Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

No PC Halo 4 Because It's "Designed Specifically for Xbox 360"

The PA Report has confirmation from Microsoft Game Studios that Halo 4 is not coming to the PC, which isn't too surprising considering Halo 3 was never ported to the PC either. What's a little odd is the explanation, as a spokesperson tells them: "Halo 4 was designed specifically for Xbox 360, and while we’re always exploring new ways to expand the franchise and share the Halo experience with as many fans as possible, we do not currently have any plans to port Halo 4 to PC."

View
121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >

81. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 17:12 PHJF
 
Incidentally nearly all PC shooters lack coop.  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:23 Suppa7
 
Rigs wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:36:
I'm not one to usually take issue with people's personal opinions of a game, but statements like this are just bullshit. =-Rigs-=

LOL you must be a console gamer if you thought Halo 2 was amazing, most PC FPS games are greater then every game in the entire halo franchise. Only console gamers who never grew up on FPS games on the PC think Halo is awesome.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 15:58 Jerykk
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:46:
Anyway, another good reason to hate Halo is because it popularized two really annoying mechanics that you now see in almost every shooter: regenerating health/shields and two-weapon limits.

Disagree. There is a different design philosophy involved when considering medpack health restoration versus regenerating health, but that does not make one inherently better than the other. A lot of people dislike the regening health because it flies in the face of the "run-and-gun" dynamic so many of us got used to in early FPS's, but it is simply a matter of preference. I think the idea of instant health pack effects is utterly ridiculous - how does it make any more sense than magical re-filling health bars? People will often say that games with regenning health require less skill, and that's fine - maybe they do. I just know I don't care - I can enjoy a well-made game that utilizes either reality-deying mechanic.

I also think weapon limits force tough choices, which makes for a better game (though 2 does seem a bit too restrictive). In arcade shooters no one minds that dude is carrying enough weaponry to arm a country, but in more "reality-based" shooters some logic needs to be applied. I really liked the way Mass Effect showed how your four weapons were stored on your back for example.

My preference of health mechanic has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with the impact it has on gameplay. Simply put, regenerating health undermines the significance of getting hit. You can essentially get hit an infinite number of times. You just have to make sure you have sufficient breaks between hits. It completely ruins the intensity of gun battles when I know I can just take cover for a few seconds and completely heal myself as many times as I want. When you have finite health replenishment systems, every hit counts because taking damage in one fight means you'll have less health for the next.

As for weapon limits, they don't really force tough choices because nine times out of ten, you'll just stick with the most practical weapons instead of trying out other ones, whereas being able to carry more than two weapons leaves more room for experimentation and risk-taking.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 14:03 Beamer
 
yuastnav wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:57:
Meh, Halo was okay. Nothing special but I wouldn't call it forgettable because I am a sucker for Power Armour and the world/enemies actually looked nice, too.
The shooting was good, the regenerating shield makes as little sense as regenerating health (but for different reasons since there is no scientific basis how such a shield works) but I would've liked non-regenerating health anyway.

I agree with Beamer, though. The multiplayer was the part of the game that I had the most fun with. It was a really fun experience although the Banshee dogfights were kind of anticlimatic because, since they had the same turn rate, you would circle around each other and nothing would happen. Though it could be intense since the slightest mistake could give your opponent an advantage and kill you.
I also remember that you could shoot the people out of the Banshees with the sniper rifle but I do not know whether that was actually true or part of my imagination.

I'm with you on Banshee dogfights kind of sucking, but Banshee strafing of ground units was so much fun.

Warthogs, too, man... the first time I played that game Warthogs sold me. Flying over a hill, getting airborne and landing on 3 enemy troops was so much fun.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
77. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 13:57 yuastnav
 
Meh, Halo was okay. Nothing special but I wouldn't call it forgettable because I am a sucker for Power Armour and the world/enemies actually looked nice, too.
The shooting was good, the regenerating shield makes as little sense as regenerating health (but for different reasons since there is no scientific basis how such a shield works) but I would've liked non-regenerating health anyway.

I agree with Beamer, though. The multiplayer was the part of the game that I had the most fun with. It was a really fun experience although the Banshee dogfights were kind of anticlimatic because, since they had the same turn rate, you would circle around each other and nothing would happen. Though it could be intense since the slightest mistake could give your opponent an advantage and kill you.
I also remember that you could shoot people out of the Banshees with the sniper rifle but I do not know whether that was actually true or part of my imagination.

This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2012, 14:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
76. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 13:48 Beamer
 
Also, health regeneration and limited weapons work so well in Borderlands 2. The RPG-ness make those fit in perfectly. Ideal place for it.

I hate hate hate 2 weapons, though. 4 is much better. I guess I'd actually prefer if Borderlands let us have 1 of each type queued up, which starts defeating the purpose of limited weapons. It's something that can work, but is clearly a console concession. It doesn't bother me in modern war games, either, where there's no reason to have more than 1 main weapon and 1 backup weapon, because you're creating a class.

In Halo it just felt wrong. Having to choose between a sniper rifle or a rocket launcher meant you rarely pick up the rocket launcher.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
75. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 13:35 Beamer
 
ItBurn wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:56:
Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:46:
Oh crap, last time when I said Halo was the first game to really do vehicles, you're right, Tribes did it.

But Halo was next. I can't think of another FPS game to have vehicles between them. No major games at least.

And you're also right, SW had sticky grenades, HL had good AI, and DN had melee (so did Doom. So did Wolfenstein.) But melee was a bigger part of Halo, sticky bombs were better implemented, the AI was smarter than HL and more on display, and not being first doesn't make a game "rock bottom bad."

Like I said elsewhere, I played a ton of Halo PC multiplayer. The netcode wasn't great, but the vehicles were. Tribes had them, but wasn't about them. Halo was. No game, to that point, had anything quite like loading a Warthog up with 2 other people are blowing the crap out of tons of people. No game let me take a jet and constantly dive-bomb people, going an entire session without dying.
Halo multiplayer, on the PC, was a blast. The following Halos were on the console as well. They had nicely integrated stats, like what UT did, which was very meaningful for me.

People crap on it just because of the console. Ignore that. They're fine games. Maybe not the best ever, but certainly not rock-bottom-bad.

Shadow Warrior had vehicles too. :p
The thing is Halo didn't bring fps games forward. It had an old mentality, in a bad way. It might be fine for some people, but I was playing much more advanced shooters at the time and didn't want to go back.

Haha, Shadow Warrior had blocks you could kind of move back and forth.

But it had nukes! Oh man, no one would every play that game with me because I knew where the nukes were and I used sticky grenades more than any other weapon. People thought it was cheap as hell. I loved it.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 13:32 Smellfinger
 
Jerykk wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:32:
What? There were tons of shooters that threw more than two enemies at you. Doom, for example.

Which is why I compared it to Doom. You read my post incorrectly.

After first-person shooters made the jump to fully polygonal 3D, monster swarms disappeared - probably for performance and pacing reasons. Halo (and Serious Sam) brought them back, which is something that most people forget. Halo's single player combat was much larger in scale than the Quake-style corridor shooters that dominated the market in the late '90s.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 13:04 Verno
 
I rarely ever see regenerating health well implemented, I'm struggling to even think of a single game where it fit thematically and wasn't anything more than a convenience thing. Some games like Skyrim it actually works against gameplay elements even.

Health packs were always kinda dumb too, a pack that literally just gives you health is absurd but at least it promoted some strategic thought and planning beyond "hide behind this waist high cover for 2 seconds". I've always liked the way GTA style games did it with food and rest.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Dragon Age Inquisition, Far Cry 4, This War of Mine
Watching: The Walking Dead, The Fall, As Above So Below
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
72. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 12:46 Prez
 
Anyway, another good reason to hate Halo is because it popularized two really annoying mechanics that you now see in almost every shooter: regenerating health/shields and two-weapon limits.

Disagree. There is a different design philosophy involved when considering medpack health restoration versus regenerating health, but that does not make one inherently better than the other. A lot of people dislike the regening health because it flies in the face of the "run-and-gun" dynamic so many of us got used to in early FPS's, but it is simply a matter of preference. I think the idea of instant health pack effects is utterly ridiculous - how does it make any more sense than magical re-filling health bars? People will often say that games with regenning health require less skill, and that's fine - maybe they do. I just know I don't care - I can enjoy a well-made game that utilizes either reality-deying mechanic.

I also think weapon limits force tough choices, which makes for a better game (though 2 does seem a bit too restrictive). In arcade shooters no one minds that dude is carrying enough weaponry to arm a country, but in more "reality-based" shooters some logic needs to be applied. I really liked the way Mass Effect showed how your four weapons were stored on your back for example.

This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2012, 12:59.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
71. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 12:46 raVen
 
Jerykk wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:32:
As for vehicles, Codename Eagle had vehicle-centric gameplay before Halo. It was DICE's first game and the predecessor to BF1942. Then there's Tribes, of course. Also, Tribes 2 came out before Halo and was much more vehicle-centric than Tribes 1.

Anyway, another good reason to hate Halo is because it popularized two really annoying mechanics that you now see in almost every shooter: regenerating health/shields and two-weapon limits.

I concede the regenerating shields and 2 gun limit; however it did work well in Halo, just not anywhere else. It's unfortunate that every dev had to use that everywhere after Halo, rather than creatively solve the problem another way. (but hey it does solve some frustration problems)
Yet, Halo had all of the previously mentioned 'late to the party' list in one package, and it worked well together!
Plus whoever said the graphics were worse than Unreal, Nice hyperbole. (trollface) Halo 1 was one of the first games to have really wide open areas and tight cramped areas. (AND VEHICLES)

I'm not really a halo fanboy, I just hate it when people are saying stupid shit because they think it makes some opinion more powerful when it actually undermines it for anyone who's in the know.

(On the MS note: Microsoft Games division and PC divisions never really work together. but Microsoft is a huge company, that's kind of expected.)
Acknowledgements: I don't work for MS, but I do work in the games industry. and I haven't purchased any Halo game since 3.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 12:32 Jerykk
 
The original Halo was an excellent FPS, console or otherwise. I viewed it as an extension of Doom, at least in terms of combat, since it was the only FPS at the time that threw more than a couple enemies at you.

What? There were tons of shooters that threw more than two enemies at you. Doom, for example.

As for vehicles, Codename Eagle had vehicle-centric gameplay before Halo. It was DICE's first game and the predecessor to BF1942. Then there's Tribes, of course. Also, Tribes 2 came out before Halo and was much more vehicle-centric than Tribes 1.

Anyway, another good reason to hate Halo is because it popularized two really annoying mechanics that you now see in almost every shooter: regenerating health/shields and two-weapon limits.

This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2012, 12:38.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 11:46 ItBurn
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:44:
The thing is Halo didn't bring fps games forward.

...except it DID move them forward, on the CONSOLE. Yeah, Goldeneye was fun splitscreen with four people. But Halo brought the PC multiplayer FPS experience to the console, and it's why CoD is the megafranchise it is today.

Yes, definitely. But not FPS games, as a genre.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
68. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 11:44 PHJF
 
The thing is Halo didn't bring fps games forward.

...except it DID move them forward, on the CONSOLE. Yeah, Goldeneye was fun splitscreen with four people. But Halo brought the PC multiplayer FPS experience to the console, and it's why CoD is the megafranchise it is today.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 11:09 Creston
 
Why does anyone care about this?

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 10:56 ItBurn
 
Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:46:
Oh crap, last time when I said Halo was the first game to really do vehicles, you're right, Tribes did it.

But Halo was next. I can't think of another FPS game to have vehicles between them. No major games at least.

And you're also right, SW had sticky grenades, HL had good AI, and DN had melee (so did Doom. So did Wolfenstein.) But melee was a bigger part of Halo, sticky bombs were better implemented, the AI was smarter than HL and more on display, and not being first doesn't make a game "rock bottom bad."

Like I said elsewhere, I played a ton of Halo PC multiplayer. The netcode wasn't great, but the vehicles were. Tribes had them, but wasn't about them. Halo was. No game, to that point, had anything quite like loading a Warthog up with 2 other people are blowing the crap out of tons of people. No game let me take a jet and constantly dive-bomb people, going an entire session without dying.
Halo multiplayer, on the PC, was a blast. The following Halos were on the console as well. They had nicely integrated stats, like what UT did, which was very meaningful for me.

People crap on it just because of the console. Ignore that. They're fine games. Maybe not the best ever, but certainly not rock-bottom-bad.

Shadow Warrior had vehicles too. :p
The thing is Halo didn't bring fps games forward. It had an old mentality, in a bad way. It might be fine for some people, but I was playing much more advanced shooters at the time and didn't want to go back.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 10:46 Beamer
 
ItBurn wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:27:
strong placebo wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:17:
Having played all of them, the very first one was flawed but fun in single player:

1. sticky grenades added notable gameplay -- and even better then enemy AI used them back at you.
2. for the time, good and varied enemy AI.
3. vehicles were a nice twist even if the steering was flawed
4. replenishing shield was novel and added gameplay
5. Melee was a nice addition that could save your ass.

So anyone who says the first one was rock bottom bad? Cannot agree with you.

That said, the PLOTS of Halo are horrifically non-nonsensical and terrible. They stopped making sense in Halo 2, and it only got worse later on.



1. Shadow Warrior
2. Half-life
3. Tribes
4. Shit there were probably atari games with regenerating stuff.
5. Duke Nukem 3D

Oh crap, last time when I said Halo was the first game to really do vehicles, you're right, Tribes did it.

But Halo was next. I can't think of another FPS game to have vehicles between them. No major games at least.

And you're also right, SW had sticky grenades, HL had good AI, and DN had melee (so did Doom. So did Wolfenstein.) But melee was a bigger part of Halo, sticky bombs were better implemented, the AI was smarter than HL and more on display, and not being first doesn't make a game "rock bottom bad."

Like I said elsewhere, I played a ton of Halo PC multiplayer. The netcode wasn't great, but the vehicles were. Tribes had them, but wasn't about them. Halo was. No game, to that point, had anything quite like loading a Warthog up with 2 other people are blowing the crap out of tons of people. No game let me take a jet and constantly dive-bomb people, going an entire session without dying.
Halo multiplayer, on the PC, was a blast. The following Halos were on the console as well. They had nicely integrated stats, like what UT did, which was very meaningful for me.

People crap on it just because of the console. Ignore that. They're fine games. Maybe not the best ever, but certainly not rock-bottom-bad.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 10:42 Beamer
 
Jivaro wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 22:07:
I read the "preview" of Halo 4 in Game Informer and my jaw hit the ground.

"An ancient race called the Prometheans...."

"The Prometheans are part of the Forerunner civilization, the ancient race that dominated the galaxy in the Halo fiction 10,000 years ago."

"Their ruined buildings and facilities, including the Halo rings themselves, have been at the center of the story since the beginning. Even so, mysteries remain about who they are and what happened to them."

"The Prometheans are undoubtedly Forerunner citizens. They are in thrall and work for the Forerunner civilization."

"One of the central mysteries of Halo 4 is what happened in the vast stretch of time between the apparent end of the Forerunner civilization and the events of the Halo games."

The article goes on and on...and I am sitting here thinking to myself: "Damn, that sounds just like Mass Effect! They are just straight up copying it!"

And then you know what I said to my wife?

"I wonder if it will have a better ending?"

It's Mass Effect, but Halo has been around, and had this plot, longer.
But it's more than just Mass Effect. Half of scifi has an ancient race that the modern people have built their new race on.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 10:27 ItBurn
 
strong placebo wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:17:
Having played all of them, the very first one was flawed but fun in single player:

1. sticky grenades added notable gameplay -- and even better then enemy AI used them back at you.
2. for the time, good and varied enemy AI.
3. vehicles were a nice twist even if the steering was flawed
4. replenishing shield was novel and added gameplay
5. Melee was a nice addition that could save your ass.

So anyone who says the first one was rock bottom bad? Cannot agree with you.

That said, the PLOTS of Halo are horrifically non-nonsensical and terrible. They stopped making sense in Halo 2, and it only got worse later on.



1. Shadow Warrior
2. Half-life
3. Tribes
4. Shit there were probably atari games with regenerating stuff.
5. Duke Nukem 3D
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 10:17 strong placebo
 

Having played all of them, the very first one was flawed but fun in single player:

1. sticky grenades added notable gameplay -- and even better then enemy AI used them back at you.
2. for the time, good and varied enemy AI.
3. vehicles were a nice twist even if the steering was flawed
4. replenishing shield was novel and added gameplay
5. Melee was a nice addition that could save your ass.

So anyone who says the first one was rock bottom bad? Cannot agree with you.

That said, the PLOTS of Halo are horrifically non-nonsensical and terrible. They stopped making sense in Halo 2, and it only got worse later on.


 
"More turn-based please"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo