Gearbox Announces Halo Custom Edition PC Add-On 34
Thanks to GameSpy for its interview with Gearbox Software's boss Randy Pitchford regarding Halo: Custom Edition, a "Gearbox-created add-on that includes a little of everything: editing tools, tutorials, technical updates, and more", and will be "free to Halo PC customers." Following previous controversy over alleged "Bungie/Microsoft testing and approval delays" of Halo PC patches, it seems Gearbox has arranged a direct route, and "will provide [technical] support", for the content, which includes "'Fast Shaders' (improves performance up to 60% on pixel shader hardware), improved network code (reduces the incidence of player 'warping')", as well as the Halo Editing Kit (HEK), a "package of tools, source material and tutorials that will allow modification makers to bring their own visions to life within the Halo engine", all due out "very, very soon."
how about coop? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not a 'big' thing but it matters a lot!
-
Re:how about coop? (Score:1)
Re:how about coop? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least there is a Banshee in the PC version's coop.
Re:how about coop? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:how about coop? (Score:2)
If you're anything like me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which really boils down to, "Well, Ummm, Maybe.".
Sad really, I enjoyed Halo on the PC and would have loved to go through it with a few friends in cooperative mode.
Re:If you're anything like me... (Score:2, Insightful)
-
Re:If you're anything like me... (Score:1, Interesting)
I would have preferred a coop mode for the single player game over all of the competitive modes. Halo online largely sucks.
The Editing Kit is good news, though maybe it should have been released with Halo PC considering the game at its core is 6 years old now - it was in development before the Xbox was even conceived of.
Halo has less players online right now than Tribes 2, and that game is
Re:If you're anything like me... (Score:1, Interesting)
One of my complaints about single-player Halo was that the quality was a bit uneven. Some sections were just plain awesome (Silent Cartographer must go down as the most beautiful map for any game ever), while others were plain horrid (the Library, anyone?)
The plot, universe, AI, enemies and other assets are just too good to waste, though, and it would be almost criminal to let such an opportunity pass. Gearbox have been virtually si
Re:three words: (Score:2)
but know this, mods: i've known for quite a while how complete this stuff has been. the only reason they haven't launched it before now is because of the frustration they were experiencing with MGS.
A different perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
They got a little better, near the end, but from the comments I read by the beta lead, my guess is that someone at MS gave them the slapdown. Gearbox's Pitchford has been saying that the patch process in Microsoft takes too long. Well, part of that was this internal 300-500 non-hired person beta test that I am in. It's a good thing MS has this, because the patches Gearbox was putting out were subpar at best and often created more problems than they solved on many of the beta testers' home PCs.
Gearbox had this onsite testing prior to the wider internal testing that I am a part of. I have a feeling that this was Gearbox's way of giving MS the finger, because they were obviously not pleased with the way MS tests their games. In fact, they posted the request for on-site testers on their own website well before distributing it to the testing group, many of whom did live in the same city and could've worked but did not get in because they were not informed of this in time. Naturally, on site testing has many advantages to the 300-400 person group that MS usually uses. But what this large external cum internal work group does is create a wide spectrum of possible PC problems. My guess is that Gearbox just didn't want the extra work that 300-400 PC configurations caused.
I don't want to pretend that I know all the inside story here, because the beta group isn't some secret chamber testing group inside Bill Gates' office. But it is a group that has been used by MS on every single PC game for several years now. It's part of their embedded production process, and it usually works very well. Ensemble is great at it, Digital Anvil was fantastic, and generally the groups that have problems with the process are the external ones MS contracts out. Relic's forgettable "evolutionary RTS" comes immediately to mind as a beta testing disaster (at least with gameplay mechanics) that was worse than Halo PC. But not much worse. From the vantage point of an internal beta tester for Halo PC much of the fault for the patches lies in Gearbox's lap, not Microsoft's.
This HaloCE (CE!) makes Gearbox look the good guys. I'm not so sure that's the truth. I think this is just Gearbox raising their other middle finger to MS.
Re:A different perspective (Score:1)
There could be more to this than "it's all Microsoft's fault." If the present tells us anything, it's that Gearbox did a very lousy job porting Halo to the PC, so it really wouldn't surprise me if their patches demonstrated that same hasty completion. Which, for Microsoft, would only make a bad situation worse.
Re:A different perspective (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:A different perspective (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A different perspective (Score:2)
Seeing how it uses OpenGL, a Linux version is certainly within the realm of possibilty (technically speaking).
Re:A different perspective (Score:2)
Yeah, that's something I've wondered too... since Halo orginally started on a Mac. Then they ported it to PC, then finally to X-Box. Halo *was* in development for 7 years if I'm not mistaken, so it's hard to know (without having seen it.) how much of the codebase has (had) remained portable
Cheers
Re:A different perspective (Score:2)
Most developers have their own inter
Better performance? (Score:5, Informative)
That alone (if true) will make this worth the time of download (or however else they choose to distrubute this). Is it just me, or did Halo PC have terrible performance? On an AthlonXP 2500, 512MB RAM and Radeon 9500 pro, I get much better frame rates with Far Cry running at 1024x768 than I do with Halo running at 800x600 (both on mediumish detail settings).
Re:Better performance? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Better performance? (Score:1, Offtopic)
I suspect that they did this on purpose, so that if you wanted to have the proper Halo experience, you have to buy and Xbox.
I was seriously underwhelmed by the whole experience... my Xbox owning friends trumpeted this game as if it were the best thing ever to happen to video gaming. I know understand that their manic promotion of this game was infact a side effect of
Re:Better performance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better performance? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better performance? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Better performance? (Score:1)
Re:Better performance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod tools. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess... (Score:4, Funny)
Well I guess thats better than 'when its done.'
Increased FOV? (Score:2, Interesting)
*deep sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)