Print

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(esc1 @ May 26 2006, 12:26 PM)

I will have no complaints as long as the field of view is like Halo.  Halo2 FOV is too small and probably changed to this to influence dual wielding which has lost its appeal by now.  It takes too long trying to find  where you are getting hit from by a BR when running accross Zanzibar.

i rescently played both halo 1 and halo 2 to see what so many people are complaining about the FoV and i dont see much of a difference.  both are fine and look the same to me because on my screen the guns dont even take up quarter of the screen let alone half of it.  if there are things that people can point out for me to look for to see the difference that would help.  but as of now, i have no problem with the view they offer.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(miggidy @ May 26 2006, 12:54 PM)

Well if N3's running on a modified KUF engine, then I won't worry too much about H3 possibly being built on a modified H2 engine.

You can buy the book here:
http://www.spiderwor...oks/xbox360.php

As for the FOV that everyone is complaining about, get a wide screen!

Im not worried about either, but i think its safe to assume that bungie has done a whole lot more with their engine then what Qinteractive has done with the KuF engine.  that game looks good, but i knew from the start that it used the same engine as KuF which IMO is not a good thing.  they enhanced the game to look good but im sure the game could look FAR better if built exclusively for the 360.

i play on a widescreen and maybe that is why the PoV in halo 2 doesnt bother me.  

and thanks for the link about the book, i didnt even know it was out yet!

[tNCecil]

I doubt that Halo 3 will be released in Spring 07. They still need e3 to build hype. Sure, its halo 3, but nothing builds hype like e3 does. And, quite frankly, hype = sales, good game or not.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(miggidy @ May 26 2006, 09:25 AM)

Yeah the pistol was just way too powerful.
Realism has little to do with it, it's more like weapon balance.
Own the pistol, and you own the match (with the exception of a good camping sniper).
A toned down scoped pistol? Maybe....
But a pistol as powerful as the one in Halo? Hell no....

Whether it was too powerful or not, it took more skills to use, whereas most guns in halo2 do not, because of the increased hit box and auto-aim.  Also everyone started with a pistol, so upon spawning everyone was on equal grounds.  I used the pistol, sniper, and AR all the time.  The AR + melee was great for close range.

Ask most any pro at halo 1 who is also pro at halo 2, and they will say that halo 1 is more fun and requires more skills.  Team STK (Oger1 and Oger2) for example.  If you don't believe me i'll dig up some references, as i've done in the past on this beatin topic......that never gets old beating again.

QUOTE

i rescently played both halo 1 and halo 2 to see what so many people are complaining about the FoV and i dont see much of a difference. both are fine and look the same to me because on my screen the guns dont even take up quarter of the screen let alone half of it. if there are things that people can point out for me to look for to see the difference that would help. but as of now, i have no problem with the view they offer.

Those who were real good at halo1 and played it competitively often can tell without question the reduced FoV of halo2 (no offense, kage ).  It's a fact that halo 1 is 90 degrees, while halo2 was reduced to 70.  I have hex edited the FoV back to 90 degrees in halo2, and the difference is very noticeable.  The only problem is when the FoV is increased, MC's arms and gun stick out too far, to where they are into the reticule.  Because of this it makes it unfeasible for use.

The best way i can describe it is, in R63 when you have a rifle zoomed in and walking around is what halo 2 FoV is.  Then once you zoom back out, it is what halo1's FoV is.

Here’s the proof:







Just look how much FoV you are missing.

I also play halo2 in widescreen, and while horizontal vision is increased some it is still not close to what it should be, not to mention the vertical vision doesn't change at all in widescreen.

Compare how much the BR in halo 2 take up the screen to the assult rifle in halo 1.  There is a huge difference.  The BR takes up most of the right side of the screen, whereas the AR only takes up a small portion of the bottom right corner.

Oh ya, and bungie please put back the fing recticle to the middle of the screen.

[chuxterofdoom]

QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ May 27 2006, 01:59 AM)

Oh ya, and bungie please put back the fing recticle to the middle of the screen.

Agreed!  I did have more fun with Halo1 vs. Halo2.  Let's just hope they put the best of both in Halo3.

[Morlok8k]

oh, and what all of you are forgetting is that all games run off very heavily modified versions of the original engine: the PONG engine!  

lol j/k

so who cares if some old code is recycled?  there is some basic code needed to run an engine, why not keep the framework and upgrade the frame? (modifying the framework as needed)

[KAGE360]

QUOTE

with surprisingly polished-looking graphics, although I'm told a lot of the textures and decorator objects are just placeholder at the moment. Could have fooled me.

to me this is really impressive, but does this also mean that a lot of what was shown during the announcment trailer was just "placeholder" and the final product can look far better?  the same was for both PGR3 and GRAW while they still impressed during their stages of development the developers were always quick to point out that high rez. textures and some effects were still not put in the build.  maybe this is the same case.  

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE

Halo 1 - You see me, fire a shot without auto aim, and miss me. I notice that you're shooting at me, turn and land two or three perfectly placed shots, killing you without you having hit me once.

Halo 2 - You see me, start to fire and even though I'm not really in your crosshair, all your shots hit me before I have time to turn around. By the time I'm facing you, it's just a battle of who shot who first, and unless I have a better weapon, you've already won. This isn't always true, but it happens far more often in Halo 2 than Halo 1.

Halo 1 requires more skill to hit your target, and Halo 2 requires you to be much more aware of your surroundings. You pretty much live and die by the radar, which isn't exactly how Halo 1 felt.

Too true

[esc1]

I think there needs to be the slight auto aim.  Yea Halo required more skill, but you played most of the time on a Lan I bet or hosted on XBC or Xlink.  Leading your shot is not always fun when trying to counter lag.  If you played Halo on pc then you know this.

[Corrosive Substance]

I don't really care about the campaign, all I want is a good multiplayer game.

[alsybub]

QUOTE(Corrosive Substance @ May 28 2006, 03:03 PM)

I don't really care about the campaign, all I want is a good multiplayer game.

If they could have the one player of the original then I'm sold. The day I got my Xbox in 2001 I told my girlfriend I was gonna quickly have a go on Halo to see the graphics for a couple of minutes.



7 hours later at 3 am I turned it off.

That's what you call emersive

[Corrosive Substance]

QUOTE(alsybub @ May 28 2006, 06:22 PM)

If they could have the one player of the original then I'm sold. The day I got my Xbox in 2001 I told my girlfriend I was gonna quickly have a go on Halo to see the graphics for a couple of minutes.
7 hours later at 3 am I turned it off.

That's what you call emersive

Yeah same here, I played it everyday when I got it for the original Xbox.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(paranoia4422 @ May 28 2006, 07:48 AM)

again more realistic, not often someone shoots you in the back and you come out the victor in real life eh?

"Again with the sqeaky shoes"

More realistic doesn't always = more fun.

But besides that, i'm not referring to 'point blank range' in the back shooting.  A lot of the time when there's a reasonable distance the scenario described would be the same in 'real life'.  I for one can attest missing many a shot, when hunting, because of nerves.  Now if i had more auto aim and a bigger hit box, i would be the greatest damn hunter in the world.

The point is, the chances of missing a shot with no auto aim is much greater then with it auto aim....just like it would be in  realistically.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(esc1 @ May 28 2006, 07:59 AM)

I think there needs to be the slight auto aim.  Yea Halo required more skill, but you played most of the time on a Lan I bet or hosted on XBC or Xlink.  Leading your shot is not always fun when trying to counter lag.  If you played Halo on pc then you know this.

I did play most of the time on lan, but i rarely hosted on xbc, because the host advantage was rediculous and not satifying to win that way.  As long as your ping was under 70, the extra leading was not excessive and very playable.  I would be playing halo 1 on xbc today if it were not for where i live now with my crappy internet connection (i have the best the place offers).  As is halo 1 online is unplayable for me.....good thing CoD2 game out for the 360 else i'd be bald from pulling my hairs out from playing halo2.

[alsybub]

QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ May 27 2006, 05:59 AM)

Whether it was too powerful or not, it took more skills to use, whereas most guns in halo2 do not, because of the increased hit box and auto-aim.  Also everyone started with a pistol, so upon spawning everyone was on equal grounds.  I used the pistol, sniper, and AR all the time.  The AR + melee was great for close range.

Ask most any pro at halo 1 who is also pro at halo 2, and they will say that halo 1 is more fun and requires more skills.  Team STK (Oger1 and Oger2) for example.  If you don't believe me i'll dig up some references, as i've done in the past on this beatin topic......that never gets old beating again.
Those who were real good at halo1 and played it competitively often can tell without question the reduced FoV of halo2 (no offense, kage ).  It's a fact that halo 1 is 90 degrees, while halo2 was reduced to 70.  I have hex edited the FoV back to 90 degrees in halo2, and the difference is very noticeable.  The only problem is when the FoV is increased, MC's arms and gun stick out too far, to where they are into the reticule.  Because of this it makes it unfeasible for use.

The best way i can describe it is, in R63 when you have a rifle zoomed in and walking around is what halo 2 FoV is.  Then once you zoom back out, it is what halo1's FoV is.

Here’s the proof:




Just look how much FoV you are missing.

I also play halo2 in widescreen, and while horizontal vision is increased some it is still not close to what it should be, not to mention the vertical vision doesn't change at all in widescreen.

Compare how much the BR in halo 2 take up the screen to the assult rifle in halo 1.  There is a huge difference.  The BR takes up most of the right side of the screen, whereas the AR only takes up a small portion of the bottom right corner.

Oh ya, and bungie please put back the fing recticle to the middle of the screen.

I totally agree with you about the field of vision. I still feel even now that I'm running around with blinkers on. Drive's me crazy and I can't help but feel as though it's there for that specific reason. I feel it stops me from being totally emersed in the game.

I loved the fact that in Halo 1 it was all about knowing and exploiting the game engine. Once you had mastered the use of the pistol , sniper rifal and shotgun the game went to a whole new level.

I guess they took it away because they wanted it to be accessable to the masses BUT I think it still would have been!