is 9 years newer than the original is selling more copies so it must be better.
Haven't we been over this so many times already? The only reason FPS games like Reach or Blops are popular is because there's no real skill curve, the games are stuffed full of so much random BS that any idiot can jump in and get lots of kills. Those games appeal to bad players (i.e. most people) by letting them be successful without having to actually try at all.
+1
Again, +1.
Newer isn't always better, but then sometimes it is. Quality > novelty.
No, it means you're an average gamer with a high tolerance for random chaotic multiplayer because skill isn't that important to you.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that those kinds of games are the ones that sell these days is bad news for hardcore nerds like me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks