Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just finished reading Inside Mac Games' review of Halo: Combat Evolved, and I must say I am was more than just unimpressed. The reviewer is running the game on 2.0 GHz dual-processor G5 with the ATI RADEON 9800 PRO w/128 MB DDR VRAM -- and he said that anything above 1024x768 resolution (with graphics on medium) the game slows down to almost unplayable. Then I checked out the forum, and found a 7-page "Halo runs like a crap" thread and found most people running at 640x480 with details on medium or low on dual G4's @ 1.25 GHz with Radeon 9000 cards and getting frames under 30 on average, 20 on average, and heavy battles rendering unplayable (less than 10).

Halo is by far, the worst performaning game on the Mac market currently available.

Somehow I don't feel confident any more Halo will perform decently our on G5/1.6 GHz w/ Radeon 9600 64 MB... :confused:

The reviewer also blamed ATI for insufficent drivers for their RADEON cards, and said major performance hits was because of the drivers. It's too bad Halo wasn't optimized for G5's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
ATi doesn't make most of the Mac drivers. Apple does it in house, and in 10.3.2 they are releasing new drivers. The same goes with nVidia.

It's all in the GPU.
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
and in 10.3.2 they are releasing new drivers.
Hopefully those new drivers will help Halo out a bit, and add half-decent support for FSAA (which currently doesn't work properly in Halo).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Good thing I'm paying $229 this Christmas for my husband to play it on the Xbox


But having said that. The xboxs computer speed is something like a PIII 733 with 40gigs of hd space. So why won't it run well on a real computer? What's the main difference?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
Pamela - The XBox may only have a 733 Intel processor (modified Pentium 3 designed solely for gaming) and an 8GB HD (not 40 as you said, but people have upgraded their HDs and even loaded Linux on it) but the real reason it performs so well is that it only supports 1 resolution (640x480) and games that are made for it don't have to worry about different types of hardware configurations. One of the joys of developing for a closed system.

Also the XBox sports a highly customized (and one of the largest reasons Microsoft has lost money on the XBox) nVidia chipset, that although quite expensive, Microsoft was willing to lose money to use it. The next version of the XBox will sport an ATi chip set and a PPC variant processor.

The biggest difference is that an XBox (or any console) is solely designed to run games and therefore everything in the system is designed towards handling graphics. Computers aren't as they have to do multiple tasks from word processing, to chatting, to gaming, and work in Photoshop. That is also a reason that some people will make a gaming PC and then have another computer (many a Mac) as their work machine. One solely designed for gaming, the other for productivity.

I hope this clears the water a little, and if it only muddied it up, the first sentence of the paragraph above this one is the simplest and shortest answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Pamela:
first the OS running on the xBox is minimal. Second, being a closed system, the developpers can optimized the code and make sure that the game always run smooth across the board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
I love Macs for working and everything that entails, but they will never be a gaming platform. I was really hoping that with the G5's this might change, but it's not the case.

Halo not running well on a Mac is no surprise.

ATI is going down hill so fast in the gaming 3D market that their benchmarks are almost meaningless.

I hate to sound like I'm trashing the G5's and Macs, but on the gaming field, they can't compete. Hey, blame Apple, it's not the game companies. Usually the Mac version of a game runs poorly compared to a native PC version. It's a shame.. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
I'm running Halo on 1.33Ghz 17" Powerbook at 800x600, with all the fancy graphic settings on. Basically the system recommended settings, and it runs just fine. Even played over the internet last night and everything was smooth as silk.

I'm running 10.3.1....are the folks having problems running 10.2.x or something?

I had stumbled across this article yesterday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
thanks for clearing that up everyone


But i have to ask. Why would you bother setting up a pc instead of just buying a gaming console? seems cheaper, no?

(Other than the fact that you'd also have a working pc to use for applications I guess)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
Pamela - For First Person Shooters (FPS) you can't beat a keyboard and mouse. With consoles, there is always an auto-aim turned on as on a TV it is harder to aim precisely. On a computer with a mouse, it is quite easy.

Personally I would prefer a console but a gaming PC has its merits, just as any console. Also, with a gaming PC you can easily get updates, bug fixes and such over the internet, while once a game is done for a console, any bugs that occur are there to stay. (They can update newer copies they sell, but ones already sold can't be upgraded easily.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Good thing I'm paying $229 this Christmas for my husband to play it on the Xbox
Bad thing is your husband gonna play late at night for a while


Good thing is the recent Xbox model doesn't have the cheap DVD drive found in the early models - like mine. I've had it for a year and a half, and it has problems reading even brand new games (no scratch on disk)-it's out of warranty, of course. Imagine an Xbox telling you your disk is dirty or damaged when that disk is out of the box; imagine the system freezing when you're about to win your first game in FIFA Soccer 2003.

I'm about to throw the console out of the window and buy a new one... Would you mind buying me one? :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Dream on Ingenu ;)

Although I would like to know if anyone knows if there are any problems with the current versions of xbox?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
I'm running Halo on my Dual 2.0 G5 and the performance is definately lackluster, especially when I can run UT2003 with all settings set to max with absolutely no problems.

The AI in this game is quite sweet though.

I hope they optimise it with a patch, I remember once when Bungie made quality games for the Mac, stupid Microsoft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
How can you dare to say that ATI isnt making fast card? Or even worst that mac will never be a gaming platform?

As far as I know, you dont need 100+ frame sec to play a game at a serious level, 60+ is fine. Also, its totaly pointless to have superbe graphic when playing a FPS, you wont be able to see them. When I play in a shooter, I mouse look so fast in all direction that I cant even notice any details on the texture. In these game not moving = death so who cares about details... Details are only important in games like splintercell, max payne, etc where you have time to look at the scenery.

The only reason PC is a better platform for gaming is that you can make a faster machine for less cash, thats all.

G5 may not be the BEST gaming platform but it is a very good.

Finaly, code optimisation is very important and I doupt that they have done much for the mac, they where too scared to not be able to release it before xmas. So in a couple of week we should be more able to judge the performance of the game, right now it should be seen as a beta.
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
How exactly is a rating of 9.25 from Inside Mac Games 'negative feedback'?
Because it runs like crap on 99 or 100 percent of Macs unless details are on almost on the lowest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Well as if anybody noticed.


i've been way more AWOL from this site in the last 3 months or so.
Reason?

FFXI online.I bought a peecee just for this online game.I wouldn't even think about playing this on a Mac.I love Macs to death but in the gaming market, forget it.It just isn't what Macs do. :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
runs like crap on 99 or 100 percent of Macs unless details are on almost on the lowest.

Are we reading the same review Lars? I guess I missed that line. Lets look at page three where they talk about graphics.

<blockquote>Unfortunately, the game does have graphical misgivings. While the textures were all up-res’ed for modern graphics cards, polygon counts weren’t, and feature a slightly blocky feel that dates the game. And while you’d expect two-year-old software to play relatively well on a new computer, frame rates on my Dual 2.0 GHz G5, equipped with a Radeon 9800 Pro, courtesy of ATI, were surprisingly low. Playing at resolutions higher than 1024x768, with both vertex and pixel shading enabled and all the effects turned up to max, caused significant slowdowns in frame rate. While the game’s minimum system requirements call for an 800 Mhz Mac with a powerful graphics card, a 1 Ghz is recommended, which puts the game out of reach of a lot of players I know.</blockquote>

What exactly is 'surprisingly low'? It isn't actually given a number at any point in the article, and considering that this is in regards to resolutions over 1024x768 that they are talking about when they say 'significant slowdowns', I can't say I am that surprised.

Also, what is your definition of "runs like crap", considering that 30 fps is still very playable and graphics, while pretty to look at should always take a back seat to gameplay, I still fail to see how exactly high system requirements (and a 9.25 review from IMG) equals 'negative feedback across the web'.

--PB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
sputnik - I noticed ;)

Lars - If it runs like crap on 99 or 100 percent of Macs, then why is Macommunity have an article describing how they have it working well on computers that aren't "supported". Like a 900 Mhz G3 iBook and a 700Mhz G4 iMac?

Yes I do concede that all the eye candy of Halo isn't there for most computers unless you have a Radeon 9800, but that is partially because some of the features that Halo uses (advanced bump mapping for example) aren't available or supported very well except for the latest cards. If you want to game, you want as good as GPU as possible, as game developers are always trying to make their graphics better, and push the cards to their limits.

Also, PosterBoy, the 9.25 review rating isn't on how well it runs on a particular machine, but more so a review of the game and how it works itself. The gameplay, the sound and everything else about Halo is wonderful. But just because it doesn't run at 120FPS doesn't mean its a bad game, wait a year, get the top of the line vid card then and it will run just fine.

When UT came out it pushed the requirements high, but now everyone exceeds those requirements very easily and therefore it runs real nice and fast. If you aren't willing to have the latest and greatest, don't expect stellar performance on every game. It's just a sad fact of the life of a gamer. And one reason I like consoles more.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Chealion, I know that the high rating isn't all to with what machines it will and wont run on, but the point was more that Halo is not really receiving any negative feedback at all except from those who are frustrated that it wont run on their older hardware.

--PB
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top