Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just picked up my copy of Halo and I have to say, I like it. A lot. As a matter of fact, I'm running it on my FP iMac G4 800 and it's not as bad as some would have you believe. Of course, I am running it bare bones, but it's playable and it's smooth (most of the time) -- compared to MoH:Spearhead, it's an absolute dream.
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
MannyP, does your iMac 800 have a 64 MB graphics card?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,579 Posts
On my RevA 12" PB 640MB, 10.3.2,

I found it playable and smooth on low settings, 1024x768, except for the scenes where snow is falling such as "Final Run" which I was still able to get through with some difficulty.

By the way, for some reason the performance is horrible if the laptop's screen is used at 640x480 or 800x600 although there is no difference between resolutions when using the CRT.

My brother is a PS2 SOCOM expert; he tried my Halo and had no complaints.

[ January 09, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: elmer ]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
I'm running it on my FP iMac G4 800 and it's not as bad as some would have you believe.
How much RAM do you have installed MannyP?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
You are almost convincing me to try it out... I just wish there was a mac demo out because paying that much for a game that might not even run well on my mac is not my definition of 'taking risk'..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
I've played on a friends 17" FP-iMac, and I loved it, ran extremly well, much better than even my PC at home (Not that I have Halo, I was just borrowing it.)

Halo runs great on Macs that have the requirments for it
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
I've considered trying out this game too, but I must say that I'm rather put off that even on a relatively new iMac (my model is almost the same as yours), the game has to be run in low detail. I suppose that Apple's hardware will soon catch up with the heavy specs for the game, but then shouldn't game manufacturers be selling games that play well--even in high detail--on current computers?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Absolutely... I'm getting tired of playing quality games at sub-par graphics. I'm counting my pennies and waiting for the opportune moment to get a tower (most likely a dual G5) — at least there's some upgradability to be had there.

I'm banking on a new lineup so I can pickup a 1st generation G5 at reduced cost. ;) If ever you wanted to check it out we could hook up since we're in the same city.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
Amazing, isn't it, how the gaming industry can compel people to buy a new computer? Just from a purely marketing perspective, it's an amazing phenomenon. As for me, I'm not planning on getting a G5 for a looooong time, so I may have to take a rain check on your invite...but thanks nevertheless
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Its not because you are playing a game in 'low' details that the graphics are bad. IT just means that the high detail setting require a lot of comupter power, which might not even be possible to have right now.

I had a game a few years ago which was called 'Enemy Nation' if I remember right. The designer of the game did some major forward thinking and provided graphics up to 32bit color while 8bit was the norm in the days. Doing so didnt cost them much and allowed the game to be playable and enjoyable as the year passes.

The moral is, stop thinking about playing everything in ultra high details, anyways in FPS you never notice anything anyways. Just make sure that your frame rate is always above 30, even with the fog.

I have known a few semi pro gamers who reduced the quality / color of the games when playing so they wouldnt be distracted by useless moving pixels.

Whats important after all is GAMEPLAY!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Oddly enough, most people can't see any real difference between 16 and 32 colour. A designer who worked on the latest incarnation of Unreal had posted screen shots of their game (then in progress) and had mentioned that he often wondered why people bothered to run any game in 32 bit graphics -- it just doesn't help the gameplay; frames per second definitely, high-detailed graphics—absolutely.

The benefit to running on low-quality graphics during on-line gameplay actually can work to your benefit... details that would have been otherwise hidden by excessive detail, interpolation or antialiasing can stand out like a sore thumb (MoH is a good example -- I owe my sniper marksmanship score thanks to that lovely anomoly. ;) )

It's always good to have some foresight when devloping anything, but I admire those who can make a game look ahead of it's time utilizing resources that are considered average or even sub-par. I find most companies rarely bother trying to optimize their code beyond acceptable limits... Unreal 2003 is a prime example -- it wasn't until they released a patch that gameplay was improved -- vastly.

However, I shouldn't harp on game developers so much... software developers, like Adobe/Macromedia for example, have been adding bells and whistles to their interface that are otherwise useless (rollover colours on the tool palette, overly bevelled buttons, drop shadows, etc.) that detract from GUI performance and such -- even on top dollar boxes. This is why I very much love the snappiness of OS 9 ... but don't get me wrong, I like OS X, but do we really need all of the fancy bells and whistles? Not really. Every second you wait for a save or alert sheet to scroll out, or a window to "genie" it's way to the Dock wastes time. I think people need to rethink their priorities when it comes to developing software that works and works well. I mean, if I wanted a fancy GUI back in the OS 7 days -- I used Kaleidescope.


Anyway, so it goes... ramblings of a madman-ny. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
Halo runs great on my 1Ghz eMac with the 32MB Radeon card. I have 1 Gig of Ram.
I have never measured the speed. It just runs fluid and quick. I enjoy it, but some levels are a bit tedious.
A cheat would really be handy to get through the one section that gives you the same flock of monsters every turn for twenty turns. Booooring.
I could skip that level.
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
I was hoping someone would comment about Halo's performance on an eMac (Carl). Good to know.
I was especially interested in how Halo ran on a graphics card with less than 64 MB of VRAM. So the eMac isn't a that bad of a gaming machine?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
Lars, I wish FA 18 would run in Classic properly, but A10 attack does. Deus Ex, Heavy Metal FAKK, Sin, Star Trek ELite Force, UnReal, UT, and Quake run great. No One Lives Forever runs very well, but NOLF2 doesn't work because you cant change the monitor refresh to 60Hz. MacPlay is working on a patch.
SpyHunter runs great. Medal of Honor is a bit slow, but I think it's the game. As I said though, Halo runs fine. I have the graphics set to the default, which does cut out the razzle dazzle stuff, but it's still vey good.
The eMac is the most highly under rated machine that Apple makes. When MacAddict tested it, it performed faster than the iMac with a 64 MB card. Go figure.
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Interesting facts. I've been interested in getting an eMac for a few months now because they're so cheap and I'm on a cheap budget, but also wanted to make sure they could play games half-decently. I realize it's not a top-end gaming rig, but if it can play Halo with a decent frame rate, that shows something positive about the machine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
Ive been playing Halo on an iBook 900 with 256 ram...and it runs well with all settings to low at 1024x768, apparently the game is much better optimized on Mac than PC, since my friends 1.8 ghz P4 with GFRCE MX 4 64mb and 512 ram performs about the same as the iBook.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top